Is Jehovah God sparing/parsimonious when it comes to giving his servants the holy spirit? I think enough scriptures assure us that God is not selfish, stinting or sparing, but he gives the holy spirit generously to those who obey him and sincerely ask for the spirit. See Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 11:13; Acts 5:32; Titus 3:5-6; James 1:5.
Cambridge Dictionary: sparingly-"in small amounts, or without wasting any"
In addition to the verses above, I want to focus on Ephesians 5:18 (ESV): "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,"
(HCSB): "And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit"
Greek (SBLGNT): καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι
This blog entry will concentrate on the latter part of Ephesians 5:18. How should it be rendered, and is there any significance to translating it one way rather than another? As you see above, ESV prefers "but be filled with the Spirit" while HCSB opts for "but be filled by the Spirit."
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, (WB Commentary Series) offers these comments:
"The use of ἐν with πληροῦσθαι in an instrumental sense is unusual (cf. also Abbott, 161–62; J. A. Robinson, 204; Schnackenburg, 242 and n. 598). Believers are to be filled by the Spirit and thus also filled with the Spirit. The idea of being filled with the Spirit recalls that of being filled up to all the fullness of God in 3:19 and that of the Church as the fullness of Christ in 1:23 (cf. also 4:13). Clearly, the Spirit mediates the fullness of God and of Christ to the believer."
Lincoln thinks Ephesians 5:18 communicates the idea that believers should be filled "by the Spirit" and in that way, they will be filled "with" the Spirit. He mentions that ἐν could be employed with πληροῦσθαι instrumentally (i.e., "with the Spirit"), but that would be "unusual." According to the NET Bible, it would be so unusual because, "There are no other examples in biblical Greek in which ἐν + the dative after πληρόω indicates content." This point along with the context might suggest a strong case for Paul meaning, "be filled by the Spirit/spirit." Unfortunately, NET dwells on the purported Trinitarian overtones of the passage, but I'm trying to think about Bible translation without bringing those issues into play. What does the lexical data suggest?
J.P. Heil (Ephesians, page 230) offers the rendering, "And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is dissipation, but be filled in the Spirit." Why does he opt for this rendition?
As with many other matters, these exegetical issues cannot be settled in a blog post, but there is good reason to answer the question in the title of the post, negatively. While I don't believe that Ephesians 5:18 depicts the Spirit/spirit as the agent doing the filling, it does appear that the agent could be either Christ or his Father, Jehovah based on the texts above. In either case, the ultimate credit for sending the spirit or giving holy spirit to the people of God goes to Jesus' Father (Acts 2:32-33). He does not give the holy spirit sparingly.
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
Does Jehovah God Give the Holy Spirit Sparingly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
314 comments:
1 – 200 of 314 Newer› Newest»Spirit could also mean "In the spirit of things" - I dont have examples on hand but know of some scriptures where that well be a legitimate interpretation.
For a god of love and having (understandingly) unlimited holy spirit I dont think he gives it sparringly.. just look in the bible.
P.S also Edgar may I ask you for some information on certain topics (i.e Divine name in the NT & Ἁλληλουϊά)
@E.Foster what would you consider the least biased trinitarian English translation of the bible? I like the original Jerusalem bible,how would you rate it?
@aservantofJehovah
I think it difficult to answer your first question because the Bibles that come readily to mind usually are quite biased. For some reason, I've always liked Rotherham's Emphasised Bible. His translational approach always fascinated me. As for the Jerusalem Bible, I have that one and like it. I think the translators tried to be as fair as possible: it's a good translation IMO. Not perfect, but good.
I used to read the NRSV a lot: not sure how unbiased they are.
Thanks Unknown, I agree that God does not give the spirit sparingly. Ephesians 5:18 seems to be another verse to show that.
As for questions about the divine name in the NT, my time is limited, but I'm willing to see which questions you have. If I can't answer them, maybe someone else can. I have friends who have spent much time studying issues related to the divine name.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/500520
@E Foster who is Granville Sharpe and what is this rule of his?
Sharp was an abolitionist, and is described as a biblical scholar and classicist. He died in the 1809s, but as respects his rule, we've discussed it many times here. Dan Wallace also wrote a book defending it. For starters, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/01/richard-young-offers-comments-on.html
One of the appendices in the 1984 NWT talks about it too
He died in the 1800s
@E..Foster I learned about Granville sharp the abolitionist(quaker if memory serves me right) in Junior secondary school. I didn't realize he was the same Granville Sharp of Sharp's rule fame. Thanks much.
That's interesting @aservantofJehovah and you're welcome. Most of us learn about Sharp through the rule, then we find out he was an abolitionist.
I understand the limited time and please understand no pressure to answer them, only reason I ask you is I fail to be able to find the answers myself unless they lean toward trinitarian interpretations
Ill list a couple here as these are some of the ones:
- What would your opinion on the Divine name appearing in the original NT be? considering the evidence of the early LXX and Greg Stafford's book. some anti WT say the explanation on the name is contradictory because on one hand we believe the bible was inspired, yet on the other we claim it to be "corrupt" with regards to the name. However its already known the Jews took up a superstition of not pronouncing the name which could of lead the name being phased out by copyists. - Jehovah said it would endure forever, and did say some would make us try to forget his name.
another example: The lord said to my lord
- is the occurrence of "lord" in Phil 2:11 (We should confess Jesus is "lord") originally the divine name - or just a reference to his superior position when he was made "Lord" - and could this actually be the divine name originally (The writer thought Jesus was Jehovah - the trinitarian interpretation)
Ill leave it with those 2 for now, not too overwhelm.
Phillipians2:11KJV"and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord+ to the glory(I.e credit) of God the Father." So let's be clear JEHOVAH is not Lord to anyone else's credit. Jesus on the other hand was made Lord by his Lord.
Acts3:13NIVThe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go."
Acts3:36NIV"“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: (the)God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” JEHOVAH is JEHOVAH to his own glory,the one he made Lord is Lord to JEHOVAH'S glory and would have it no other way
John8:50NIV"I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge."
"One important way Rome demanded that citizens in its empire show their allegiance was to say, formally, “Caesar is Lord.”"
Unknown, the charge that critics make is also a little strong because we don't exactly say that the Bible text is "corrupt" because scribes possibly took out the Tetragrammaton from the NT. In fact, we know that mistakes did creep into the Bible text and almost all churches acknowledge this fact. However, JWs say that these mistakes were found by scholars/scribes and taken out of the Bible. So, one can believe that the Bible is inspired while also believing that erros occurred in Scripture or attempts to corrupt it. One of the strangest things to me is not only why YHWH does not appear in the NT MSS, but why does it not appear when writers quote from the Hebrew Bible? The Jewish view toward the name might explain some of what happened.
The charges regarding both questions to me are flawed. Correct me if I'm wrong
ALL the earliest copies of the LXX we have contain the name not a surrogate substitute.. to argue that the name wasn't in the NT goes along the lines of arguments like Philo had or to strengthen the trinity doctrine. However if the LXX authors were using it why wouldn't the NT writers also use it? is this not strong enough evidence something happened? on top of that there are a handful of scriptures where the name "Christ" was removed or "YHWH" was.
i.e: https://pastebin.com/UmgP4ug4
at least 3 non-JW scholars have come to the same conclusion..
Phil 2: 9- 11 is in a similar position to the 2 others 1Pe 3:14-15, Heb 1:10 - Where "lord" is used as a noun like "Lord Saul" in other words "Master" "Sir" or "Teacher" - not a position where the name was originally. Just because "Lord" happens to be the surrogate for the divine name, doesn't mean every articleless lord is a surrogate.
anyway, next couple of questions -
source: https://livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf
"Perhaps we have here a clue to the reasons behind BeDuhn’s remarkably-inaccurate claim.
BeDuhn is determined to demonstrate that there is no Holy Spirit, but only an abstract force
that he calls “holy spirit”. Having laid the ground work higher up, with his totally
inaccurate claim that “ ‘neuter’ nouns are only used for impersonal things, such as objects,
animals, forces, abstract principles, and so on”, given that the Greek word for “spirit” is
neuter, he believes (or at least he claims) that he is half way to proving his point. He goes
on to write, “the ‘Holy Spirit’ is referred to by a ‘neuter’ noun in Greek. It is a ‘which,’ not
a ‘who.’ It is an ‘it,’ not a ‘he.’ ” (p. 140) – as though the nature of God could be limited
by the language categories of human speech!
If BeDuhn is right here, then a child “is a ‘which,’ not a ‘who.’ He or she is an ‘it,’ not a
‘he/she.’ ” But BeDuhn is not right. If he is the “expert” in Greek and linguistics that he
claims to be, then he should realise this.
"(page 34)
This was written in regards to Beduhns claims on the neuter "holy spirit" - How would you justify the holy spirit as an active force rather than a person? in light of Allin's claims (Who is actually quite dishonest)
I will try to revisit the Tetra issue soon. Sorry that I don't have time to consult my BeDuhn volume now, but I'm surprised that Jason would not provide some nuance to his remarks about neuter nouns in Greeks. Maybe he does. Is this other person possibly misrepresenting BeDuhn? It's a basic datum of Greek grammar that grammatical gender and natural gender do not always correspond. For example, sophia is feminine and logos is masculine and a child is neuter as pointed out above.
