So the logos is identical to the God he was with? Modalism? Does anyone find it odd that the third coequal member of this supposed triad is not mentioned in this prooftext?
I think Caird sees the problem with believing the Logos was the same God he was with, so he finds it problematic to construe John 1:1c as a statement of identity. But then he muses over what John might have been doing when he wrote 1:1b and 1:1c. He leaves the matter somewhat uncertain. But I think he is not identifying the Word/Logos with the God of 1:1b. As a matter of fact, D.A. Carson criticizes Caird in the book, Exegetical Fallacies for his statements here.
Duncan, in 2 Tim. 1:9, NET Bible translates "before time began," then supplies a note.
@aservant: it's a good point that only 2 persons are mentioned in John 1:1, but I don't remember a Trinitarian bringing it up although I have read the answer that the Trinity doctrine is not all spelled out in any 1 verse.
Much later, Ovid described Hypnos as the father of Oneiroi and above all of the three dreamgods. Morpheus, who was named after the Greek word morphe (shape), as he used to take different human appearances in dreams to deliver messages from the gods [6b]. Icelos or Phobetor the one who was supposed to bring nightmares, and Phantasus the one who brought dreams of inanimate things [4]. It is not by chance that morphine, the active ingredient of opium, was named after Morpheus [13]. These three sons of sleep together with their father ruled in the sphere of dreams of ordinary people and kings alike, creating opposite sensations like euphoria or dysphoria [4].
Askitopoulou, Helen (2015). Sleep and dreams: from myth to medicine in ancient Greece. Journal of Anesthesia History, (), S2352452915200102–. doi:10.1016/j.janh.2015.03.001
Duncan, morphe has a long history in the Greek language. I think from Homer on down, and one issue is that the word can bear numerous denotations/connotations. Therefore, much time and energy has been expended trying to explain what morphe means in Philippians 2.
Duncan, I know you're familiar with those important studies that analyze αἰωνίων and its cognates. Oscar Cullmann likewise wrote a study on such words as did James Barr. Due to the contentious nature of debates about time and eternity, I'm not sure how we cut that Gordian knot to everyone's satisfaction. However, 2 Tim. 1:9 might refer to Gen. 3:15. In any event, the passage just informs us when God called anointed Christians, namely, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
It can't be before time began if eternity refers to timelessness. Another thing to consider is that this verse does not make explicit when Christ began to exist.
Agreed, but, and this is a big BUT, did god know those that were going to be among that number before time as individuals? If he knew it then POOF goes free will. If not literal then why literal elsewhere?
So many unexplained questions in the prologue, and so many words within it are NOT generally scrutinized.
Gen 1:3 - "Let there be light" :- https://biblehub.com/greek/pho_s_5457.htm
Duncan, Christendom generally says yes to your question, but Witnesses teach that God chose not to know. A number of theologians take the view that God knew the "elect" as a class but not as individuals. It's an interesting question and the responses to the question are more than I can state here, but scholars have talked about this subject endlessly.
From my experience, it seems that the words of the Prologue hav been analyzed to the nth degree, but theology controls the analyses. I grant that a lot more work needs to be done on words in the Prologue. However, bibliographic sources for the Johannine Prologue are ginormous.
On light, some have analyzed the Prologue in the light of Genesis LXX. It's just not always easy to hunt down.
Imagine a game of chess between the greatest Grandmaster ever and the worst beginner ever we all know how that game is going to end,we need not foreknow any move that either player will make to know that our hypothetical grandmaster has a certain victory assuming that is what he desires. That is how one should think of JEHOVAH'S foreknowledge. Possessing absolute logistic supremacy JEHOVAH can foreknow that he will get his way without foreknowing every detail.
@aservant, here is something I wrote way back when:
I have been perusing a book here lately by John Behr entitled The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001.
This monograph provides an interesting historical account of how the Trinity dogma developed through time. Of course, the author is pro- Trinitarian and concludes what one a priori thinks he will conclude.
But I found this passage in his work to be of interest:
"There are no applications of the term 'God' (hO QEOS) to Jesus Christ in the Synoptics, while the Gospel according to John, on the other hand, both categorically affirms and explicitly denies the applicability of this term, so presenting, again, a heightened, profound, antithetical tension. The most striking use of the term 'God' occurs in Christ's own statement, 'this is eternal life, that they might know you, the only true God (TON ALHQINON QEON), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent' (Jn 17:3). Despite associating the knowledge of Jesus Christ with the knowledge of God in the identification of eternal life, and how could it be otherwise when John repeatedly affirms that there is no other way to the Father but through the Son, nevertheless only the Father merits the title 'God' (ho QEOS). The description of this only true God as 'Father' is frequent in John" (page 60).
That's all well and good, but not what the verse in Timothy actually says, is it?
All the mental gymnastics in the world will not change the text, but once one says it is hyperbole, as in many other phrases it leaves the door wide open to a whole range of possibilities. Try as hard as we might, we cannot even say with any certainty that Genesis 1 is supposed to be a literal description. Even Genesis 2 and the "rib" explanation for the divide. Yes lots of thing can be done with a rib that might suit as an explanation but we do not know if that it is what is being said or meant.
Why do all the preferred explanations have to lean toward a miraculous?
Is that necessary to recognize the son of god?
These are BIG questions & I don't know they have scriptural answers.
When you talk about applying logic to hermeneutics, that is one approach, but the best approach?
Look at the term "light" and how it is used throughout John.
If the prologue is supposed to reflect the text then the use of LOGOS is a poor one, unless it is referring to the message and not the person.
That's the thing fully divine ought to mean possessing all that is essential to God's being entitled to exclusive Devotion. I think that would be the apostle's version of what fully God means,any other definition feels like a fudge. Now if trinitarians want to include triunity in that list of divine essentials let them go ahead,but they ought not to be surprised if nontrinitarians demand consistency re:definitions.
Duncan, I could give many examples of scholars trying to make a link between Genesis 1 and John 1. Logos understood as Word could parallel debar in Gen. 1. The light of John doesn't have to parallel strictly the light of Genesis for one account to have influenced another. See 2 Cor. 4:4-6. As I've also said before, John can speak of the Logos (Word) which was a common idea in Hellenic writings/Hellenistic Judaism, but he can go beyond the other accounts by identifying the Logos with Jesus Christ.
There is also a thesis or more that has been written about Gen. 2:7 and Jn. 20:22.
I am not asserting that logic is the best or only approach, but logic is important. I value grammar as well and other things are needed to understand the text. We're dealing with God, so miracles are not out of the question, but they're different from "magic" as one of my friends likes to say. Jehovah doesn't do magic per se.
NT writers also treat Genesis like it's a literal account, not allegorical, etc.
We have looked at the breathing on someone before and it seems that it may have already existed in the culture, but that does not answer Why it was included in the Johannine text as opposed to the others. This is imagery and to say that Jesus is associated with the logos does not make him the logos. "Who can listen to IT?".
Dan Wallace points out that over 90% of John's Gospel is unique to that work. Furthermore, over 1,700 years ago (circa), one church father described GJohn as the "spiritual Gospel." So, it is different, not being included in the Synoptics, and I agree that the breathing is imagery although he might have really done it, to symbolize the act. But it also seems like a clear allusion to Gen. 2:7 as well.
Context is so important. Of course, the logos in Jn 6:60 is not Jesus himself, but refers to his utterance or "teaching" as NIV renders the passage. It's similar with John 21:23. Logos has numerous uses/senses. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/semantics-of-greek-term-logos.html
Clearly a word is not a person, nor a person a word. However, Logos Christology was built from prior views of God's spoken word qua debar/Logos. Most scholars think that John took the Logos idea a step further in not only personifying the debar/Logos, but actually identifying Jesus as the sent forth Logos of God who became flesh. The ancient church fathers not only associated Jesus with the Logos but said he was God's Logos in human form. They also accepted his preexistence.
The prologue has no context other than the remainder of the account that follows. There is also no getting away from the fact that we have John the baptiser in the middle of it. If you are going to claim that Jesus remembered his pre existence gradually up to the point of baptism, there is no scriptural basis for it.
https://reedsburgchurch.org/archives/22195
Some useful info here on John 8. If genuine it may color the verses that follow regarding above, below, world.
I don't know why you think that church fathers have much significance to the matter. Just read how many strange ideas they had to our minds. I am not going to pick and choose from their bag.
Sorry, Duncan, but the Prologue has contexts (plural) just like many other utterances and writings. But I specifically had the literary context (also known as cotext) in mind. The other verses in the Prologue all have to be considered (1:2-18) to make sense of 1:1. My view of Jesus' preexistence does not hinge on what or when he remembered his prior life with Jehovah. We can bring that into the discussion, but it's not necessary for establishing the Son's preexistence.
Quite frankly, you speak negatively about consulting/reading the church fathers, but then you supply a link from a pastor who think the KJV is the most accurate Bible translation in English. He's wrong and I have no reason to trust his judgment. And this has nothing to do with being one of Jehovah's Witnesses but I'm making my comments strictly on the merits or lack thereof when it comes to the KJV, which I use and read myself, but it's certainly not the most accurate. Nor does John 8:1-11 belong in GJohn. There is so much evidence against John 8:1-11 being original.
I well know what the church fathers got right or wrong, especially the Latins. However, I believe that one ignores the fathers at his or her peril. Logos Christology starts too early to be ignored and one should not read Scripture in a historical vacuum. That is why I encourage people, if they can, to read the church fathers. Yet I'm not saying read the fathers only: grammar, literary material and history are important along with philology.
@aservant: thanks for the reference: ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ λόγου.
A book about the wider context of Johannine literature: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/gnosticism-docetism-and-the-judaisms-of-the-first-century-the-search-for-the-wider-context-of-the-johannine-literature-and-why-it-matters/ch10-hellenistic-judaism-and-the-prologue-of-john-s-gospel
Duncan, I will have more time later to interact with some of your comments. For now, my point was that we need to distinguish words (logoi) spoken by Jesus from the fact that (in a lot of people's minds), he is the Word (Logos). I believe there's a link, but the two must be kept distinct and it is context that can keep us from conflating uses. John 6:60 is talking about Jesus' word (teaching). However, that teaching obviously came from the Father and Jesus spoke about his intimate union with the Father throughout John.
In order to determine whether John 8:1-11 belongs in the GNT, one must not only examine KJV textual tradition, but early MSS too. What is the earliest MS in which John 8:1-11 appears? What reason do we have to believe, based on the early MSS, that the account is an original pericope? I see lots of evidence against it being original when taking into account the early MSS.
If one wants to learn why scholars treat the Prologue as a separate entity, there are plenty off discussions about that out there. Yet that was not my point and I'm not advocating for that practice although I see it as a possible way to deal with the Prologue. My point was that scholars often talk about "contexts" for the Johannine Prologue and for the whole book of GJohn. There are philosophical, political, literary, religious and other contexts that one must consider when reading a book of the Bible. I was not suggesting that we treat the Prologue as a separate unit although that is common scholarly practice.
I agree with you about the hymns and the importance of internal evidence: I'm sure you'd agree (I think) that we still need external evidence to balance the internal.
Thing is, when people like Heiser talk about using language of a period and surrounding culture to give it a different spin everyone seems fine with that. But logos must mean what the surrounding cultures meant? I have seen much regarding how the language of prajpati & Vac are so aligned with language in the Gjohn's Jesus and Word.
The link is a tenuous but the language seems related, any different to Philo? I don't think so but one is stressed and the other is ignored.
So, I work with the internals of the text as my primary guide, we really don't have anything else that is solid to work with.
I think that politics has far more to do with Revelation which may not even be from the same John.
As you know more about Church fathers, can you deny or confirm this please:-
"St Augustine affirms the authenticity of the passage, even though he knows that some mss omit it; he thinks that the reason of omission on the part of early Christian clergy was that this passage could be misunderstood and misused by Christian parishioners don that they could consider adultery a light matter and not enough seriously as to avoid it thoroughly. Which makes a logic as a matter of fact."
When speaking about, for example a social context of John, much is discussed about the use of "Jews", but after reading GOY: Israel's multiple others and the birth of the Gentile by Adi Ophir & Ishay Rozen-Zvi I dont think "Jews" means what most modern scholarship proposes.
"At the same time, we can make some statements about the general milieu (such as the tradition's Jewishness or the usefulness of broader elements of the ancient Mediterranean milieu) to a very high degree of probability, and some other statements about the sort of situation the Gospel addresses (namely, conflict with a synagogue community) to a large degree of probability."
