Despite all of the evidence against rendering 1 Timothy 3:16 as the KJV does, some Trinitarians still want to insist that the verse should be translated "God was manifest in the flesh"; however, there is so much evidence to controvert this translation that it's tiresome to tread the same ground. But here we go:
Ben Witherington (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians): "In all likelihood we have here a quotation or paraphrase begun abruptly from a Christian hymn or creedal statement.²⁶⁸ It is not perfectly clear how it should be divided up into verses (three sets of two? six different lines?).²⁶⁹ It has assonance as well as a certain rhythm, and each of the six verbs is in the aorist passive voice with the same final ending (-thē), all but once followed by an en phrase, and it is introduced by hos (not ho or theos, which are later textual modifications arising perhaps from a misunderstanding that the subject of these clauses is the abstract concept 'the mystery of faith').²⁷⁰ The subject matter here is the career of Christ."
William Mounce (Word Biblical Commentary): ὅς, “who,” has the best attestation, being read by * A* C* F G 33 365 442 2127 sy hmg pal got aethpp and some church fathers (Orlat Epiph Jerome Theodore Eutherius [according to Theodoret] Cyr Liberatus), and refers to Jesus. It is a typical way to introduce a hymn (cf. Phil 2: 6 and Col 1: 15), and it is not necessary to locate an antecedent in the text. The neuter ὅ, “which,” in the Western text probably arose as an attempted correction of the ὅς, making μυστήριον, “mystery,” the subject of the hymn. It therefore supports ὅς as the original reading. It is read by D* and almost all of the Latin tradition. θεός, which makes God the subject of the hymn, is read by the Byzantine text and correctors (c Ac C2 D2 Ψ). In majuscule script, ὅς is OC, and the abbreviation for θεός is , so one could be mistaken for the other. More likely, ὅς was changed to θεός in an attempt to glorify Christ as God. It is almost inconceivable that a scribe would change θεός to a pronoun. The pronoun is also more difficult because there is no antecedent.
William Mounce. Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Location 11632-11643). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Bruce Metzger (Textual Commentary, page 641):
NET Bible: The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א A C D Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vg) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss
tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add
no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς
intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by
comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no
obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the
Western tradition).
"Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in
carne, justificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, praedicatum est
gentibus, creditum est in mundo, assumptum est in gloria" (Vulgate).
Notice the use of the Latin "quod" in the Vulgate.
Gordon D. Fee reports: "This reading ["God"] came to predominate in the
Greek church (never in the West, since the translation into Latin
happened before the variant arose)."
See Fee's NIB Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Page 95.
NA28 Greek Text: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·
ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
74 comments:
I thought this was settled (apart from a few fundamentalists) ... well well.
There is also this account in the w84 11/1 p. 24, "The Struggle for a More Accurate Bible Text." This relates the discovery of John James Wetstein (1693-1754):
Research Causes Problems
While he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), Wetstein made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: “God was manifest in the flesh.” This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated “God,” which was abbreviated to ΘC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means “who.” But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC (“who”) into the contraction ΘC (“God”). ... But Wetstein was charged with tampering with the text and speaking against the doctrine of the Trinity, and this was viewed as heretical.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984806#h=9:0-11:386
But even if the correct reading is in the KJV, all it could mean is that God was manifest in the flesh through Jesus, although that is a bit convoluted.
Roman: It's pretty much settled, but KJV adherents want to resist Metzger, Westcott-Hort and others. But it's not just fundies who think, there's still a chance the KJV could be right. :)
Jim: Thanks for sharing the 1984 WT article. It makes some great point and adds another nail to the coffin.
The way most Trinitarians would reason on the point is that Jesus was God in the flesh, so if 1 Timothy reads like the KJV, they would agree that God was manifest in the flesh through Jesus. However, they say, that was by him becoming God incarnate. You know about God the Son, etc. One book purporting to proive the divinity of Christ also cited the text in support of the author's point. This thinking is entrenched.