My approach to proving the holy spirit to be an active force or to be a non-person is to appeal to the Jewish understanding of God's spirit and I look at how the Bible speaks of the holy spirit. For instance, the holy spirit is poured out on people and writers in the Bible associated God's spirit with the divine power (Acts 10:38; Ephesians 3:16). See how the spirit is also described in 1 Cor. 2:11.
In regards to being critical of Beduhn, this person is very critical what I would call character assassination almost. & also known to be quite misleading - his John 8:58 claim for instance is particularly erroneous
page 34 of this Doc: source: https://livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf
Regarding Greek gender, I'm going to quote Smyth's grammar:
196. Gender.—There are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
a. Gender strictly marks sex-distinction. But in Greek, as in German and French, many inanimate objects are regarded as masculine or feminine. Such words are said to have ‘grammatical’ gender, which is determined only by their form. Words denoting objects without natural gender usually show their grammatical gender by the form of the adjective, as μακρὸς λόγος a long speech, μακρὰ_ νῆσος a long island, μακρὸν τεῖχος a long wall.
b. The gender of Greek words is usually indicated by means of the article: ὁ for masculine, ἡ for feminine, τό for neuter.
197. Rule of Natural Gender.—Nouns denoting male persons are masculine, nouns denoting female persons are feminine. Thus, ὁ ναύτης seaman, ὁ στρατιώτης soldier, ἡ γυνή woman, ἡ κόρη maiden.
a. A whole class is designated by the masculine: οἱ ἄνθρωποι men, i.e. men and women.
b. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF NATURAL GENDER.—Diminutives in -ιον are neuter (199 d), as τὸ ἀνθρώπιον manikin (ὁ ἄνθρωπος man), τὸ παιδίον little child (male or female, ὁ or ἡ παῖς child), τὸ γύναιον little woman (ἡ γυνή woman). Also the words τέκνον, τέκος child (strictly ‘thing born’), ἀνδράποδον captive.
"τέκνον, τέκος child (strictly ‘thing born’)" - would this be considered an "abstract idea" as Beduhn puts it?
I usually don't think of a teknon as an abstract idea. Study how it's used in the GNT.
From Daniel Wallace's article about the holy spirit and gender:
A word should be mentioned first about the use of natural grammar in the NT. All exegetes recognize that natural gender is sometimes used in the place of grammatical gender in Greek. Robertson notes that "substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and grammatical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict in these two points of view."2 For example, in Col 2:19 we see the construction
th_n kefalh/n . . . e)c ou{ ("the head . . . from whom"): the antecedent of
the masculine pronoun is a feminine noun. But in the context, kefalh/ refers to Christ (see Col 1:18; 2:10).
"I usually don't think of a teknon as an abstract idea. Study how it's used in the GNT." - fair enough, the "literally" in brackets may have been slightly misleading to me (no fault of yours)
I did find this, which would seem to be true "Normally it has no gender (neuter), but context can indicate gender, especially if it is a boy." - Which is true in most cases (except for parables) so even if the antecedent is still neuter context indicates gender, which is NEVER done for the holy spirit.
What I had in mind is when John speaks of Christians being tekna of God, which surely is not a mere abstraction, even if being a tekna of God is figurative. See also John 1:12. However, yes, context sometimes clarifies whether the thing described by the neuter noun is masculine or feminine. But as you said, that does not happen with the holy spirit. I would strongly encourage you to read Dan Wallace's article about the holy spirit if you have not. He makes some excellent points.
I will thank you - gonna do that right now as it sounds interesting.
Is there anyway you could base an argument for the holy spirit being a force rather than a person based on Greek noun gender? - I can think of one but it is flawed.
Just finished reading the Wallace article. Its actually very good however as usual he comes to some pretty strange conclusions - one such being "God and the Father and Lord Jesus Christ" - apparently puts them on the same level and says they are equal... not sure how that works since they are both referenced with angels at others times.. Iv heard an argument similar to this with LORD God in the OT being "split" between God and Jesus making them "equal"
The question in my last comment still stands... I would think its probably not possible based on noun gender alone, I hate to give "points" to Allin but he may be right on this account.
I do however think he grossly undermines Beduhn.
This may sound dumb:
I'm guessing if something is the neuter gender you would generally refer to that as "it" or "which"? - unless the gender is identified in the context.
this quote is interesting:
"When used of the Holy Spirit, para/klhtoj is used as a substantive
rather than as an adjective. As an adjective it would have no intrin-
sic gender. As a substantive, however, it could be expected to be in
the neuter gender to extend the sense of to_ pneu=ma (the Spirit) were
it indeed true that the Spirit is an impersonal force or influence.
However, [Jesus] . . . did express the fact of personality through
para/klhtoj by putting it in the masculine gender. Thus, when this
title (para/klhtoj) of the Holy Spirit is the antecedent of to_ pneu=ma to"
page: 111
as Jesus also said:
(John 16:25)
“. . .“I have spoken these things to you in comparisons. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in comparisons, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. . .”
Unknown, IMO, the gender argument against the holy spirit provides some evidence, but it's not enough. Plus let us not forget verses like John 16:7 (NWT): Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper+ will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you.
Or what about John 16:13ff (NWT): However, when that one* comes, the spirit of the truth,+ he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.+ 14 That one will glorify me,+ because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.+
As I tried to point out earlier, "wisdom" in Greek is feminine whereas "word/reason" is masculine. However, we're not talking about things that have a natural/ontological gender.
Numbers11:17JB"I shall come down and talk to you there and shall take SOME of the spirit which is on you and put IT on them. Then they will bear the burden of the people with you, and you will no longer have to bear it on your own." Brown Driver Brings says that ruach is usually feminine but can occasionally be masculine. Interestingly the translator chose a neuter pronoun to represent ruach.
But what manner of personal deity is this who can be divided and apportioned out like this?
1 John 4:6?
That is an interesting translation. I think we can use some of these points as probative evidence, but how much can we make out of grammatical gender? I believe qoheleth is also feminine although the writer of Ecclesiastes is described as David's son.
I've seen some use Hebrews 2:4 to make a similar point about the spirit being apportioned.
See 1 John 4:6 in the NIV.
@E.Foster:Genesis4:11KJV"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened HER mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;" "what can be made of grammatical gender?"
Certainly not personhood.
@aservantofJehovah, I agree that we cannot rightly derive the notion of personhood from the ground being called "her." But that is my point about the spirit as well. Hebrew often uses a word in the feminine form to reference the spirit of God, but that is for grammatical/morphological reasons. John 16 refers to the spirit as "he," but that is because parakletos is masculine; the spirit is called "it" in Romans 8, but that is because of the word pneuma, which is neuter. Does it not take more than appealing to gender to establish the true nature of God's spirit?
The Greek word for sun is masculine, but the moon is feminine. Both objects are ontologically neuter.
I apologise if there is any misunderstandings.. I'm not trying to ignore any points
"wisdom" in Greek is feminine whereas "word/reason" is masculine. However, we're not talking about things that have a natural/ontological gender." - these are the 2 I was referring when I said there is a flaw in the argument, They don't have "natural" gender.. by all accounts they should(you would think) be neuter but are not.
John 16:7 is an interesting one as Wallace pointed out. Trinitarians seem to be so keen on proving a concept foreign to NT writers that they will seemingly ignore Greek grammar rules. I'm surprised Wallace wrote this to be honest considering his other writings Iv read which are very quick to throw things away and then be cited later on to support his claims.
Iv seen some even try to use 1 Peter 3:18 but from my understanding both antecedents (masculine) refer to God, not the spirit.(Gal 1:1)
Not to jump between too many subjects too quickly but what does the NWT mean by the divine name being "embedded in hallelujah" in its appendix? - isn't the Greek just transliterated from the Hebrew?
Anonymous, it's about my bedtime, so I'm going to be brief for now.
The reason for a word's gender can be complex, but it's basically a matter of lingual "accidents." Other examples that come to mind are "wisdom" in Latin is feminine; the word from which we get sermon/speech (etc.) is masculine, but the Latin term, verbum, is neuter and Wiktionary states that the word is a calque of the Greek, rhema, which is neuter.
I agree that it's hard to see how someone could use 1 Pet. 3:18 to prove the deity of the spirit.
See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001830
I'm thinking they just mean that "Jah" is part of the word. They don't seem to be denying that the word is transliterated in Revelation.
Best regards.
@E.Foster I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the (very trinitarian) translators used a neuter pronoun for ruach
A begudging acknowledgement perhaps ,that Moses did not think of the Spirit as a person?
@aservant, I agree. Some Trinitarian scholars believe that the spirit was not personalized in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, I would not be surprised if that was their intent.
Numbers 11:17 (NET): Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the Spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself.
(ESV): And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.
KJV: And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
As always though there are those who beg to differ:
Numbers11:17NASB"Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take away some of the Spirit who is upon you, and put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it by yourself."
Not the least bit stumbled by a divisible personal deity.
In the foreword of my hard copy of NASB under the subheading "proper name of God in the O.T"
It is (bizarrely)claimed that the most common 'name' for the deity in the Hebrew scriptures is Elohim. This claim can be easily disproved by using the NASB's own concordance.Which will show ,for the record, that the tetragram ,the real name of the one true God, occurs more than double the number of times as"Elohim" in the sacred text.
The war against the divine name is real?
@aservantofJehovah:
In harmony with the NASB rendering, see how the NIV and NLT handle Numbers 11:17. Some commentators do acknowledge the divisibility attributed to the ruach in this verse.