Time permitting, I may check out Kel's video. Other priorities come first for me.
However, you mention the potential influences on the Johannine Logos: I think it's clear that not all antecedent uses of Logos could have influenced John anymore than our use of certain English words reflects all the prior uses from days of yore. They clearly do not.
There is a link between other Proto/IE languages and the lingo of the GNT. We know this by the fact that cognates are shared across languages. Now with Philo, it's the same Koine as one finds in the GNT but Philo was a philosopher/knower of things Hellenic whereas I think John was neither a philosopher nor what we might today call a classicist. According to Scripture, John was a fisherman. That is one reason why I find it a stretch to say that John got his idea of the Logos from Philo: they are two different kind of writers even if they breathed air from the same milieu.
I can believe that Augustine affirmed the genuineness of the pericope adulturae but one disadvantage with Augustine is that his Greek was not up to par, so he was dependent on then-existing Latin MSS and he was born over 300 years after Jesus. I would be more inclined to trust a Greek father's view of the matter but the early MSS are the major factor for me.
Yes I do remember the evidence you posted for synagogues. That issue might need to be reasssed like others, but I'm still inclined to believe that synagogues played an important part in ancient Jewish life.
From a linguistic perspective, abstracting from NT studies and so forth, it's evident that language and texts must have contexts. Neither Shakespeare nor Robert Burns produced their work in vacuo. One must have some knowledge of numerous sociohistorical contexts to comprehend what writers are trying to do.
But that's just it: the John 8:1-11 account comes into John's Gospel later, according to the evidence we have. I think people have become emotionally attached to the story, especially KJV types. Even the discussion in the link never mentions John 8:1-11 unless I missed it.
See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2018/12/02/why-john-7-53-8-11-and-mark-16-8ff-are-not-canonical/
To quote from that link:
"Take the sizeable variant known as the pericope of the adulteress.[1] The passage first appears in the extant manuscripts in the fifth century (e.g., Codex Bezae), and not in earlier manuscripts (e.g., P66, P75, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, as well as a number of somewhat later manuscripts). But thereafter the passage became a regular part of the Gospel of John at 7:53-8:11."
That was not my point. The perception of its content made it passive/harmless to those who interpreted both accounts a certain way, from a very legalistic perspective.
An there is no getting away from the fact that the church fathers you find useful refer to it significantly earlier than fifth century.
My concern has been to determine whether the account is original and belongs in the canon or not. I see your point and while I agreed to some extent, I departed from your take to some degree. IMO, just because an account is harmless does not mean it should be included within the canon. Maybe that was their reasoning, but it seems insufficient for taking an account as inspired and it goes against the accepted principles of TC.
There is a distinction between the pre-Nicenes (ANF) and the post-Nicenes (PNF), but I find Augustine even useful at times. Furthermore, even if the church fathers referred to the account before the fifth century, that's no guarantee that it was original. The verses are simply not in the early Greek MSS at all. The Latins had another textual tradition that included the Vetus Latina, then later, the Latin Vulgate. And we pretty much know that "glosses" crept into that Latin tradition although as I've said before, Jerome took translation seriously.
John21:25KJV"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
I can't argue with that verse, possibly except for the "Amen" part. It makes sense that not everything Jesus did and said was recorded. Imagine what the Bible would look like if the early Christians did include everything. We might be carrying around books the equivalent of the Babylonian Talmud. :-)
In all seriousness, I can't say 100% that the passage does not belong: in these cases, one can only make an inductive case for the inclusion or exclusion of an account/pericope. But when one weighs the current evidence, I think there is a very high probability that the text was not original or canonical, even if it's based on things that Jesus said or did.
Urban Wahlde makes a strong case for not viewing John 8:1-11 as original, but he seems to think it's rooted in some actual deed of Jesus. Assuming that is true, I still don't think we should make it part of the canon if it was not in the early MSS.
Since the three earliest manuscripts are patchy to say the least and do not appear to have any of John 8, it is a problem. But this whole idea of canon is very problematic. Take for example that verse that was missing from a psalm in any manuscript you want too for the last 2000 years & then they find it recently in the DSS. So the fact that the manuscripts don't have it does not really mean that much.
Look at Psalms 135:6 DSS.
6 Whatever Yahweh pleased, that he has done,in heaven and in earth, to do as he has done, there is none like Yah, there is none like Yahweh, and there is none who does as king of the gods in the seas and in all deeps;
You can argue anyway you like on this because the fact is, it has survived and we can read it. Do you argue it by circulation over time? But what about verses in rescent bible revisions that have adopted wording or missing words from the DSS? Where do we draw the lines between canon and there versions? We hear so much about weight of manuscript numbers or just one of "high quality".
1) I'm one person who will never say everything is fixed or proven: I know better and that's not a brag, but the way I truly feel.
2) With all respect, I disagree that lack of occurrences in the MSS don't mean much. If we don't have an objective measure for what should/should not be in our Bibles, then anything seems to go. Granted, there can be cases like you mention, but when a reading doesn't show up until much later or does not appear in the older MSS at all, why should we put it in the Bible and make it appear genuine when it's likely not? Here's another example: what about 1 Tim. 3:16 and theos? That reading does not occur until the 8th or 9th century. KJV has it, but the probability of that reading being genuine is slim to none. 1 John 5:7 is another example which the "Holy See" even rejects as being genuine.
3) Textual criticism is somewhat subjective, but not entirely. We're dealing with probabilities, but not all probabilities are the same. As we learn with inductive arguments, some arguments are strongly probable but others are weakly probable. The data or evidence makes the difference. I will cede that we have some examples like the one you mention, but the examples I've pointed out above like 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:7 have a lot going against them in terms of their genuineness.
4) On the other hand, I ran across an example the other day where Bruce Metzger rated a reading as C in his textual commentary, but scholars now ted to think it's a probable reading. It can happen, but I see scholars who will cite all the reasons John 8:1-11 is probably not genuine, then they still want to include the text without sufficient reason. Can't help but believe that tradition and emotion drive many of these decisions.
Assessing the probabilities of texts: Luke 22:19-20 as a test case-https://www.academia.edu/16897558/_Balancing_Probabilities_Assessing_the_Manuscript_Evidence_of_Luke_22_19b_20_
Yes, but again, I am arguing from the other direction.
That verse I quoted from the DSS psalms will not be included in any modern bible for obvious reasons, it does not fit the theology. But weren't the writers/copyists of the DSS monotheists? We have Persian kings who were call in inscriptions "king of kings" and there may be other titles we recognise like "Cesar is lord", I am still checking.
I don't think that facts have that much to do with any of the final arguments regarding a verse being included or excluded.
I am sure that if we did not have those verses from John but still had the church father comments, everyone would be seeking out this text, and they would probably add in or accept a piece of text that "fit".
I don't find Ps. 135:6 DSS problematic at all nor do I see why any monotheist should find it to be problematic. "King of the gods" is not a contravention of monotheism.
I think Nebuchadnezzar is called something like "kings of kings" as well. See Dan. 2:37. On the Caesar is lord, compare 1 Cor. 12:3.
Facts don't have much to do with verses being included/excluded? Maybe for some (most?) that is true, but I think textual critics and scholars of the text do let facts guide their judgments, for the most part. Everyone has their presuppositions/biases, but I can think of numerous examples where a text was excluded although it would support someone's theology. I've already cited two instances: 1 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 5:7. There is also Rev. 1:8: learned Trinitarians even acknowledge that the KJV is off on this verse. I see scholars often excluding texts that would "fit" their theology. Anyone who takes their work seriously should have this attitude.
I'm not going to quibble about Yah/Jah, but one source reports that scholars generally think this is a shortened form of the divine name YHWH. Like many things, we cannot say for sure (with absolute certainty) that this is the case. The Psalms besides DSS use both forms.
Good question about shortened forms in the Tanakh.
As for the Cappadocians, I would need to see both references in the Greek, but the quote from Nyssa likely is not from 1 Tim. 3:16. Those who contend otherwise have to contend with the fact that no MSS have been found in antiquity that have that reading. And I would be very suspicious about theos or the verse being in Chrysostom. Again, it's important to consult the primary texts.
Try convincing a Trinitarian that theos in 1 Tim. 3:16 doesn't prove Christ's deity :-)
William Mounce (Word Biblical Commentary): ὅς, “who,” has the best attestation, being read by * A* C* F G 33 365 442 2127 sy hmg pal got aethpp and some church fathers (Orlat Epiph Jerome Theodore Eutherius [according to Theodoret] Cyr Liberatus), and refers to Jesus. It is a typical way to introduce a hymn (cf. Phil 2: 6 and Col 1: 15), and it is not necessary to locate an antecedent in the text. The neuter ὅ, “which,” in the Western text probably arose as an attempted correction of the ὅς, making μυστήριον, “mystery,” the subject of the hymn. It therefore supports ὅς as the original reading. It is read by D* and almost all of the Latin tradition. θεός, which makes God the subject of the hymn, is read by the Byzantine text and correctors (c Ac C2 D2 Ψ). In majuscule script, ὅς is OC, and the abbreviation for θεός is , so one could be mistaken for the other. More likely, ὅς was changed to θεός in an attempt to glorify Christ as God. It is almost inconceivable that a scribe would change θεός to a pronoun. The pronoun is also more difficult because there is no antecedent.
NABRE Footnote: * [3:16] Who: the reference is to Christ, who is himself “the mystery of our devotion.” Some predominantly Western manuscripts read “which,” harmonizing the gender of the pronoun with that of the Greek word for mystery; many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read “God,” possibly for theological reasons.
I did not check any critical texts for the Cappadocians but I will take Metzger's word for it that theos appears in Chrysostom and Nyssa along with other writers/texts belonging to the Byzantine tradition. But the western texts don't have that reading.
If the Byzantine writers have it, the reading is still late, and in terms of Greek MSS, one doesn't find the variant until the 8th/9th century. Another weird thing that NET and others bring out is why would a scribe change theos to hos? It doesn't make a lot of sense plus there is the issue of grammatical gender with 1 Tim. 3:16.
From A.T. Robertson's WP, commenting on 1 Tim. 3:16:
He who (ov). The correct text, not qeov (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus (Syrian text) nor o (neuter relative, agreeing with musthrion) the reading of the Western documents. Westcott and Hort print this relative clause as a fragment of a Christian hymn (like Ephesians 5:14) in six strophes. That is probably correct. At any rate ov (who) is correct and there is asyndeton (no connective) in the verbs. Christ, to whom ov refers, is the mystery (Colossians 1:27; Colossians 2:2).
The JPS paper give no justification for a YAH being a short form, it is merely assumed.
Yehovah does have other names/titles, and this is one of them, unless proven otherwise. Modern analogies are not going to cut it.
We know that Jesus is a short form of Joshua and there are other examples Josephus etc. But that is not biblical Hebrew. Comparative examples are required.
But where's the proof that Yah is a different name from YHWH (Jehovah)? Admittedly, I've read that the dominant view is that Yah is a shortened form of the divine name, but does that mean every scholar is just assuming this is the case? Not exactly. Arguments have been made for viewing Yah as a short/shortened form of the Tetra. See Robert J. Wilkinson's book: he discusses evidence based on the Elephantine settlement and he considers the issue of theophoric names. He's not dogmatic, but he's not just making assumptions either and he seems open-minded about this issue. See also Exodus 17:16.
Also compare Frank Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iao.
And as I already asked, if no other short forms can be found in ancient Hebrew then why would on even begin to assume that it should be a short form?
Why not look for another meaning, still a title for Yehovah, but with its own meaning.
I remember asking Benner about this many years ago, not something he had thought about but he thought I had a good point. After a while he came back to me with a conjecture based on similar terms and thought it could mean "constant". Which may not be that far removed in meaning from "rock".
I think the point of arguing from theophoric names is that they're supposed to contain the shortened form for YHWH, not that they are equivalent to the name.
I'm not going to enter the discussion about Jew vs. Israelite right now, but I could cite many sources that call the settlement, "Jewish" or something to that effect. For me, it's a minor detail in this discussion.
