Scriptures That Deal with Poverty and Helping the Poor

Poverty and Assistance Scriptures

1 Samuel 2:1-6

Psalm 70:5; 72:12-14

Proverbs 14:21

Proverbs 19:1,15-17

Proverbs 30:6-8

Ecclesiastes 7:12

Amos 8:4-6

Malachi 3:10

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke 12:22-33)

Mark 10:21

Luke 6:20-22

Luke 19:1-8 (sell what you have and give to the poor)

Luke 14:12-14

Luke 16:14

2 Corinthians 6:4-10

Galatians 2:10

James 5:1-8

1 Timothy 3:3; 6:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:2

Revelation 3:16-21

John 5:24, Present Participles, and Gnomic Perfects

The present participles ἀκούων and πιστεύων in Jn. 5:24 are instances of verbal adjectives that signal a durative or progressive Aktionsart. An interlocutor once took exception to this claim, it seems, on the basis of mostly theological rather than grammatical factors--although his grammatical objections were not wholly lacking. For instance, Jn. 5:24 also contains the perfect verbal form μεταβέβηκεν.

I submit that the perfect here in no way disproves my suggestion that the two participles in 5:24 are durative per their Aktionsart. Richard A. Young writes:

"The perfect is normally interpreted as expressing a completed act with continuing results. There are problems with this definition if time is not a function of form, for completed acts are always past. Contextually the perfect may refer to something past (Matt. 19:8), present (Matt. 27:43), possibly future (Matt. 20:23; John 5:24; Jas. 5:2-3), omnitemporal (Rom. 7:2), or timeless (John 3:18). It seems better to view the perfect and pluperfect as members of the stative aspect in which the speaker conceives the verbal idea as a condition or state of affairs" (Intermediate NT Greek, p. 126).

Wallace also classifies the perfect in Jn 5:24 as a "gnomic perfect." He explains: "The perfect tense may be used with a gnomic force, to speak of a generic or proverbial occurrence" (GGBB, p. 580-581). One could also speak of the gnomic perfect as a timeless perfect. See James 1:24.

In any event, it could be possible that John is saying, the one hearing and believing ὁ τὸν λόγον μου (the Son's word) is the one who has eternal life timelessly speaking. As Alford exclaims:

"But here the faith is set before us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their completion (see Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:20)."

Style in the Book of Jude

I have not read Jude much with attention to his style:
my concern with Jude has been more exegetical,
doctrinal or theological. Therefore, I'll post what
A. T. Robertson has to say about this Bible book's style.

(1) Jude has "a rugged rotundity of style that is
impressive and vigorous, if a bit harsh" (A Grammar of
the GNT, p. 124).

(2) Jude shows a willingness to employ both metaphors
and triplets. His work is more Hebraistically flavored
than James' epistle.

(3) While some have asserted that James does not have a
"command" of Greek grammar, Robertson states there is
actually "little that is peculiar in [Jude's] grammar, for
he shows the normal use of the Greek idiom" (125).

(4) The optative mood occurs twice in Jude.

(5) "Cases, pronouns, tenses, free use of the
participles, indicate a real mastery of current Greek"
(125).

(6) "Deissmann (Light, p. 235) considers Jude a
literary epistle in popular style and 'cosmopolite' in
tone (p. 242), with a certain degree of artistic
expression" (Robertson, 125).

Tradition and the Roman Catholic Church

Owen Thomas professes: "Tradition can also mean what the Roman
Catholic Church calls the secret tradition, namely, that part of the
apostolic tradition which was not committed to writing, but was handed down orally by the apostolic bishops." He adds: "There is no historical foundation for the existence of such a tradition."

The declaration at the Council of Trent in 1564 concerning "the unwritten traditions" possibly confirms Thomas' interpretation of the Latin view concerning what has been handed down (i.e., tradition). Did not Trent also decide that the Bible does not contain all things necessary for salvation? Or maybe I should say, all things formally necessary for salvation. From one Catholic source, we read:

"The Roman Church, however, does not depend solely on literary and
historical evidence; it depends on its own consciousness of its belief,
and it must be admitted that the analysis of this consciousness can be
subtle" (John McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church, p. 212)

The same book also states: "The Council of Trent admitted frankly that
the Roman tradition contains propositions which cannot be found in the Bible.
It countered the Protestant charge by asserting itself, so to speak; it denied that either in the Bible or in its own traditions is there any affirmation
that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth . . . An unresolved
question in contemporary theology is whether the Council of Trent meant
that Scripture and tradition are two sources of revealed truth.
Certainly the Council did not mean that they are two unrelated sources.
The weight of opinion in Roman theology since the Council of Trent has
been that the Council did mean two sources. The Bible is superior in
dignity, but tradition is superior in completeness" (McKenzie, 212-213).