I agree that the comment made in the NASB foreword is bizarre. As Brother Russell reminded us, Satan wants people to forget the divine name.
Satan definitely wants people to forget the divine name as evident from one of Bowman's footnotes
"However, we do not endorse his view that translations of the Old Testament necessarily should use a form of the divine name (Yahweh or Jehovah). ”" - I find this particularly disturbing tbh, proving that even if their was "sufficient" evidence of the name in the Original NT trinitarians would still deny it, as without it the trinity can thrive.
not sure really where to go to research this matter "properly" but another dead give away besides the quotes of psalms 110:1 in the NT is Stafford's argument -
if Paul did not use the divine name when he here quoted Isaiah
40:13, and if “Christ” (as opposed to “Lord”) is the original
reading for the last part of the verse, then those who accept this
reading are in effect claiming that Paul wrote, “For ‘who has
come to know the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him?’
But we do have the mind of the Christ,” and that later scribes
changed this to read, “For ‘who has come to know the mind of
the Lord [], that we may instruct him?’ But we do have the
mind of the Lord []”!
The evidence to me suggests that it is highly unlikely that a
scribe would fail to see this as a great oddity and even as a
contradiction. It is much easier to explain the occurrence of the
first “Lord” by arguing based on good reasons that the divine
name was originally used in the NT in this quoted OT text in
reference to God the Father. If “Lord” in the latter part of the
verse (used for Jesus) is the original reading, then, at some point
in the transmission of this document the divine name in the OT
quotation appears to have been removed, just as it was taken out
of the Greek OT during the second and later centuries CE when it
was replaced with “Lord” in its full form or as an abbreviation
(nomen sacrum, ). Once this adjustment occurred, “Lord” in
the latter part of the verse (for Jesus) was changed to “Christ” (as
we see in P46) so that the text now makes better sense, “For ‘who
has come to know the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct
him?’ But we do have the mind of the Christ.”
(Jehovahs Witnesses Defended: An Answer to scholars and critics 2nd Edition 3rd edition pg: 101-102)
As too the neuter nouns, Thank you for your information on those Edgar, I know also somewhere I think in Ephesians the HS is listed among quality's something none of the other 2 "Godhead members" are ever listed.
Unknown,
I don't know if you have read this:
https://www.academia.edu/38647628/_Jesus_the_New_Testament_and_the_sacred_Tetragrammaton_%CE%9F_%CE%99%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82_%CE%B7_%CE%9A%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%AE_%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7_%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9_%CF%84%CE%BF_%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%8C_%CE%A4%CE%B5%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF_Synthesis_Vol_8_2019_Nr_1_pp_27_87
Hi Edgar, apologies for late response.. This time of year is rather busy for me (Nothing to do with Christmas as my family don't celebrate it or acknowledge it for that matter.)
no I hadn't actually, didn't even know it existed and it is very interesting... it lays waste to an argument I tend to see that apparently "No ancient Christian writer ever mentioned the name, therefore was never in the NT in the first place"
side note: some atheist present a similar argument which is just as weak..
just because nobody of that time (to our knowledge) mentions something does that mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen? hardly..
"Aquila's rendering of verses from Exodus (19:16; 34:6, 9), that actually included a reference to the “merciful Yahweh” - page 58
"It is noticeable that the Syriac Peshitta presents this distinction and renders the Greek term κύριος as
(marya, a term used in cases that the term “lord” refers to the God and signifies the
Tetragrammaton) in Luke 1:32 and (maran) in John 21:7." - Footnote 130
would I be right in saying? while the evidence isn't conclusive, it is very strong and highly likely that some form of the name was in the original NT.
Answer these as (& if) you please:
2 Corinthians 6:6 - would seem to mention both "Gods power" & "Holy spirit" - aren't these both somewhat the same thing?
What are your thoughts in the differences of uses between Yah (or Jah) & Yahweh (or Jehovah) The uses in the bible seem to be quite different in some situations.
Bit more personal:
How do you feel about the 1914 calc - is it accurate, (&) or can it be defended? (Stafford would seem to disagree with the "day for a year" portion pulled from a different prophecy)
and on topic of the holy spirit being given sparingly Isa 48:16 would seem to me to indicate so (found this one when looking for ones similar to Genesis 19:24, in which trinitarians might try to use to establish the trinity)
Giving the holy spirit sparingly would mean that Jehovah is stingy with his spirit, but that would contradict what other verses say about God's generosity.
I will comment more later, but the divine name was probably in the NT. We don't have MS evidence to support it, but it seems probable
Hi Anonymous,
In 2 Cor. 6:6, some scholars do read the verse in such a way that God's spirit and power are the same. I believe they're closely related but distinct. The NWT states that Jesus was anointed with holy spirit and power (Acts 10:38). Jesus also told his disciples that they would receive power when the holy spirit came upon them as Pentecost. That suggests that there is a distinction between God's power and spirit.
For Yah and Yahweh, compare Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. We just had a discussion about this issue in another thread on the blog: Yah (Jah) seems to be a shortened form of Yahweh (Jehovah). One scholar writes that this is most evident in the expression, hallelujah. This paper might be helpful: https://www.academia.edu/39879811/A_STUDY_OF_THE_TRANSLATION_OF_THE_TETRAGRAMMATON_ITS_PHONETICS_PHONOLOGY_SEMANTICS_AND_ARGUMENT_FOR_RENDERING_IN_VERNACULAR_LANGUAGES
On 1914, I will just say that there are two ways to defend the date, either chronologically or circumstantially. We just studied 1914 last night in our congregation Bible study that we have weekly. I've been teaching 1914 for about forty years and pretty much know the evidence for it by heart although I don't talk about it like I used to do in the ministry or on Bible studies.
You likely know the math for 1914 with the seven times and the day for a rule formula. To answer your question, the date is defensible. However, it's not the easiest subject to explain.
First a needed Correction: my comment for the holy spirit was meant to mean "No Jehovah doesn't give it sparingly" ("so" should be "not")
you have a point on 2 Corin 6:6 and make a better argument than what Allin does (essay linked above, not sure if you have had a chance to look at it?). should also be noted in 1 corin (specifically 1 Corinthians 1:24/ NWT Cr's 1 Corinthians 2:4) Paul calls Jesus the "Power of God" - that could also be the referent - not sure of your opinions on that.
I'll def read that over the next few days. Thank you
Rolf furuli (a former JW) wrote a paper on the 1914 calc - however I'm not entirely convinced of the "a day for a year" part as that's from another prophecy, while the rule could apply.. I find it unlikely (from my very limited research on the subject)
"the divine name was probably in the NT. " - an argument I have had by some critics (cant be bothered with full on debates I don't know enough) is something along the lines of: Alexandria (and other writers) never mentioned the divine name in the NT, so it was never there in the first place.
(I can full quote the argument but I think it'll be a waste of time)
Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for the correction. I did look at some of what Allin wrote. From what I remember, seemed to be the same old arguments that others use.
Jesus is called the power and wisdom of God, but does that mean he is those divine attributes? An attribute is not a person, so I don't think Trinitarians want to say that about the Son of God. Furthermore, we have to understand that expression in context.
"but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
So, he's the power and wisdom of God for those whom "God has called"; this ultimately is about God's power and wisdom being manifested in the outworking of God's purpose. The initial chapters of Corinthians deal with this issue.
Btw, Jehovah's Witnesses view Christ as the personified wisdom of God and the one in whom God's wisdom is displayed, not the literal attribute of divine wisdom.
I didn't go through all of the steps for 1914 because you seem to be familiar with the bases for that date. If we don't apply the day for a year formula, then one will not arrive at 1914 on the basis of chronology. However, I mentioned the circumstantial route, which one could challenge too. I'm really not looking to discuss the subject now, but one question to think about is what result you get if you don't apply the day for a year rule to Dan. 4.
Quite frankly, I've kept my comments modest as to whether the divine name was in the NT or not. I realize that we don't have any NT manuscripts (MSS) that contain the divine name (YHWH), but the divine name does occur in early copies of the LXX and it's strange that NT writers would quote the Hebrew Bible, which had YHWH almost 7,000 times, yet never once include that name when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures.
I can think of Jewish and Christian writers who showed awareness of the name, including Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, and Origen of Alexandria.
As a Witness I realise you wont enter into pointless arguments, but would you mind pointing out specific flaws in Allin's arguments about the HS? (not to go in circles, would like to see how you handle that specific line of reasoning)
"I didn't go through all of the steps for 1914 because you seem to be familiar with the bases for that date" - I'm quite familiar with how that calc has come about. I mostly agree with the witnesses, I'm asking questions about certain things as I like to know how to answer certain questions (not to win arguments, hence wanting as much information as I can get on certain topics)
Judging from context I would say Christ could be the referent in 2 Corin 6:6 (equally as likely he is not) - again taking other factors into account. My reasoning is simply why reference the Holy spirit twice once as is and once as power... if that's even what the power refers too in 2 Corin 6:6
", yet never once include that name when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures." - seems odd doesn't it? almost like its been tampered with, which apparently the guy quoted below also believes... yet the formula in Matt 28:19 would appear to have been tampered with, as with 1 John 5:7-8 added later, the "three" formula is not in either style of writing.. God said his word would be preserved, never said he would prevent tampering infact the warning of changing the word would contradict that notion
Not to depart from the topic, no need to answer these, doing these for a laugh as I find them hilarious..
some specific arguments as example (quoted):
"Did any of the church fathers mention finding a NT Greek manuscript with the tetragrammaton in it? They mention finding OT Greek manuscripts with the tetragrammaton so why didn't they mention any NT manuscripts with the tetragrammaton?"