Also see https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Cor.html?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ
By Sir Isaac Newton
I hope everyone also knows the title of this entry was meant to add some levity to the discussion :-)
As a Trinitarian it doesn't make any difference to me if "God" is the correct reading or not in 1 Timothy 3:16, because this very same verse already teaches the Lord Jesus is God even without it.
FR, many Trinitarians have put lots of energy into arguing for this reading. If you take away the reading, "God" from the verse, how does it teach that Jesus is God? Nothing in the verse requires that he must be God to be justified in spirit or seen by the angels or taken up in glory.
"made manifest" vs "show" - Justifications?
He (in reference to Jesus) was 'preached' among the Gentiles (1 Timothy 3:16). The same Greek word for 'preached' is used in Romans 10:8. The preaching of the gospel included the fact that the Lord Jesus is to be 'called upon' (prayed to) in that He is YHWH (Romans 10:13; cf. Joel 3:5 LXX).
Romans 10:8-14
(8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
(10) For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11) For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
(12) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
(13) For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
(14) How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (NKJV)
Peter preached this same truth in Acts 2:21.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/11/acts-221-proof-of-jesus-deity.html
"manifested" (ESV)
"revealed" (NASB)
"made manifest" (NWT)
ἐφανερώθη is aorist passive indicative, so it should be rendered passively: "show" would be active, but I think you could say, "was shown."
Here's part of the entry in BDAG for φανερόω:
β. show or reveal oneself be revealed, appearτινί to someone Hs 2:1. ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ 2 Cor 5:10.—Esp. of Christ; of his appearance in the world ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί 1 Ti 3:16; cf. B 5:6; 6:7, 9, 14; 12:10. θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου IEph 19:3.—Hb 9:26; 1 Pt 1:20; 1J 1:2a, b. The purpose of the appearing is given by a ἵνα clause 1J 3:5, 8; B 14:5; 2 Cl 14:2.-Of the appearing of the Risen Lord τοῖς μαθηταῖς J 21:14; cf. Mk 16:12 (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ), 14. Without a dat. B 15:9. Of the Second Advent Col 3:4a; 1 Pt 5:4; 1 J 2:28; 3:2b.—ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ (i.e. Christ upon his return) φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ Col 3:4b. Of the church ἡ ἐκκλησία πνευματικὴ οὖσα ἐφανερώθη ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ Χριστοῦ 2 Cl 14:3. M-M.**
Why not use "was manifested" or "was shown"? The expressions are synonymous and the Greek word can have both meanings.
"The verb manifest is a transitive verb that needs a direct object. Something usually manifests something else." Is this true?
Manifest is a transitive verb in english, but the Greek verb is passive and besides, it goes with en sarki, which is a prepositional phrase.
A verb can have a prepositional phrase as an object
In 1 Timothy 3:16, the subject of verb is left unstated.
https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/20/51/45/20514575988422264440041124464055079133/43841.pdf
Pg 173
"was manifested" I can agree, but what does ">>made<< manifest" imply - the same?
Kel has an interesting page on this:-
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/1Tim3_16.html
I don't know which translation uses "made manifest," maybe you know one, but such language does not necessarily imply that another actor (subject) performs some action toward an object. For example, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14 KJV)
Does 1:14 necessarily imply that someone else made the Word become flesh? Is that what John is saying?
P. 173 of the document you cited quotes the TEV and NIV, but neither translation uses "was made," etc. They also employ the verb "appeared"
https://books.google.com/books?id=41j7siCRS0QC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=1+timothy+3:16+passive&source=bl&ots=9-ZrkIYhSr&sig=ACfU3U0-DE59n3Dj3VCs4a9vnigLk2hUqg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi309uYu7XuAhVRlVkKHZN0DYo4HhDoATAQegQIFRAC#v=onepage&q=1%20timothy%203%3A16%20passive&f=false
See pages 102-103. Notice how the passive is rendered and why.
