Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7)

In his work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) Bart Ehrman explains why he 'felt constrained' to leave the Comma Johanneum out of his book.

Although (Ehrman writes) the famed Comma "represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament," (page 45, note 116) its appearance in the MS tradition "can scarcely be dated prior to the trinitarian controversies that arose" subsequent to the period of time examined in his monograph. In other words, the Comma is a late and spurious interpolation that does not belong in Holy Writ.

Ehrman (page 45) then references Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown's excellent delineation of this textual issue in his Anchor Bible Commentary on The Epistles of John. See Brown, pp. 775-87. I heartily recommend Brown's thorough analysis of the issues surrounding the Comma Johanneum. Brown also shows that the Comma is an interpolation.

Rudolph Bultmann (_N.T Epistles of John_ [Die drei Johannesbriefe]. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Edition 8. Aufl.)--whatever you may think of his theology--seems to be on the mark (for the most part) vis-a-vis the textual tradition when he notes:

"The so-called Comma Johanneum (vss 7f) is found in Latin [MSS] dating before A.D. 400, the text of which(it varies in details in individual manuscripts) was also taken up into the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate in the following form: 'Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.' ('For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness on earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.') Although the decree of the Holy Office in 1897 decided in favor of the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum, today its spuriousness is also recognized by Catholic scholars. The passage is unknown to the entire Greek tradition" (Bultmann 81).

I am not sure about Bultmann's last observation in the quote above. Maybe he means that the JC does not appear in any of the early Greek MSS. For we know that it evidently does occur in the 14-15th century and it likewise appears in the 16th century. At any rate, it is more surely a late corruption of the Greek text as Ehrman
and Brown note: the Comma does not belong in Scripture. This is also the judgment of Westcott.

Is "Christianizing" Pagan Altars and Practices Okay in the Sight of God?

Scripturally I have problems with construing Acts 17 so that it supports using former pagan altars or temples in the worship of God because of what 1 Cor. 10:14 says: "Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry." No, we are not to "Christianize" idols and baptize them (as someone once told me). Stating this point even more forcefully is 1 Thess. 1:9: "you turned to God from [your] idols to slave for a living and true God."

The believers in first century Thessalonica did not "baptize" their idols or "Christianize" them; they abhorred, shunned, rejected or turned away from them. Their example is totally at odds with an interpretation of Paul's action in Athens that would imply he "baptized" Athenian altars (cf. 1 John 5:21).

Commenting on Rev. 9:20, David Aune writes that "Antagonism to idolatry is also expressed in the NT (1 Cor. 14:15), and critiques of idolatry (often borrowing from Hellenistic Jewish apologetic) are also found among the early Christian apologists (Tatian Oratio 4.2; Theophilus Ad Autolycum 1.9-10; 2.2). Celsus charged that Christians cannot bear to see temples, altars, and images" (Origen Contra Cels. 7.62).

"When a Christian passes through temples, he will spit down upon the smoking altars and blow them out. As to rooting out the strange gods in every way, it has been commanded, 'you shall utterly destroy all places where the pagans sacrifice to their gods. You shall overturn their pillars and dash them to pieces. You shall cut down their groves. You shall burn their graven images. You shall destroy their names'" (Tertullian, On Idolatry II; Scorpiace 2).

Bible Verses That Are Potentially Connected to the Great Crowd's "Washing Their Robes in Blood" (Revelation 7:9-17)

I am grateful for G.K. Beale's large commentary on Revelation. It helped me to track down these passages as they possibly relate to the great crowd of Revelation 7:9-17.

"Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes" (Genesis 49:11, 21st Century King James Version).

"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments" (Exod 19:10, ASV)

"And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments" (Exodus 19:14, ASV).

"Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it aloud to the people. Again they all responded, 'We will do everything the Lord has commanded. We will obey.' Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring, 'Look, this blood confirms the covenant the Lord has made with you in giving you these instructions'" (Exodus 24:7-8, NLT).

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18, ASV).

"When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, then the LORD will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy. There will be a shelter to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain" (Isaiah 4:4-6)

"For we are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment: and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (Isaiah 64:6, ASV).

"And he was clothed with a robe dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God" (Revelation 19:13, KJV 2000 Bible).

See also Zechariah 3:1-5

Beale writes that the metaphor of the great crowd washing their robes in the Lamb's blood "primarily connotes the objective reality that the saints have been cleansed from their sin by their persevering faith in Christ's death for them, that faith having been refined by trials" (page 438).

A Dialogue about God's Foreknowledge and Our Free Will

Here is part of an extended dialogue I had years ago (in 2002) which provides insight on why some people have difficulty accepting a modified view of God's omniscience. My comment initiates the discussion. The subject is Paul's shipwreck at Malta--an event that was foretold before it happened.

[Edgar]
>Sure, Paul and his buddies were free to swim or free
>to not swim. Nevertheless, God could know what these
>human souls would do without "peeking" into the future
>or knowing their actions eternally.

Okay, we have to distinguish our points of view
here, since you're viewing God as temporal (not having
to "peek" into the future). But assuming your view, how
could God's "knowledge" of what these passengers
would do once their ship wrecked and they sunk into
the water be called anything more than a supremely
"well-educated guess"? How could he have "known"
(without "peeking") that this or that passenger wouldn't
panic and freak out, or that those who couldn't swim
would encounter a piece of floating timber at just the
opportune moment, or that a freak wave wouldn't smash
the mast down upon the heads of two swimmers and
instantly kill them? I just don't see how this could be
called "knowlege" at all, even in what Hume would call
the relatively "weak" epistemic sense with which we
declare ourselves to "know" that the sun will rise tomor-
row!

[Edgar]
>God knew what the
>sons of Israel would do [in the wilderness] by reading their collective
>hearts. He infallibly knew what Esau would do before
>birth, probably based on His knowledge of the human
>embryo.

Say WHAT? This sounds something like reading
tea leaves! How could knowledge of Esau's embryo
in the present furnish God with all the variables (of time,
place, relation, quality, and circumstance) necessary for
Him to know that Jacob would happen to be making an
appealing "mess of pottage" at the precise moment when
Esau would come in starving hungry from an unsuccessful
hunting trip?

[Edgar]
>My point is that God is capable of knowing the
>future without necessarily "foreknowing" the future. That is, God
>can predict [or foretell] with certainty what will happen based on
>one's track record or one's present desires and thoughts, etc.

I don't think this can work, because even
omniscient knowledge of a "track record" doesn't
account for the infinite number of variables involving
conditions of chance (future contingencies of weather,
earthquakes, famine, circumstance, and human choices)
that, on your view, God can't know before they are actual-ized.

>And, FWIW, I do not deny God's foreknowledge or foreordination.

Except when you do.

>Only timeless theists say that God does not literally foresee or foreordain events.

Not necessarily: we speak of God "foreknowing"
events just as the Bible does and as you and I, long
after the Copernican Revolution, continue to reasonably
speak of "sunrises." We just don't take such language
without due philosophical qualification when theorizing.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 (Robertson and Milligan)

Λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ' ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον (1 Thessalonians 4:1 W-H Text of 1881).

From Robertson's Word Pictures: Finally (loipon). Accusative of general reference of loipo, as for the rest. It does not mean actual conclusion, but merely a colloquial expression pointing towards the end (Milligan) as in 2 Corinthians 13:11 ; 2 Timothy 4:8 . So to loipon in 2 Thessalonians 3:1 ; Philippians 3:1 ; Philippians 4:8 . We beseech (erwtwmen). Not "question" as in ancient Greek, but as often in N.T. ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12 ; 2 Thessalonians 2:1 ; Philippians 4:3 ) and also in papyri to make urgent request of one. How ye ought (to pw dei uma). Literally, explanatory articular indirect question (to pw) after parelabhte according to common classic idiom in Luke ( Luke 1:62 ; Luke 22:2 Luke 22:4 Luke 22:23 Luke 22:24 ) and Paul ( Romans 8:26 ). That ye abound (ina perisseuhte). Loose construction of the ina clause with present subjunctive after two subordinate clauses with kaqw (as, even as) to be connected with "beseech and exhort." More and more (mallon). Simply more, but added to same idea in perisseuhte.

George Milligan says the following about 1 Thess 4:1:

λοιπόν] a colloquial expression frequently used to point forward to a coming conclusion (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:11, 2 Timothy 4:8; τὸ λοιπ. 2 Thessalonians 3:1, Philippians 4:8), but in itself doing little more than mark the transition to a new subject as in late Gk. where it is practically equivalent to an emphatic οὖν: cf. Polyb. 1:15. 11 λοιπὸν ἀνάγκη συγχωρεῖν, τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ὑποθέσεις εἶναι φευδεῖς, Epict. Diss. 1:22. 15 ἄρχομαι λοιπὸν μισεῖν αὐτόν, and the other passages cited by Jannaris Exp. 5. 8. p. 429 f.: see also Schmid Attic. 3. p. 135. As showing its frequency as a connecting particle in the κοινή (cf. B.G.U. 1039, 8 (Byz.)), Wilcken remarks that it has passed over into Coptic in this sense (Archiv 3. p. 507). In mod. Gk. λοιπόν has displaced οὖν altogether.

