Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Friday, February 23, 2024
LSJ Entry for Hagios (Screenshot)
34 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I notice that this uses ant and lxx examples - some claim the lxx Greek is different to the NT Greek hey this would lead me to the conclusion it’s the same
Of course, there are morphological and semantic differences between LXX and Attic or NT Greek and grammatical differences, but a lot of similarities too.
In a way, You're right, but I'm looking at some books in my library with New Testament Greek in the title. Why? Are all of these scholars out to lunch?
In this case, I'm not in full disagreement with you, but I think I know why scholars like Moule or Stan Porter speak of NT Greek. Yeah it's misleading in some ways, but also is somewhat true.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientGreek/comments/x9xd3i/is_new_testament_greek_different_from_koine_or_is/
The point is that reading Matthew or Luke is not the same as reading Josephus or Philo. 2 of them are NT writers whereas the other 2 are not. I could use Paul as an example too. But we're disagreeing about something which I earlier said I basically agree with you about. So . . .
I don't think your Sheol/Hades example is as simple as all that. John uses thanatos and Hades in Revelation that seems outright Homeric and he mentions the "lake of fire" which mirrors Gehenna in some ways, but I don't read much about Johhn and Sheol. Something that complicates matters as well is the dizzying diversity of 1st century Judaism.
1) Grave would not have the desired effect for Psalm 16, which Peter quotes in Acts 2. 2) Hades was a familiar word/concept to the Greeks. 3) JWs says that Hades is not merely the grave, but gravedom. It is certainly not referring to an individual grave.
1) I said Peter quoted from the "Psalm 16," not from the Hebrew. 2) Yes, Hades is a Greek word; no, the baggage doesn't necessarily come with the word in the NT anymore than it does with Logos or pleroma. That is simply untrue. 3) Does koimētērion mean "gravedom" or anything related to that word?
As the tradition of Greek and Roman history shows, the logos was viewed as being external (articulated) and internal or thought. The Romans understood the logos to be ratio et ratio. Later, I will provide specific examples of logos occurring in the LXX.
There are oral traditions all over the world, from Homer to the Buddha and indigenous religions. How does one prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the OT started orally? This idea has been accepted for some time, but all scholars obviously don't accept it--like everything else. But see
For the record, books have certain objectives, so it's hard to criticize a work for something it was never meant to be. Biblical skeptics get a lot wrong and miss all kind of things.
34 comments:
I notice that this uses ant and lxx examples - some claim the lxx Greek is different to the NT Greek hey this would lead me to the conclusion it’s the same
Of course, there are morphological and semantic differences between LXX and Attic or NT Greek and grammatical differences, but a lot of similarities too.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/10/more-lines-of-evidence-for-new.html
In a way, You're right, but I'm looking at some books in my library with New Testament Greek in the title. Why? Are all of these scholars out to lunch?
And I know that NT Greek is Koine, but it differs in some ways from what we find on other Koine writers.
In this case, I'm not in full disagreement with you, but I think I know why scholars like Moule or Stan Porter speak of NT Greek. Yeah it's misleading in some ways, but also is somewhat true.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientGreek/comments/x9xd3i/is_new_testament_greek_different_from_koine_or_is/
The point is that reading Matthew or Luke is not the same as reading Josephus or Philo. 2 of them are NT writers whereas the other 2 are not. I could use Paul as an example too. But we're disagreeing about something which I earlier said I basically agree with you about. So . . .
I don't think your Sheol/Hades example is as simple as all that. John uses thanatos and Hades in Revelation that seems outright Homeric and he mentions the "lake of fire" which mirrors Gehenna in some ways, but I don't read much about Johhn and Sheol. Something that complicates matters as well is the dizzying diversity of 1st century Judaism.
https://www.academia.edu/41126403/Hades_as_Sheol_of_the_Old_Testament_in_Relation_to_the_Afterlife
1) Grave would not have the desired effect for Psalm 16, which Peter quotes in Acts 2.
2) Hades was a familiar word/concept to the Greeks.
3) JWs says that Hades is not merely the grave, but gravedom. It is certainly not referring to an individual grave.
I don't think Acts was written then.
1) I said Peter quoted from the "Psalm 16," not from the Hebrew.
2) Yes, Hades is a Greek word; no, the baggage doesn't necessarily come with the word in the NT anymore than it does with Logos or pleroma. That is simply untrue.
3) Does koimētērion mean "gravedom" or anything related to that word?
I'm going to assume you know logos refers to more than the spoken word. But just in case:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/semantics-of-greek-term-logos.html
I wonder if Dan knows that the written Word of God started out in spoken form.
Inspiration:
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ujah/article/view/205333
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/vol8/iss1/5/?ut
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004391741/BP000013.xml?alreadyAuthRedirecting
https://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Authority-Christian-Scriptures/dp/0802865763
As the tradition of Greek and Roman history shows, the logos was viewed as being external (articulated) and internal or thought. The Romans understood the logos to be ratio et ratio. Later, I will provide specific examples of logos occurring in the LXX.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43719912?seq=1
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3056/lxx/lxx/0-1/
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/7/1/6
There are oral traditions all over the world, from Homer to the Buddha and indigenous religions. How does one prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the OT started orally? This idea has been accepted for some time, but all scholars obviously don't accept it--like everything else. But see
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/hen378007
For the record, books have certain objectives, so it's hard to criticize a work for something it was never meant to be. Biblical skeptics get a lot wrong and miss all kind of things.
Post a Comment