Aorist translated as past tense.
Some justify there translations of John 1:14 in light of Luke 1:35 but I do not. Overall within John I see this as John 1:32 & ἔμεινεν as abide.
Compare John 5:38.
The aorist in John 1:14 is aorist middle indicative and it's okay to render it as a past tense although the verb is probably an ingressive aorist. But my point is not whether the translation is correct, but whether "was made flesh" implies that another subject made the Word flesh. Is that what the KJV was trying to convey? I don't think so.
Going back to the issue you originally raised, I don't see why 1 Tim. 3:16 can't be rendered "was manifest" or in analogous ways.
"was made flesh" - still mulling this over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMXiN0cfc6A - where is the flaw?
"was made flesh" - still mulling this over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMXiN0cfc6A - where is the flaw?
https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/reading-john-1-with-clarity/
On the Dustin Martyr piece, I just can't accept the presuppositions that he brings to the text of John 1, nor do I accept his imposition of those presuppositions. And to my knowledge, hardly anyone claims that the Hebrew Bible uses davar to reference a person. At least, scholars would not claim the term is explicitly used that way, even if some might find allusions to the Logos (Christ). And some of the identifications with God and his Word come post-Tanakh.
Regarding Kel's video, I don't speak for Trinitarians :)
Neither do I believe that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity or that he left his Father's side and traversed through space and time, then entered Mary's womb. Jehovah's Witnesses believe no such thing.
Yes, Jesus was a prophet.
Does the expression "word of God" refer to one thing? Why should we think that Davar/Logos could not come to have a new meaning in the GNT?
Matthew 4:4 uses a different term for the "word of God" and it's a disparate context.
Alas! John 6:60 is not the same contextually as John 1:1-3: the same words don't mean the same thing all of the time. Look at BDAG or Smyth for how houtos functions. When I translated Homer, houtos was often rendered "he" and it had nothing to do with theology.
Whatever we think of the patristics, it's also enlightening to see that they use Logos to reference a person, and had no trouble using the term. Read Origen and Irenaeus for starters.
Logos does not have the same sense or reference in John's Gospel. Read Stan Porter, B.F. Westcott, R.E. Brown etc.
FR, thanks for your comment, but with all due respect I don't agree with your conclusion. Romans 10:8-12 is not calling Jesus YHWH, Paul is exorting his listeners to declare that Jesus is Lord, and excercise faith that God raised him from the dead, he then shows how all can gain faith, because any who call in YHWH will be saved, and therefore his listeners must preach about YHWH (vrs 14-15) and the word about Christ (vrs 18) ... the point isn't that Jesus is YHWH, it's that Christ reconciles man to YHWH, so we an call on him (8:14-15), but we only can do this beacuse of Christ's lordship (8:37-39).
these Jesus is YHWH verses that some trinitarians bring up, don't stand scruitiny, especially when you take them within the context of the writing they find themselves in, and also when take a straightforward reading using the conceptual categories that were available to the first century readers, and not import fourth century metaphysics.
BTW, EVEN IF Jesus bore the divine name at one point of another, that wouldn't demonstrated trinitarianism UNLESS one ruled out a kind of Shaliah interpretation, for which there is historical precedent that one can find within the cultural context of the NT, whereas the kind of ousia/hypostasis metaphysics of the post nicene theologians cannot be found in the cultural context of the NT.
John 5:38, John 6:60 ?
What the church father thought is not my concern but we do have tools that can contextualise them even it we cannot or will not use then for GJohn itself.
https://edoc.unibas.ch/1270/1/Diss.Ronaldo.Nov.2010.pdf
Pg 141 ff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#:~:text=Origen%20draws%20heavily%20on%20the,Greek%20philosophers%20could%20ever%20grasp.
https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/30844
Problem is that by this time Greek philosophy was not necessarily Greek in origin.
https://buecherheld.de/9783845422015-the-hermetic-logos
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KOvXCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=hermetic&f=false
he refers to "Odes of Solomon". It may have hermetic element but it is not hermetica and so his argument is a straw man. If you are going to argue against something, then pick a genuine example.
