Hebrews 2:14 (A Dialogue)

[Edgar]
Under the entry for KATARGEW, BDAG has "to cause [something] to come to an end or to be no longer in existence, abolish, wipe out, set aside . . . TON TO KRATOS EXONTA TOU QANATOU destroy the one who has power over death Heb. 2:14" (page 525). This understanding of KATARGEW is consonant with Paul's words in Rom. 16:10 as well (note his use of SUNTRIYEI there and the part that Christians will play in the said "crushing" of the Devil).

[Jean] Why do you not mention the first meaning listed in BAGD for KATARGEW: "make ineffective, powerless, idle"? The fact that KATARGEW can mean "abolish" does not necessarily mean that Heb 2:14 automatically implies the destruction of the devil, although it may. According to LSJ the verb KATARGEW means "leave unemployed or idle." Other glosses includes: 1) make useless, cumber (the ground), 2) cause to be idle, hinder. LSJ also mentions as a second large category of meaning the idea to "make of no effect."

[Edgar]
I did not mention the first definition because you had already alluded to it in your comments earlier. Secondly, BDAG lists Heb. 2:14 under the second definition (not the first one). While the significance attached to KATARGEW by BDAG is surely not definitive just because the lexicon construes KATARGEW in this manner, I think that BDAG's comments on KATARGEW in Heb. 2:14 certainly deserve consideration because we must not only ask what a word means: we must ask what a certain signifier denotes in a particular context. Based on other Scriptures that talk about the Devil, I believe that it makes more sense to group KATARGEW under the second definition found in BDAG (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20).

LSJ is fine and its unequalled in the information that it provides. But we must keep in mind the priority that synchronic definitions have over diachronic ones. BDAG lists a number of Bible passages where KATARGEW seems to denote destruction or annihilation. This defintion seem apropos vis-a'-vis Heb. 2:14.

Another Discussion on the Lake of Fire/Second Death

[Edgar]
Lastly, the language dealing with "torment" evidently does not refer to literal pain or torture. The term is commonly utilized in a figurative manner throughout the book of Revelation (Rev. 11:10).

[Jean]
I do not know why you conclude that the torment in Rev 11:10 cannot refer to literal pain or torture. I admit that much of the affliction will evidently be on the spiritual level. But the two witnesses have power to send fire from their mouths (perhaps the idea is "power to send fire at their command") and consume their enemies. Their enemies will be killed in this way (Rev 11:5). They also have power to shut up heaven so that there is no rain upon the earth during the days of their prophecy, those days lasting three-and-a-half years. They have further authority to turn the water into blood. Additionally, they can smite the earth with every kind of plague as often as they wish (11:6). So the conclusion that the "torment" in Rev 11:10 is merely figurative seems quite likely to be incorrect.

[Edgar]
I base part of this understanding on what the new BDAG says under the entry for BASANIZW: "of prophetic testimony as source of annoyance Rv 11:10.--9:5; 14:10; 20:10; GPt; Hv 3, 7, 6; s 6, 4, 1f; 4; 6, 5, 3f; 6" (Page 168). Furthermore, the context of Rev. 11:10 shows that the two prophets use their powers to kill and devour their enemies. How could such powerful feats literally torment all those who dwell upon the earth? It is more likely that the testimony of the witnesses serves as an annoyance [figuratively] for those who live upon the earth (Cf. C.H. Giblin, "Revelation 11:1-13: Its Form, Function and Contextual Integration." NTS 30 (1984) 433-59.)

[Jean]
What is interesting to me about the Rev 14:9-11 passage is that the text mentions the absence of rest after speaking of the smoke of their torment going up:

Rev. 14:11 and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name.

The text implies that the smoke of their torment goes up forever because they have no rest from their suffering day or night.

[Edgar]
Well, the verse says that the smoke of their torment ascends forever. It does not say that the "smoke" results from their toil and suffering. And what is more, the pain inflicted on those worshiping the beast could be symbolic.

Who Is the Ruler of the World? (Johannine Texts)

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world (νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου) be cast out" (John 12:31)

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh (ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων), and hath nothing in me"(John 14:31).

"Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged (ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται)." (John 16:11).

All biblical quotes from the KJV.

Do these texts have any bearing on our understanding of 2 Corinthians 4:4?

Another Catholic Reference That Seems to Argue John 14:28 Applies to the Human Nature of Christ (David)

Hi David, again I'm not saying that your understanding of Aquinas is not viable, but Levering seems to understand Aquinas' position on John 14:28 like I do. But he may qualify these statements elsewhere. https://books.google.com/books?id=_zf-AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&dq=aquinas+father+greater+than+i+john+14:28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJysHhoKbMAhXHJCYKHV9oDPYQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=father%20greater%20than%20i%20john%2014%3A28&f=false

See pages 42 and 269.