" I believe that God has preserved his word in the multiple copies of the NT and that by textual criticism we can have complete confidence that we know what the NT writers wrote" - then you would know its been tampered with - Matt 28:19 for instance..
an extra laugh for you, same guy about Beduhn:
"He is a scholar, just not a Greek scholar. This is evident in his misunderstanding of Granville Sharp's rule."
yet Titus 2:13 among others cited examples are genitives... which in English most of the time have "OF" even Goodspeed and Moffatt understand this & your article linked from Elijah
"do some actual studying and read some scholarly material like "Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God" by Robert J. Wilkinson."
I will keep looking over Allin's paper: I'm at page 5 now, and his comments don't make me think he's objective or fair in his assessments. It would take a while to correct his views, but I will reply as time permits.
When it comes to 1914, have you checked out how our latest study publication handles that subject? I'm talking about the Enjoy Life Forever book. I always liked the approach taken by the Live Forever in Paradise on Earth book: that is how I primarily learned the reasoning for 1914. One can get technical about the subject. However, I find it beneficial to make it simple for newcomers to the subject.
With respect to 2 Cor. 6:6: Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that the spirit of God is the power of God. See the Insight on the Scriptures where this point is denied and clarified. We teach that God's power is manifested/communicated through his spirit, so the two are related but distinct. I've mentioned Acts 1:5-8 to illustrate this point and Acts 10:38. See also 2 Cor. 4:7 and 12:9-10. Compare Ephesians 3:16. What contextual factors might signal that Christ is the subject of 2 Cor. 6:6? In any event, the Bible speaks about God filling people with power via his holy spirit.
According to the MSS we have, people have tampered with God's word, but we believe those mistakes have been found and largely rooted out. We have the Bible as it was substantially written while we acknowledge that some things might still be omitted.
I think it's clear that Allin has an axe to grind with JWs and Dr. Beduhn. Funny how he talks about Beduhn being uncritical or Witnesses seeking out others who agree with them, but this guy mainly relies on former JWs and Wikipedia in the early part of his paper. He does quote some from JW materials, only to dismiss what they or Beduhn have to say.
Hi, been following your conversation with interest and I do think that this Allin fellow has an axe to grind.
Came across this page - https://www.bethinking.org/jehovahs-witnesses/did-christ-die-on-a-cross-or-a-stake
Strange thing is how this is directed solely at witnesses and no reference to E.W.Bullinger of the trinitarian society with his companion bible.
https://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/AP/ap162/index.html?page=1
Also,
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Critical_Lexicon_and_Concordance_to_th.html?id=Ux_OSJP2OgcC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Another detail that Allin does not mention - https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus-and-the-cross/
It's use as a symbol was rather late.
Duncan,
That's what I put it down too, The internet is full of the same argument tho so never knew where to look for proper information. Just like regarding the quoted comments in my last comment.
I wouldn't be surprised if he has a bone to pick with JW alot do. evangelicals seem to target any scholar who dares agree with the Witnesses, notice Beduhn. From my research for his PHD some knowledge of Greek is nessacary and even if it isn't his main expertise does that mean he doesn't have some authority? I can cite other scholars who make similar arguments to him.
Duncan, thanks for contributing to this thread. Good points.
Unknown, I've read Beduhn, conversed with him and respect his work. However, he is an independent scholar who is not a JW. He and Witnesses don't see eye to eye on everything. In fact, he criticizes the NWT in some parts of his book. That is how genuine scholarship works.
Thank you for clarifying Edgar - I'm aware Beduhn doesn't agree with the witnesses on the divine name in the NT, which as you can tell I disagree with him on.
I would believe he is not a Jehovah's Witness (despite some claiming he is one or a WTS apologist)
ill answer your previous question shortly :)
shortly equals a day later.. hmmm not sure about that one..
anyway in regards to your question
"What contextual factors might signal that Christ is the subject of 2 Cor. 6:6?"
I suppose this is how I interpret this due to what iv said before and Paul marking "power of God" as Christ (which is very weak reasoning tbh)
looking at it again, the common things between "power" and holy spirit would be is will, so I guess it must have something to do with that..
again I may well be wrong..
First, let me say that I'm up to page 10 of Allin's "review" of BeDuhn's book. At this point, most of the review is a critique of BeDuhn's qualifications and the WTS statements about BeDuhn.
Allin keeps harping on whether BeDuhn is a "leading academic" or not. Does he have to be a leading academic to make observations on biblical languages? Additionally, by definition, there can only be relatively few leading academics. Most academics I know (including myself) don't fit that description and Allin probably doesn't either. Besides, did the WTS ever describe BeDuhn as a "leading academic"?
Maybe I missed it, but please show me where the WTS ever said BeDuhn was a leading academic, especially in biblical languages. Where did the WTS state that BeDuhn was an expert in biblical languages. It's also funny that folks like Allin now want to raise the bar high so that a scholar can have no say about a biblical language unless he/she is an expert in said language or more. How inconsistent and wrong.
I'm fairly certain that BeDuhn studied at least Greek, even if he did not attain a Ph.D. in the subject. Allin berates BeDuhn for not having a background in Hebrew/Aramaic or "linguistics." How many scholars of Greek and Hebrew-Aramaic have a background in linguistics? Has Allin checked lately?
On page 11 of Allin's review, he again berates BeDuhn for not being "a translator of Biblical texts." So one now has to be a translator of a Bible in order to make observations on Greek grammar/texts? My former Greek and Latin professor, who taught both languages for more than forty years and has read more Greek than most people I know, might beg to differ.
I probably should not be wasting my time going page-by-page through Allin's work, but some of the points are so woefully wrong that something just has to be said.
Anonymous, thanks. I better understand what you're saying about 2 Cor. 6:6 now. The reading you suggest is certainly possible, I guess we have to discover why Paul was writing these words. What was he trying to accomplish and what does the literary context suggest about his meaning? But I will grant that he could have meant Christ when he talked about the power of God, but I might also read 2 Cor. 6:6 in the light of 2 Cor. 4:7; 12:10.
Footnote 9 is a classic - Information provided verbally by Jehovah’s Witnesses, based on statements printed in their publications.
Footnotes are supposed to be for verification and this is totally unverifiable.
His section on gentiles, pg22.
See https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47985#:~:text=The%20word%20goy%20technically%20refers,colloquially%20refer%20to%20non%2DJews.&text=Central%20Semitic%20noun%20*g%C4%81y%2D%2C%20tribe
See the highlighted section referring to the Hebrew Goy for which ethne is a Greek translation.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%94%CE%B8%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82
Now the Greek.
Acts 10:45 YLT and those of the circumcision believing were astonished -- as many as came with Peter -- because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out,
Acts 11:1 YLT And the apostles and the brethren who are in Judea heard that also the nations did receive the word of God,
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/573880
"I probably should not be wasting my time going page-by-page through Allin's work, but some of the points are so woefully wrong that something just has to be said." -
That's why I bought it too someone like you, the arguments are terrible, but for someone like me who has no idea where to look for alternative information can be a massive hurdle & - people make similar arguments about Fred Franz and his competency in Hebrew.
I can list maybe one: Daniel Wallace (not even sure if he counts)
I can think of no others, only ones Iv seen pushed down i.e George Howard and his thesis on the Divine name (along with the other 3 non JW scholars who agreed)
could it also mean the accomplishment of his will, not the method he uses it? because both of these seem to indicate a result of the holy spirit as such Gods "will" (or power) to help those loyal.
Another thing on page 11, Allin states:
"First, at no time in its history has the Greek language had “grammatical rules that are male based”
First of all, I'm assuming this is a typo and Beduhn meant "biased"
In which case this is not a lie but in fact true, on multiple occasions the bible addresses everyone as "brothers" just a single example
(1 Peter 2:17)
“Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers”
while the Greek noun in itself is feminine, the male dominance clearly shines through
It should also be of note to the neuter nouns listed later, I read somewhere something along the lines of the reason "young one"(both genders are neuter) is because in that time they were not considered "mature" (not a direct quote, nor do I know if that has any reasonableness to it)
Unknown, it's getting late here, so I will be brief. Based on texts I've quoted earlier, I believe that Jehovah God communicates his power through the holy spirit. That seems to be what Jesus told his disciples in Acts 1:5-8 and even Jesus received God's power when he was anointed with the holy spirit. That is why he was able to heal people and resurrect them.
As for the quote taken from Dr. BeDuhn's book, I looked it up in Jason's work and he did not type "based." His exact words from p. 63 are "The New Testament was written in a language that, like many languages throughout the world, was formed in a male-dominated society. Greek and English are similar in this respect. Both have grammatical rules that are male-biased."
So, now who is misrepresenting whom? BeDuhn did not write "based" but "biased."
On the point about God's name, I think people often get fixated on Jehovah being in the GNT, but I concede that we have no Greek NT MSS with the Tetragrammaton in them. However, I do not see it as unreasonable to include God's name when the NT writers quote from the Hebrew Bible. In any event, Witnesses used the KJV for years, which did not have "Jehovah" in the NT. We believe they still ascertained Bible truth without it. My point is that I can meet my adversary part of the way and still make the point that God's name is YHWH, whether we include it in the GNT or not.
so basically what I said, Thank you
Yeah thought so sounds about right for him
side question: Is there any places you disagree with it being in the NWT? Most from what I can tell have pretty solid foundation based on Hebrew scriptures.