Mat 4:4 should be compared with John 6:51.
Why should we think that Davar/Logos could not come to have a new meaning in the GNT? No reason, as we see this of other words. The question is - what new meaning?
My comment about the church fathers was a side point, not a major part of my response, but I was illustrating how ancient people of the church thought of the Logos in personal terms (exemplified in Christ) before the Trinity was ever codified. To ignore the fathers also results in impoversished exegesis.
I think I know what you mean above, but how could "Greek philosophy" not be Greek in origin? Time could not and did not change that fact.
Origen was probably a Neoplatonist, a philosophy which likely originated with Plotinus the Egyptian thinker (205-270 CE). However, Neoplatonism (as the name implies) could not dispel its ultimate Greek origins.
Porter didn't write that the Odes of Solomon are part of the Hermetic corpus, and it's clear that is not what he meant. He was pointing out that the Hermetica have been influenced by the Odes of Solomon and this bears on the date assigned to the Hermetica. It's not a straw man, my friend.
Mt 4:4 and John 6:51 have little connection to John 1:1ff, and they're not directly connected to each other.
Let me clarify about the new meaning comment. I'm asking why can't Logos be applied to a person in the GNT, regardless of how the OT/Tanakh applies davar?
The date that who assigned to the hermetica exactly as we have been here before.
Agreed that we've been here before, so I'd rather move on, but the scholarly guild has assigned a date to the Hermetica. Those who studies the corpus estimate when the Hermetica were written.
One source dates the Corpus between 1st-3rd century CE.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20190521?seq=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_philosophy
https://philosophynow.org/issues/128/Does_Western_Philosophy_Have_Egyptian_Roots
In addition to the Gentiles, the Book of Romans was also written to Jews and they would have already called upon the name of the Lord in reference to the Father. Now they (and all others) are to call upon the Lord (YHWH) in reference to Jesus. Notice the pronouns from 10:13 follow back to 'Him' in reference to "Jesus as Lord" in verse 9.
Paul also taught calling upon the Lord Jesus in prayer in other passages (1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Timothy 2:22). So did Luke in Acts 2:21 (cf. 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16). It is not surprising then that the BDAG (3rd Edition), Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, etc., affirm that the Lord is in reference to Jesus in Romans 10:13.
Even the Jehovah's Witnesses affirmed that the "Lord" in Romans 10:13 is used in reference to Jesus while also linking it with the Old Testament Book of Joel.
The Watchtower: There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son...Joel 2:32—Romans 10:13 (Theologians Stumble Over God's Name, May 1, 1978)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1978326
https://www.amazon.co.uk/George-G-M-James-Philosophy/dp/1635610575
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2293481?seq=1
FR - are calling on and praying praying the same thin in this instance? Note Romans 10:1.
Personally, and this is what the scholarly consensus in philosophy is, I don't believe that Greek philosophy originated with the Ehyptians. The evidence does not bear this thesis out. I've studied the idea before, and given it a chance: I don't believe it.
For example, did you look at the context of the Plato quote from the Phaedrus? See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174%3Atext%3DPhaedrus%3Asection%3D274c
Wikipedia misrepresents what Plato (through Socrates) claims.
The quote from Aristotle's Politics does not prove that the Egyptians started philosophy; there is no way that Aristotle believed that idea anyway. But it's not what he says in the work. And on and on. :)
One more thing I'll say about the Greek philosophy issue, is that the first person on record to form a complex deductive argument is Parmenides; the first person in history to formalize logic was Aristotle, and the oldest argument we have for God's existence is the one formulated within a book by Plato.
Prayer is taught in Romans 10:1, and prayer is taught in Romans 10:13.
