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/
Are these the only examples of Greek from the first and second centuries, no, not even close & Hebraism are interpreted and supposed on the basis of a distinction that is completely unproven. They were penned by highly educated people of the period, that much is certain.
"It is and it is not. NT is koine, but not all koine is NT, meaning that other koine authors can be to a degree non-Biblical and/or archaizing, so some knowledge of Attic is required."
Oh yes, and NO TWO Greek authors are the same, so what point exactly does this make?
Here is an example of why Hebraism is very hard to define - Hades is a place of suffering, of punishment for sin. This conception was growing among the Hebrews long before New Testament times. Sheol had come to have a definite connection with sin and judgment. It meant the humiliation and destruction of the wicked.
So Hades did not mean Sheol as the two meanings had mingled, but those how push this imaginary NT Greek would like to say that Hades just means Sheol from the OT.
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.
"There are documented records starting about 100 years after the apostles where Greek beliefs entered the writings of the early Church Fathers." - about when Acts was written.
1) So "Peter" is quoting from the Hebrew?
2) Of course it was, its their word, with all the baggage that comes with it.
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?
Well, since you see the lxx as relevant to understanding the Hebrew texts. How is logos used their? True the greek term has a number of meanings but since genesis has elohim speaking things into existence we can see where the spoken work is seen to be so important. This is the first port of call for an understanding of logos, isn't it? The logos is uttered by many bible characters.
"I wonder if Dan knows that the written Word of God started out in spoken form." - one of the many myths regarding an ancient transmission. Evidence please?
"In conclusion, I found this book to be surprisingly helpful in several ways. Principally, it demonstrates, possibly unwittingly, that academics are starting to move beyond the definition of inerrancy asserted by the CSBI and lays some of the theological and philosophical groundwork on how this might be done, while still maintaining what it considers the essential doctrine of inerrancy. Unfortunately, as large works likes this are wont to experience, the quality of the essays varies dramatically. >>>Most disappointing, though, is what is missing: a rigorous look at the nature of Scripture given the biblical, archeological and textual evidence available to us in light of recent philosophical trends.<<<"
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.
Oral traditions are not static, this has been studied in rescent times. But any good novel based on history usually gets the scenery fairly accurately described. Many of what you call "sceptics" have come from evangelical scholarship so I don't think the have missed anything much, it just that there perspective has changed.
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
No such thing as NT greek.
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.
Yep, "scholars" out to lunch or making stuff up.
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/
Are these the only examples of Greek from the first and second centuries, no, not even close & Hebraism are interpreted and supposed on the basis of a distinction that is completely unproven. They were penned by highly educated people of the period, that much is certain.
"It is and it is not. NT is koine, but not all koine is NT, meaning that other koine authors can be to a degree non-Biblical and/or archaizing, so some knowledge of Attic is required."
Oh yes, and NO TWO Greek authors are the same, so what point exactly does this make?
Here is an example of why Hebraism is very hard to define - Hades is a place of suffering, of punishment for sin. This conception was growing among the Hebrews long before New Testament times. Sheol had come to have a definite connection with sin and judgment. It meant the humiliation and destruction of the wicked.
So Hades did not mean Sheol as the two meanings had mingled, but those how push this imaginary NT Greek would like to say that Hades just means Sheol from the OT.
You have to ask the question - Why did a Hebrew translator pick those particular words, isn't there a Greek term for a grave or pit?
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/mnemeion
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.
Best to think long and hard about the usage of ἐβασίλευσεν in Romans 5:14.
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.
Its a two way street, which that paper does not recognize.
https://studybible.info/interlinear/Psalms%2016:10
"There are documented records starting about 100 years after the apostles where Greek beliefs entered the writings of the early Church Fathers." - about when Acts was written.
1) So "Peter" is quoting from the Hebrew?
2) Of course it was, its their word, with all the baggage that comes with it.
3) And koimētērion would not work either?
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?
As for Logos as the spoken word I don't have a problem with that - https://youtu.be/owyFJkKrPyg?si=Pi45_BYEDnGVi3AB
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
Well, since you see the lxx as relevant to understanding the Hebrew texts. How is logos used their? True the greek term has a number of meanings but since genesis has elohim speaking things into existence we can see where the spoken work is seen to be so important. This is the first port of call for an understanding of logos, isn't it? The logos is uttered by many bible characters.
"I wonder if Dan knows that the written Word of God started out in spoken form." - one of the many myths regarding an ancient transmission. Evidence please?
"37 Evangelical scholars"
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/djrc/topdownloads.html
https://brill.com/display/title/54219
Apparently the spirit moves for ALL christian denominations.
"In conclusion, I found this book to be surprisingly helpful in several ways. Principally, it demonstrates, possibly unwittingly, that academics are starting to move beyond the definition of inerrancy asserted by the CSBI and lays some of the theological and philosophical groundwork on how this might be done, while still maintaining what it considers the essential doctrine of inerrancy. Unfortunately, as large works likes this are wont to experience, the quality of the essays varies dramatically. >>>Most disappointing, though, is what is missing: a rigorous look at the nature of Scripture given the biblical, archeological and textual evidence available to us in light of recent philosophical trends.<<<"
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.
Oral traditions are not static, this has been studied in rescent times. But any good novel based on history usually gets the scenery fairly accurately described. Many of what you call "sceptics" have come from evangelical scholarship so I don't think the have missed anything much, it just that there perspective has changed.
Post a Comment