In the present passage οὖν is retained in the text by WH. mg., Tischdf., Zimmer, Nestle. It might easily have dropped out after the -ον of λοιπόν: on the other hand the combination λοιπὸν οὖν is found nowhere else in the N.T., cf. however B.G.U. 1079, 6 ff. (a private letter—1./a.d.) λοιπὸν οὖν ἔλαβον παρὰ το(ῦ) ἄραβος τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καὶ ἀνέγνων καὶ ἐλυπήθην.

See http://www.studylight.org/com/gmt/view.cgi?bk=51&ch=4

Jason Beduhn on Hebrews 1:8 (Originally Posted on BGreek)

In fact, I say in my book, "Both translations [the conventional and the one found in the NWT, as well as in notes to the NRSV and TEV] are possible, so none of the translations we are comnparing [SIC] can be rejected inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate with certainty" (99) and "Let me repeat that both ways of translating Hebrews 1.8 are legitimate readings of the original Greek of the verse. There is no basis
for proponents of either translation to claim that the other translation is certainly wrong. All that can be discussed is which translation is more probable" (101). I hope that is clear. I argue in the book that "God is your throne" is more probable based on the following points:

Linguistic:
1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a vocative;
2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate phrase;
preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the predicate;
3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it is
intended.

Literary:
1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to Jesus as
"God"; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO QEOS as a
vocative;
2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God is not
being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the attributes
of his life in the palace.

Let me add that this argument in presented in just two pages written at a
popular level.

Dr. Conrad has gone to the trouble of carefully investigating my statement
that "There is no other example in the Bible where the expression 'forever'
stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb 'to be' . . . 'Forever'
always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or a
predicate noun or pronoun" (99, part of Linguistic argument 2 above). He cites
what he considers contrary examples, and this leads to his conclusion that my
statement is in error. It is in error only in the way I sometimes let the
popular level at which I am writing in the book oversimplify, namely, (a) I
use "Bible" and "New Testament" interchangeably in the book, and (b) once I
have given an English rendering for a Greek phrase, I use the English to stand
for the referenced Greek wording. I can see now that his needs to be handled
more carefully in future editions of the book. My statement, within the
context of how the book is written (with the two practices of simplification I
just mentioned) is correct. None of Dr. Conrad's examples refute it, and I am
surprised no one else on this list has noted that fact. In none of Dr.
Conrad's examples does the phrase EIS TON AIWNA stand alone with an explicit
or implicit EINAI in the predicate. Instead, his exampled involve either the
dative of possessor which the phrase complements (in the doxological formulae)
or the adverbial phrase MEQ' hUMWN, which again the phrase complements. Now
we all know how easy it is to quibble about what is or is not a true parallel.
But all I wish to assert here is that Dr. Conrad's argument falls short of
demonstrating a failing in mine.

On the other hand, Dr. Conrad's instincts were right, even if he did not
succeed in supporting them sufficiently. That is the case because if we take
the Septuagint into account, then my statement would need to be qualified.
Because there, in that part of the Bible that I did not take into
consideration in my analysis, we do find the phrase EIS TON AIWNA used
absolutely with either explicit or implicit EINAI, namely, in Psalm 80.16
(81.15), 103.31 (104.31), 134.13 (135.13), and repeatedly in the expression
"his mercy (is) forever" in Psalms 99, 105, 106, 117, 135, and 137). So this
information would require me to speak here, as I do in connection with hO
QEOS, of preponderance of usage rather than claiming that there are no other
examples. EIS TON AIWNA usually and regularly modifies some other element of
a predicate, but it can stand alone, and so this part of my argument looses
much of its force. A survey of the Psalms does show, however, that the
preferred way to make an existential statement about the subject with EIS TON
AIWNA is with MENW (e.g., Psalms 9.8, 32.11, 88.37, 101.13, 102.9, 110.3,
110.10, 111.3, 111.9, 116.2).

With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic way to
determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the correct
one, and one's choice must always be qualified by this fact. I have made an
argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even with a
retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that argument is
still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the other
possible translation. I would be interested to hear any argument that could
be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the "conventional
translation" to the other.

best wishes,
Jason BeDuhn

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

More on Luke 17:21

Concerning Luke 17:21 and its syntax (word order):

οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν Ἰδοὺ ὧδε ἤ Ἐκεῖ· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν (NA27).

The NIV reads: "nor will people say, 'Here it is, ' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

The margin offers the alternative: "Or among."

Ralph Earle writes: "Some commentators and translators prefer 'in your midst' (NASB). But the Greek preposition here is not EN, 'in'; it is ENTOS (only here and Matt. 23:26), which means 'within.' Alfred Plummer discusses both translations. His conclusion is that if 'within you' is adopted, the meaning will be, 'Instead of being something externally visible, the Kingdom is essentially spiritual; it is in your hearts, if you possess it at all' (p. 406). It would seem that this is what Jesus meant" (Earle, Word Meanings, page 72).

Louw-Nida, however, lists the semantic domains of ἐντὸς as follows:

(a) among
(b) what is inside

This reference work then notes:

83.9 "ἐντὸς: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν 'the kingdom of God is among you' or ' . . . in your midst' Lk 17:21. For another interpretation of ἐντὸς in Lk 17:21, see discussion at 26.1."

83.17 "ἐντὸς: pertaining to being within an area - 'the contents of, that which is inside.' καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου 'clean what is inside the cup first' Mt 23:26. It is also possible, though not probable, to understand ἐντὸς in Mt 23:26 as the inside surface itself rather than the contents."

26.1 "In Lk 17:21 the phrase ἐντὸς ὑμῶν in the statement IDOU GAR hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ESTIN 'look, God's reign is within you' may constitute a reference to the same inner being designated by the phrases hO ESW and hO EN TW XRUPTWi. On this basis some scholars have suggested that the phrase ENTOS hUMWN can be interpreted as a potentiality for participation and hence be translated 'within your grasp,' but it is more likely that one should understand the phrase ENTOS hUMWN in Lk 17:21 as a spacial relationship, for example, 'in your midst' or 'among you' (see 83.9)."

See the full discussion of ENTOS in BDAG, which says in part: "Lk generally avoids ref. to God's reign as a psychological reality. The passage has invited much debate" (BDAG 340-341).

Does God Know the Future Contingently?

I want to share a dialogue that I had with a colleague and friend some years ago. I've slightly altered part of my response because I believe a reformulated answer makes more sense.

My interlocutor believes that God must fully (exhaustively?) know the future or else, God is less than omniscient. I obviously disagree; so my comments below are designed to address this particular objection. It is my belief that there are at least some things about the future that God knows contingently. Comments are appreciated.

In brief, knowing a proposition contingently (future or otherwise) is not the same thing as saying that one does not know a certain proposition at all. If God contingently knows that Abraham will offer up Isaac, how can it be said (legitimately) that He has no knowledge of the fact that Abraham will offer up Isaac?

(1) Whether Abraham will offer up Isaac or not is contingent.
(1) Necessarily, a contingent event can only be known contingently.
(2) Therefore, necessarily, God contingently knows that Abraham will offer up Isaac.

How is it possible for a contingent future event or proposition to be known in any other way except contingently? It is by its very nature contingent.

In answer to your second question about omniscience, I point to the old atheological question, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" One problem with this query is the definition of omnipotence that it assumes. My point is that there is a similar problem that has plagued the traditional definition of "omniscience." As S.T. Davis says, divine omniscience does not mean that "God knows all facts." Rather, IMO, it refers to God's (exhaustive) knowledge of all epistemic possibilia.

Three Persons or Three Gods?

The Trinity doctrine claims that God is three persons, but not three gods (tritheism). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are supposed to constitute three divine persons, who do not compromise biblical monotheism. For instance, the Athanasian Creed states:

"And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God"

In the same creed, we're also told: "And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity."

So there are Three Persons rather than three deities, we are assured. Yet the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes:

"By the latter part [of the Athanasian Creed], it follows by the indiscernibility of identicals that no person of the Trinity is identical with any other. And by the earlier part, it seems to follow that there are thus at least three eternal (etc.) things. But it asserts there's only one eternal thing. Hence, the creed seems contradictory, and has been attacked as such (Biddle 1691, i; Nye 1691a, 11; Priestley 1871, 321). Showing where the above argument for inconsistency goes wrong is a major motivation of recent Trinity theories (see sections 1 and 2 of the main entry). In contrast, mysterians hold that it somehow goes wrong, though no one can say quite where.(See section 3 of the main entry.) Finally, some simply reject the creed."

Trinitarians are likely to say that the Trinity doctrine teaches that there are Three divine Persons (three eternal things), but one God (one eternal thing); so it's not contradictory (they might aver) because this claim does not violate the law of non-contradiction. What's under consideration here is that God is claimed to be three in one sense, but one in another sense. Hence, there's supposedly no inconsistency in the claim.

On the other hand, Joseph Priestley and Dr. Magee have viewed the triune God in a different light:

"It must be universally true, that three things to
which the same definition applies can never make only
one thing to which the same definition applies . . .
If, therefore, the three persons agree in this same
circumstance, that they are each of them perfect God,
though they may differ in other respects, and have
peculiar relations to each other and to us, they must
still be three Gods; and to say that they are only one
God is as much a contradiction, as to say that three
men, though they differ from one another as much as
three men do, are not three men, but only one man"
(Joseph Priestley).