Of course, Catholics have told me that Owen Thomas' depiction of Catholic tradition is not correct: they say Catholic tradition is not secret or hidden. Below, I include the statement from Trent (Session IV):

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

Poverty and Jesus (Luke 2:22-24)

I have compared Luke 2:22-24 with the Hebrew text that prescribes the sacrifice mentioned by Luke in his first-century Gospel--a sacrifice that was to be given by a person of humble means, if he/she could not afford to offer a lamb to Jehovah:

"When the mother has completed her time of cleansing, she must come to the front of the sacred tent and bring to the priest a year-old lamb as a sacrifice to please me and a dove or a pigeon as a sacrifice for sin. After the priest offers the sacrifices to me, the mother will become completely clean from her loss of blood, whether her child is a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she can offer two doves or two pigeons, one as a sacrifice to please me and the other as a sacrifice for sin" (Lev. 12:6-8 CEV).

Furthermore, I still wonder about the Greek TEKTWN and what the "typical" socio-economic status of a carpenter, builder or craftsman was in the first century CE, especially in Palestine. These questions are probably not easy to answer.

Colossians 2:2: Which Mystery?

Originally written 7/30/2003 and edited 1/9/2017; 1/11/17; 1/12/17.

While reading Col. 2:2 this week, I happened upon something that escaped my attention hitherto.

ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, (NA28)

The KJV and NKJV render the text similarly--to wit:

"that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ,"

The mystery of God (τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ) is identified with both the Father and Christ. The Hebrew Names Version and Vulgate also read:

"that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and gaining all riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Messiah," (HNV)

"ut consolentur corda ipsorum instructi in caritate et in omnes divitias plenitudinis intellectus in agnitionem mysterii Dei Patris Christi Iesu" (Vg).

But the NASB translates:

"that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself"

Metzger gives the reading τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, a [B] grade indicating that this lectio is highly certain. Explaining his position, Metzger writes:

"Among what at first sight seems to be a bewildering variety of variant readings, the one adopted for the text is plainly to be preferred (1) because of strong external testimony (P46 B Hilary Pelagius Ps-Jerome and (b) because it alone provides an adequate explanation of the other readings as various scribal attempts to ameliorate the syntactical ambiguity of τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ."

[I need to check the Mextzger quote in order to make sure I'm quoting accurately.]

the Catholic NABRE translates Col. 2:2 as follows:

"that their hearts may be encouraged as they are brought together in love, to have all the richness of fully assured understanding, for the knowledge of the mystery of God, Christ,"

The New Jerusalem Bible also renders Col. 2:2-3:

"It is all to bind them together in love and to encourage their resolution until they are rich in the assurance of their complete understanding and have
knowledge of the mystery of God in which all the the jewels of wisdom and knowledge are hidden."

Finally, I quote NWT 2013: "This is so that their hearts may be comforted and that they may be harmoniously joined together in love and may have all the riches that result from the full assurance of their understanding, in order to gain an accurate knowledge of the sacred secret of God, namely, Christ."

From a textual perspective, as Metzger points out, the reading found in NA27 and UBS4 is contained in P46, B, VGms and Hilary. See also NA27 for MSS in which the reading of the KJV is found. But NA27 has now been updated to NA28.

Scholarly Observations Regarding Galatians 5:22-23

"PRAUTHS: Meekness is the outcome of true humility,
the bearing towards others which results from a lowly
estimate of ourselves.--EGKRATEIA: Self-control
comprehends every form of temperance, and includes the
mastery of all appetites, tempers and passions" (The
Expositor's Greek Testament, 3:188).

"The fact that self-control appears last in Paul's
list may indicate its importance as a summation of the
preceding virtues. It would also have particular
relevance for the Galatian setting: Antinomians
veering out of control desperately needing the
discipline of self-control reinforced by a new respect
for God's moral law" (Timothy George, Galatians, page
404).