On the male-biased issue, this is demonstrated in this day and age with translations such as - https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/NIVInclusiveLangEd
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Unknown, you're welcome. I have no problem with including Jehovah's name in the GNT. There are places where it's not clear if the referent is Jesus or Jehovah: I think the 1984 NWT pointed out some of these verses.
Servant: I agree and have no problem with including the divine name in the GNT.
Thanks Duncan. The gender issue deserves attention.
Male bias was a thing in those days, still is to a certain extent today.
However Allin (and others) misrepresent Beduhn on this fact and use it as like Edgar stated to say he is not qualified to comment (only because he spoke well of the NWT. a similar thing happened to Goodspeed and Benjamin Kedar)
ServentofJehovah: I would agree, but the evidence is mounting for a case that infact it was present in the original NT manuscripts - The LXX of the same time period contained it, that's already pretty hard to dispute. Not to mention the amount of contradiction's that would not have gone unnoticed.
Hi Anonymous, on the male bias point, I think a case could be made that one does witness what Dr. BeDuhn mentioned about Greek. Of course, this is not always the case but I think we see patriarchal influences at times in ancient Greek. For instance, the following words are attributed to Protagoras:
"Man is the measure of all things, of the existence of the things that are and the non-existence of the things that are not” (πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον’ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ‘τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστι, τῶν δὲ μὴ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν).
I believe Smyth explains that "man" is being used generically there. On the other hand, Aristotle writes: "All men naturally desire knowledge" (πάντες ἄνθρωποι τοῦ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται φύσει).
Was he only referring to males or is he including females? I've read that Aristotle likely had males in mind. Either way, read his work entitled Politics and you'll see how patriarchal that Aristotle was.
One thing that I have been thinking about, how much more inflammatory to the Roman sensibilities to keep using Kurios instead of YHVH. As I stated earlier “Caesar is Lord.”, would this account for the major Roman backlash early on?
1) Would the early Christians have used such language just to provoke a reaction from the Romans?
2) The Romans already did not like the Jews or monotheism and Jewish ways, so why like the Christianity, which was an outgrowth of Judaism and it was also monotheistic.
The Christians teach that "Jesus is Lord" and that he was king. We know that did not go over well as Acts demonstrates.
It's lose lose though isn't it? If first century Christians routinely vocalized the divine name they would trigger Jewish zealots,and of course if they suggested that they owed a higher allegiance to any other Lord but Caesar the wrath of state would fall upon them.
Just came across this - https://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Kurios-in-the-NT-Vitrano-Wilson-2020-04-29.pdf
They just love to roll out psalms 110:1.
From Anthony Buzzard -
There are some who persist in reading the word ADONAI in this verse, instead of ADONI. This is usually justified by claiming that the Massoretes have assigned the wrong vowel points. However the "Greek factor" from the Septuagint version (LXX) supports the Massoretes.
The following information was passed on to me recently by Bill Wachtel.
The Hebrew text in Ps. 110:1 is actually LADONI ("L" + "adoni").
ADONI = my lord.
LADONI = TO my lord.
In the Greek of the LXX, LADONI becomes:
"to kurio mou" (= to my lord)
If the text had read:
LADONAI (= to the Divine Lord) the Greek would have read simply "to kurio."
Thus the LXX confirms for us that the original Hebrew is ADONI, and that the Massoretes got it right.
Acts 25:26 demonstrates.
Note the very positive book review written about BeDuhn's study pertaining to Manicheanism: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014.05.53/
Historically, the early Christians did pledge their allegiance to another Lord besides Caesar, and this resulted in persecution at times. One account I thought about from Acts besides the one you mentioned is Acts 17:5-9. Later, we have the account of Pliny who writes that the Christians were signing to Christ as to a god. More controversial is the case with Emperor Domitian and Dominus et Deus noster.
Interesting points from Buzzard and Wachtel.
very interesting information.
sidenote: isn't Anthony Buzzard one of the ones who deny Jesus is "The Word" even though he is explicitly identified as it in Revelation? among a whole host of other strange arguments.
He does have some interesting work tho, not trying to throw shade at all
Buzzard is a seeker and he is turning up some interesting information.
For example -
XI 11. and perfection of way is out of His hand. All things come to pass by His knowledge; He establishes all things by His design and without Him nothing is done.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/rels/225/Texts/1QS
For while gentle silence enveloped all things and night in its swift course was now half-gone,
15 your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne,
into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior
16 carrying the sharp sword of your authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death and touched heaven while standing on the earth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+of+Solomon+18&version=NRSVUE
Acts5:29NWT"In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men."
This article discusses some of Buzzard's views. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Anthony_Buzzard,_3rd_Baronet
http://integritysyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-Prologue-of-John.pdf
There is a lot that I find wrong with the integrity.syndicate file. I will confine myself to a few points, some of which I've said before on this blog. Furthermore, did Tyndale deny the preexistence of Christ despite his translation of the Johannine Prologue?
Why did he and the others not follow the Vulgate?
https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/john_1.htm
the pronoun αὐτοῦ can have the same form, whether it's masculine or neuter. See https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/?search=%CE%B1%E1%BD%90%CF%84%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6
So regardless of whether one renders the pronoun with "him" or "it," there is nothing erroneous about the translation. However, we're talking about the Logos, which is a masculine noun. Therefore, I favor using the translation "him" if we're going to insist that gender be couple and rendered in strict terms.
Vincent's Word Studies offers this input for John 1:10-
Him (αὐτὸν)
The preceding him (αὐτοῦ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light, "the Word regarded as a luminous principle," as it, in John 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him, so that the Word now appears as a person. This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ.
One cannot and must not conflate. If he believed in pre-existence it surely did not hinge on his understanding of the prologue.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/647334
Logos is an abstract noun in John 1? I don't think so, and why translate Logos as "reasoning"?
https://onegodworship.com/john-11-greek-philosophys-influence-part-3/
See also http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9710/1/9710_6503.PDF?UkUDh:CyT
We have association of logos with Torah (teaching not law). Reason may not be the best translation but I see what they are driving at.
I think studies have moved on somewhat since 1953.
I don't know why Tyndale did not follow the Vulgate. Note how Wycliffe handled the Prologue: https://ebible.org/engWycliffe/JHN01.htm
And I'm not trying to conflate but those who insist that the Logos is not a person/seen as a person by John often cry "checkmate!" after quoting Tyndale. Hence, I like to point out that Tyndale did not view matters that way, and I think the use of Tyndale is off-base anyway.
The argument that one should translate with a neuter in John 1 and that it tells us anything about the ontology of the Logos is again off-base. There is nothing necessarily biased or ungrammatical about using "him." If these people would study Smyth or Mounce a little more, they might see that :-)
I understand that studies have moved on, but the gender of autou/auton has not :-))
Even back in 1953, they recognized this point.
My comment about "reasoning" pertained to the fact that there is a difference between "reason" and "reasoning." Why choose the latter instead of the former as a translation? If we're being pedantic, let's go all the way.
See this discussion from 2012, which makes the point beautifully about gender in Greek: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1314&start=20
I would prefer to the a page scan of the Wycliffe prologue but "This was in the bigynnyng" makes for further ambiguity as to who he thought v3 is referring to, god or logos?
As you know, the Tyndale translations online are not accurate and they replace "it" with "him". This is why I like to see originals.
I would encourage you to check the original of Wycliffe, but I don't think they changed Wycliffe although I could be mistaken. I can see why he translated with "This" since I think that is houtos in Greek (i.e., this(one)). And I believe Wycliffe identified the Logos with God (John 1:1c), but "this one" likely goes back to the Logos, grammatically speaking. It's deictic.
"Dr. John de Wycliffe (1324?-1384) is an important person in the history of the Bible and Bible translating. Are the Wycliffe Bible versions based upon Old Latin Texts close to the Received Text or are they closer to Alexandrian Texts that influenced Jerome's Latin Vulgate? In addition, many other questions have been raised in the literature such as who were Wycliffe's close associates that participated in the work; where and when did the Lollards that were associated with him originate; and many other controversies. Modern scholars have called into question Wycliffe's participation in translating and whether he translated any of the Wycliffe Bible. Was his curate or secretary, John Purvey, a Lollard as well as a writer of the prologue and a translator and of the Late Version of the Wycliffe Bible? This work is an attempt to bring attention to the questions and contradictions in the literature. This book does not solve all the problems and questions. It is an endeavor to itemize the controversies and suggest some answers. Dr. Williams' work will present the significant conflicts in current and past literature in one place so that researchers and interested students will have a starting point.
Publisher The Old Paths Publications, Inc.; Illustrated edition (7 Aug. 2008)
Language English
Paperback 312 pages
ISBN-10 0981733980
ISBN-13 978-0981733982"
For the Wycliffe Bible, see https://ebible.org/pdf/engWycliffe/
"This was in the bigynnyng at God." Not sure how this helps your argument?