"If ideas are attached to the words employed,
Trinitarianism is, in reality, either Tritheism or
Sabellianism" (The Right Reverend Dr. Magee, Bishop of
Raphoe).

Defenders of the Trinity have sometimes tried to refute Priestley's criticism by appealing to three men (distinct from one another and three things in that sense) who have one thing in common: human nature. But just as Peter, James, and John are three men, it would seem that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be three gods--even if each Person is divine. But as we've mentioned on this blog before, the Trinitarian response to Priestley's criticism is usually the divine simplicity doctrine.

Without going down that road now, one point I want to make with this post is that Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians sometimes talk past one another. A Trinitarian could possibly be uncharitable and refer to Non-Trinitarians as "deceptive" or intellectually dishonest." The truth of the matter, however, is that both groups approach the Trinity doctrine from two different perspectives. I would suggest that one try to understand someone's position before critiquing it; moreover, even where there's disagreement, name-calling does not have to occur.

Witnesses of Jehovah and other Non-Trinitarians do believe that the Trinity trangresses biblical monotheism. We are not necessarily saying that Trinitarians agree with us; in fact, we know they do not.

Adolf Harnack on Early Bible Reading

I will now sum up Adolf Harnack's arguments which are found in his work Bible Reading in the Early Church (New York: GP Putnam's Sons, 1912).

Harnack contends, as does yours truly, that private Bible reading (not private interpretation) was a common practice among ancient Jews. Therefore when the LOGOS became flesh and dwelt among us for a short time, dutifully selecting the Twelve along with other men and women who would constitute his spirit-begotten EKKLHSIA, "the private use of the Holy Scriptures simply continued" (Harnack 32) as suggested by Acts 17:10-11 and Eusebius' account of the layman who petitioned Bishop Melito of Sardis to make him a copy of the Law and Prophets (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.26.12.) so that he could get to know the soteriological matters pertaining to the Christian faith.

Another insightful passage is likewise found in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Philadelphians VIII.1-2. There we read:

"I trust in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall loose
from you every chain; and I exhort you to do nothing
of contention, but according to the discipline of
Christ. Since I have heard certain men say, 'Unless I
find it in the ancients [the OT], I believe it not in
the Gospel.' And when I said unto them that 'It is
written,' they replied, 'That it is set forth
aforetime.' But my archives are Jesus Christ; his
cross and his death, his resurrection, and the faith
which is through him, are inviolable archives, through
which I desire to be justified by means of your
prayers."

Here Ignatius evidently alludes to certain laymen who were well-versed with Holy Writ, especially the OT. While they seemed to be contending with Bishop Ignatius and he thus had to remind them of the significance the Christ Event holds for believers in Jesus, this Ignatian passage almost certainly indicates that private Bible reading was common among the laity in the second century CE. Adding to this testimony in a powerful manner, Polycarp writes to the Philippians (XII.1):

"For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you."

Notice how Tatian also describes his conversion to Christianity. He claims that it was wrought by reading and studying the "barbaric" antiquitous writings of Judaism and Christianity:

"Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover
also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having
everywhere examined the religious rites performed by
the effeminate and the pathic, and having found among
the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting in human
gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not
far from the great city sanctioning acts of the same
kind, and one demon here and another there instigating
to the perpetration of evil, retiring by myself, I
sought how I might be able to discover the truth. And,
while I was giving my most earnest attention to the
matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric
writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of
the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their
errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the
unpretending east of the language, the inartificial
character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed
of future events, the excellent quality of the
precepts, and the declaration of the government of the
universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being
taught of God, I discern that the former class of
writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an
end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us
from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand
tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had
not before received, but what we had received but were
prevented by error from retaining" (Oratio ad Graecos
XXIX).

Lastly I will cite Justin's charitable exhortation
found in his 1 Apology XLIV:

"But by the agency of the devils, death has been
decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes,
or of the Sibyl, or of the prophets, that through fear
they may prevent men who read them from receiving the
knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery
to themselves; which, however, they could not always
effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but,
as you see, bring them for your inspection, knowing
that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we
persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for,
as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from
the Master."

Questions Addressed to Dualists

I once addressed these words to a friend and colleague who advocates hylomorphic (hylemorphic) dualism:

How do we know that physical organs are only capable of apprehending particulars? What incontrovertible proof do we have that intellects (of the Thomistic caliber) even obtain [exist]? I admit that an intellect qua a power of the soul is logically possible [there's no logical contradiction in the idea itself]. However, I am not convinced that such a faculty is factually possible. So I guess my first line of attack would be to question the existence of the intellect, in the relevant sense we're discussing. Secondly, I would argue that what has been called "intellect" is really nothing more than a higher-order process of the brain: intellection is a biological phenomenon. The brain consequently makes it possible for us to have the facility for grasping what appear to be [abstract] universals.

I have slightly edited some of this message to promote understanding of its contents.

Regards,

Edgar

What Accounts for Mentality?

I've been studying neuroscience and mind theory for almost a decade. It's no secret that I don't believe the soul is immortal; however, when I read Antonio Damasio's work on Descartes, Francis Crick's "Astronishing Hypothesis" and Joseph LeDoux ("Synaptic Self"), I was convinced that mentality has to result from brain activity. In other words, while science cannot provide the knock out punch for the Witness understanding of the soul, the neuroscientific evidence overwhelmingly seems to be on our side. But scientific knowledge is provisional and limited. Therefore, it only takes us so far.

While I've been excited about the harmony between science and how Witnesses understand biblical anthropology, one Witness friend with whom I shared these findings said I should exercise caution: he feels that only Jehovah knows how mentality actually comes about. I respect this friend greatly, but I could not help but wonder what else accounts for mental states, if we're purely physical and don't have souls. In any event, two possibilities seem viable for me at this time:

1) Mental states could supervene on brain states

2) Mental states are identical with brain states

By supervenience, I simply mean a form of "dependence" such that M (mental states) depends on B (brain states), which is another way of saying that differences in B constitute differences in M (and vice versa). Another term for supervenience is property dualism (e.g., contrasting the physical properties of a painting over against its microphysical properties).

As support for the idea that minds could turn out to be continuous with matter, Anthony Appiah writes:

"We have learned about the properties of matter by seeing what can be made of it: we know that it is the kind of thing that magnets can be made out of, because we have found magnetic substances; we know that it is the kind of thing bacteria can be made out of, because we have found bacteria. Why is it especially hard to accept that it is the kind of thing minds can be made out of? Indeed, since the one thing of which each of us surely has the most extensive direct experience is our own mind, shouldn’t we be puzzled, if we are puzzled by anything, by the nature of matter? How can it be, one might want to ask, that a world made of the sorts of things and governed by the sorts of laws that physicists now believe in should give rise to the astonishing range of experiences that each of us has every day?" (Thinking It Through, page 52).

But Kevin Vanhoozer does not want to reduce mental properties to physical properties. He believes we should maintain some type of distinction between the two. Either way, I believe that physical factors completely explain mental states. Jehovah God created us as completely physical beings.

ENTITAS and Barbarousness (Thought for Today)

One definition for the adjective "barbarous" is "characterized by the occurrence of barbarisms" (M-W).

Barbarisms have been defined as:

"the practice or display of barbarian acts, attitudes, or ideas"

"an idea, act, or expression that in form or use offends against contemporary standards of good taste or acceptability"

While I can readily understand what it means for a sentence or paragraph to be "barbarous," I often have trouble comprehending what it means for a word to be less than well-formed or barbarous. John Stuart Mill asserts that the Latin word ENTITAS (from ENS) is barbarous like its English counterpart "entity."

ENTITAS is a neologism based on the present participle of ESSE (the Latin form of the verb "to be"). I'm not sure what makes ENTITAS or "entity" barbarous, but maybe a classicist or linguist can help with this question.

Luke 17:21

Rogers and Rogers point out that ἐντὸς with the genitive can denote "within, in the midst of, among." A similar observation is made in BDAG Greek-English Lexicon; I looked at the entry for ἐντὸς in BDAG and it might pay to read the entire thing. This lexical source indicates that Luke's ἐντὸς ὑμῶν probably is patterned after Isaiah's ἐν σοὶ in 45:14 (LXX). BDAG also provides texts that correspond syntactically with Luke 17:21: the lexicon seems to argue that the verse in question should not be given a psychological interpretation. See pp. 340-341 and the relevant literature listed in BDAG.