"Trench seems to have caught the true meaning of this
term [PRAUTHS]. He notes that it is not 'mere natural
disposition. Rather is it an inwrought grace of the
soul; and the exercises of it are first chiefly
towards God.' He continues: 'It is that temper of
spirit in which we accept his dealings with us as
good, and therefore without disputing or resisting;
and it is closely linked with the TAPEINOFROSUNH, and
it follows directly upon it (Ephes. iv.2; Col.
iii.12), because it is only the humble heart which is
also meek' (p. 152). Put in simplest terms, meekness
is submissiveness to the will of God" (Ralph Earle,
Word Meanings in the NT, pp. 310-311).

"KATA TWN TOIOUTWN OUK ESTIN NOMOS. 'Against such
things there is no law.' Without doubt an
understatement of the apostle's thought for rhetorical
effect. The mild assertion that there is no law
against such things has the effect of an emphatic
assertion that these things fully meet the
requirements of the law (cf. v.14). The statement as
it stands is true of law in every sense of the word,
and NOMOS is therefore to be taken in its general
sense; yet probably Paul is thinking only of divine,
not of divine and human law" (Ernest De Witt Burton,
Galatians, 318).

Biblical "Examples"

1 Peter 2:21-ἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκλήθητε, ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ὑμῖν ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπογραμμόν, ἵνα ἐπακολουθήσητε τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ,

2 Peter 2:4-Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους

Jude 7-ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.

1 Corinthians 10:6, 11-Ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν, εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν.

ταῦτα δὲ τυπικῶς συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν, εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν.

Numbers 26:10-καὶ ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς καὶ Κορε ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ τῆς συναγωγῆς αὐτοῦ, ὅτε κατέφαγεν τὸ πῦρ τοὺς πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίους, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ἐν σημείῳ,

All GNT citations derive from the online version of NA28.

Galatians 5:20 ("Spiritism")

Here is Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT (p. 466) on φαρμακία (FARMAKIA):

"FARMAKIA (Rec. -EIA), -AS, hH (FARMAKEUW, to
administer drugs), poet. and late prose form of
FARMAKEIA, [in LXX: Ex 7:11, 22 8:7, 18 (3, 14) . . .
1. generally, the use of medicine, drugs or spells
(Xen.). 2. (a) poisoning (Plut., Polyb.); (b) sorcery,
witchcraft: Ga 5:20 (v. Lft., in 1.) Re 9:21 (WH,
txt., FARMAKWN) 18:23 (cf. LXX, 11. c)."

Timothy George gives these supplemental comments:

"As J.T. Noonan has written, 'Paul's usage here [Galatians 5:20] cannot be restricted to abortion, but the term he chose is comprehensive enough to include the use of abortifacient drugs.' In the early church both infanticide, often effected through the exposure of newborn babies to the harsh elements, and abortion, commonly brought about by the use of drugs, were regarded as murderous acts. Both are flagrant violations of Jesus' command to 'love your neighbor as yourself'" (Galatians, 394).

See also https://archive.org/stream/manualgreeklexic00abborich#page/466/mode/2up

Rhetoric and the New Testament/Christian-Greek Scriptures

Classical rhetoric acquired a bad name largely because of the Sophists, who also gave argumentation a bad reputation too. However, it seems hard to deny that the Bible, particularly the GNT, contains rhetorical devices. Granted, later church writers were trained rhetoricians and even they had some conflict with the profession (e.g., Tertullian, Tatian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine). Nevertheless, one gainsays the presence of rhetorical devices in scripture at his/her own peril.

Craig R. Koester points to one literary device at Heb. 9:5. Remarking upon the Greek construction, PERI hWN OUK ESTIN NUN LEGEIN KATA MEROS, he writes:

"The author concludes his description of the furnishings [of the Tabernacle] by commenting that he cannot deal with these things in detail (cf. 11:32). Rhetorically, passing by something without detailed comment was called PARALEIPSIS (Rhet. ad Her. 4.27 Sec. 37' Lausberg, Handbook SS 882-886)." By identifying some aspects of a large topic while refusing to make detailed comment, the speaker alludes to his familiarity with the subject matter, while relativizing its importance. Here, Hebrews makes clear that what is most important is not the sanctuary, but the ministry that takes place within it" (Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 404.

George Guthrie likewise supplies these details:

"Most importantly, he [Leon Vaganay] advanced discussion on the structure of Hebrews with his identification of mot-crochets, 'hook words,' in the book. Hook words were a rhetorical device used in the ancient world to tie two sections of material together. A word was positioned at the end of one section and at the beginning of the next to effect a transition between the two" (The Structure of Hebrews, page 12).