There may be other short forms; I cannot say for sure. On the other hand, I've not seen any evidence for viewing Yah (Jah) as a separate name either. I read Heiser's article about the divine name and he says Yah is a shortened form of YHWH. Based on that article, I think, I checked out Isa. 12:2; 26:4 in the NET Bible, verses where Yah and YHWH appear. In both cases, NET suggested dittography as an explanation for the usage. Hope I don't have this mixed up because I've read a lot today, but while I disagee with the dittography explanation, I wonder why else would Isaiah have written the divine name that way? Btw, Yah hardly ever appears in prose except maybe in Exodus.
From Kristin De Troyer's paper, "The Names of God" (p. 6):
"The shorter forms of the name of God seem also to be pronounced independently of personal names. The Samaritans thus seem to have pronounced the Name of God as Jaho or Ja. That the shorter names of God were pronounced is also mentioned by Theodoretus. In his work on Exodus, more precisely in Questio 15, he speaks about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. He states that the Samaritans pronounced it Iabe/, whereas the Jews pronounced it Ia/.29 The shorter name of God is also used in the Bible. An obvious example is the short phrase 'Allelujah' (praise to Jah)."
De Troyer maintains that when one deals with the name of God, he/she must take into account the Elephantine and Samaritan papyri. She thenb writes:
"The Elephantine papyri date to the fifth century BCE, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri stem from the fourth century BCE The Elephantine papyri contain the correspondence from the Jewish officials of the Elephantine community to the officials in Samaria and Jerusalem regarding the rebuilding of their recently destroyed temple."
She could be wrong, but I respect what she has to say in view of all the work she's done on the DN.
Looking at the abstract, I don't see a denial that they were Jewish, but the writer insists that's secondary and their religion is Israelitish. Okay, but a Jew can practice Israelite religion. Either way, I'm not that bothered with calling them Israelites.
Dunca, I'm not sure why Benner suggested the meaning "constant" for Yah, but do you know anyone else who advocates this meaning, and what is the basis for this suggestion?
I didn't watch the Benner video yet, but bookmarked it. I must say that after reading the description and comments, I'm suspicious about what I will hear. This will be 6:11 of my life that I cannot get back.
On the Israelite/Jew issue, also see Romans 9:1-13; Philippians 3:4-5. Compare Rom. 2 and 3. His discussion in those chapters makes little sense unless Paul was a Jew.
#Duncan: you asked if any other name in scripture had a shortened form; numbers13:16KJV"These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua." You are probably more familiar the form Joshua. Psalm76:2NIV"His tent is in Salem,
his dwelling place in Zion." Here we have a shortened form for the name of what was then ancient Israel's capital Jerusalem.
Just for clarification, an analogy to short form would be how many people I know call me Dunc instead of Duncan. It's a short form in English. But in the names original language (Celtic) saying Dunc would be gibberish, because the name has an actual meaning, the construction is specific. Just like in old English we have sir names like wheeler, smith, potter etc. These still exist but nowadays most people do not think what it actually meant in a kind of cast system and father to son education.
There is two ways of rendering each name within the construct state. Baal which means lord, does not have to mean a deity of any kind. These could easily say lord merib and lord esh. Even though most biblical dictionary's will make a false worship/ deity connection. Ancient Hebrew has many pitfalls and unless we have enough occurrences we cannot really be sure what is being said, that's why many Hebrew names & place names are just transliterated.
The latest JPS Tanakh study edition is a useful translation as it tells you many of the words and phrases that are uncertain, but even they do not tell all.
We've gotten far away from the initial point of this thread, but one thing I caught in Benner's video is that he said Genesis 11:28 contains the same word (or it's spelled the same) as the word for "light" in Genesis 1:3. How could that possibly be true?
Here's another example, Benner tries to compare Genesis 5:32 and Joshua 9:12, but the word for Ham in 5:32 is Strong's 2526 whereas the word in Joshua is Strong's 2525.
Benners comment regarding "constant" is a guess for me, a punt. Not something he would publish. I can ask him why he thought that. The point is that words in Hebrew have meaning. What it is not, is a shortened version of YHWH, no matter how tempting it might seem. There is no basis in the language to assume that.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary 28. Ur—now Orfa; that is, "light," or "fire." Its name probably derived from its being devoted to the rites of fire-worship. Terah and his family were equally infected with that idolatry as the rest of the inhabitants (Jos 24:15).
The "angel of the LORD/Jehovah" in Exod 3:2 is not necessarily God, as Benner claims, but could be a representaive of God, which is what Witnesses believe.
Keep in mind that JFB is an outdated/old source. Strong's and BDB show them as two different words. Some books point out that Ur might have come from ohr, but the fact remains that they're two different words. See https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/U/ur.html
This is invariably "Ur of [the] Chaldees" (אוּר כִּשׂדַּים, Ur Kasdim; Sept. ἡ χώρα τῶν Χαλδαϊvων; Vulg. Ur Chaldceorum [but in Nehemiah ignis Chaldceorum]). The oldest derivation of the word 1. is from the Heb. אוּר, or אוֹר, light, in the sense of fire (so the Targum and Jerome). This derivation is no doubt connected with the legends in the Koran and Talmud, which represent Abraham as escaping by miracle from the flames into which Nimrod or other idolatrous persecutors had thrown him (see Wagner, in the Thesaur. Theol. philol. 1, 173). Various other etymologies have been proposed: some taking the word as הֹר, a mountain; some as denoting the east, or the light giving region; while Ewald, from the Arabic, makes it "place of sojourn," and others look to the Zendic vara, afolrt (Gesen.), or the Sanscrit ur, a town, or even the Heb, עַיר a city (Bonomi, Nineveh, p. 41). The name, however, was probably indigenous, and belongs to the old Chaldee of the first empire, the Assyrian Uru, and the cuneiform Hur.
The "common wisdom" for now in Hebrew studies is that Yah is a shortened form of Yahweh/Jehovah. That wisdom might change in the future, but I'm cool with it for now. Hallelujah (and its various other forms) seems to be an example of the shorter form of YHWH.
As I understand Strong's, it's not saying they're the same word, but that they have the same etymology. Two different things. Moreover, the words are two different parts of speech, so they cannot be the same words.
The difference is vowl pointings that did not exist in the text until much later. I am not going to argue about the theory of a an oral tradition that has no support.
The city is named "peace" Salem because that is what it's inhabitants hoped would come to it from JEHOVAH and it was the location of his sanctuary for centuries. Unfortunately things didn't always work out as its inhabitants hoped. Here is cambridge's commentary(from biblehub) on the text" God has once more revealed Himself in Zion, by shattering the power of the foes which assailed her" Psalm76:3-6"There he broke the flashing arrows,
the shields and the swords, the weapons of war. b
4You are radiant with light,
more majestic than mountains rich with game.
5The valiant lie plundered,
they sleep their last sleep;
not one of the warriors
can lift his hands.
6At your rebuke, God of Jacob,
both horse and chariot lie still." The psalm is clearly referring to the seat of royal government and is an acknowledgement of JEHOVAH'S protection of Zion from her enemies. In the days of the psalmist she was called Jerusalem but the psalmist reverts to an older name in poetry.see Genesis14:18 In fact the psalm is believed to refer to JEHOVAH's miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from assyrian king Sennacherib. See 2Chronicles32
Duncan, when you mention vowel pointings, I think there's more to the cham/ham issue than vowel pointings. This also has to do with etymology, which can be highly speculative. But if one goes by the lexicons and concordances, (etc.), the words cannot be the same. As I mentioned earlier, a proper name and adjective are two different parts of speech, even if an adjective can function substantivally.
@Duncan our brother Paul/Saul was a Benjaminite yet he called himself a Jew so by the 1st century the terms Israelite and Jew were bring used interchangeably e.g John5:1ESV"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Here is Barnes commentary "A feast - Probably the Passover, though it is not certain. There were two other feasts - the Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles - at which all the males were required to be present, and it might have been one of them. It is of no consequence, however, which of them is intended." obviously though this is called a feast/festival of the Jews it would apply to all the children of Israel.
Zion was not the city of Jerusalem, if you know the geography of the Tel.
It is part of Jerusalem now.
"Mount Zion is a hill in Jerusalem, located >>just outside the walls of the Old City<<. The term Mount Zion has been used in the Hebrew Bible first for the City of David and later for the Temple Mount, but its meaning has shifted and it is now used as the name of ancient Jerusalem's Western Hill." Wikipedia
Do not forget, Mount Zion (Har Zion CF. Har Megiddo).
Servant, Somewhere in this dialogue I reference a book about the goy. I recommend you read it, especially in terms of how the Johannine text uses the term "Jew" and how it might be understood.
Also the book by Jason A. Staples - The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity
This book was initiated to some extend by the first.
I think I am still waiting for Edgar to read it and his criticisms?
Let's try to stick to substantive issue Jerusalem is the only salem associated with Zion,the only salem where the sanctuary of JEHOVAH was located and the only Salem that JEHOVAH miraculously delivered from a siege the preponderance of evidence Strongly suggest that Jerusalem is the Salem mentioned at Psalm 76
The way the bible uses the word is more important than extra biblical theories John18:20NIV"“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the JEWS come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” Obviously all Israelites would be included in that statement Jesus may. John4:23NIV"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the JEWS " again obviously all Israelites would be included. John18:33"Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? " Pilate was referring to the entire nation not any single tribe. John18:35,36KJV"Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."The priest for instance were from tribe of Levi but they were called Jews.
Samaritans are an ethnoreligious group who originate from the ancient Israelites. They are native to the Levant and adhere to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic and ethnic religion. Wikipedia
As opposed to pilates accusations and discussion see what Jesus actually agrees with at John 1:49. King of Isreal. There is no such thing as a plain reading of gjohn.
You are making my point for me Duncan Jews and Israel are synonyms and the accusations weren't Pilate's Pilate said his own nation made the accusations.
Also, look at how "Jews" is used in Mathew. The Maggi are seeking "king of the Jews".
In Mat 27:11 does Jesus admit to the title "king of the Jews"? I am going to need some major justification regarding the language here for anyone who says yes.
Mat 27:29 comes the mockery and then follows the sign on the tree again.
John 19:38 was he frightened of Isreal & what city did he come from https://biblehub.com/text/luke/23-51.htm , an Israelite city or a city of Jews. There is far more distinction than many like to admit.
There is no evidence of any distinction being made between the terms Jew and Israelite anywhere in the N.T Duncan. If you provide some actual evidence from the scriptures I'd be happy to consider it.
Does he deny being king of the Jews? Duncan because until you demonstrate from the scriptures that there is distinction between the terms Jew and Israelite the burden of proof is all yours.
My main concern is what can be demonstrated from the scriptures themselves. They use the terms Jew and Israelite interchangeably. Suggesting that at the very least they are not mutually exclusive.
I never finished the book by Staples and don't have much to say on this thread anymore. Maybe I will read him one day, but his other writings have not inspired me to read his thoughts on Israel. Besides, I've got many other things that I have to read for school, and the meetings, etc.
I did look at the reformed church link and find many of their references (most) to be irrelevant. Who claims that all references to Israel in the GNT signified the Christian ecclesia? When it comes to Rom. 11:26, I wonder how all of Israel will be saved today. Will also people living in Israel convert to Christianity? Just how is this massive convesion going to take place?
Servant, What examples of parallel accounts switch between the two terms? So one says Isreal and the other Jew.
Edgar, how things may or may not happen, is that my concern? When something is proven incorrect it does not require a new solution, only the need to look for one.
Servant, If you want to back up your point then you can demonstrate overlap in different accounts similar to https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-heaven-God.html
Duncan, if one goes by the Bible, he or she should be concerned about how God's purposes might be fulfilled. However, my question is more about understanding a Bible verse. Besides grammar and theology, I ask which interpretation makes sense or is more probable. While an entire group or nation of people might convert before the eschaton comes, it seems unlikely to me. More importantly, why should I believe that's what Paul meant?
Duncan, as an illustration, if you're on a trip, then find out you're heading the wrong way, you would need to do more than look for a new solution. I would turn around and start going the right way in order to reach my destination.
Have you read any of the scriptures I gave you and meditated on them.e.g Paul's referring to himself as a Jew even though he was a Benjaminite. Jesus is called both the king of the Jews and and the king of Israel,the priest are called Jews even though they are Levites the Passover is called a festival of the Jews even though all Israelites were law bound to observe it. It seems to me like you need to produce a verse that distinguishes between Jews and Israelites to claim a prima facie case for your contention.