Theologian Karl Rahner Explains the Trinity Doctrine

Within the conceptual system of scholastic theology, no real question remains once the Trinitarian doctrine itself has been presupposed(i.e. once the linguistic usage of the New Testament has been taken to conform to that of theology): the word and concept ‘God’ signifies (significat) the Person to whom the divine nature is proper; and so ‘God’ can stand for (supponitur)each of the three Persons who possess this nature, or again ‘God’ can stand for all three Persons together. When, for example,the Logos is called ‘Son of God’, ‘God’ in this predication stands for the Father, in so far as he is one of the divine Persons, for ‘God' can stand for each of the three Persons, while the Father alone has a Son. Or again, in the statement, ‘God creates the world’, according to the conceptual system of Latin theology ‘God’ stands for the divine Person, this time indeed for the three Persons together, in so far as they are one God by reason of the unity of nature and thus one Source of the world by reason of the unity of their operation ad extra. For the theology of the Schools, then, ‘God’ is one with respect to the general concept of personality, if we may so put it, and consequently can stand for each of the three Persons individually and for all three together. Once more we do not of course wish to deny that such a view of the concept and the word ‘God’ is possible, legitimate and in the long run unavoidable. But the question nevertheless remains whether this is also the usage of the New Testament.

See Theological Investigations, page 101

Notes on William Lane Craig's View of God and Time (Grad School Notes)

Pre-Nicenes and Noah

I believe that the ante-Nicene Fathers (as well as the post-Nicenes) generally accepted the historical validity of the Noachian Flood:

"In the ninth generation are born the giants, so called from of old, not dragon footed, as the fables of the Greeks relate, but men of immense bodies, whose bones, of enormous size, are still shown in some places for confirmation. But against these the righteous providence of God brought a flood upon the world, that the earth might be purified from their pollution, and every place might be turned into a sea by the destruction of the wicked. Yet there was then found one righteous man, by name Noah, who, being delivered in an ark with his three sons and their wives, became the colonizer of the world after the subsiding of the waters, with those animals and seeds which he had shut up with him" (1 Clement 29).

In Refutation of all Heresies 26, Hippolytus also
maintains:

"And in Noah's time there occurred a flood throughout the entire world, which neither Egyptians, nor Chaldeans, nor Greeks recollect; for the inundations which took place in the age of Ogyges and Deucalion prevailed only in the localities where these dwelt. There are, then, in the case of these (patriarchs-that is, from Noah to Heber inclusive)-5 generations, and 495 years."

Moreover, in a work of Theophilus, we read:

"But Moses, our prophet and the servant of God, in giving an account of the genesis of the world, related in what manner the flood came upon the earth, telling us, besides, how the details of the flood came about, and relating no fable of Pyrrha nor of Deucalion or Clymenus; nor, forsooth, that only the plains were submerged, and that those only who escaped to the mountains were saved" (To Autolycus 3.18-19).

The quotes that illustrate the beliefs of the ante-Nicenes regarding the Noachian Flood are many. It appears safe to say that the Fathers generally thought it was a historical event. However, this does not mean that the account could not be read on other exegetical levels. For instance, Cyprian argues that anyone who does not have the church for his mother cannot have God for his Father. He then uses the account of Noah to explain the salvific or soteriological role of the church in the outworking of God's eternal purpose through Christ Jesus:

"If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church" (On the Unity of the Church 6).

Augustine of Hippo later employs the biblical narrative of Noah and applies it to the church. He likens the clean and unclean animals taken into the Ark to defiled and undefiled persons in the Christian ecclesia. For Augustine, the church is a corpus permixtum: a body composed of different types of persons until Christ does the separating work. However, Augustine thought the Flood was an historical event as did the ante-Nicenes. Interestingly, Origen's interlocutor Celsus, also charged Christians during his time with distorting Greek flood stories by using the biblical account of Noah.

Translating 1 John 4:2

"Having come in the flesh" represents a fairly literal rendering of the perfect participle in 1 John 4:2.

I notice that J.B. Rotherham also translates the verse:

"Hereby do ye perceive the Spirit of God:--."

W. Hall Harris points out that the Greek expression ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is literally "confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come."

On perfect participles in general, Daniel B. Wallace makes this observation:

"The perfect participle is almost always antecedent with reference to the main verb. When it is contemporaneous, such is due to either an intensive use of the perfect or to a present force of the perfect in its lexical nuance" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 626).

But notice that John replaces the perfect participle with the present form of the Greek verbal adjective in 2 John 7 (ἐρχόμενον). This syntactical structure makes the translational issue a little more complex; however, the perfect participle no doubt refers to antecedent action in the first Johannine passage (1 John 4:2) whereas the present participle likely has the same reference in 2 John 7.

Robert Alter's Commentary on Genesis 17:10 (Circumcision)

New Book on NWT (written in Italian)

Documentary Hypothesis and the Margins of Scholarship

The Documentary Hypothesis teaches that the Pentateuch arose from four distinct sources known as JEDP (the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly source). The J document is usually given a 9th century date, the E source is believed to be an 8th century source, whereas D is attributed a 7th century date and P is considered a 6th century source.

"The Documentary Hypothesis claims that the Pentateuch is a composite of four separate, complete, and coherent documents." See http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Intro/hypoth.html

One point that interests me for now is how dogmatic that proponents of this view have been or continue to be. Furthermore, the Documentary Hypothesis is a lesson in how certain scholars get pushed to the margins if they do not follow the status quo. Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard relate the story of Franz Delitzsch, who apparently was pushed to the margins of scholarship because he did not accept the Documentary Hypothesis. While I understand the need for the scholarly guild to protect academic biblical studies from "loony" and unsupported ideas, it's somewhat disturbing that scholars have made the Documentary Hypothesis (a very speculative endeavor) a touchstone for who can have a voice in the biblical scholarly world and who cannot. That view strikes me as conformist to the utmost degree.

I am reminded of ancient controversies that used force instead of persuasion to shut "heretics" down; and one can't help but think of Martin Werner, whose views on Christ qua angel were intensely criticized by Wilhelm Michaelis. Werner never recovered from the latter's analysis. See https://www.academia.edu/2202637/Reconsidering_and_Aspect_of_the_Title_Kyrios_in_Light_of_4Q416_2_iii

You can believe what you want to believe in academic biblical studies, so long as your view harmonizes with the prevailing orthodoxy.

Birthdays and Circumcision--Again

1) While it may be tempting to deny that birthdays are rooted in superstition, magic and pagan religious customs--almost everything I read backs this idea. People (in general) evidently began celebrating birthdays in order to keep away bad spirits. Granted, not every culture has the same practices for birthdays or how to observe Christmas (etc). That's an understatement. But I'd like to see an early culture that observed birthdays for non-religious or non-superstitious reasons. I have not found one yet.

2) Ancient Jews and Christians roundly condemned the observance of birthdays at one time. Origen is a famous example: he wrote that not one "saint" (holy person) observed a feast on the day of his birth. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria spoke ill of those who speculated about the Savior's day of birth. See John Davidson, The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of His Original Teachings, page 131. Another patristic writer who spoke against birthdays was Arnobius of Sicca; see Adversus Gentes 7.34. It's also possible that Philo condemned birthdays while we know that Josephus did.

"Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the birth of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess" (Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston. Against Apion, Book II, Chapter 26. Extracted from Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids (MI), 14th printing, 1977, p. 632).

See http://www.cogwriter.com/birthdays.htm

One writer examines both sides of the issue from a Jewish perspective, but it seems that all of his examples to uphold the celebration of birthdays are late, since they date from the 4th cent. CE onward. See http://louisjacobs.org/library/articles/birthday-celebrations.php

3) To my knowledge, wedding rings did not originate from pagan religious sources. I read an article on this point years ago, but would be happy to see additional research on the matter. I choose not to wear a wedding ring anyway, but not for religious reasons. It's a matter of conscience IMO.

4) On circumcision, we have two issues at play. What are its origins and why did God command Abraham to do it? Scholars point out that the issues surrounding circumcision are more complex than the subject may first appear. There's no necessary B-line from Egypt to Israel as far as circumcision is concerned; secondly, it's far from clear that the Egyptians started practicing circumcision because of religion.

In a journal article, "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East," Jack M. Sasson argues that it's very unlikely the Israelites or Phoenicians adopted circumcision from the Egyptians. After reviewing some archaeological evidence from Egypt, he reports: "Thus one can note a basic difference between the Israelites and the Egyptians in the surgical process involved in circumcision. Whereas the Hebrews amputated the prepuce and thus exposed the corona of the penis, the Egyptian practice consisted of a dorsal incision upon the foreskin which liberated the glans penis. The Old Kingdom reliefs at Saqqara clearly demonstrate the results obtained by the Egyptian surgeon." See JBL 85 (1966): 473-76.

The Potential Sources for Justin Martyr's Logos Concept

We might be inclined to believe that the Fourth Gospel primarily supplied the contextual literary background for Justin Martyr's Logos notion. However, Peter R. Forster has argued that the scholarly world is uncertain whether Justin depended on the Fourth Gospel at all. He argues that Justin's ideas of the Logos are informed by "Stoic and Platonic terms, with Stoic monism to a degree softening Platonic dualism." There appears to be a number of ideas at work in Justin: the Stoic Logos combined with the Platonic World-Soul possibly informed by late Judaic notions of the Word or Hokhmah/Sophia.

See Peter R. Forster, “Divine Passibility and the Early Christian Doctrine of God,” in The Power and Weakness of God: Impassibility and Orthodoxy, edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1990), 29.