One example of a writer employing hook words is Heb. 1:4-5 (which evidently represents the start of a new section), where we find the author using TWN AGGELWN in both verses. TWN AGGELWN thus joins together Heb. 1:1-4 with the following section of Hebrews which begins with Heb 1:5.

According to Richard Lanham, an expert in literary devices, the word "hyperbole" denotes: "Exaggerated or extravagant terms used for emphasis and not intended to be understood literally; self-conscious exaggeration."

Heinrich Lausberg writes: "Hyperbole is an extreme, literally implausible onomastic surpassing of the verbum proprium." Furthermore, "hyperbole is a metaphor with vertical gradations" that stimulates the imagination (Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, section 579).

The September 1, 2002 WT notes that hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration that someone utters for the purpose of emphasis or to make a point. We see vivid examples of hyperbole in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles.

Thanks for Reading & 2017

Hi to everyone reading this blog. I want to express my sincere thanks for the fact that you have taken time from your day to peruse the contents herein. Years ago, when this blog started, I could not have imagined that it would still be going and expanding in readers.

For 2017, I will continue trying to produce content that will constitute worthwhile reading. The primary focus will continue to be theology/religion, but I will sometimes offer remarks on other issues that pertain to the aforesaid fields.

Lastly--my main computer (the desktop) is now down, so I am using tablets, and the dilapidated laptop of my wife. So my activity might be hampered for the next few weeks until I retrieve data from my hard drive and get up and running with a new machine soon.

Best to you all. Of course you know I do not celebrate holidays, but thanks again.

Edgar

One Objection to Celebrating Christmas

John 4:24-those worshiping God must worship in spirit and in truth.

Psalm 31:5-"Into Thy hand I commit my spirit, Thou hast redeemed me, Jehovah God of truth" (YLT).

To put it simply, Christmas is based on false premises like Jesus was born on December 25, the three wise men, the star of Bethlehem, elves, Santa, flying reindeer, etc.

"Stumbling Blocks" (SKANDALON)

According to BDAG, σκάνδαλον may denote:

(1) A device for catching someth[ing] alive, trap (Rom
11:9; Ps 68:23; 1 Jn 2:10).

(2) An action or circumstance that leads one to act
contrary to a proper course of action or set of
beliefs, temptation to sin, enticement to apostasy,
false belief, etc. (Mt 16:23; 18:7; Lk 17:1; Rom 14:13;
Rev 2:14).

Mt 16:23 is probably best understood as "you are
tempting me to sin." BDAG also has an interesting note
on Jesus being a stumbling block to those who do not
put faith in him:

"To those who cannot come to a decision to believe on
him, Jesus is a σκάνδαλον (SKANDALIZW 1b)."

(3) σκάνδαλον can also refer to "that which causes
offense or revulsion and results in opposition,
disapproval, or hostility, fault, stain, etc" (Mt
13:41; 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11).

Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon classifies
σκάνδαλον as follows:

(1) A trap, probably of the type which has a stick
which when touched by an animal causes the trap to
shut (Rom 11:9).

(2) That which or one who causes someone to sin. There
is also a helpful note in Louw and Nida. They also
observe that σκάνδαλον used in what I have categorized
as sense (2) here is actually "a figurative extension"
of the meaning "trap" in (1) above.

(3) That which causes offense and thus arouses
opposition (1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11).

Moulton and Milligan (Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament) has further enlightening data
concerning SKANDALIZW from the Greek papyri. In a
nutshell, Moulton-Milligan evidently favor the meaning "I set a
trap for" rather than "I put a stumbling block in the
way of" for this Biblical word. Yet this same work
indicates that the "underlying thought of enticement
or temptation can hardly be dissociated from the
word." Moulton-Milligan then refers to the Sanskrit
SKAND and the Latin SCANDO, concluding once again that
σκάνδαλον has reference to a "trap." Personally, with
BDAG, I tend to favor the "stumbling block"
denotation, although as L-N affirm, causing someone
to sin or "trip up" is actually a figurative extension
of the literal trap denotation.

In conclusion, I don't believe that Jesus stumbles
unbelievers in a negative sense. Rather, they stumble
over the figurative stone placed in Zion by refusing
to put faith in him. The good news of God's Kingdom
and the STAUROS of Christ may also cause some offense or rouse
opposition. But this again is not the fault of our
Lord and Savior.