Many sites are based on a Wycliffe 1850 edition.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ioHTGNDRMxaR1i4y8
https://lichfield.ou.edu/content/wycliffe-new-testament-end-luke-prologue-john-chapter-1-john
This is probably very well known but logos doesn't have a direct English translation, many point out "Word" isn't entirely accurate, but nor is "reason" or "messenger"
As Beduhn said, to John, The Logos is not a he but an "it" like the demons
One thing I did read is Anthony does ask why do we capitalize "logos" in the prologue yet not elsewhere? My personal opinion is read John 1:2 and you'll soon know
https://library.chethams.com/collections/101-treasures-of-chethams/william-tyndales-new-testament/
From the Greek and Wycliffe from the Latin.
https://youtu.be/F4BZB79bxMk
https://youtu.be/z-7YGA47M_Y
Duncan, maybe I misunderstood your intent, but you asked about Wycliffe's possible reference when he wrote, ""This was in the bigynnyng at God." You asked whether he was referring to God or to the Logos. I was just pointing out that the reason he wrote "This" likely reflects not only the Latin but also the Greek houtos, which can be glossed as "This (one)." It may seem ambiguous as to whether he means God or the Logos, but the reference in Greek in deictic, referring back to the Logos. Another thing that indicates "this" refers to the Logos is that "this (one) was "at God." So, how could then reference be God? Or was that not your question?
Duncan, the Wycliffe link I posted is apparently not based on the 1850 edition. At least, not according to what the file says.
Appreciate the links, Duncan. I feel that the main point stands, namely, that Wycliffe used "him," but to me, this is mostly about grammar anyway.
Anonymous, I respectfully disagree with BeDuhn is that's his view of the Johannine Logos. The grammar allows for rendering autou as "it," but we could also render the pronoun with a masculine term. Furthermore, demons are spirit persons, not non-personal entities.
I agree with your remark about the capitalization of Logos and will just add that since many translators/scholars view the Logos as a person/personification, that is another reason to capitalize Logos in John 1.
https://archive.org/details/creationchristol0000endo
Creation and Christology by Endo.
and
Rethinking John 1:1-https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/63/1/article-p44_3.xml
Johannine Exegesis of God: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110921748.151/pdf
Word and Glory by Craig Evans: https://www.logos.com/product/7946/word-and-glory-on-the-exegetical-and-theological-background-of-johns-prologue
From John F. McHugh's commentary on GJohn 1-4 (pages 43-44):
One further fact should not be overlooked. In all the Latin versions,
the noun verbum, which was quite correctly assigned a neuter pronoun as
far as v. 9b, abruptly receives a masculine one in 10c (‘et mundus eum
non cognovit’), a gender it retains at 11b and 12a (‘sui eum non
receperunt’, ‘quotquot autem receperunt eum’). This is the more astonishing since the translator could have continued to use, in vv. 10-12,
the ambivalent ipsum, which had done duty in vv. 3-4 (‘omnia per
ipsum…et sine ipso… nihil’). Could it be that the Latins were (subconsciously?) relating these verses to the Incarnate Word long before
Maldonatus? The same question arises with the German versions from
Luther onwards, which follow das Wort with Er in vv. 10-12. Such
translations condition the reader to think of the Logos in 10-12 in terms
of the Incarnation, and it is essential to remember that what is in question
is whether ‘the non-acceptance by his own’ in this verse refers to the
Logos before or after the Incarnation.
McHugh makes another important point: the Latin uses verbum (a neuter noun) for the Greek Logos (a masculine word) like the German employs das Wort. That could have influenced Tyndale's translation. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/10/william-tyndales-prologue-upon-gospel.html
Beduhns exact opinion is page 131 (last paragraph) & 132
His exact words are as follows (formatting slightly altered, wording is still the same):
"A failiure to grasp the nuance of Johns thought can be seen in how several translation inappropriately introduce the male pronoun "he" into John 1:1-2. In john 1:1 both the TEV and LB use the pronoun "he" for "the word" at some point to reduce the redundancy of John saying "The Word" three times. A similar substitution of "he can be seen in John 1:2 in the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB and AB. IN this case "he" replaces "houtos" (This one). Ny using "he " instead of "This one" all of these translations suggest "The Word" is a male of some sort. The AB and the LB seem to reveal the erroneous thinking behind the translation this translation choice, when they simply substitute "Christ" for "The Word" But The Word is not Christ in the Gospel according to John. The word is a divine being intimately associated with God that at a point in time "Becomes flesh" and only then, when the Word is flesh, one can say we are dealing with Christ. The word, as we have seen , is not really a "he". It is a divine being or agency that transcends human qualities"
Unitarian I believe is what Anthony Buzzard is and he uses a similar argument for John 1:1, to try and prove The Word is not Jesus, and Christs pre-existence statements mean something other than the text says. (Which was one of my last questions for you)
I would like to get inside Craig's thoughts and his take on "mediated by the synagogue of the Diaspora"?
Tyndale and the others are working from the Greek, but to me that is fairly irrelevant as he in middle upto London English and beyond still means the same as it does today, as does it. No way round it.
Unknown, thanks for posting BeDuhn's remarks. I don't totally agree with him, but his arguments appear to be slightly different from Buzzard's. We've discussed Buzzard's views here before: and please see above for my reply on why Logos is capitalized in John 1. Most lexicons for the GNT and possibly even LSJ state that the word is personified in John 1. It's like reading Greek poetry and seeing Eros capitalized. Doesn't necessarily mean the Word is a person.
Duncan, I might have Craig Evans' book somewhere on my computer. It's been a while since I perused it.
I'm not doubting that Tyndale translated with "it." I know he did, but my objection is how that info is being used, and I think he did it that way for grammatical rather than theological reasons. See the info from John McHugh where he makes a comment about Latin translations.
There is nothing wrong with rendering the pronoun with "it," (autou), but "him" is okay too. Either way, I think it's a mistake to extract something metaphysical or ontological from grammatical gender in this case and other cases.
Btw, Unknown, I don't know many church folks who think Christ was a literal male in "his" preexistence. The masculine language doesn't necessarily mean people believe God is male, but after his "Incarnation," Trinitarians tend to reckon that Christ kept his fleshly body and is now God and man in heaven.
https://www.academia.edu/73847523/The_Gospel_of_John_and_the_New_Creation_What_beginning_Jesus_is_the_Beginning_of_Gods_New_Creation
https://restitutio.org/2018/11/15/interview-43-misunderstood-texts-about-jesus-1-bill-schlegel/
A. The most high God is not a man.
B. Jesus is a man.
C.Jesus is not the most high God.
Hosea11:9NIV"I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man..."
https://landandbible.blogspot.com/?m=1
This blog follows a few things mentioned here recently, it includes
https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-greeks-hellenists-in-gospel-of-john.html?m=1
https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/06/in-beginning-was.html?m=1
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/76027/is-the-fullness-in-colossians-119-necessarily-the-same-as-the-fullness-in-colos
Note reference to John.
Gotta take care of other things for now, but I'm well familiar with Unitarian arguments and they don't sway me anymore than Trinitarian ones do. Unitarianism is possible, but I don't find it to be probable and it makes the error of assuming that Christianity can be understood in a bubble or that we should construe passages in isolation from the bigger picture. The biggest problem for me with Unitarianism is the explicit denial of Jesus' preexistence. I likely will never believe that the Christ did not exist prior to his earthly life: and that is a different matter from whether he is God or not.
Yes, arche can be understood in different ways. But which view is the most probable one for Rev. 3:14, etc.?
Rev 3:14 is a probably the easiest to explain of them all, in the light of Rev 1:5.
Looking at the Greek of course. As I have said before, please demonstrate another theme in the letters to the congregation's that is not covered in the opening?
More importantly, I am interested how pre existence fits with Isaiah 44:24?
https://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_Isaiah.44.24.2?lang=bi
John1:10KJV"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." The new creation?
John17:5KJV"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I HAD(past tense) with thee before the world(new creation?) was." What glory was this?And when did he surrender it? And when was it restored?
Duncan, some scholars do think Rev. 3:14 can be explained in terms of 1:5. I disagree for reasons stated here before. As for themes in Revelation, they are developed progressively. Not all issues or themes can be tracked to prior verses. See the whole message to Thyatira and Laodicea.
For John 1:10 compare John 17:25.
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john17_5.html
We have been all through this before. It's not the whole messages it's the introductions.
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.
These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.
Now read through Revelation chapter 1 and compare.
John17:25KJV"O righteous Father, the world(The new creation?)hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. " Okay. And therefore?
Tyndale's theology, a dissertation: https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:5625
Duncan, I'm not sure how you understand Isaiah's language, "there was none with me." Are you asking whether any other being was with YHWH? Did any being share in creating with him or not? Just what is Isa. 44:24 supposed to disprove?
I've seen some attempt to use Isa. 44:24 coupled with other verses to prove the deity of Christ. So, just how do you read it?
Well there are some non sequiturs in this line of reasoning the plain fact is that there was a glory that Jesus possessed before the creation of mankind that he no longer did. he need not specify when he surrendered it at that moment. To simply ignore the fact that he no longer possessed that glory does not remove the problem, now during his time on earth his heavenly Father gave him glory see John1:14 which glory he shared with his apostles. But this glory is not a restoration of the glory he surrendered or there would be no need for him to pray for what he already possessed.
And why conflate the issue of Jesus preexistence with Trinitarianism? The two have no necessary connection. From my sensibilities the argument basically seems like we will ignore the Lord's plain statement that he no longer possessed this glory and suggest that we know better than he does about the matter.