Galatians 4:8-11 (Holidays)

One reader of this blog has made some remarks on Galatians 4:8ff regarding the applicability of those verses today. Granted, Paul was originally chastising the Galatians for keeping Jewish feast days and practicing circumcision, Jehovah's Witnesses still make the argument that the apostolic words apply in an a fortiori sense. If the Galatians should not have been observing Jewish festivals which were once commanded by God through Moses, then how much more should they and we eschew festivals/holidays that have pagan religious connections.

Some might feel that holidays are a matter of conscience. But how can the observance of days rooted in pagan religion be a matter of conscience for the Christian believer? 2 Corinthians 6 teaches followers of Christ to flee from idolatry and [spiritually] unclean things. The best evidence we have from historical sources is that the ancient Jews and the early Christians did not observe holidays rooted in pagan religion. Augustus Neander and others have documented these points.

Birthdays and Circumcision

This blog is intended to be a safe place for my fellow brothers/sisters. I like taking a scholarly approach to biblical studies, so I'm not afraid of opposing viewpoints. But I will not willingly dialogue with a Witness who does not agree with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses or with someone, who although identifying himself/herself as a brother/sister, refuses to accept the exousia of Jehovah God's ecclesia. None of the foregoing means that I'm afraid to talk with someone who disagrees with my religious views.

Now I recently posted something about disfellowshipping which led to a side conversation about birthdays and circumcision. I'm not going to spend lots of time addressing these issues, but I will make a few brief comments in this blog entry.

1) Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate holidays or birthdays. Some object to this belief by saying that birthdays no longer have the associations they once did, where people once celebrated birthdays for reasons that involved superstition and magic. Granted, most people observing birthdays today might not be celebrating them for reasons that involve superstition. However, if someone wants to be a Christian that pleases God or he/she wants to live a life governed by Scripture, that person will consider what ancient Judaism and Christianity both thought respecting birthdays.

The evidence suggests that neither Jews nor Christians observed birthdays in times of antiquity. Besides their association with magic or superstition, there were other unsavory elements of birthdays that kept members of Judaism and Christianity from observing birthdays. We must also ask why someone would want to celebrate a birthday since the day of death is better than the day of one's birth. Most importantly, we have no divine sanction, no exhortation--not even a hint from God--concerning the approval of birthdays.

I would add that we cannot detach past associations from these days either. That would be like trying to remove the negative connotations from American slavery; something that's very hard to do.

2) I should clarify my earlier statement. Circumcision did predate Abraham by quite some time; but my point about circumcision was why the descendants of Abraham practiced it. I was not focusing on other cultures that might have had circumcision rites.

Abraham's fleshly progeny did not practice circumcision because the ancient Egyptians did. Rather, circumcision represented an agreement between God and Abraham. When the Jews observed the practice, they were following the dictates that had been given to their forefather (Lev 12:1ff). The children of Israel were not trying to imitate pagan practices when they circumcised newborn Jewish males.

3) As for baptism, it's irrelevant who might have practiced baptism before Jews or Christians did. The question is why Jewish or Christian baptism was practiced and what influenced the Judeo-Christian baptism. What evidence is there that the Jews baptized people because of pagan influence? As for Christianity, it's clear that early followers of Jesus were baptizing new disciples because their Master had engaged in the practice. Christian baptism is not a result of some pagan influence.

4) Finally, some want to quote Romans 14:5 "One person considers some days to be more sacred than others, while another person considers all days to be the same. Each person must have their own convictions."

Yet we must consider this verse within its appropriate context. It has nothing to do with approving birthdays or pagan holidays, but is likely a reference to feasts that were once commemorated under the Law of Moses. We cannot strip a verse out of context just to support our pet ideas.

Those who like to quote Romans 14:5 should also recall the words of Galatians 4:9-11: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain" (NASB).

Dialogue on 1 Corinthians 5:1-13: Eating with A Sinner

I must admit that a reference to the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 is a possibility (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23ff). However, my analysis of this account rules out that conclusion for the following reasons.

1 Corinthians 5:1 describes the sin of a Christian brother in Corinth. He is cohabiting with his father's wife (living in an incestuous relationship); even worse, the older men of Corinth--representing the EKKLESIA--are tolerating this immoral conduct. Paul laments that the Corinthians are "puffed up" rather than mourning over the abhorrent deeds of the immoral brother in their midst.

In 1 Cor. 5:3-5, the "apostle to the nations" recommends that the one practicing sin be "delivered up to the adversary." This act is done in order to destroy the sinful "flesh" and preserve the spirit of the believer "in the day of the Lord."

Next, Paul continues to expound on the reason that the sinning believer must be turned over to the Devil. By allowing this one to remain in the midst of the congregation, the EKKLESIA will suffer corruption: it will not be able to rightly observe the antitypical passover: "for even our Paschal Lamb, Christ, was sacrificed" (Emphatic Diaglott). Therefore, the congregation of God must take the action prescribed in 1 Cor. 5:9-13. What is the thrust of this counsel? What action is the EKKLESIA urged to take?

1 Cor. 5:11 says: "NUNI DE EGRAYA hUMIN MH SUNANAMIGNUSQAI EAN TIS ADELFOS ONOMAZOMENOS hH PORNOS . . ."

The phrase that really catches my attention here is NUNI DE EGRAYA hUMIN
MH SUNANAMIGNUSQAI.

This part of the verse indicates that Paul is not simply talking about ceasing to share "the meal" with a brother who practices sin--although clearly the EKKLHIA should take this action as well.

The present infinitive middle SUNANAMIGNUSQAI tells me that all association should cease with this person (not just the Lord's evening meal). Elsewhere we are told, "do not receive him into your house nor wish him success" (2 John 10, 11). If you want to discuss the applicability/inapplicability of 2 John 2:7, we can examine that verse too. In sum, I would say that 1 Cor. 5:11 is talking about general association (i.e., "don't even eat lunch with this man"!).

Kathleen Callow makes this point concerning 1 Cor. 5:6-8:

"In this unit Paul urges the expulsion (EKKAQARATE, v. 7a) in the light of the effect of evil on their fellowship as a whole, and of their own status as AZOUMOI--a purified community" (See Linguistics and NT Interpretation, edited by D.A. Black, page 202).

Robertson's Word Pictures supplies this note on 1 Cor. 5:11:

"With such a one, no, not to eat (τωι τοιουτωι μηδε συνεστιειν — tōi toioutōi mēde sunesthiein). Associative instrumental case of τοιουτωι — toioutōi after συνεστιειν — sunesthiein 'not even to eat with such a one.' Social contacts with such 'a brother' are forbidden."

Exegeting Psalm 74:14 (Reply to Coogan)

"You crushed the heads of Leviathan, gave him as food to the sharks" (Psalm 74:14 NAB).

I have long been familiar with Hermann Gunkel's work, but it's only been recently that I learned about his influential effect on how OT exegetes construe Ps 74:14. Rashi and others applied the verse to the Exodus; Leviathan was interpreted as Egypt or the Pharaoh himself instead of some mythological creature battling with Elohim at the initio creationis. But since Gunkel, it has been popular to understand Leviathan as a mythical sea monster. But the context of Psalm 74 causes me to believe the Exodus is the dominating motif of this song. Furthermore, note how other writers use "Leviathan" to describe Egypt (Isa 27:1; 30:7; cf. Isa 51:9-10).

Below I include some thoughts from John Trapp's (1601-1669) Complete Commentary on the Bible:

"Ver. 14. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan] i.e. Of Pharaoh himself. See Isaiah 26:1 [SIC], Ezekiel 29:3. Egypt is situated between two seas; and a great part of it overflowed by the river Nile. Pharaoh, therefore, is fitly compared to the master fish, and his captains to crocodiles.

And gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness] i.e. To the birds and wild beasts, who fed upon the dead carcases of the Egyptians cast upon the shore; the Israelites having first taken the spoil of them, whereby they were provided of many necessaries for their voyage toward Canaan."

Exegeting Psalm 74:12-13 (Coogan)

"Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength; Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters" (Psalm 74:12-13).

Michael Coogan wants to apply this passage to the creation account of Genesis 1:1, and so does the NAB:

"Comparable Canaanite literature describes the storm-god’s victory over all-encompassing Sea and its allies (dragons and Leviathan) and the subsequent peaceful arrangement of the universe, sometimes through the placement of paired cosmic elements (day and night, sun and moon), cf. Ps 89:12–13. The Psalm apparently equates the enemies attacking the Temple with the destructive cosmic forces already tamed by God. Why then are those forces now raging untamed against your own people?" (NAB Notes on Psalm 74:12-17).

But the context suggests that the psalmist is recounting the Exodus drama at the Red Sea. That was my intuition when I first read the passage and I've since found that a medieval rabbi named Rashi--who is big in exegetical circles--also applies these verses to the Exodus (not to the creation account). There's plenty of material written on Psalm 74, but I found that Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" likewise views this psalm in the light of Israel's deliverance from Pharaoh in the Red Sea:

"Working salvation in the midst of the earth. From the most remote period of Israel's history the Lord had worked out for her many salvations; especially at the Red Sea, the very heart of the world was astonished by his wonders of deliverance" (Treasure of David).