I have no point to prove you're the one claiming that Jew and Israelite are mutually exclusive terms without a shred of evidence when Paul declares himself a Jew see acts21:39 is it your position that this conflicts with his claim to being an Israelite see Romans11:1
Servant, sorry it does not work that way. You did not read the paper I posted. Sola scriptura does not work. Paul's use of Jew and gentile are concentrated in a particular letter to a certain audience. Paul's category of gentile does not exist in other period documents and it does not even exist to any great extent in his other letters. With his binary divide in that letter all are Jew or gentile.
The usage of Jew in each gospel is basically reserved for the repeats of the same account and the Maggi who certainly do no depict an accurate perception, remember that they are from Herod. Jews seems tied up with accounts of the political systems and usages of Isreal are the common man.
We know that we have other different turns of phrase dependant on audience - "it is written" & "you heard it said".
You see Paul's two letters as proof of commonality "Paul the Jew" and "Paul the isrealite/Hebrew". I however do not because the overall language of the letters are quite different and the usages are not accidental.
If the entire nation was the answer then the Isreal of god would be an unnecessary term, however, they are still Isreal, unless you can demonstrate otherwise? Why should 144000 be a literal number? This imagery is all about the 12 tribes. The tribe names in revelation are irrelevant because there are legitimate reasons for name changes, it is the 12. The 12 minor prophets, the 12 disciples. All this imagery is Isreal. Paul was seeking the 10 tribes. Legalistically, circumcision was not for all of Isreal. Forget first century accepted practise that all isrealites should be circumcised. The other sheep are out from the 10 tribes which have mixed with every other nation on the planet. This is how all nations come to the mountain.
Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin not Judah from which the term Jew is derived. And you have asserted that the term Israelite and Jew are not synonymous you have not demonstrated it from scripture.
Duncan, I didn't mention temple, land or any of that. My point was whether a nation or group who currently do not accept Christ as the messiah will one day convert as a whole to Christianity. If someone understands all Israel in Rom. 11:26 to be fleshly Israel, that is what he/she seems to be contending.
I acknowledged that it could happen, but that interpretation seems less likely when all factors are considered, including the context of Rom. 11:26
To be honest, I have never really understood what "inspired" is supposed to mean? Also what is "infallable"? I am not looking for dictionary definitions. I am referring to each letter having its own context or as Edgar calls it, Sitz im Leben.
One letter Paul he is himself an Israelite and the other to the "Jews a Jew".
I see no contradiction. And for my point of view at the moment I believe that every word of the bible has purpose and is there for a reason for its specific use, not just a general terms.
A true but controversial example I can give is how cleverly used "Corona virus", "COVID-19" & "SARS-COV-2" and have also been grievously misused over the last 3 years. They have all ben used to mean one thing but they are not one thing.
The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them. (Exodus 12:37,38)
And you know that pages and pages have been written about inspiration. As a matter of fact, there is no one view/theory of inspiration, but I think Insight lays out clearly enough what inspiration likely is. I will let Servant speak for himself, but inspiration at the very least implies the words in the Bible originate with God and they're not merely human words. Jehovah guided the writers, but gave them freedom to express things according to their diction.
1Corinthians9:20NIV"(To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 2Corinthians11:22NIV"Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I." So Paul became under law when he stopped being an israelite? And that's not all Paul became, 1Corinthians9:21,22"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. " Leaving aside the circular logic,I'm not sure how any of this is supposed to help your case.
I haven't seen a scripture where a distinction is made between Jew and Israelite perhaps if you can produce one we can make some progress out of this rut.
2Timothy3:16NIV"All Scripture is God-breathed(theopnuestos)and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," in other words JEHOVAH's thoughts in the writer's words. But remember the prophet concurs with JEHOVAH's conclusions so God trusts him enough to allow him to editorialize to a degree but everything is happening under aegis of JEHOVAH'S spirit.
John1:19NIV"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" Of course even though these priest and their levitical assistants were descendants of Levi and not Judah they were still considered Jews,another point here is the fact that Levites and priest are distinguished from each other even though the two terms were related ,priests being a subdivision of Levites. Now if Jews and Israelites were distinct in the same way as you claim there ought to be (at least) one verse that distinguishes the two in the way that the terms priests and Levites are distinguished in this verse
There is no rut and you are not actually listen to what Paul had to say. Remember what I said, every word is there for a reason. You are conflating Paul becoming a Jew and Paul becoming under law as one action. From your perspective, who would not already know that Paul was already a Jew, he was happy to tell his story. The whole concept of "Christian" has not been formed yet. He would be a Jew following a/the messiah. So his stance on law and his status as Jew are two separate things.
Here is a great example of an uninspired translation of verse 20:-
New International Version To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
>> New Living Translation When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.<<<
That is not what the text says and they insert gentile to make a contrast with Jew - ITS NOT THERE.
Whoa! One can be a priest of the Jews without being a Jew? You are really going to have to show me that scripture. And I thought that you had earlier agreed that a levite was a Jew? Have you changed your position? And if so why? Likely you would agree that a priest must be a levite and thus must be a Jew, i.e if you decide to return to your original position.
Romans3:1,2"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." As you know Moses and his brother Aaron principle instructors in JEHOVAH'S Torah were both Levites. Originally the tablets of stone and the original Torah were archived in the ark of the covenant entrusted to the levitical priest. Thus based on our brother Paul's statement it would seem that the Levites in general and the levitical priests in particular were as Jewish as it gets.
The Hellenes, therefore, were not necessarily ethnic Greeks as we know them today. Instead, they included groups we now know of as Assyrians, Egyptians, >>>Jews<<<, Arabs, and Armenians among others.
Acts 12:11, NIV: Then Peter came to himself and said, 'Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen.
I am not conflating anything Paul declares that he became as one under law when witnessing to those under law,I am simply taking the man at his word. He also said he became as a Greek when witnessing to the Greeks and as one not bound by law to those not bound by Law I am simply trying to figure out what any of this has to do with the substantive issue which remains whether in first century usage the the terms Jew and Israelite were synonymous
"Context is everything" agreed so are the Israel of God spiritual Jews. Romans2:28,29NIV"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."
There is plenty of evidence that diaspora isrealites may of may not have been circumcised. Been over this with Edgar before and I am not rehearsing it again.
1Corinthians9:20NIV"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." What are you talking about.
Again what does whether the certain Jews lived up to their obligations under the law have to do with the substantive issue of whether Jew and Israelite are synonyms. Romans2:21NIV"you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?" So Paul acknowledges that not all who were under law lived up to the law. Incidentally many gentiles practiced circumcision. All irrelevant and let's say that members of other tribes became Levites ,of what relevance would that be, Levites as a whole were Jews despite not for the most part being descendants of Judah. It would also be true that members of other tribes and even gentiles were adopted into the tribe of Judah. Again this is more of your being argumentative in lieu of making any actual argument.
@Duncan,you claimed that Christians were not a distinct sect when Paul wrote his epistles. Acts11:26NIV"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." So this is at the very beginning of Paul's ministry. Christians had fully separated themselves and we're publicly identified as Christians even by unbelievers. Acts26:28KJV"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. " King Herod Agrippa knew Christians as a distinct sect.
212 comments:
1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»So the logos is identical to the God he was with?
Modalism? Does anyone find it odd that the third coequal member of this supposed triad is not mentioned in this prooftext?
John 17:5 - 2 Tim 1:9
@aservant:
I think Caird sees the problem with believing the Logos was the same God he was with, so he finds it problematic to construe John 1:1c as a statement of identity. But then he muses over what John might have been doing when he wrote 1:1b and 1:1c. He leaves the matter somewhat uncertain. But I think he is not identifying the Word/Logos with the God of 1:1b. As a matter of fact, D.A. Carson criticizes Caird in the book, Exegetical Fallacies for his statements here.
Duncan, in 2 Tim. 1:9, NET Bible translates "before time began," then supplies a note.
@aservant: it's a good point that only 2 persons are mentioned in John 1:1, but I don't remember a Trinitarian bringing it up although I have read the answer that the Trinity doctrine is not all spelled out in any 1 verse.
https://biblehub.com/greek/morphe__3444.htm
https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/gods/morpheus/
https://www.rxlist.com/morpheus/definition.htm
Much later, Ovid described Hypnos as the father of Oneiroi and above all of the three dreamgods. Morpheus, who was named after the Greek word morphe (shape), as he used to take different human appearances in dreams to deliver messages from the gods [6b]. Icelos or Phobetor the one who was supposed to bring nightmares, and Phantasus the one who brought dreams of inanimate things [4]. It is not by chance that morphine, the active ingredient of opium, was named after Morpheus [13]. These three sons of sleep together with their father ruled in the sphere of dreams of ordinary people and kings alike, creating opposite sensations like euphoria or dysphoria [4].
Askitopoulou, Helen (2015). Sleep and dreams: from myth to medicine in ancient Greece. Journal of Anesthesia History, (), S2352452915200102–. doi:10.1016/j.janh.2015.03.001
https://biblehub.com/greek/aio_nio_n_166.htm
Duncan, morphe has a long history in the Greek language. I think from Homer on down, and one issue is that the word can bear numerous denotations/connotations. Therefore, much time and energy has been expended trying to explain what morphe means in Philippians 2.
Professor Carl Conrad once set forth these remarks on Phil. 2:6-7:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/04/carl-conrads-remarks-on-philippians-26.html
Duncan, I know you're familiar with those important studies that analyze αἰωνίων and its cognates. Oscar Cullmann likewise wrote a study on such words as did James Barr. Due to the contentious nature of debates about time and eternity, I'm not sure how we cut that Gordian knot to everyone's satisfaction. However, 2 Tim. 1:9 might refer to Gen. 3:15. In any event, the passage just informs us when God called anointed Christians, namely, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
It can't be before time began if eternity refers to timelessness. Another thing to consider is that this verse does not make explicit when Christ began to exist.
Agreed, but, and this is a big BUT, did god know those that were going to be among that number before time as individuals? If he knew it then POOF goes free will. If not literal then why literal elsewhere?
So many unexplained questions in the prologue, and so many words within it are NOT generally scrutinized.
Gen 1:3 - "Let there be light" :- https://biblehub.com/greek/pho_s_5457.htm
Duncan, Christendom generally says yes to your question, but Witnesses teach that God chose not to know. A number of theologians take the view that God knew the "elect" as a class but not as individuals. It's an interesting question and the responses to the question are more than I can state here, but scholars have talked about this subject endlessly.
From my experience, it seems that the words of the Prologue hav been analyzed to the nth degree, but theology controls the analyses. I grant that a lot more work needs to be done on words in the Prologue. However, bibliographic sources for the Johannine Prologue are ginormous.
On light, some have analyzed the Prologue in the light of Genesis LXX. It's just not always easy to hunt down.
Imagine a game of chess between the greatest Grandmaster ever and the worst beginner ever we all know how that game is going to end,we need not foreknow any move that either player will make to know that our hypothetical grandmaster has a certain victory assuming that is what he desires.
That is how one should think of JEHOVAH'S foreknowledge. Possessing absolute logistic supremacy JEHOVAH can foreknow that he will get his way without foreknowing every detail.
@aservant, here is something I wrote way back when:
I have been perusing a book here lately by John Behr entitled The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001.
This monograph provides an interesting historical account of how the Trinity dogma developed through time. Of course, the author is pro- Trinitarian and concludes what one a priori thinks he will conclude.
But I found this passage in his work to be of interest:
"There are no applications of the term 'God' (hO QEOS) to Jesus
Christ in the Synoptics, while the Gospel according to John, on the
other hand, both categorically affirms and explicitly denies the
applicability of this term, so presenting, again, a heightened,
profound, antithetical tension. The most striking use of the
term 'God' occurs in Christ's own statement, 'this is eternal life,
that they might know you, the only true God (TON ALHQINON QEON), and
Jesus Christ, whom you have sent' (Jn 17:3). Despite associating the
knowledge of Jesus Christ with the knowledge of God in the
identification of eternal life, and how could it be otherwise when
John repeatedly affirms that there is no other way to the Father but
through the Son, nevertheless only the Father merits the title 'God'
(ho QEOS). The description of this only true God as 'Father' is
frequent in John" (page 60).
Yet Behr still holds to the view that the tres personae are all fully divine.
That's all well and good, but not what the verse in Timothy actually says, is it?