Duncan, I understood that you were talking about the introductions, but my point was that themes in Revelation are unveiled progressively. You can't simply read the introductions and expect the later parts to be tied back to the intros. That's why I suggested reading the entire messages, not just the intros.
I see what you're saying about "these are the words" and Revelation, but "these are the words" refer to the messages themselves, not just to the intros. To put it another way, one can't necessarily infer from Rev. 1:5 that arche in 3:14 means "ruler." It's not that easy as BDAG shows, among other sources.
Here's another point: how many times is Jesus called "the Amen" in Revelation? What about the key of David?
@servant, I agree. Unitarians do conflate the preexistence of Christ with his supposed "deity" and I believe they have a difficult time explaining numerous verses in John's Gospels.
Here's an old conversation dealing with Revelation 3:14: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/10/adela-and-john-collins-on-revelation-314.html
Hebrews1:10,11NKJ"And:
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens(the new creation?) are the work of Your hands.
11They will perish, but You remain..."
Rev 3:14 is a good argument from trinitarianism until you look at these factors
John uses arkhon 7 times, each time translators have translated it ruler (used 3 times of Satan), arkhon is EXCLUSIVELY used for Ruler by John (yes there is an occurrence of arche in Luke which could mean "Ruler" Luke only proves an alternate meaning, not what John Meant) not one occurrence of arkhe in John is EVER translated "Ruler" - This alone bears alot of weight to the meaning
Occurrences: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5.
genitive constructions with arkhe always mean "beginning" or "start" (quick look at all occurrences confirm this) of something, never the origin or initiator, we can find a parallel to this in Job 40:19, How is that translated in most bibles? no one in their right mind would claim it means "originator" or "ruler"
I read somewhere, Jesus' simple statements of before he was in the world mean his "thinking" (Ill try find the article and cite it here)
""there was none with me."" - trinitarians love this statement, however it is flawed reasoning, How? for starters the context, it is addressed to false Gods not anything else - Job 38:7, proves God wasn't alone during creation, again context of Isaiah should be taken into account. I could cite numerous other arguments (Some in the JW reasoning book, some of other apologists) - This argument is in itself a very weak argument.
not to be annoying Edgar, how are you going with Allin's paper? looking forward to seeing what you say to a couple of points he makes which for someone with a PHD in linguistics is pretty bad.
Unknown, I will comment as able. I'm up to page 11 due to other responsibilities. Got to prepare a talk outline this week. More later
Interesting list in the comments here Edgar:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/10/adela-and-john-collins-on-revelation-314.html
from my very quick search, as usual I may well be wrong, most of these fall under the following conditions
- not a genitive expression, so doesn't count
- With other things denoting power as with the occurrence in Luke so would be understood as such
- or are genitive and and plural, so not a paralel to Rev 3:14
None of these prove what John meant only that arche can have a meaning of power, still doesnt prove it for Rev 3:14 according to Johns very consistent usage
Isaiah 22:22 - first on must ascertain what the "key" was in the first place, especially when placed on his "shoulder"?
There is one thing that really bugs me about these discussions, how things are compared to old arguments with trinitarians. They are irrelevant and are misdirection.
Assuming pre-existance leads you to ask the question you do regarding Isa. 44:24. The scripture is quite clear YHVH alone. No trinity, no helper.
Job 40:19 in the NIV that seems to be liked here -
It ranks first among the works of God, yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
This is an animal, but what would one called a person who ranks first?
Job 38:7 - if the angels are "angels", then who or what are the morning stars (plural)?
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/9-6.htm "government in his shoulder".
John 17:25 - who had not been known?
Let me suggest that you do a little more work on the usage of the word "world" in John.
https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2020/01/03/commentary-on-eusebius-ecclesiastical-history-3-39/
Unknown, the more I read about Rev. 3:14, I find more to support "beginning," not " ruler. "
Duncan, been through Job 38:7 before here. It's a basic point that verses can be understood in different ways. I still think it's highly probable that Job is referring to angels. The spirit creatures likely existed before the earth was created. I'm not going to rehearse past details at this time, but if angels were created before the earth came into being, that would have a bearing on how we understand Isaiah 44:24.
My point about the key of David was how does Revelation 1 she's light on Rev. 3:7?
For Trinitarians, YHWH is the Trinity and vice versa, so Isa. 44:24 does not rule out the Trinity for them.
Historically, Isa. 44:24 did not rule out angels for the Jews. Look at how many interpreted Genesis 1:26. Ordinary of Lyons, one of the pre-season Nicenes, believed that angels helped God to create. But he was aware of what Isaiah taught. The text must be read in context.
To put it simply, Isaiah 44:24 rules out another God being with YHWH. See the surrounding verses. It does not rule out angels being with YHWH at creation.
As I just said, if angels are "angels" then what are the morning stars (plural)? I did not think the question was a hard one.
May I suggest a straight answer to the question. How can the new creation not know the logos through which it was created?
It's not a hard question, but I said I'm not rehearsing the details at this time. I can provide a link from past discussions on the issue
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/08/job-387-angels-evidence-from-lxx-and.html
As I just said, if angels are "angels" then what are the morning stars (plural)? I did not think the question was a hard one.
As for pre existence, see Pg113 translation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/2259/1/Assmann_Solar_Discourse_1994.pdf
2000bce.
No creation would be a supplement to JEHOVAH'S power. Thus he could still take credit for any creation produced through an earlier creation being the sole source of all the information and energy in the total creation, for instance he could take credit for the existence of the mule even though he did not directly create it. Or he could take credit for mankind's existence although not being directly responsible for the overwhelming majority us
Acts17:26"And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, "
NIV of Job - "One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them."
Interestingly the Hebrew text does not actually say angels though does it?
So Job refers to angels, but not just here?
This is only evidence of discrepancy - "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice."
I will stick with the Hebrew.
Duncan, again, it's not a hard question and I thought the link that was provided answered your question. I think you know my view of Job 38:7. It's synthetic parallelism and I agree with NIV that "sons of God" in this context are the angels and "angels" = morning stars. Compare Job 1 & 2, etc. We've been through it before and I'd rather focus on something else for today :-)
The Hebrew of Job 38:7 does not gainsay the angelic interpretation. If the sons of God are angels and morning stars is synthetic paralleism, then the sons of God are the morning stars.
Strong's Commentary on kosmos John1:10"adorning, world.
Probably from the base of komizo; orderly arrangement, i.e. Decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)) -- adorning, world."
John1:14ASV"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." Nothing about the new creation Thayers lists humanity among possible meanings for cosmos again no mention of the new creation.
1) Duncan, let's not confuse sense and reference (Sinn und Bedeutung). Job 38:7 says "sons of God," which is the sense of the text, but the reference could be angels, which would then be reference or Bedeutung.
2) Along the lines of Servant's comment, I was thinking about Solomon. 1 Kings reports that he built the temple. Well, we know others actually did the construction but Solomon supervised it. There is no contradiction between the two things.
Just because I and others believe Job is talking about angels does not mean we're getting away from the Hebrew. Another way to think about the distinction I'm making (besides sense and reference) is surface structure and deep structure. What a text states on the surface is not necessarily what it means when one considers its deep structure.
Sorry for sounding irritated, but I try not to live on the Inet :-)
Revisiting things of old that are simple make me a little charged because I feel my time could be better spent. Okay, enough of my rant.
Here is one view expressed by Robert Gordis (The Book of Job Commentary, page 443):
38:7 The sons of God (Job 1:6, etc.; Ps. 29:2; 82:6) are the godlike beings
who are members of the Divine Court serving as His messengers (cf. Greek
angeloi) to do His bidding. Hence, they are equated with the natural forces
like the wind and the fire (Ps. 104:4) and here with the heavenly bodies.
The poetic imagery here may well be a reflection of older myths (e.g. Gen.
6:4), which in turn became the basis of a new astral mythology when taken
literally.
I disagree with him about the myth part, but he does identify the sons of God and links them with the morning stars. One of many works that do so.
See p. 273-274 of the Job commentary by Francis Andersen and his remarks concerning Job 38:7. He mentions that when God created "this world," he was not alone but had others with him.
The LXX in this case is clearly revisionist history. One only has to look across the board at anything in this category being rebadged as angels.
You are going to have to back up comments regarding "synthetic parallelism". This is not how Hebrew and the Semitic languages work. They say 2 things that are related, not the same.
It's a pitty that the bible never says "this world".
There would be absolutely no incentive to treat the LXX as the original wording in this case and plenty of evidence for Jobs wording in Hebrew. You call the interpretations and quote whatever you like, but to me they are revisionist history.
Servant,
https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-9.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/17-18.htm
There is no substitute for reading the texts.
But Acts uses the term differently,
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/17-24.htm
Sorry, but I disagree. I don't think it's revisionist history at all, but it's how Bible scholarship/interpretation works. Why would we just read the surface structure of a text without trying to discern its meaning/deep structure? Even the Ethiopic eunuch knew the importance of understanding what he was reading.
There is a good reason why numerous Jews concluded that sons of God in some context could = angels. There is also a precedent for viewing stars as angels or angelic beings.
Synthetic parallelism is a basic feature of Hebrew/Semitic poetry and it does allow for one idea being expressed in a line, then a synonymous idea being repeated. To say sons of God in one line and morning stars is another is not saying the "same" thing, but the two things could be related. In other words, the angels could be called "sons of God" in one line and "morning stars" in another. The senses are different but the reference is the same.