Joseph Benson makes similar points about these passages:

"Thou didst divide the sea, &c. — 'The first part of this verse alludes to that marvellous act of omnipotence which divided the Red sea for Israel to pass over; the second part to the return of its waves upon the heads of the Egyptians, who, like so many sea-monsters, opening their mouths to devour the people of God, were overwhelmed, and perished in the mighty waters.' — Horne. Thou brakest the heads of the dragons — The crocodiles, meaning Pharaoh’s mighty men, who were like these beasts in strength and cruelty. Thou brakest the heads — That is, the head of Pharaoh himself. He says heads, because of the several princes who were and acted under his influence. Dr. Waterland renders the first word, which we translate dragons, crocodiles, and the latter, the crocodile, meaning Pharaoh" (Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments).

Dialogues with Michael Coogan (Genesis 1:2)

Michael Coogan (The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures) makes another claim about the opening verses of Genesis, particularly, Genesis 1:2. He maintains that the word usually translated "deep" in that passage does not have the definite article in Hebrew, therefore, it should be rendered without the definite article in English.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Gen 1:2 NIV).

The Hebrew term that is rendered "the deep" is תְּהוֹם (tehom) which is also translated "the great deep" in Gen 7:11 (KJV), etc. Robert Alter also uses the definite article at Gen 1:2 in his translation: "and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters"

Many other examples could be given where a noun does not have the article in Hebrew or Greek, but it's still definite rather than indefinite or qualitative. A famous example we have from the LXX Greek text is Gen 1:1 which employs the anarthrous noun for "beginning" but should be understood as definite "the beginning."

Dialogues With Michael Coogan (Genesis 1:1)

Scholar Michael Coogan insists that the rendering "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is grammatically incorrect, according to the original Hebrew reading of Genesis 1:1. He makes this claim in his introductory work to the Old Testament. While the respected translator and scholar Robert Alter departs from the traditional reading of Gen 1:1 and prefers to translate 1:1 with "When God began to create heaven and earth"--one thing I've learned about translation is that one must be careful about stating something in absolute terms that can be understood in more than one way.

For instance, notice what the NET Bible states about Genesis 1:1, which explains why many Bibles do stick with the traditional reading of 1:1:

The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

[END QUOTE]

See the NET Bible for a discussion of some issues that affect the translation of Gen 1:1. But my point is that Coogan too strongly maintains that the reading found in KJV and other Bibles is grammatically incorrect based on the original Hebrew when he should have noted that it's a viable option, even if he disagrees with how others have elected to construe the Hebrew text.

ONOMA in Philippians 2:9-11 (Moulton-Milligan)

Moulton and Milligan express their view of ONOMA (Philippians 2) when writing:

"By a usage similar to that of the Heb. SHEM, ONOMA comes in the NT to denote the character, fame, authority of the person indicated (cf. Phil. 2:9f, Heb 1:4). With this may be compared the use of the word as a title of dignity or rank, as in P Oxy I.58.6 (A.D. 288) where complaint is made of the number of officials who have devised 'offices' for themselves--ONOMATA hEAUTOIS EXEURONTES, and provision is made that, on the appointment of a single trustworthy superintendent, the remaining 'offices' shall cease-14f. TA DE LOIPA ONOMATA PAUSHTAI."

See the entry for ONOMA in M-M.

2 Peter 2:1--Redemption and the Redemptive Agent

The difference between Acts 20:28 and other passages that speak of Christians being redeemed or purchased seems quite striking. While some scholars may wish to attribute the putative disparity to Luke's individual view of God's salvific activity through Christ, it appears that the GNT as a whole does make a vital distinction between God's divine act of redemption and the redemptive agent, Jesus Christ.

For instance, while Luke employs περιεποιήσατο in Acts 20:28 ( a morphological form that occurs once in the GNT), other verses from the Pauline and Johannine literature use a form of ἀγοράζω:

ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς· δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (1 Cor 6:20).

τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε· μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων (1 Cor 7:23).

1 Cor 7:22 relates that "anyone in the Lord" is also "a slave of Christ," indicating that the one who purchased or redeemed the Corinthians is Christ. (Notice Paul's discussion regarding πορνεία in 1 Cor 6:19-20 as well.)

2 Pt 2:1 employs τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην and it could fittingly refer to Christ since Peter writes elsewhere that Christians were "redeemed" (ἐλυτρώθητε) from vain conduct by means of Christ's precious blood (1 Pt 1:18-19). Compare Luke 24:21; Titus 2:14.

Finally, the Lamb bought (ἠγόρασας) persons for God out of every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9). Maybe Rev 14:3 primarily has Christ's role in mind then, when it reports that the 144,000 have been purchased from the earth:

οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

I therefore conclude that Christ could well be the δεσπότης spoken of in 2 Pt 2:1 and Jd 4. What is more, Luke may have intended to highlight God's preeminent role in the divine act of salvation. God sent His Son to redeem obedient humankind (Gal 4:4-5); He thus purchased us by using the Lamb to redeem persons of faith (Gal 3:13).

Answering Questions from Someone Wanting to Know More About God

Has science solved the problem of why something exists rather than nothing?

1) Gottfried Leibniz famously asked why is there something rather than nothing. I know that certain scientists have tried to answer this metaphysical question, although I'm not sure that science can satisfactorily reply to Leibniz. I respect the place of science in rational discussions. However, why something exists when it's possible that nothing might have existed is a question that seems to exceed the purview of science. We must also remember that "nothing" is being used by Leibniz in a metaphysical rather than scientific sense.

2) Is light-speed still the cosmic speed limit? The notion of things going faster than light seems to have been refuted for now. And the second video link you included is less than clear about what "nothing" means. In other words, the term "nothing" can be defined within a quantum context or it can be fleshed out metaphysically. To make the discussion fair, a term needs to be used monosemically as opposed to being used equivocally.


3) I personally do not believe that free will is an illusion. It's somewhat of a mystery how free will exists, but one could argue for free will by appealing to moral responsibility and counterfactual freedom. Peter van Inwagen has written extensively on incompatibilist free will. Nancey Murphy also provides evidence that free will may possibly arise from an initially deterministic system. Think about the robot in "I, Robot" that learns how to wink; maybe free volition can be produced in a similar way from a system (the brain) that's supposed to be wholly deterministic.

John 1:14 and Temple Theology: Why the Resistance?

Lately, I've been asking myself why I'm so resistant to seeing temple theology in John 1:14. The claimed allusion is a viable possibility to me--but it's more of an inference (IMO) than a result of solid exegesis. Alford (et al) presents a strong historico-exegetical case for making a connection between 1:14 and the shekinah presence of YHWH. However, to jump from there to the idea that Christ is YHWH appears to be rather hasty or premature. There are also lines of evidence that suggest one should not think the Shekinah presence of God is at play in 1:14 of the Fourth Gospel.

A.T. Robertson certainly sees an allusion to the Shekinah in John 1:14:

"First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of SKHNOW, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (SKHNOS or SKHNH), in N.T. only here and [Revelation] 12:12; 13:6; 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son."

And there are plenty of other recent studies affirming the same idea. On the other hand, Benny Thettayil refers to a number of studies that might refute the common interpretation of John 1:14. See his work In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, pages 369ff. He evidently accepts the common understanding of the text but does review evidence to the contrary.

Temple theology could be present in 1:14. I just believe the evidence (at this time) cuts both ways.

Apanthsis and 1 Thessalonians 4:17

Here is a little more information about 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and what it potentially teaches us about life in the heavens for all eternity.

C. A. Wannamaker remarks concerning this significant textual unit:

"Since they are to be taken up into the air to meet Jesus this can only refer to their being led to heaven with Jesus"(The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990. Page 176).

(1) As I pointed out in an earlier post, there is no apodictic or even compelling evidence that demonstrates ἀπάντησις is a terminus technicus used to delineate the action of meeting and subsequently accompanying a dignitary. There was once a custom of engaging in such actions; however, proof for the custom being practiced is not necessarily evidence for a terminus technicus. Notice that the LXX (Exodus 19:17) applies ἀπάντησις to the Israelites "meeting" with God at Sinai.

(2) The GNT use of ἀπαντάω/ἀπάντησις could have been influenced by LXX usage more so than Hellenistic lingual usage. We simply do not know with any degree of certainty as Joseph Plevnik writes: "The term PAROUSIA was hence used in the technical sense neither by the apostle nor in Hellenistic or Roman sources" ("1 Thessalonians 4,17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?" Biblica, Vol. 80 [1999]: 537-546).

(3) We are told that the virgins in a Matthean parable 'go out to meet'(EXHLQON EIS hUPANTHSIN TOU NUMFIOU) the bridegroom. See Matt 25:1. Matt 25:7 even adds: IDOU hO NUMFIOS EXERXESQE EIS APANTHSIN. Later Matthew writes that the bridegroom arrives (HLQEN) and the discreet or wise virgins go in with him to the marriage feast (KAI hAI hETOIMOI EISHLQON MET' AUTOU EIS TOUS GAMOUS KAI EKLEISQH hH QURA). See Matt 25:10.