All the mental gymnastics in the world will not change the text, but once one says it is hyperbole, as in many other phrases it leaves the door wide open to a whole range of possibilities. Try as hard as we might, we cannot even say with any certainty that Genesis 1 is supposed to be a literal description. Even Genesis 2 and the "rib" explanation for the divide. Yes lots of thing can be done with a rib that might suit as an explanation but we do not know if that it is what is being said or meant.
Why do all the preferred explanations have to lean toward a miraculous?
Is that necessary to recognize the son of god?
These are BIG questions & I don't know they have scriptural answers.
When you talk about applying logic to hermeneutics, that is one approach, but the best approach?
Look at the term "light" and how it is used throughout John.
If the prologue is supposed to reflect the text then the use of LOGOS is a poor one, unless it is referring to the message and not the person.
Not forgetting John 20:22.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G1720&t=KJV&ot=LXX&word=%E1%BC%90%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%86%E1%BD%BB%CF%83%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%BD
That's the thing fully divine ought to mean possessing all that is essential to God's being entitled to exclusive Devotion. I think that would be the apostle's version of what fully God means,any other definition feels like a fudge. Now if trinitarians want to include triunity in that list of divine essentials let them go ahead,but they ought not to be surprised if nontrinitarians demand consistency re:definitions.
Duncan, I could give many examples of scholars trying to make a link between Genesis 1 and John 1. Logos understood as Word could parallel debar in Gen. 1. The light of John doesn't have to parallel strictly the light of Genesis for one account to have influenced another. See 2 Cor. 4:4-6. As I've also said before, John can speak of the Logos (Word) which was a common idea in Hellenic writings/Hellenistic Judaism, but he can go beyond the other accounts by identifying the Logos with Jesus Christ.
There is also a thesis or more that has been written about Gen. 2:7 and Jn. 20:22.
I am not asserting that logic is the best or only approach, but logic is important. I value grammar as well and other things are needed to understand the text. We're dealing with God, so miracles are not out of the question, but they're different from "magic" as one of my friends likes to say. Jehovah doesn't do magic per se.
NT writers also treat Genesis like it's a literal account, not allegorical, etc.
Duncan, see https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Structure-of-the-Johannine-Prologue-and-Genesis-Coloe/2f779b21176534f4437619420340101689d651c7
We have looked at the breathing on someone before and it seems that it may have already existed in the culture, but that does not answer Why it was included in the Johannine text as opposed to the others. This is imagery and to say that Jesus is associated with the logos does not make him the logos. "Who can listen to IT?".
Dan Wallace points out that over 90% of John's Gospel is unique to that work. Furthermore, over 1,700 years ago (circa), one church father described GJohn as the "spiritual Gospel." So, it is different, not being included in the Synoptics, and I agree that the breathing is imagery although he might have really done it, to symbolize the act. But it also seems like a clear allusion to Gen. 2:7 as well.
Which Bible verse are you quoting?
https://biblehub.com/text/john/6-60.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/8-36.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/10-35.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/21-23.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/2-41.htm
4:4 & 4:29
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/job/4-12.htm
Context is so important. Of course, the logos in Jn 6:60 is not Jesus himself, but refers to his utterance or "teaching" as NIV renders the passage. It's similar with John 21:23. Logos has numerous uses/senses. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/semantics-of-greek-term-logos.html
Clearly a word is not a person, nor a person a word. However, Logos Christology was built from prior views of God's spoken word qua debar/Logos. Most scholars think that John took the Logos idea a step further in not only personifying the debar/Logos, but actually identifying Jesus as the sent forth Logos of God who became flesh. The ancient church fathers not only associated Jesus with the Logos but said he was God's Logos in human form. They also accepted his preexistence.
And the use in Job? Probably older.
The prologue has no context other than the remainder of the account that follows. There is also no getting away from the fact that we have John the baptiser in the middle of it. If you are going to claim that Jesus remembered his pre existence gradually up to the point of baptism, there is no scriptural basis for it.
https://reedsburgchurch.org/archives/22195
Some useful info here on John 8. If genuine it may color the verses that follow regarding above, below, world.
https://www.logos.com/product/47044/in-the-beginning-we-misunderstood-interpreting-genesis-1-in-its-original-context
I don't know why you think that church fathers have much significance to the matter. Just read how many strange ideas they had to our minds. I am not going to pick and choose from their bag.
Stick with the text.
Acts14:12NIV"Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker(logos)."
Sorry, Duncan, but the Prologue has contexts (plural) just like many other utterances and writings. But I specifically had the literary context (also known as cotext) in mind. The other verses in the Prologue all have to be considered (1:2-18) to make sense of 1:1. My view of Jesus' preexistence does not hinge on what or when he remembered his prior life with Jehovah. We can bring that into the discussion, but it's not necessary for establishing the Son's preexistence.
Quite frankly, you speak negatively about consulting/reading the church fathers, but then you supply a link from a pastor who think the KJV is the most accurate Bible translation in English. He's wrong and I have no reason to trust his judgment. And this has nothing to do with being one of Jehovah's Witnesses but I'm making my comments strictly on the merits or lack thereof when it comes to the KJV, which I use and read myself, but it's certainly not the most accurate. Nor does John 8:1-11 belong in GJohn. There is so much evidence against John 8:1-11 being original.
I well know what the church fathers got right or wrong, especially the Latins. However, I believe that one ignores the fathers at his or her peril. Logos Christology starts too early to be ignored and one should not read Scripture in a historical vacuum. That is why I encourage people, if they can, to read the church fathers. Yet I'm not saying read the fathers only: grammar, literary material and history are important along with philology.
@aservant: thanks for the reference: ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ λόγου.
A book about the wider context of Johannine literature: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/gnosticism-docetism-and-the-judaisms-of-the-first-century-the-search-for-the-wider-context-of-the-johannine-literature-and-why-it-matters/ch10-hellenistic-judaism-and-the-prologue-of-john-s-gospel
One of many that points this out.
Another book that talks about the "contexts" of the Prologue: https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/1656860/TOC
Looking but not seeing. John 6:60 or any of the other usages in John are in the light of a single verse, John 14:10.
Whose word, within whom?
The KJV is another textual tradition and we do not have all of their witnesses so I make no comment. Translator bias, sure, they all have it.
Those papers treat the prologue as a separate entity. Again, evidence please?
Before any other context can be applied the internal evidence must be scrutinised. They get it backward.
We know of other passages that are conveniently treated as "hymns" inserted into text, with no real evidence to back up the claims.
Some insight about the in me and in him language is given in 10:27.
Duncan, I will have more time later to interact with some of your comments. For now, my point was that we need to distinguish words (logoi) spoken by Jesus from the fact that (in a lot of people's minds), he is the Word (Logos). I believe there's a link, but the two must be kept distinct and it is context that can keep us from conflating uses. John 6:60 is talking about Jesus' word (teaching). However, that teaching obviously came from the Father and Jesus spoke about his intimate union with the Father throughout John.
In order to determine whether John 8:1-11 belongs in the GNT, one must not only examine KJV textual tradition, but early MSS too. What is the earliest MS in which John 8:1-11 appears? What reason do we have to believe, based on the early MSS, that the account is an original pericope? I see lots of evidence against it being original when taking into account the early MSS.
If one wants to learn why scholars treat the Prologue as a separate entity, there are plenty off discussions about that out there. Yet that was not my point and I'm not advocating for that practice although I see it as a possible way to deal with the Prologue. My point was that scholars often talk about "contexts" for the Johannine Prologue and for the whole book of GJohn. There are philosophical, political, literary, religious and other contexts that one must consider when reading a book of the Bible. I was not suggesting that we treat the Prologue as a separate unit although that is common scholarly practice.
I agree with you about the hymns and the importance of internal evidence: I'm sure you'd agree (I think) that we still need external evidence to balance the internal.
Thing is, when people like Heiser talk about using language of a period and surrounding culture to give it a different spin everyone seems fine with that. But logos must mean what the surrounding cultures meant? I have seen much regarding how the language of prajpati & Vac are so aligned with language in the Gjohn's Jesus and Word.
The link is a tenuous but the language seems related, any different to Philo? I don't think so but one is stressed and the other is ignored.
So, I work with the internals of the text as my primary guide, we really don't have anything else that is solid to work with.
I think that politics has far more to do with Revelation which may not even be from the same John.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JDZcCH4-cakJ:https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/Manuscript-History-and-John&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Interesting point about OG Exod 32:15.
As you know more about Church fathers, can you deny or confirm this please:-
"St Augustine affirms the authenticity of the passage, even though he knows that some mss omit it; he thinks that the reason of omission on the part of early Christian clergy was that this passage could be misunderstood and misused by Christian parishioners don that they could consider adultery a light matter and not enough seriously as to avoid it thoroughly. Which makes a logic as a matter of fact."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/62329/origin-of-john-81-11
When speaking about, for example a social context of John, much is discussed about the use of "Jews", but after reading GOY: Israel's multiple others and the birth of the Gentile by Adi Ophir & Ishay Rozen-Zvi I dont think "Jews" means what most modern scholarship proposes.
Kel is back with a new video regarding AIONS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkMzyD_DUi8
"At the same time, we can make some statements about the general milieu (such as the tradition's Jewishness or the usefulness of broader elements of the ancient Mediterranean milieu) to a very high degree of probability, and some other statements about the sort of situation the Gospel addresses (namely, conflict with a synagogue community) to a large degree of probability."
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gospel-of-john/4#note1120
Even this, remember the documentary evidence that I posted a while ago regarding the lack of evidence for synagogues in the period?
Time permitting, I may check out Kel's video. Other priorities come first for me.
However, you mention the potential influences on the Johannine Logos: I think it's clear that not all antecedent uses of Logos could have influenced John anymore than our use of certain English words reflects all the prior uses from days of yore. They clearly do not.
There is a link between other Proto/IE languages and the lingo of the GNT. We know this by the fact that cognates are shared across languages. Now with Philo, it's the same Koine as one finds in the GNT but Philo was a philosopher/knower of things Hellenic whereas I think John was neither a philosopher nor what we might today call a classicist. According to Scripture, John was a fisherman. That is one reason why I find it a stretch to say that John got his idea of the Logos from Philo: they are two different kind of writers even if they breathed air from the same milieu.
I can believe that Augustine affirmed the genuineness of the pericope adulturae but one disadvantage with Augustine is that his Greek was not up to par, so he was dependent on then-existing Latin MSS and he was born over 300 years after Jesus. I would be more inclined to trust a Greek father's view of the matter but the early MSS are the major factor for me.
Yes I do remember the evidence you posted for synagogues. That issue might need to be reasssed like others, but I'm still inclined to believe that synagogues played an important part in ancient Jewish life.
From a linguistic perspective, abstracting from NT studies and so forth, it's evident that language and texts must have contexts. Neither Shakespeare nor Robert Burns produced their work in vacuo. One must have some knowledge of numerous sociohistorical contexts to comprehend what writers are trying to do.
On the matter about Augustine, see https://www.academia.edu/12523386/Augustine_et_al_on_the_woman_taken_in_adultery_Jn_7_53_8_11_
https://engenderedideas.wordpress.com/2020/10/17/was-the-woman-at-the-well-john-4-an-adulteress/
Maybe this is why this other account was never messed with.
But that's just it: the John 8:1-11 account comes into John's Gospel later, according to the evidence we have. I think people have become emotionally attached to the story, especially KJV types. Even the discussion in the link never mentions John 8:1-11 unless I missed it.
See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2018/12/02/why-john-7-53-8-11-and-mark-16-8ff-are-not-canonical/
To quote from that link:
"Take the sizeable variant known as the pericope of the adulteress.[1] The passage first appears in the extant manuscripts in the fifth century (e.g., Codex Bezae), and not in earlier manuscripts (e.g., P66, P75, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, as well as a number of somewhat later manuscripts). But thereafter the passage became a regular part of the Gospel of John at 7:53-8:11."
Hard for me to believe it's original.
That was not my point. The perception of its content made it passive/harmless to those who interpreted both accounts a certain way, from a very legalistic perspective.
An there is no getting away from the fact that the church fathers you find useful refer to it significantly earlier than fifth century.
My concern has been to determine whether the account is original and belongs in the canon or not. I see your point and while I agreed to some extent, I departed from your take to some degree. IMO, just because an account is harmless does not mean it should be included within the canon. Maybe that was their reasoning, but it seems insufficient for taking an account as inspired and it goes against the accepted principles of TC.