By "this world," I take Andersen to mean the material world (i.e., our world composed of matter). Even if the Bible doesn't use that exact wording in Job, the idea could be expressed. Here we meet the distinction between Wort und Begriff.
I'm not treating the LXX as original wording: I accept the Hebrew wording. However, I'm interested in the possible meaning of the Hebrew. We can't just remain stuck at surface structure. Like the eunuch, I want to know what the words mean.
John E. Hartley Commentary on Job 38:7. Notice the mention of synthetic parallelism.
From the New International Commentary on the Old Testament:
In various Near Eastern religions the morning stars were venerated as gods and goddesses. Many of them had an important role in the pantheon, esp. Venus. In this reference they are identified among the sons of God, or angels, who were created by God for special service. In Gen. 1 the stars were created on the fourth day, but here they existed at the initial stages of creation. This apparent discrepancy indicates that “the morning stars” in this context is primarily a term that forms a synonymous parallelism with “the sons of God,” who, it is assumed, existed prior to the creation of the earth. It is, therefore, used metaphorically to refer to these heavenly creatures independent of the existence of the physical stars.
Parallelism Among the Hebrew Poets
There is a literary phenomenon that appears in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) known as parallelism. A simple way to explain the subject is that one may find a) synonymous parallelism, b) antithetical parallelism and c) synthetic parallelism. Examples of type a (synonymous parallelism) include:
Job 38:7; Psalm 150:1-2; Micah 5:2.
Job 3:3 exemplifies antithetical parallelism, and Psalm 42:1 illustrates synthetic parallelism.
See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Major-Characteristics-Hebrew
The bulk of the discussion so far is here - https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/01/john-e-hartley-commentary-on-job-387.html?m=1
Other examples of synthetic parallelism:
https://www.olivetree.com/blog/poetry-bible-parallelism/
I'm not bragging but I used to teach poetic parallelism every semester up until a year ago. Synonymous parallelism says one thing, then "says about the same thing" in the next line. That is how the link above describes it and how I've long understood it.
From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
According to the logical interrelation of the members there are distinguished three kinds of parallelism:
(1) The synonymous, in which the same sentiment is repeated in different but equivalent words:(Ps. xxv. 5; comp. ib. exiv.; Num. xxiii. 7-10; Isa. lx. 1-3; etc.). "Shew me thy ways, O Lord; Teach me thy paths"Frequently the second line not merely repeats but also reenforces or diversifies the idea:(Prov. i. 31);"They shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be filled with their own devices"(I Sam. xviii. 7; comp. Isa. xiii. 7, lv. 6 et seq.; Ps. xcv. 2). "Saul hath slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands"
Linguists call synonyms overlapping relations: synonyms don't usually mean exactly the same thing but the meanings overlap.
To make things easier on myself, I copied and pasted from that link, Duncan. However, I added other info today in order to show how synonymous parallelism works and why a number of scholars identify Job 38:7 as synonymous parallelism. The Insight book explains how this kind of parallelism works too. I'm surprised you have a different understanding of SP.
From the 1973 Awake:
Rather, Hebrew poetry is distinguished by what is called parallelism. What this means can best be understood by examples.
Parallelism’s most common form is called synonymous parallelism in which the second line repeats the thought in a portion of the first line, but in different words. Psalm 24:1 is an example:
“To Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it,
The productive land and those dwelling in it.”
The phrase “To Jehovah belong” is essential to both lines. However, the terms “the earth” and “the productive land” are poetic synonyms, as are “that which fills it” and “those dwelling in it.”
Looking at the past discussion, I want to say that a word can be definite without having the definite article. It works that way in Hebrew-Aramaic and in Greek.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_100-103.pdf
Is this a parallelism? How would you know if it was or wasn't?
I know how to look deeper, probably far deeper than you as many explanations you reject out of hand if it does not fit the paradigm.
https://www.academia.edu/2454709/The_Parallelism_of_Greater_Precision._Notes_from_Isaiah_40_for_a_Theory_of_Hebrew_Poetry
I agree with this to some extent but see no reason to apply it to Job in this instance and we have already touched on examples like 1 Chronicles 16:33.
None of those apply to the new creation Duncan.
John1:9,10KJV"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him NOT."
John17:16-18KJV"They are NOT of the world, even as I am NOT of the world. 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. "
The logos precedes the world God created through him ,whether we are referring to humanity or the material world. This would require a superhuman existence that preceded his entrance into the world God created through him.
I'm not sure what you're asking me is a parallelism without reading the file. So, I can't say yet.
Maybe you look deeper into some things, but it's simply not true that I reject something out of hand because it doesn't fit the paradigm. Sorry if you've gotten that impression. I actually have read lots of literature about Hebrew parallelism whether I agreed with it or not. That is part of scholarship. Yeah, I think some ideas are stupid or not worth considering, but that does not stop me from reading deeply or broadly.
I consider my time to be valuable and don't like to waste it on what I take to be foolish or substandard ideas. I read plenty of writers who do not share my views; it's not about that for me, but whether the person does good work or not. My intent is not to brag, but I've read pretty deeply on Hebrew parallelism because I had to do it, to teach the subject.
Fair enough if you don't want to see Job 38:7 as an example of SP: some do and some don't.
Regardless of whether 38:7 is SP or not, it's seems clear to me what SP is and how it's supposed to work.
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/132-9.htm
Is this one?
How does one know synonymous parallism when he/she sees it? Well, how can one know when he/she is in the presence of metric poetry? Here is what one source states about biblical poetry:
"Psalm 104 and Job, on the other hand, are written in a poetic style. Biblical poetry, in contrast to the later Hebrew poetry of Selihot and Kinot, is not composed in rhyme. Its hallmark is parallelism, marked by pairs, sometimes triplets, of phrases, in which the second phrase repeats or modifies the first phrase in different words.1 One of many examples is Psalm 104:3, Who makes the clouds His chariots, Who walks upon the wings of the wind. By its very nature, this type of poetry requires the use of many synonyms."
See https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/index/books-of-the-bible/genesis/creation-theme-genesis-1-psalm-104-job-38-42/
You'll find a number of sources for Job 38 here: https://frankbellizzi.blogspot.com/2014/02/job-38-annotated-bibliography.html
The ones that do are probably using the LXX as a lense, IMHO it is very dangerous to do so. When people say that Jesus and others are quoting the LXX in the NT. Not sure but I think the "Transfer fallacy" might be at work here. All we can really say is that a quote might have come from a Greek source, but nothing formalised.
I personally believe there's no doubt that Ps. 132:9 is an example of parallelism. See the following links:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2juPXyan8AhV1l2oFHRM3AtsQFnoECDoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffrbible.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FPsalm-132-A-Dwelling-Place-for-the-Lord.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3meL8zbdGAuk2E2uqul80O
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj2juPXyan8AhV1l2oFHRM3AtsQFnoECDIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F319390437_The_Forms_and_Functions_of_Disjunctive_Parallelism_in_the_Psalter_With_Special_Reference_to_Psalm_132&usg=AOvVaw22f4duTY66xmj-bpRpiHlQ
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLuIviyan8AhWBl2oFHY6KCu84ChAWegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fetd.ohiolink.edu%2Fapexprod%2Frws_etd%2Fsend_file%2Fsend%3Faccession%3Dosu1399554969%26&usg=AOvVaw2baBIDiVvJBdIhNH85CvWS
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLuIviyan8AhWBl2oFHY6KCu84ChAWegQIChAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alittleperspective.com%2Fpsalm-132-chiastic-structure%2F&usg=AOvVaw3KcB6wo-Bri6poy2QF0rA6
Compare https://archive.org/details/studiesinancient0000cros
Respectfully I'll say it's not just the LXX that influences the angels understanding of Job 38:7. Before I ever knew about the LXX, I believed the angels were mentioned in 38:7 because of the "sons of God" connection and being taught it was SP in Hebrew. But I later found this view of Job 38:7 to be quite common and probably not just a result of the LXX.
Servant, my point regarding sending them into the world is not about a new creation but rather no creation in the genesis sense.
https://tabletalktheology.com/2016/04/01/new-creation-in-johns-gospel/
To my knowledge this is NOT a Unitarian, but they still observe.
https://youtu.be/nH1vyKKchco
John 1:10 - the father was in the world.
I apologise Duncan if you thought I was trying to be misleading with referencing the Rev 3:14 - The idea is to prove that other usages even in the LXX are not all syntactical parallels and cant prove Johns usage or meaning.
Job 40:19 incidentally in a lot of translations is rendered "beginning" (or something to that effect - "First" and "start" are mean the same, all work) I find the NWT's rendering slightly inconsistent here
The "sons of" idiom is a dead giveaway as to who it refers, Morning stars are also likely what Edgar said - you don't need to look far in Psalms to find parallels in which the same point is iterated in slightly different wording.
Unitarian article I referenced: https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/z932j5/how_jesus_descended_ascended_and_came_down_from/
compare: https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/zs33wh/john_114_explained_the_word_became_flesh_god/
https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/xcly7l/does_revelation_1913_prove_that_jesus_is_the_word/
Unitarians have some strange arguments which can easily be disputed - the slightly harder ones are referenced above.
Some try to use Col 1:15 to say Jesus was the firstborn of the new creation, yes "all" can have exceptions Paul himself proved this, but in light of Col 1:16-17, is it really the new creation?
Post a Comment