We must remember that Jesus is relating a parable and some of the details cannot be pressed too far. Therefore, while Matthew does say that the bridegroom arrives and that the imprudent virgins seek to get in the door of the wedding feast after it has been shut, we have no reason to believe that the wedding feast is celebrated on the earth. One piece of information that is withheld from the reader is the general setting of this parable. Where is the wedding feast celebrated? Is it at the bridegroom's house or at the house of Christ's bride? Do the virgins accompany the bridegroom back to his residence or does he feast at the bride's house? See John 14:1-3.

Blog Posts on Melito (Links)

I enjoyed reading these posts. Please visit these blogs:

http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-anf-tampering-by-later.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/james-whites-misuse-of-melito-of-sardis.html

You'll find insightful remarks made about Melito of Sardis

Does John 1:14 Allude to the Shekinah?

I contend it's less than self-evident that John is referring to the Shekinah glory or some other manifestation of divine glory in the Fourth Gospel's Prologue (specifically, 1:14). While some commentators have tried to demonstrate an allusion to the Shekinah in the Johannine Prologue by relying on the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon simply notes that there may possibly be an allusion to the Shekinah in John 1:14.

However one chooses to understand the apostolic words in John's famed Prologue, the theme of Messiah's glory is admittedly a prominent one throughout the Fourth Gospel: "This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him"(John 2:11 WEB).

There is no doubt that Jesus displayed glory during his earthly existence, but this glory was derived as John 1:14 makes clear: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth" (ASV).

Irenaeus of Lyons correspondingly writes: "But what John really does say is this: 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.'" (See AH 1.8.5)

In fact, even prior to the Logos becoming flesh, he subsisted in a position of glory alongside the Father; but John does not necessarily say that the glory of the Son WAS the glory of the Father or vice versa.

Regarding the glory of the Messiah, the book Insight on the Scriptures (Published by the WTBTS) states: "Concerning Jesus' first miracle, the Bible says that 'he made his glory manifest.' (John 2:11) Glory here refers to an impressive evidence of miraculous power identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah. (Compare Joh 11:40-44.)"

As for John 17:5, Insight makes the following observation: "Jesus used the term [glory] to refer to the exalted state that he enjoyed in heaven before coming to earth" (Cf. Insight, 1:964).

The Insight book teaches us that the term glory must be defined in harmony with its literary context. It obviously does not mean the same thing in all contexts.

A number of commentators want to see allusions to the Shekinah glory in John 1:14. From this concept, it's often inferred that Christ is equal (consubstantial) with the Father. For example, Clarke's Commentary makes the following claim:

"And dwelt among us - Και εσκηνωσεν εν ἡμιν, And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah."

But there might be other ways to explain a Shekinah allusion.

A) One could view John 1:14 as an implicative account that points to the prophet greater than Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). Such an interpretation can be substantiated by considering the apostolic words recorded at John 1:17. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:7-18; Acts 3:19-26.

B1) Another OT text that may be pertinent here is Exodus 23:20-26. It could point to Christ serving as the Angel (MAL'AK) of YHWH, that personal agent who carries out duties as the Leader of God's people through the spirit of YHWH. Personally, I do not believe that the Angel of YHWH is identical with YHWH since Zechariah 1:12, 13 makes a distinction between God and His angel. In that fateful passage, the angel poses a question to YHWH and God replies with comforting words. While one could argue that the angel simply functions as a mediating agent in this account (with no ontological implications), I do not think that this explanation tells the whole story. David L. Petersen (in his commentary on Zechariah) points out that the angel's words have a penetrating quality to them: "How long will you be without mercy for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that have felt your anger these seventy years?"

B2)The text indicates that the Angel really is perplexed over the current state of Judah. He does not know what YHWH knows and so poses the aforesaid question to Him. The angel sees that seventy years have passed by and the whole earth is tranquil while God's people still appear to be experiencing the heat of divine anger. "How long," he wonders. By uttering these words, God's angel sounds forth a lamenting request that has been echoed by God's people throughout human history. If he is the preexistent Christ, then the biblical evidence would suggest that the Lord Jesus Christ is perhaps not consubstantial with the Father.

More on Jeremiah 51:41 (Paronomasia)

"O how She′shach has been captured, How the Praise of the whole earth has been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations!" (Jeremiah 51:41, Revised NWT, 2013)

NWT footnote states: "This appears to be a cryptographic name for Babel (Babylon)."

“See how Babylon has been captured! See how the pride of the whole earth has been taken!
See what an object of horror Babylon has become among the nations!" (Jeremiah 51:41, NET Bible)

"Heb 'Sheshach.' For an explanation of the usage of this name for Babylon see the study note on Jer 25:26 and that on 51:1 for a similar phenomenon. Babylon is here called 'the pride of the whole earth' because it was renowned for its size, its fortifications, and its beautiful buildings" (Footnote in NET Bible).

Jeremiah 51:41 and Paronomasia (Beitzel)

"How is Sheshach taken? and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised? how is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations?" (Jeremiah 51:41 KJV)

Barry J. Beitzel writes:

"Atbash. Atbash is an oratorical device according to which letters of one or more words, counted from the beginning of the alphabet, are exchanged for corresponding letters counted from the end of the alphabet (e.g.' = t, b = s, etc.). Embedded in Jeremiah's grim oracle of doom directed against Babylon and the king of Babylon (chaps. 50-1) is the enigmatic Sheshak (51:41). Enigmatic, that is, until one recognizes that the letters which comprise the word ssk are actually atbash for bbl, 'Babylon' (cf. 25:26). In this same chapter (v 1), Jeremiah describes the inhabitants of Babylon by means of the otherwise mysterious lb qmywhich, through atbash, becomes ks'dym, 'Chaldeans,' known to have been contemporary inhabitants of the great city."

Atbash is a form of paronomasia. See Beitzel, "Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia." Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980): 5-20.

We read the following in John Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations:

"But he calls Babylon here Sheshach, as in Jeremiah 25. Some think it to be there the proper name of a man, and others regard it as the name of a celebrated city in Chaldea. But we see that what they assert is groundless; for this passage puts an end to all controversy, for in the first clause he mentions Sheshach, and in the second, Babylon. That passage also in Jeremiah 25 cannot refer to anything else except to Babylon; for the Prophet said, 'Drink shall all nations of God's cup of fury, and after them the king of Sheshach,' that is, when God has chastised all nations, at length the king of Babylon shall have his turn. But in this place the Prophet clearly shows that Sheshach can be nothing else than Babylon. The name is indeed formed by inverting the alphabet."

"Storing Up Earthly Treasures" and Greek Aspect

“Stop storing up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal. Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19-20 Revised NWT).

A friend once asked me if this verse describes a punctiliar event or a durative (ongoing) one. Should Jesus' followers "store up treasures in heaven" once or do it continually?

My answer: θησαυρίζετε is present imperative active 2nd person plural.

Our current knowledge of aspect and Aktionsart leads me to believe that context (or cotext) must determine whether Jesus' words should be understood as denoting continuous action--durative or progressive--over against believing that he had in mind singular or punctiliar action.

It seems likely that Jesus meant the Christian activity of storing up treasures is an ongoing process and not a one-time event. Not only does the present "tense" suggest this understanding, but verses such as Mt 6:33-34 buttress this view.

In conclusion, relational markers in the text must elucidate a speaker's intended meaning along with the morphological forms of Greek verbs.

The Simplest Explanation of Biblical Greek Is the Best One

Ockham's Razor (the law of parsimony) is a handy tool that can be used in many academic fields. Sorry that it can't be used to literally shave anything away.

But to illustrate how the famed "law of parsimony" works, consider some explanations that have been given for the kind of Greek we find in the New Testament. There was a time when some thought that the form of Greek encountered in Matthew or Revelation was "Holy Ghost Greek." That is, a special type of Greek produced by the Spirit of God. But that position eventually softened and it was then claimed that the Greek of the NT is special (unique) because it contains Hebrew-Aramaic idioms throughout the text.

We now know that the simplest explanation for NT Greek--this is where Ockham's razor comes into play--is that Matthew-Revelation was written in Koine Greek (the common Greek of the day) and not some SUI GENERIS dialect unknown to the Hellenes: the simplest explanation is probably the most likely and best one. However, we don't have to speculate what type of Greek the NT writers used; there is strong textual evidence from the first century era. On page 10 of their well-known grammar, Dana and Mantey inform us that the NT writers employed "the language of the masses," as might be expected.

We have numerous Greek inscriptions and papyri that add weight to this conclusion. We don't need some extravagant hypothesis to explain NT Greek. Ockham's Razor wisely teaches us that all other things being equal (CETERIS PARIBUS), the simplest explanation is normally the best one (don't multiply entities unnecessarily).

Brief Commentary on Daniel 9:24 (Most Holy)

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy" (Daniel 9:24 NIV).

"There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies" (NWT, 1984).

It's interesting, but not all that consequential exegetically speaking, that NIV treats the Hebrew for "everlasting" as an attributive. But the NWT construes the same term predicatively ("for times indefinite"). The NET Bible favors the reading, "perpetual righteousness" in its text (also treating the Hebrew attributively). Darby's translation and Young's Literal Translation arrange the construction with syntax resembling NWT (1984).