A work that might be worth consulting:
Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles. Tubingen, Mohr, 1996.
Just to comment on something Duncan said about the Logos having a new meaning in the GNT ... of course any word might be marshaled in a new way, the problem is when reading a text the default is to use it in the way the authors cultural context and his readers, would understand, NOT to assume they are using it in an anomalous way. The meanings of words are culturally contingent, so if one wants to use a term in a way different from the cultural default, one would have to show or explain the new sense the word is being used.
If you just assume a word can be used in a new way, then you're going into allegorical reading, which is sometimes appropriate theologically, but not historically, and historically has to be the starting point in my opinion.
Just to give a modern example, if I use the term "such an such an individual is gay" the assumption is that I'm refering to someone as homosexual, of course I could be using it in a different sense, so for example I could say "such and such a person is gay, in the sense that he is happy" ... then I'm qualifying my language to show it's being used in a different way from the cultural context.
The Church Fathers were much closer to the cultural context of the NT authors than we are, so even though they had philosophical pressupositions, those presuppositions are much closer to the world of the NT, our philosophical presuppositions (and yes we have them) are much much father away, so the Fathers are useful in that they are early readers of the NT, and provide an early reception history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus
Philosophy is a environmental phonoenon.
An argument for gods existence comes from a society that no longer believes in a creator. A society that has the ability and has in actuality destroyed their environment. This is the nature of empire the extension of a sick society in the search of further resources to perpetuate itself. This cycle reiterates.
"philosophy" can only be Greek because it is a Greek word - the "search for wisdom" is not and it existed in many societies well before the Greeks.
Hi Roman, I actually made the comment about logos having a different meaning or being used differently in the GNT. I was making the point that Logos could apply to a person even if Old Testament writers never used "word" that way. We also know that Logos acquired different senses anyway over time. See the LSJ entry for logos.
Roman, thanks for making the point about the value of reading the fathers.
Duncan, it's manifestly false to claim that theistic arguments only come from godless societies. Plato believed in God/the God's and so did Aristotle, yet they both formulated theistic arguments.
Yes, other societies tried to acquire wisdom before the Greeks did, but the Greeks are responsible for developing what we now call western philosophy.
I did not say a godless society. They had plenty of gods but when everything environmentally goes south they see these gods as impotent. These gods were there to be bribed for benefit.
This comes back to the problem of suffering that is then brought to the fore.
Plato believed in God/the God's and so did Aristotle may be true but did they write only for there benefit?
https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-247?gathStatIcon=true
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/abs/sumerian-theology-and-ethics/F28221E4E10E5D45EACA210A7375F7A1
FR - you may find some points here interesting regarding how Paul narrates Romans. https://youtu.be/W-EOnKJEZRg
Aha, yes, Edgar, I agree, I think the GNT uses the term Logos, in a way that's new from the standpoint of the Hebrew bible, but that roughly parallels ways that it was being used at the time (although with in a creative way).
My favorite argument for the existence of God is Duns Scotus's .. who I believed lived in a world in which more or less everyone was religious.
When I say "philosophical presuppositions" I mean worldviews, epistemological worldviews, ethical worldviews, metaphysical worldviews etc etc. I'm not all that interested in the etymology of the word in the way I'm using it.
Duncan, okay, you said "a creator." But many philosophers have developed arguments for God's existence although they and the society in which they lived believed in a creator: examples are Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm of Canterbury.
From what I've observed of Plato and Aristotle's writings on God/gods, one thing they were doing was making a critique of popular ideas about God/the gods. Also see the writings of Epicurus, who argues that the gods are not interested in human affairs because they're immortal and makarios.
Roman, the medieval world was quite religious. Religion (the church) formatively shaped Europe. I also concur with your definition for "philosophical presuppositions."
Speaking to one of your links, Duncan, I would never claim that only Greeks reason/reasoned and no other culture can or has done so. But Greek philosophy is much different from Hindu or Chinese philosophy: that doesn't mean Greek is better, but it's different. Other cultures have wondered about nature and speculated on ultimate reality; no doubt about it. However, Confucius takes a much different approach to philosophy than Aristotle does.