Notes from Corcoran on Identity

Notes Based on Kevin Corcoran's "Constitution View" Chapter (Rethinking Human Nature)

1. Saul Kripke sets forth an argument similar to the one presented in Corcoran's "Constitution View" (CV) chapter: "If X is possibly distinct from Y, then X is necessarily distinct from Y." One could also reason, "Necessarily, if X is possibly distinct from Y, then X and Y are not identical."

Example: "Necessarily, if the body is possibly distinct from the mind, then the body and the mind are not identical."

Example 2: "Necessarily, if brain events are possibly distinct from mental events, then brain events and mental events are not identical."

2. "Identical"-what does it mean for a thing X to be "identical" with a thing Y?

We are talking about objects being numerically identical (e.g., Y is not a replica of X). For instance, one and the same book or car could be quantitatively identical through time. However, what features of the objects themselves allow us to make claims about numerical/quantitative identity? What about the issue of personal identity? What criteria exist to determine whether a person remains the same through time?

3. Regarding the metaphysics of constitution and constitution relations, see pages 66-67.

4. Conditions for human personhood include: a) the capacity for intentionality; b) [capacity for] a first-person perspective; c) being essentially constituted by our bodies.

5. What CV is and is not. See note 6 on page 69.

6. Corcoran seems to argue that my body came into existence before "I" did and it is "conceivable" that my body will continue to exist after I die. Therefore, he apparently reasons, I am not identical with my body.

7. Spatio-temporal continuity and personhood (pp. 70ff). Different objects have their own persistence conditions (PC), but causal considerations are germane in each case. In other words, bananas and persons have different persistence conditions.

My observation: Questions pertaining to identity arise when discussion about the resurrection from the dead ensues. Do we have souls? Are we totally physical beings? These questions impinge upon personal identity.

G. J. Wenham's Commentary on Genesis 9:13-16 (Word Commentary)

GUNH (Matthew 5:28)

GUNH could simply mean "woman" in Mt. 5:28. I guess my judgment is based, in part, on F. Danker's understanding of the term in the Matthean verse, but it makes sense to me that Jesus could be referring to a married woman in view of the OT decalogue command prohibiting covetousness respecting another man's wife. On the other hand, Job exclaimed that he concluded a covenant with his eyes so that he might not be inappropriately attentive toward a young maiden or virgin (Job 31:1ff). Then again, Jesus' mention of adultery in this verse may point to GUNH signifying "wife" here. The Expositor's Greek Testament suggests that GUNH could refer to a married or unmarried woman in Mt. 5:28, as does M. Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. In any event, if we're going to base our understanding on context in other passages that contain GUNH, could not the same methodology work for 5:28? Compare 1 Tim. 3:11? See also 1 Cor. 5:1.

Expositor's Greek Testament: Matthew 5:28.—ὁ βλέπων: the looker is supposed to be a husband who by his look wrongs his own wife.—γυναῖκα: married or unmarried.

Answering Questions About the Greek "Xristos," and the Genitive Case (Edited for Readability)

Greetings my friend, [Roy]!

My original intuition when reading your email was that the suggestion you mentioned could not be correct in view of how XRISTOS functions in the NT. BDAG confirmed what I already thought, but I'd like to nuance what is found there.

(1) By definition, a verbal adjective is a participle. Hence, suggesting that XRISTOS is a participle in the NT just did not seem right to me. In fact, BDAG points out that while this word was used adjectivally in Gk. tragedy and the LXX (et al.) it is only used as a noun in our literature (i.e., early Christian literature).

(2) BDAG also maintains that XRISTOS (in the NT) is a "personal name ascribed to Jesus, Christ" and was understood thus by certain first-century denizens who were in some way familiar with the figure possibly known to them as XRHSTOS (XRISTOS might have sounded like XRHSTOS to Gentiles). So it's possible that XRISTOS is a personal name.

(3) I would nuance the comments in BDAG by insisting that XRISTOS is actually a quasi-personal name. It functions to delimit referentiality like a personal name does, and perhaps even more forcefully. In the NT, based upon the term's frequency of usage, XRISTOS is almost certainly a title or quasi-personal name for Jesus, God's anointed one. Interestingly, Granville Sharp considered IHSOUS to be a proper name, but thought of XRISTOS as a "noun of personal description, denoting office, rank, title, or the like" (Richard A. Young, 63).