Of course, those familiar with NWT also understand why OLAM is rendered "times indefinite" rather than "everlasting" or something to that effect. Yet the revised NWT (2013) has taken a different approach to translating this Hebrew word.

One Biblical website offers these insights on Daniel 9:24:

"Everlasting (05769) (OLAM) means forever, eternity, i.e., pertaining to an unlimited duration of time, usually with a focus on the future.

The Amplified Bible serves as a 'mini' commentary adding that the seventy sevens will...

bring in everlasting righteousness (permanent moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation)"

[END QUOTE]

Eastern Approach to God

Eastern Orthodoxy lays great stress on inwardness, the mysteriousness of God and His incomprehensible ways. The Cappadocian Fathers reveled in the paradoxical nature of the Trinity. For these men, the doctrine's truthfulness is ineffable, but salvific:

"When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light" Gregory Nazianzius).

See http://sermons.logos.com/submissions/55169#content=/submissions/55169

Gregory of Nyssa writes: "Now if any one should ask for some interpretation, and description, and explanation of the Divine essence, we are not going to deny that in this kind of wisdom we are unlearned, acknowledging only so much as this, that it is not possible that that which is by nature infinite should be comprehended in any conception expressed by words" (Against Eunomius 3.5).

What are we to think about a view that focuses on inwardness to the almost total exclusion of exteriority? To illustrate what I'm pinpointing here, consider the example of Bernard of Clairvaux (a French abbot who was canonized in 1174 CE) and Peter Abelard (a philosopher-theologian of the Middle Ages). Both men were Trinitarians, but Abelard highly valued reason, whereas Bernard preferred a mystical approach to God--one that was primarily spiritualistic. The result was that Bernard viciously opposed Abelard, which evidently contributed to the latter's physical demise.

Karen Armstrong cites the painful lesson learned from this telling episode of religious history:

"Bernard, however, seemed afraid of the intellect and wanted to keep it separate from the more emotional, intuitive parts of the mind. This was dangerous: it could lead to an unhealthy disassociation of sensibility that was in its own way just as worrying as an arid rationalism" (A History of God, p. 203-204).

While I have no desire to worship at the altar of rationalism or evidentialism, I believe that rationality plays an important part in worship to God (Rom. 12:1, 2). For the aforementioned reasons, I have a problem with the Eastern approach to worshiping and serving God.

Aquinas' First Way (Proof) for the Existence of God

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in
five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Thomas Aquinas lived from 1224-1274.

EN ATOMWi in 1 Cor 15:52

I've posed this query in other forums and just wondered what my blogging audience might have to say.

There is a question that I've wondered about on and off for a number of years and I want to ask what you all think.

As most of you here know, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that while the Bible is not a scientific treatise, when it touches on scientific matters--it is believed to be spot on (as the Brits say). For instance, Isaiah talks about the "circle" of the earth (Isa 40:22), apparently referring to the oblate spheroid known as planet earth and Job speaks of the earth hanging upon nothing (Job 26:7). This point also comports with our present understanding of centripetal and centrifugal force.

Paul likewise writes that "star differs from star in glory," thus confirming what we know today about the variegated celestial bodies that comprise part of God's creation. (See 1 Cor 15:41.)

With the foregoing in mind, I must say that the apostolic use of EN ATOMWi in 1 Cor 15:52 has me somewhat perplexed. After all, do not the words recorded in this account imply or explicitly say that an atom (as was thought in ancient times) is indivisible?

According to BDAG, ATOMOS basically means "uncut" or indivisible. Moreover, the term is used of an entity "that is viewed as such a unit that it cannot be cut, esp. because of the smallness (e.g. particle of matter, uncompounded word) indivisible . . ."

Aristotle uses the phrase EN ATOMWi when referring to time (see Phys. 236a, 6).

I don't want to imply that this question is about to make me stumble, but I just wanted to see if others have noticed this point before. Modern-day physics has taught us that atoms can undergo fission and fusion. Atoms are evidently not indivisible since physicists now write about particles known as quarks that are more basic than atoms.

IMHO, the "indivisible" definition for atom was appropriate for first-century minds and for ancient thinkers like Epicurus or Democritus, who were not aware of the atom's ability to undergo fission or fusion. Even moderns had to learn progressively that the atom is reducible to smaller constituents. Moreover, the Greek ATOMOS seems to have more to do with the putative inability of an atom to be divided than with its "size."

Thanks for your consideration,
Edgar

Logical and Scientific Proof for God's Existence

From time to time, I receive queries about the subject of God's existence. My correspondents want to know what logical and scientific proof there is for God's existence.

Most intellectuals throughout history (especially before the modern period) likely have believed in God. An author named Max Fishler wrote a book on this very subject many years ago. Examples of theistic philosophers include Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Georg Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kierkegaard.

The philosophical (logical) evidence for God's existence is multifaceted. There have been numerous arguments put forward to prove there is a Supreme Being. But keep in mind that philosophical arguments generally are not apodictic (i.e. irrefutable or incontrovertible). No logical argument is airtight: fault can be found with almost every line of reasoning proferred. But Thomas Aquinas advanced the cosmological argument for the existence of God. See his Summa Theologica.

Aristotle sets forth proof for God's existence in his work Metaphysics (book 12). There is also the Kalam cosmological argument posited by the medieval Islamic philosophers and (in our time) by William Lane Craig.

The Kalam approach could be formulated this way: A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; B) The universe began to exist; C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Of course, the argument becomes lengthy and complex, so I merely give you the following as an example.

I believe there is scientific evidence that points toward the existence of God. I'm reading a complex book now that uses new insights from physics to argue for God's existence. One example is the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that the universe has not always obtained. How did it come into existence? What is the most reasonable explanation? Additionally, the fine-tuning of cosmological constants might suggest that some intelligent entity made the precision of these constants possible. For example, the ratio of gases in the earth's atmosphere or the earth's tilt. Stephen Barr has written an interesting work on the relationship between faith and physics.

Quote from Miroslav Volf on Divine Gender

"The ontologization of gender would ill serve both the notion of God and the understanding of gender. Nothing in God is specifically feminine; nothing in God is specifically masculine . . ." (Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 171-173).

Different Theories of Mind

1. Materialism (only brain states exist)

2. Functionalism (software/hardware analogy of mind). Hilary Putnam used to be a functionalist.

3. Eliminative Materialism (brain states only with no emotions, beliefs or desires)

4. Biological Naturalism (consciousness arises from neurobiological processes)

5. Absolute Idealism (ideas constitute the fabric of reality)

6. Subjective Idealism (only ideas, minds and not matter--God makes sure that things are perceptible)

7. Occasionalism (God causes our thoughts and bodily motions to coincide: the deity is the only cause of our actions)

8. Substance Dualism (res extensa and res cogitans: Descartes says he is the latter rather than the former)

⃰Substance dualism allows for the possibility of disembodied existence as a thinking thing.

Granted, there seems to be a difference between physical and mental properties (warmth and feelings of warmth).

The mind-body problem thus arises. It revolves around causal interaction (hammer hits thumb, I feel pain or enough beer goes down my throat and I feel euphoric). How can something mental exert causal force on a physical entity or vice versa?

APO (PRO) KATABOLHS KOSMOU-The World's Founding

Here are some thoughts on the world's founding.

For KATABOLH, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has:

(1) "the act of laying someth[ing] down, with implication of providing a base for someth[ing], foundation"

and

(2) "a [technical term] for the sowing of seed, used of begetting" (page 515).

Therefore, I'd say that KATABOLH potentially means "foundation" or in certain contexts may have that meaning (sense).

David Aune notes that the formula PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU "uses the act of creation as a protological reference point in a variety of ways" while he also remarks that Barnabas 5:5 quotes Gen 1:26. It's an allusion which has the effect of "connecting the formula [APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU] with the creative events narrated in Gen 1:3-25" (See the Word Bible Commentary series, Vol. 52B:748).

Aune again writes that the formula APO (PRO) KATABOLHS KOSMOU is employed in five ways by NT or Christian writers. He says that Lk 11:50 illustrates how the formula refers to "events occurring since the beginning of history" (Vol. 52B:748).

Hb 4:3, according to Aune, speaks of "the creation of the universe." But I believe this verse is particularly referring to the time period after Adam and Eve's creation. Either way, I do not see how the Witness belief in the world's founding is a stretch.

N.B. Aune obviously does not concur with the Witness interpretation of matters. But even he has to admit that Lk 11:50 speaks of a historical event. However we understand the phrase APO (PRO) KATABOLHS KOSMOU, I think Mounce rightly observes that Rev 13:8; 17:8 do not teach determinism when they employ such language:

"Those that dwell upon the earth stand in awe when they behold the beast. They are those whose names have not been written in the book of life (Cf Ps 69:28; Isa 4:3; Rev 3:5) from the foundation of the world. John is not teaching a form of determinism (according to 3:5 names may be blotted out of the book of life), but emphasizing the great distinction that exists between the followers of the Lamb and those who give allegiance to the beast" (Bill Mounce, Revelation, pages 312-313).

Even Aune finds certain readings of both apocalyptic passages hard to swallow and submits that they have likely undergone redaction, which explains the present negative formulations found in Revelation 13:8; 17:8.