There is a distinction between the pre-Nicenes (ANF) and the post-Nicenes (PNF), but I find Augustine even useful at times. Furthermore, even if the church fathers referred to the account before the fifth century, that's no guarantee that it was original. The verses are simply not in the early Greek MSS at all. The Latins had another textual tradition that included the Vetus Latina, then later, the Latin Vulgate. And we pretty much know that "glosses" crept into that Latin tradition although as I've said before, Jerome took translation seriously.
Or I should say just because an account is allegedly harmless, that does not justify including it.
John21:25KJV"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
I can't argue with that verse, possibly except for the "Amen" part. It makes sense that not everything Jesus did and said was recorded. Imagine what the Bible would look like if the early Christians did include everything. We might be carrying around books the equivalent of the Babylonian Talmud. :-)
In all seriousness, I can't say 100% that the passage does not belong: in these cases, one can only make an inductive case for the inclusion or exclusion of an account/pericope. But when one weighs the current evidence, I think there is a very high probability that the text was not original or canonical, even if it's based on things that Jesus said or did.
Urban Wahlde makes a strong case for not viewing John 8:1-11 as original, but he seems to think it's rooted in some actual deed of Jesus. Assuming that is true, I still don't think we should make it part of the canon if it was not in the early MSS.
Agreed,we can't be dogmatic about these things,but if only for the sake of credibility it ought to be clear that we've done our due diligence.
@aservant, I concur wholeheartedly
https://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html
Since the three earliest manuscripts are patchy to say the least and do not appear to have any of John 8, it is a problem. But this whole idea of canon is very problematic. Take for example that verse that was missing from a psalm in any manuscript you want too for the last 2000 years & then they find it recently in the DSS. So the fact that the manuscripts don't have it does not really mean that much.
Look at Psalms 135:6 DSS.
6 Whatever Yahweh pleased, that he has done,in heaven and in earth, to do as he has done, there is none like Yah, there is none like Yahweh, and there is none who does as king of the gods in the seas and in all deeps;
You can argue anyway you like on this because the fact is, it has survived and we can read it. Do you argue it by circulation over time? But what about verses in rescent bible revisions that have adopted wording or missing words from the DSS? Where do we draw the lines between canon and there versions? We hear so much about weight of manuscript numbers or just one of "high quality".
It's really rather subjective.
I can sympathise with the kjv-onlyist. Its comforting to think it's all fixed and proven. But is that the reality? Clearly not.
Duncan,
1) I'm one person who will never say everything is fixed or proven: I know better and that's not a brag, but the way I truly feel.
2) With all respect, I disagree that lack of occurrences in the MSS don't mean much. If we don't have an objective measure for what should/should not be in our Bibles, then anything seems to go. Granted, there can be cases like you mention, but when a reading doesn't show up until much later or does not appear in the older MSS at all, why should we put it in the Bible and make it appear genuine when it's likely not? Here's another example: what about 1 Tim. 3:16 and theos? That reading does not occur until the 8th or 9th century. KJV has it, but the probability of that reading being genuine is slim to none. 1 John 5:7 is another example which the "Holy See" even rejects as being genuine.
3) Textual criticism is somewhat subjective, but not entirely. We're dealing with probabilities, but not all probabilities are the same. As we learn with inductive arguments, some arguments are strongly probable but others are weakly probable. The data or evidence makes the difference. I will cede that we have some examples like the one you mention, but the examples I've pointed out above like 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:7 have a lot going against them in terms of their genuineness.
4) On the other hand, I ran across an example the other day where Bruce Metzger rated a reading as C in his textual commentary, but scholars now ted to think it's a probable reading. It can happen, but I see scholars who will cite all the reasons John 8:1-11 is probably not genuine, then they still want to include the text without sufficient reason. Can't help but believe that tradition and emotion drive many of these decisions.
Assessing the probabilities of texts: Luke 22:19-20 as a test case-https://www.academia.edu/16897558/_Balancing_Probabilities_Assessing_the_Manuscript_Evidence_of_Luke_22_19b_20_
Yes, but again, I am arguing from the other direction.
That verse I quoted from the DSS psalms will not be included in any modern bible for obvious reasons, it does not fit the theology. But weren't the writers/copyists of the DSS monotheists? We have Persian kings who were call in inscriptions "king of kings" and there may be other titles we recognise like "Cesar is lord", I am still checking.
I don't think that facts have that much to do with any of the final arguments regarding a verse being included or excluded.
I am sure that if we did not have those verses from John but still had the church father comments, everyone would be seeking out this text, and they would probably add in or accept a piece of text that "fit".
On a side note, those DSS psalms that use both Yehovah and Yah demonstrate that it is not a short form but rather another title of related meaning.
I don't find Ps. 135:6 DSS problematic at all nor do I see why any monotheist should find it to be problematic. "King of the gods" is not a contravention of monotheism.
I think Nebuchadnezzar is called something like "kings of kings" as well. See Dan. 2:37. On the Caesar is lord, compare 1 Cor. 12:3.
Facts don't have much to do with verses being included/excluded? Maybe for some (most?) that is true, but I think textual critics and scholars of the text do let facts guide their judgments, for the most part. Everyone has their presuppositions/biases, but I can think of numerous examples where a text was excluded although it would support someone's theology. I've already cited two instances: 1 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 5:7. There is also Rev. 1:8: learned Trinitarians even acknowledge that the KJV is off on this verse. I see scholars often excluding texts that would "fit" their theology. Anyone who takes their work seriously should have this attitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations
I'm not going to quibble about Yah/Jah, but one source reports that scholars generally think this is a shortened form of the divine name YHWH. Like many things, we cannot say for sure (with absolute certainty) that this is the case. The Psalms besides DSS use both forms.
Hebrew poetry/song parallels two words with related meaning. I would be very interested in any other names that have a short form in the Tanakh?
But to know that Gregory of Nyssa writes in Book IV of Against Eunomius:
How then was it that “God [θεός] was manifested in the flesh”? “
And, John Chrysostom writes:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God [θεός] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.
But even if this was the correct rendering, I would certainly not mean what Trinitarians would like it to.
Good question about shortened forms in the Tanakh.
As for the Cappadocians, I would need to see both references in the Greek, but the quote from Nyssa likely is not from 1 Tim. 3:16. Those who contend otherwise have to contend with the fact that no MSS have been found in antiquity that have that reading. And I would be very suspicious about theos or the verse being in Chrysostom. Again, it's important to consult the primary texts.
Try convincing a Trinitarian that theos in 1 Tim. 3:16 doesn't prove Christ's deity :-)
That would hardly take place where I live
William Mounce (Word Biblical Commentary): ὅς, “who,” has the best attestation, being read by * A* C* F G 33 365 442 2127 sy hmg pal got aethpp and some church fathers (Orlat Epiph Jerome Theodore Eutherius [according to Theodoret] Cyr Liberatus), and refers to Jesus. It is a typical way to introduce a hymn (cf. Phil 2: 6 and Col 1: 15), and it is not necessary to locate an antecedent in the text. The neuter ὅ, “which,” in the Western text probably arose as an attempted correction of the ὅς, making μυστήριον, “mystery,” the subject of the hymn. It therefore supports ὅς as the original reading. It is read by D* and almost all of the Latin tradition. θεός, which makes God the subject of the hymn, is read by the Byzantine text and correctors (c Ac C2 D2 Ψ). In majuscule script, ὅς is OC, and the abbreviation for θεός is , so one could be mistaken for the other. More likely, ὅς was changed to θεός in an attempt to glorify Christ as God. It is almost inconceivable that a scribe would change θεός to a pronoun. The pronoun is also more difficult because there is no antecedent.
NABRE Footnote: * [3:16] Who: the reference is to Christ, who is himself “the mystery of our devotion.” Some predominantly Western manuscripts read “which,” harmonizing the gender of the pronoun with that of the Greek word for mystery; many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read “God,” possibly for theological reasons.
I did not check any critical texts for the Cappadocians but I will take Metzger's word for it that theos appears in Chrysostom and Nyssa along with other writers/texts belonging to the Byzantine tradition. But the western texts don't have that reading.
If the Byzantine writers have it, the reading is still late, and in terms of Greek MSS, one doesn't find the variant until the 8th/9th century. Another weird thing that NET and others bring out is why would a scribe change theos to hos? It doesn't make a lot of sense plus there is the issue of grammatical gender with 1 Tim. 3:16.
On the name Yah, see https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/421/JBQ_421_4_Yah.pdf
J.K. Elliott Thesis on the Pastoral Epistles: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1a50b4bf-b587-4a41-a4ac-e35c5c0989e3
From A.T. Robertson's WP, commenting on 1 Tim. 3:16:
He who (ov). The correct text, not qeov (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus (Syrian text) nor o (neuter relative, agreeing with musthrion) the reading of the Western documents. Westcott and Hort print this relative clause as a fragment of a Christian hymn (like Ephesians 5:14) in six strophes. That is probably correct. At any rate ov (who) is correct and there is asyndeton (no connective) in the verbs. Christ, to whom ov refers, is the mystery (Colossians 1:27; Colossians 2:2).
The JPS paper give no justification for a YAH being a short form, it is merely assumed.
Yehovah does have other names/titles, and this is one of them, unless proven otherwise. Modern analogies are not going to cut it.
We know that Jesus is a short form of Joshua and there are other examples Josephus etc. But that is not biblical Hebrew. Comparative examples are required.
https://net.lib.byu.edu/imaging/negev/names.html
"The name of Yah was never spelled out in full in any of the inscriptions."
But where's the proof that Yah is a different name from YHWH (Jehovah)? Admittedly, I've read that the dominant view is that Yah is a shortened form of the divine name, but does that mean every scholar is just assuming this is the case? Not exactly. Arguments have been made for viewing Yah as a short/shortened form of the Tetra. See Robert J. Wilkinson's book: he discusses evidence based on the Elephantine settlement and he considers the issue of theophoric names. He's not dogmatic, but he's not just making assumptions either and he seems open-minded about this issue. See also Exodus 17:16.
Also compare Frank Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iao.
Anat-yahu is not yah. It's a simple as that. Anything else is conjecture.
The designation of elephantine island as Jewish is incorrect, it is more correctly Israelite.
The inscriptions as listed BYU are from a period far older, more in line with Exodus. Much older than the 4th to 5th century elephantine evidence.
And as I already asked, if no other short forms can be found in ancient Hebrew then why would on even begin to assume that it should be a short form?
Why not look for another meaning, still a title for Yehovah, but with its own meaning.
I remember asking Benner about this many years ago, not something he had thought about but he thought I had a good point. After a while he came back to me with a conjecture based on similar terms and thought it could mean "constant". Which may not be that far removed in meaning from "rock".
I think the point of arguing from theophoric names is that they're supposed to contain the shortened form for YHWH, not that they are equivalent to the name.
I'm not going to enter the discussion about Jew vs. Israelite right now, but I could cite many sources that call the settlement, "Jewish" or something to that effect. For me, it's a minor detail in this discussion.
There may be other short forms; I cannot say for sure. On the other hand, I've not seen any evidence for viewing Yah (Jah) as a separate name either. I read Heiser's article about the divine name and he says Yah is a shortened form of YHWH. Based on that article, I think, I checked out Isa. 12:2; 26:4 in the NET Bible, verses where Yah and YHWH appear. In both cases, NET suggested dittography as an explanation for the usage. Hope I don't have this mixed up because I've read a lot today, but while I disagee with the dittography explanation, I wonder why else would Isaiah have written the divine name that way? Btw, Yah hardly ever appears in prose except maybe in Exodus.
From Kristin De Troyer's paper, "The Names of God" (p. 6):
"The shorter forms of the name of God seem also to be pronounced independently of personal names. The Samaritans thus seem to have pronounced the Name of God as Jaho or Ja. That the shorter names of God were pronounced is also mentioned by Theodoretus. In his work on Exodus, more precisely in Questio 15, he speaks about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. He states that the Samaritans pronounced it Iabe/, whereas the Jews pronounced it Ia/.29 The shorter name of God is also used in the Bible. An obvious example is the short phrase 'Allelujah' (praise to Jah)."
De Troyer maintains that when one deals with the name of God, he/she must take into account the Elephantine and Samaritan papyri. She thenb writes:
"The Elephantine papyri date to the fifth century BCE, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri stem from the fourth century BCE The Elephantine papyri contain the correspondence from the Jewish officials of the Elephantine community to the officials in Samaria and Jerusalem regarding the rebuilding of their recently destroyed temple."