I'm going to allow a few more comments on this thread, but unless we have something else to say about 1 Timothy 3:16, I'm going to close comments for this topic soon. :-)
Your list of Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm of Canterbury all sit within a fairly narrow time window - why?
I wasn't implying that these are the only examples, but these men were all "scholastics" or schoolmen. They were associated with the medieval university: Sir Anthony Kenny has a good discussion on the rise of medieval scholasticism.
"the 12th-century philosopher Moses Maimonides, often dubbed anachronistically “the Jewish Aquinas,” had been much more drastic than his successor, “the Christian Maimonides,” in his insistence that everything that can be truly said about the Creator—not excluding the proposition that he exists—has to be construed as purely negative."
DeTribus Impostoribus and Les Trois Imposteurs, ou la Vie et l’esprit de M. Benoit Spinoza, which are basically virulent attacks on the founding figures of the different Abrahamic traditions:-
"Although these treatises must be situated in the 17th century, literature on the deceitful nature of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed was believed to exist already in the Middle Ages. The theologian Thomas of Cantimpré (De Apibus, II, 48) was convinced that the Parisian theologian Simon of Tournai (1130-1201) had written such a treatise, but, according to Thomas, he was subsequently struck by sickness for openly discussing such matters. Modern scholars such as Minois (1998), p. 82 & Weltecke(2010), p. 206-207 are more convinced that the treatise actually concerned a theological exercise. Simon could have ordered his disciples to formulate arguments and counter-arguments on the theme of the ‘three imposters’. As Minois rightly observes, such exercise must indicate that theologians were familiar with this topic in the 12th century. Older studies, such as Le Clerc (1824), p. 388-392 argue, however, that the matter actually involved a hostile campaign against Simon, because of his fondness of the works of Aristotle. But this argument might only identify Simon as an early modern Sceptic. It does not explain why he was associated with the theme of the ‘three imposters’, which must have been already a familiar theological subject in the 12th century. "
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3856571?seq=1
Thanks, Duncan.
Okay, I'll allow a brief dialogue on theistic argumentation in this thread. Aquinas, Scotus, and Maimonides are similar in some ways, yet they don't all say the same thing about "negative theology" (aka apophatic theology). Apophatic theology is much older than the middle ages, and Augustine (who greatly influenced Aquinas) claimed that it's easier to say what God is not than to say what God is. Now that's not a rejection of cataphatic theology, and the comment shows how Augustine differs from Maimonides.
Duncan, all I'll say is read the whole article about Plato and art. It's informative, but by no means proves that Plato's philosophy derived from Egypt.
Nothing definitive but it does demonstrate an interest. Some kind of connection. I have seen Roman style statues in Egypt, but not Greek. Even when the Greek were their, they wanted to look Egyptian.
Hi guys,
Apart from the KJV only folk who believe the English translation is superior to the Greek text, the issue concerning 1 Tim. 3:16—i.e ‘God’ or ‘he’—boils down to the two competing theories of the majority and minority text types. The majority theorists maintain that there was an early corruption of the NT texts by the so-called ‘Alexandrian school’; while those who embrace the minority theory believe the corruption of the NT texts came much later.
Interestingly enough, George Howard’s theory of the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the NT supports the early corruption theory.
Personally, I have found Howard’s arguments to be quite solid; but then, it somewhat ‘muddies the water’ concerning the early vs. later corruptions theories.
Grace and peace,
David
https://www.livescience.com/2730-greek-mummy-lead-coffin.html
https://cdn.britannica.com/06/7906-050-157524C1/dancing-detail-Egyptian-tomb-painting-Shaykh-Abd-c-1400-bce.jpg
Okay, thanks everyone, but I'm going to close comments on this thread now.
Post a Comment