(4) Genitive does not primarily or always mean possession, but I think that the genitive case delimits TWi ONOMATI in Acts 2:38. The genitive is actually the descriptive case. D.A. Black points out that genitives are adjectival per their function; however, these nouns are more emphatic than Greek adjectives. Compare the rendering "sinful body" with "body of sin" (genitive).

Translating Hebrews 8:6

I've always found the NWT rendering of Heb. 8:6 quite interesting from a theological perspective. It reads (1984):

"But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established [NENOMOQETHTAI] upon better promises."

Under the entry NOMOQETEW, BDAG has: "to enact on the basis of a legal sanction, ordain, found by law . . . a covenant which has been (legally) enacted on the basis of better promises Hb 8:6 . . ."

Here is how some other translations handle NOMOQETEW in Heb 8:6:

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises" (NKJV).

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises" (NASB).

"But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is
as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he
mediates is better, since it is enacted on better
promises" (RSV).

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,
by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better promises"
(Webster).

"But now hath he obtained a ministry the more
excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a
better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better
promises" (ASV).

"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to
theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is
superior to the old one, and it is founded on better
promises" (NIV).

"But now he has got a more excellent ministry, by so
much as he is mediator of a better covenant, which is
established on the footing of better promises"
(Darby).

"as it is, he has been given a ministry as far
superior as is the covenant of which he is the
mediator, which is founded on better promises" (NJB).

"But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he
is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant,
which has been legally established on better promises" (NWT 2013).

PASA GRAFH--Possible Meaning in 2 Timothy 3:16 (BAGD and Gordon Fee)

PASA GRAFH in 2 Timothy 3:16 has more than one possible meaning and way to understand the syntax, but A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BAGD), provides this information about GRAFH. The word is used:

"of a little book . . . the individual Scripture passage . . . Scripture as a whole" (166).

Of these possible senses, BAGD list 2 Tim. 3:16 as an example of sense number two. This observation could very well be true and there are numerous examples that can be marshalled to buttress BAGD's conclusion. Despite the potential accuracy of the comments, however, I am inclined to concur with Gordon Fee:

"does PASA GRAFH mean all Scripture (i.e., Scripture as a whole collectively understood) or "every Scripture" (i.e., distributively understood to mean each individual passage). This one is almost impossible to decide on grammatical grounds, and in either case the meaning comes out at the same place" (Fee 281).

Update: The newer BDAG says that GRAFH could be used for "a brief piece of writing, writing," "sacred scripture" which might include individual scriptural passages, "scripture in its entirety" or "Scripture as a whole." See page 206.

The Scientific Revolution, Hypotheses, Assumptions and the Case of Fred Hoyle

First principles (archai) characterize modern science and other fields of knowledge. Contemporary scientia forms hypotheses, makes assumptions, then begins to advance from those archai by means of testing and observation. However, it was really the advent of modernity that made science begin to focus more on quantities and measurements instead of syllogisms and philosophical inquiry. For instance, Copernicus worked out his sun-centered universe by deploying math, and it was by utilizing the data of Tycho Brahe that Johannes Kepler worked out his laws of motion, which included the formulation of elliptical orbits. Copernicus and Galileo replaced the geocentric model of the universe with heliocentrism--this feat was accomplished through mathematical precision and empirical observation instead of relying on metaphysics. Newton and Galileo also focused more on a quantitative view of the universe; the former especially saw no need (per se) to create a nexus between physical objects and metaphysical explanations.

As everyone knows, despite its generally dismissive attitude toward philosophical inquiry and religion, modern science has been known to change its paradigms from time to time: examples of paradigm shifts include the wholesale rejection of Aristotle's Physics and Ptolemy's Almagest. In their place came Newton's Principia Mathematica, and later, Einsteinian physics. The emphasis then shifted towards physical laws, mathematical theory, application of theories, and technical instrumentation. Science also works within certain paradigms and feels the need to stay within those given set of parameters. So if one departs from the current paradigm, he/she will be considered eccentric or "unscientific."

Fred Hoyle illustrates how this characterization might work. While Hoyle is a brilliant scientist, there are times when he evidently holds "dissident" views that are not congruent with the professional community of scientists as a whole. Some of Hoyle's famous opinions have been with regard to the Big Bang and his metaphysical views, which he tried to couple with scientific theory ( i.e., mysticism). How have scientists usually responded to Hoyle's efforts?

[To be continued]