She could be wrong, but I respect what she has to say in view of all the work she's done on the DN.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3270076
Looking at the abstract, I don't see a denial that they were Jewish, but the writer insists that's secondary and their religion is Israelitish. Okay, but a Jew can practice Israelite religion. Either way, I'm not that bothered with calling them Israelites.
If yah were to have a meaning akin to constant then exodus 15:2 could have a very different translation.
Pettifog:mirriam Webster's definition;to quibble over insignificant details :
@ Duncan Acts22:3NIV"“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia,..." Was Paul an Israelite?
https://youtu.be/y9p2tzyKIkE
Dunca, I'm not sure why Benner suggested the meaning "constant" for Yah, but do you know anyone else who advocates this meaning, and what is the basis for this suggestion?
Sorry, Duncan.
I didn't watch the Benner video yet, but bookmarked it. I must say that after reading the description and comments, I'm suspicious about what I will hear. This will be 6:11 of my life that I cannot get back.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089208099255?journalCode=jota
Yahweh and Baal in the Book of Judges.
On the Israelite/Jew issue, also see Romans 9:1-13; Philippians 3:4-5. Compare Rom. 2 and 3. His discussion in those chapters makes little sense unless Paul was a Jew.
#Duncan: you asked if any other name in scripture had a shortened form; numbers13:16KJV"These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua." You are probably more familiar the form Joshua.
Psalm76:2NIV"His tent is in Salem,
his dwelling place in Zion."
Here we have a shortened form for the name of what was then ancient Israel's capital Jerusalem.
There is absolutely nothing in benners video that is controversial. He just gets the point across simply.
https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/13-16.htm
A renaming not a short form. You know, like Abraham and Brahma.
What does Salem/salim mean and how else could you translate that verse?
Eg. Is lehem a short form of Betlehem?
For Psalm 76:2 see benners video.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2015-05-17/ty-article/why-is-jerusalem-called-jerusalem/0000017f-e60f-da9b-a1ff-ee6f668c0000
Just for clarification, an analogy to short form would be how many people I know call me Dunc instead of Duncan. It's a short form in English. But in the names original language (Celtic) saying Dunc would be gibberish, because the name has an actual meaning, the construction is specific. Just like in old English we have sir names like wheeler, smith, potter etc. These still exist but nowadays most people do not think what it actually meant in a kind of cast system and father to son education.
Merib-Baal & Mephibosheth.
Same person I think.
These are not short forms.
Two of Saul's sons have interesting names: Merib-baal and Esh-baal.
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Merib-baal.html
There is two ways of rendering each name within the construct state. Baal which means lord, does not have
to mean a deity of any kind. These could easily say lord merib and lord esh. Even though most biblical dictionary's will make a false worship/ deity connection. Ancient Hebrew has many pitfalls and unless we have enough occurrences we cannot really be sure what is being said, that's why many Hebrew names & place names are just transliterated.
The latest JPS Tanakh study edition is a useful translation as it tells you many of the words and phrases that are uncertain, but even they do not tell all.
All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews.
We've gotten far away from the initial point of this thread, but one thing I caught in Benner's video is that he said Genesis 11:28 contains the same word (or it's spelled the same) as the word for "light" in Genesis 1:3. How could that possibly be true?
Here's another example, Benner tries to compare Genesis 5:32 and Joshua 9:12, but the word for Ham in 5:32 is Strong's 2526 whereas the word in Joshua is Strong's 2525.
Benners comment regarding "constant" is a guess for me, a punt. Not something he would publish. I can ask him why he thought that. The point is that words in Hebrew have meaning. What it is not, is a shortened version of YHWH, no matter how tempting it might seem. There is no basis in the language to assume that.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. Ur—now Orfa; that is, "light," or "fire." Its name probably derived from its being devoted to the rites of fire-worship. Terah and his family were equally infected with that idolatry as the rest of the inhabitants (Jos 24:15).
Another corrction: in Genesis 2:17, the Hebrew noun for death is not used, but rather, the Hebrew verb.
The "angel of the LORD/Jehovah" in Exod 3:2 is not necessarily God, as Benner claims, but could be a representaive of God, which is what Witnesses believe.
Keep in mind that JFB is an outdated/old source. Strong's and BDB show them as two different words. Some books point out that Ur might have come from ohr, but the fact remains that they're two different words. See https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/U/ur.html
This is invariably "Ur of [the] Chaldees" (אוּר כִּשׂדַּים, Ur Kasdim; Sept. ἡ χώρα τῶν Χαλδαϊvων; Vulg. Ur Chaldceorum [but in Nehemiah ignis Chaldceorum]). The oldest derivation of the word 1. is from the Heb. אוּר, or אוֹר, light, in the sense of fire (so the Targum and Jerome). This derivation is no doubt connected with the legends in the Koran and Talmud, which represent Abraham as escaping by miracle from the flames into which Nimrod or other idolatrous persecutors had thrown him (see Wagner, in the Thesaur. Theol. philol. 1, 173). Various other etymologies have been proposed: some taking the word as הֹר, a mountain; some as denoting the east, or the light giving region; while Ewald, from the Arabic, makes it "place of sojourn," and others look to the Zendic vara, afolrt (Gesen.), or the Sanscrit ur, a town, or even the Heb, עַיר a city (Bonomi, Nineveh, p. 41). The name, however, was probably indigenous, and belongs to the old Chaldee of the first empire, the Assyrian Uru, and the cuneiform Hur.
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/250.html
#2526 חָם Cham {khawm}
the same as H2525;
The "common wisdom" for now in Hebrew studies is that Yah is a shortened form of Yahweh/Jehovah. That wisdom might change in the future, but I'm cool with it for now. Hallelujah (and its various other forms) seems to be an example of the shorter form of YHWH.
And what did the indigenous word mean? Can't you see just how meaningless these works can become.
I work with the text we actually have, not speculations that cannot be supported.
https://www.pealim.com/dict/4167-mavet/
As I understand Strong's, it's not saying they're the same word, but that they have the same etymology. Two different things. Moreover, the words are two different parts of speech, so they cannot be the same words.
Doesn't "the angel of the lord" bring us back to the circular argumentation of John 1:1?
The difference is vowl pointings that did not exist in the text until much later. I am not going to argue about the theory of a an oral tradition that has no support.
The city is named "peace" Salem because that is what it's inhabitants hoped would come to it from JEHOVAH and it was the location of his sanctuary for centuries. Unfortunately things didn't always work out as its inhabitants hoped. Here is cambridge's commentary(from biblehub) on the text" God has once more revealed Himself in Zion, by shattering the power of the foes which assailed her"
Psalm76:3-6"There he broke the flashing arrows,
the shields and the swords, the weapons of war. b
4You are radiant with light,
more majestic than mountains rich with game.
5The valiant lie plundered,
they sleep their last sleep;
not one of the warriors
can lift his hands.
6At your rebuke, God of Jacob,
both horse and chariot lie still."
The psalm is clearly referring to the seat of royal government and is an acknowledgement of JEHOVAH'S protection of Zion from her enemies. In the days of the psalmist she was called Jerusalem but the psalmist reverts to an older name in poetry.see Genesis14:18
In fact the psalm is believed to refer to JEHOVAH's miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from assyrian king Sennacherib. See 2Chronicles32
See https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ham.html
It says two different names with two different meanings.
Duncan, when you mention vowel pointings, I think there's more to the cham/ham issue than vowel pointings. This also has to do with etymology, which can be highly speculative. But if one goes by the lexicons and concordances, (etc.), the words cannot be the same. As I mentioned earlier, a proper name and adjective are two different parts of speech, even if an adjective can function substantivally.
I'm going to be away from my computer and phone for a bit, so I'll moderate comments later. Got to take care of other stuff.
Anonymous, my quoting the Cyclopedia or any other work does not always mean endorsement of the work, nor of everything that the work states.
Servant, see the article I posted from haaretz.com.
Is Salem an interpretation or reinterpretation?
I am not going to ignore the archeology. But there is nothing conclusive either way
https://biblehub.com/text/judges/19-10.htm
This is interesting also.
Does the Cambridge commentary mention any of this?
Edgar, the anonymous comment was mine. Not sure how that happened.
@Duncan our brother Paul/Saul was a Benjaminite yet he called himself a Jew so by the 1st century the terms Israelite and Jew were bring used interchangeably e.g John5:1ESV"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem."
Here is Barnes commentary
"A feast - Probably the Passover, though it is not certain. There were two other feasts - the Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles - at which all the males were required to be present, and it might have been one of them. It is of no consequence, however, which of them is intended." obviously though this is called a feast/festival of the Jews it would apply to all the children of Israel.
Zion was not the city of Jerusalem, if you know the geography of the Tel.
It is part of Jerusalem now.
"Mount Zion is a hill in Jerusalem, located >>just outside the walls of the Old City<<. The term Mount Zion has been used in the Hebrew Bible first for the City of David and later for the Temple Mount, but its meaning has shifted and it is now used as the name of ancient Jerusalem's Western Hill." Wikipedia
Do not forget, Mount Zion (Har Zion CF. Har Megiddo).
https://megiddoexpedition.wordpress.com
It's as least as old as Jerusalem if not older.
Another interesting verse is
1 Chronicles 11:5
5 The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, “You will not come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, now the city of David.
Was the city of David Jerusalem?
Only a few areas of the Tel's have been excavated, but who knows what will be found.
Check out this obfuscation.
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/2-6.htm
A hill or a mountain? The answer is neither and both, as the difference between the two is a modern phenomena.
Hill of my holy or my holy hill?
Note the construct.
There is satirical film entitled - The Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain.
It was based on the arbitrary difference in designation based on someone's opinion of the minimum height for a mountain as opposed to a hill.
Servant, Somewhere in this dialogue I reference a book about the goy. I recommend you read it, especially in terms of how the Johannine text uses the term "Jew" and how it might be understood.
Also the book by Jason A. Staples -
The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity
This book was initiated to some extend by the first.
I think I am still waiting for Edgar to read it and his criticisms?
https://humanities1.tau.ac.il/segel/adiophir/files/2015/08/Rozen-Zvi-and-Ophir-Paul-and-the-invention-of-the-Gentiles.pdf
This is another paper by the authors of the first work.
Let's try to stick to substantive issue Jerusalem is the only salem associated with Zion,the only salem where the sanctuary of JEHOVAH was located and the only Salem that JEHOVAH miraculously delivered from a siege the preponderance of evidence Strongly suggest that Jerusalem is the Salem mentioned at Psalm 76
Paul has a somewhat different approach at Philippians 3:5, regarding his designation.
For Psalm 76:2 compare the Wycliffe Bible and the Douay–Rheims.
The way the bible uses the word is more important than extra biblical theories
John18:20NIV"“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the JEWS come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
Obviously all Israelites would be included in that statement Jesus may.
John4:23NIV"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the JEWS " again obviously all Israelites would be included.
John18:33"Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? " Pilate was referring to the entire nation not any single tribe.
John18:35,36KJV"Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."The priest for instance were from tribe of Levi but they were called Jews.
“I always taught in synagogues" - and which ones were those exactly?
Samaritans are an ethnoreligious group who originate from the ancient Israelites. They are native to the Levant and adhere to Samaritanism, an Abrahamic and ethnic religion. Wikipedia
As opposed to pilates accusations and discussion see what Jesus actually agrees with at John 1:49. King of Isreal. There is no such thing as a plain reading of gjohn.
John 5:18 - all Isreal was seeking to kill him?
How did the people recognise Jesus rather than the Pharisees and the Romans? John 12:13
John 12:13 is the pivotal point in gjohns use of the term "Jews".
I also find it odd that if Jesus did have a sign that said king of the "Jews" on his torture tree that this would be said - Mark 15:32.
You are making my point for me Duncan Jews and Israel are synonyms and the accusations weren't Pilate's Pilate said his own nation made the accusations.
Because Jews and Israel were synonyms
Again Jews and Israel were synonyms.
There were many 'odd' things about Jesus life and ministry Duncan.
Also, look at how "Jews" is used in Mathew. The Maggi are seeking "king of the Jews".
In Mat 27:11 does Jesus admit to the title "king of the Jews"? I am going to need some major justification regarding the language here for anyone who says yes.
Mat 27:29 comes the mockery and then follows the sign on the tree again.
John 19:38 was he frightened of Isreal & what city did he come from https://biblehub.com/text/luke/23-51.htm , an Israelite city or a city of Jews. There is far more distinction than many like to admit.
https://biblehub.com/greek/israe_l_2474.htm
Just study the list.
Post or not, you are going to have to deal with this content & I am sure Staples next book will.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm
There is no evidence of any distinction being made between the terms Jew and Israelite anywhere in the N.T Duncan. If you provide some actual evidence from the scriptures I'd be happy to consider it.
Does he deny being king of the
Jews? Duncan because until you demonstrate from the scriptures that there is distinction between the terms Jew and Israelite the burden of proof is all yours.
My main concern is what can be demonstrated from the scriptures themselves. They use the terms Jew and Israelite interchangeably. Suggesting that at the very least they are not mutually exclusive.
I never finished the book by Staples and don't have much to say on this thread anymore. Maybe I will read him one day, but his other writings have not inspired me to read his thoughts on Israel. Besides, I've got many other things that I have to read for school, and the meetings, etc.
I did look at the reformed church link and find many of their references (most) to be irrelevant. Who claims that all references to Israel in the GNT signified the Christian ecclesia? When it comes to Rom. 11:26, I wonder how all of Israel will be saved today. Will also people living in Israel convert to Christianity? Just how is this massive convesion going to take place?
https://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb98.html
All Israel?
Servant, What examples of parallel accounts switch between the two terms? So one says Isreal and the other Jew.
Edgar, how things may or may not happen, is that my concern? When something is proven incorrect it does not require a new solution, only the need to look for one.
Servant, If you want to back up your point then you can demonstrate overlap in different accounts similar to https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-heaven-God.html
Duncan, if one goes by the Bible, he or she should be concerned about how God's purposes might be fulfilled. However, my question is more about understanding a Bible verse. Besides grammar and theology, I ask which interpretation makes sense or is more probable. While an entire group or nation of people might convert before the eschaton comes, it seems unlikely to me. More importantly, why should I believe that's what Paul meant?
Duncan, as an illustration, if you're on a trip, then find out you're heading the wrong way, you would need to do more than look for a new solution. I would turn around and start going the right way in order to reach my destination.
Have you read any of the scriptures I gave you and meditated on them.e.g Paul's referring to himself as a Jew even though he was a Benjaminite. Jesus is called both the king of the Jews and and the king of Israel,the priest are called Jews even though they are Levites the Passover is called a festival of the Jews even though all Israelites were law bound to observe it. It seems to me like you need to produce a verse that distinguishes between Jews and Israelites to claim a prima facie case for your contention.
I have no point to prove you're the one claiming that Jew and Israelite are mutually exclusive terms without a shred of evidence when Paul declares himself a Jew see acts21:39 is it your position that this conflicts with his claim to being an Israelite see Romans11:1
Servant, sorry it does not work that way. You did not read the paper I posted. Sola scriptura does not work. Paul's use of Jew and gentile are concentrated in a particular letter to a certain audience. Paul's category of gentile does not exist in other period documents and it does not even exist to any great extent in his other letters. With his binary divide in that letter all are Jew or gentile.
The usage of Jew in each gospel is basically reserved for the repeats of the same account and the Maggi who certainly do no depict an accurate perception, remember that they are from Herod. Jews seems tied up with accounts of the political systems and usages of Isreal are the common man.
We know that we have other different turns of phrase dependant on audience - "it is written" & "you heard it said".
You see Paul's two letters as proof of commonality "Paul the Jew" and "Paul the isrealite/Hebrew". I however do not because the overall language of the letters are quite different and the usages are not accidental.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X17737414?journalCode=jnta
If you saying that a Levite cannot also be a Jew then see Numbers 3:13,14.
Going back to "obviously though this is called a feast/festival of the Jews it would apply to all the children of Israel."
Did all males isrealites go to Jerusalem to celebrate these festivals? As I have already said all Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews.
If the entire nation was the answer then the Isreal of god would be an unnecessary term, however, they are still Isreal, unless you can demonstrate otherwise? Why should 144000 be a literal number? This imagery is all about the 12 tribes. The tribe names in revelation are irrelevant because there are legitimate reasons for name changes, it is the 12. The 12 minor prophets, the 12 disciples. All this imagery is Isreal. Paul was seeking the 10 tribes. Legalistically, circumcision was not for all of Isreal. Forget first century accepted practise that all isrealites should be circumcised. The other sheep are out from the 10 tribes which have mixed with every other nation on the planet. This is how all nations come to the mountain.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/jewish/2018-08-22/ty-article-magazine/.premium/before-herzl-there-was-pastor-russell-a-neglected-chapter-of-zionism/0000017f-f598-d318-afff-f7fb42430000%3f_amp=true
Just because it did not happen when some expected does not mean it will never happen.
This is not about a temple or even a land, it's about a teaching.
Those food laws were just a beginning. The new Scrolls will upgrade everything. Just as Deuteronomy enhanced them.
yes all male Israelites went up to these festivals,Duncan perhaps you can produce a scripture that says otherwise.
I am saying the opposite of that Duncan of course an a levite would be both an Israelite and a Jew.
No one has shown be a better interpretive system that allowing the bible to he its own expositor.
Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin not Judah from which the term Jew is derived. And you have asserted that the term Israelite and Jew are not synonymous you have not demonstrated it from scripture.
2 Corinthians 11:22 what Paul is.
1 Corinthians 9:20 what Paul became.
Duncan, I didn't mention temple, land or any of that. My point was whether a nation or group who currently do not accept Christ as the messiah will one day convert as a whole to Christianity. If someone understands all Israel in Rom. 11:26 to be fleshly Israel, that is what he/she seems to be contending.
I acknowledged that it could happen, but that interpretation seems less likely when all factors are considered, including the context of Rom. 11:26
I consider both letters to be inspired and infallible. So we have philosophical divide here that may very well be unbridgeable.
Circumcision was for all Israelite males according to Torah.
To be honest, I have never really understood what "inspired" is supposed to mean? Also what is "infallable"? I am not looking for dictionary definitions. I am referring to each letter having its own context or as Edgar calls it, Sitz im Leben.
One letter Paul he is himself an Israelite and the other to the "Jews a Jew".
I see no contradiction. And for my point of view at the moment I believe that every word of the bible has purpose and is there for a reason for its specific use, not just a general terms.
A true but controversial example I can give is how cleverly used "Corona virus", "COVID-19" & "SARS-COV-2" and have also been grievously misused over the last 3 years. They have all ben used to mean one thing but they are not one thing.
The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them. (Exodus 12:37,38)
Neither descendants of Abraham or slaves.
A little levity here and I understand your illustration, Duncan, but can we please not debate Cov-19 here? :-)
Not that you're going down that path, but still.
And you know that pages and pages have been written about inspiration. As a matter of fact, there is no one view/theory of inspiration, but I think Insight lays out clearly enough what inspiration likely is. I will let Servant speak for himself, but inspiration at the very least implies the words in the Bible originate with God and they're not merely human words. Jehovah guided the writers, but gave them freedom to express things according to their diction.
1Corinthians9:20NIV"(To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."
2Corinthians11:22NIV"Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I."
So Paul became under law when he stopped being an israelite?
And that's not all Paul became,
1Corinthians9:21,22"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. "
Leaving aside the circular logic,I'm not sure how any of this is supposed to help your case.
I haven't seen a scripture where a distinction is made between Jew and Israelite perhaps if you can produce one we can make some progress out of this rut.
Your point being? Remember we are looking for a scripture distinguishing Jew from Israelite . Not Jew from gentile or Jew from Samaritan.
2Timothy3:16NIV"All Scripture is God-breathed(theopnuestos)and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," in other words JEHOVAH's thoughts in the writer's words. But remember the prophet concurs with JEHOVAH's conclusions so God trusts him enough to allow him to editorialize to a degree but everything is happening under aegis of JEHOVAH'S spirit.
John1:19NIV"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?" Of course even though these priest and their levitical assistants were descendants of Levi and not Judah they were still considered Jews,another point here is the fact that Levites and priest are distinguished from each other even though the two terms were related ,priests being a subdivision of Levites. Now if Jews and Israelites were distinct in the same way as you claim there ought to be (at least) one verse that distinguishes the two in the way that the terms priests and Levites are distinguished in this verse
There is no rut and you are not actually listen to what Paul had to say. Remember what I said, every word is there for a reason. You are conflating Paul becoming a Jew and Paul becoming under law as one action. From your perspective, who would not already know that Paul was already a Jew, he was happy to tell his story. The whole concept of "Christian" has not been formed yet. He would be a Jew following a/the messiah. So his stance on law and his status as Jew are two separate things.
John 1:19 - here you are reading what is not their.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/related-articles/priests-and-levites-in-the-first-century-c-e/
https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-19.htm
The Jews sent priest and Levites. It does not say that the priests and Levites were Jews.
Please read this:-
http://www1.lasalle.edu/~dolan/2000/dan.htm
Here is a great example of an uninspired translation of verse 20:-
New International Version
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
>> New Living Translation
When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.<<<
That is not what the text says and they insert gentile to make a contrast with Jew - ITS NOT THERE.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/16345/Blumhofer_duke_0066D_14300.pdf
Whoa! One can be a priest of the Jews without being a Jew? You are really going to have to show me that scripture. And I thought that you had earlier agreed that a levite was a Jew? Have you changed your position? And if so why? Likely you would agree that a priest must be a levite and thus must be a Jew, i.e if you decide to return to your original position.
We're Israelites bound by law including the command to be circumcised?
Romans3:1,2"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."
As you know Moses and his brother Aaron principle instructors in JEHOVAH'S Torah were both Levites. Originally the tablets of stone and the original Torah were archived in the ark of the covenant entrusted to the levitical priest. Thus based on our brother Paul's statement it would seem that the Levites in general and the levitical priests in particular were as Jewish as it gets.
https://biblehub.com/greek/ioudaismo__2454.htm
Judaism, or is that phariseeism?
https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-28.htm
How many translations substitute gentile for Greek here? Quite a few.
Is the term gentile ever used in Galatians.
And yet, look at this paper and its conclusion -
Context Is Everything: “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16
https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2010/10/sbjt-v14-n3_cowan.pdf
The Hellenes, therefore, were not necessarily ethnic Greeks as we know them today. Instead, they included groups we now know of as Assyrians, Egyptians, >>>Jews<<<, Arabs, and Armenians among others.
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-are-the-greeks-called-hellenes-117769
Acts 12:11, NIV: Then Peter came to himself and said, 'Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen.
Shouldn't that say "my people"?
I am not conflating anything Paul declares that he became as one under law when witnessing to those under law,I am simply taking the man at his word. He also said he became as a Greek when witnessing to the Greeks and as one not bound by law to those not bound by Law I am simply trying to figure out what any of this has to do with the substantive issue which remains whether in first century usage the the terms Jew and Israelite were synonymous
In other words gentiles.
"Context is everything" agreed so are the Israel of God spiritual Jews.
Romans2:28,29NIV"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."
Levites were taken from other tribes and that is what the scripture I quoted said.
There is plenty of evidence that diaspora isrealites may of may not have been circumcised. Been over this with Edgar before and I am not rehearsing it again.
You are moving the goal post now.
Also those NOT under law in the same breath and yes context is king.
See https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825593.pdf
A proselyte to phariseeism?
1Corinthians9:20NIV"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." What are you talking about.
Again what does whether the certain Jews lived up to their obligations under the law have to do with the substantive issue of whether Jew and Israelite are synonyms. Romans2:21NIV"you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?"
So Paul acknowledges that not all who were under law lived up to the law. Incidentally many gentiles practiced circumcision. All irrelevant and let's say that members of other tribes became Levites ,of what relevance would that be, Levites as a whole were Jews despite not for the most part being descendants of Judah. It would also be true that members of other tribes and even gentiles were adopted into the tribe of Judah. Again this is more of your being argumentative in lieu of making any actual argument.
@Duncan,you claimed that Christians were not a distinct sect when Paul wrote his epistles.
Acts11:26NIV"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
So this is at the very beginning of Paul's ministry. Christians had fully separated themselves and we're publicly identified as Christians even by unbelievers.
Acts26:28KJV"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. "
King Herod Agrippa knew Christians as a distinct sect.
Post a Comment