All the best,

Edgar

"God of This Age" (Link to a Dissertation)

We've discussed 2 Corinthians 4:4 in the past and the different ways that scholars understand the passage, so I thought some blog readers might appreciate this link for a dissertation that analyzes 2 Cor. 4:4 and related verses. My suggesting this link in no way implies that I am advocating the contents or overall thesis of the author's work. I am providing this link for informational purposes only. I'll let you all decide if you'd like to check out the author's work. Please see https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5979

It is a dissertation written by Derek R. Brown, now published. See also https://www.amazon.com/God-This-Age-Wissenschaftliche-Untersuchungen/dp/3161537084

Irreprehensible Popes or Bishops? (1 Timothy 3:1-2)

MY INTERLOCUTOR: A brief response, Edgar, As you probably already know, a pope is appointed for life. His office is not terminated by reprehensible conduct, although he obviously should be exemplifying a life of virtue and holiness. Consider King David, for example. He was guilty of gross sins (adultery with Bathsheba and plotting the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite), but nowhere does the OT tell us that King David had to abdicate his throne. Was his conduct reprehensible? Certainly! Did that fact invalidate his authority as king? No.

MY RESPONSE FOLLOWS:

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Kings in the OT did not--in the strictest sense--prefigure older men and shepherds in the NT. True there may be lessons that we can learn from David in connection with congregational shepherding, but can we really contend that his life actually serves as a [strict] pattern for Christian shepherds?

It is true that David was not removed as king when he committed adultery (and had a woman's innocent husband killed!). King Mannasseh also committed unthinkable atrocities, but was in time restored to his kingship (he was removed for a time). Does this mean that if a pope or shepherd is guilty of murder or adultery, he should not be removed from his office? Even if we use your line of reasoning, the least we could say is that a pope should be removed temporarily (in the way that Manasseh was removed for a time).

Moreover, Paul did not say that a "bishop" (EPISKOPOS) could be irreprehensible if he wanted to be. 1 Tim. 3:1 says: DEI OUN TON EPISKOPON ANEPILHMPTON EINAI. In other words--it is a binding obligation placed on all shepherds: they must be irreprehensible (cf. 1 Tim. 3:7). If such shepherds do not remain blameless, they are not fit to serve God's congregation.

Are we to believe that popes are held (by God) to a lesser standard than other shepherds are? According to 1 Cor. 5:9-13, those who unrepentantly practice sin should be excommunicated from God's congregation. Do these word not apply to the "Supreme Pontiff"? Surely you would admit that there have been some reprehensible popes down through the centuries. And yet these men were allowed to remain in office because they were popes? I simply do not get it. How can popes be held to a lower standard than other members of their flock?

Origen of Alexandria's Thoughts on Colossians 1:15 (FYI)

From his Commentary on John (Book I):

19. (4) "In addition to these meanings there is that in which we speak of an arche, according to form; thus if the first-born of every creature (Colossians 1:15) is the image of the invisible God, then the Father is his arche. In the same way Christ is the arche of those who are made according to the image of God. For if men are according to the image, but the image according to the Father; in the first case the Father is the arche of Christ, and in the other Christ is the arche of men, and men are made, not according to that of which he is the image, but according to the image. With this example our passage will agree: 'In the arche was the Word.'"

22. "Not even as the Word is He the arche, for the Word was in the arche. And so one might venture to say that wisdom is anterior to all the thoughts that are expressed in the titles of the first-born of every creature. Now God is altogether one and simple; but our Saviour, for many reasons, since God (Romans 3:25) set Him forth a propitiation and a first fruits of the whole creation, is made many things, or perhaps all these things; the whole creation, so far as capable of redemption, stands in need of Him."

Ta Panta-What It Denotes at Times

τὰ πάντα ("all things") does not signify or denote "the universe as a whole" every time it appears, but some contexts suggest this meaning is sometimes operative. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:28:

ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.

There's also Romans 11:36: ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.

Compare 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Hebrews 1:2 does not employ ta panta, but rather, pantwn.

See Hebrews 11:3 to shed light on 1:2.

Origen's Understanding of Psalm 45:6-7 (Contra Celsum 1.56)

But attend carefully to what follows, where He is called God: "For
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is
the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil
of gladness above Thy fellows." And observe that the prophet, speaking
familiarly to God, whose "throne is for ever and ever," and "a sceptre
of righteousness the sceptre of His kingdom," says that this God has
been anointed by a God who was His God, and anointed, because more
than His fellows He had loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And I
remember that I pressed the Jew, who was deemed a learned man, very
hard with this passage; and he, being perplexed about it, gave such an
answer as was in keeping with his Judaistic views, saying that the
words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom," are spoken of the God of
all things; and these, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated
iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the
Messiah (Contra Celsum 1.56).

Πρόσχες δ' ἐπιμελῶς τοῖς ἑξῆς, ἔνθα θεὸς εἴρηται· «Ὁ θρόνος σου», γάρ φησιν, «ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου. Ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.» Καὶ κατανόει ὅτι θεῷ ὁμιλῶν ὁ προφήτης, οὗ «ὁ θρόνος» ἐστὶν «εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος», καὶ «ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας» αὐτοῦ, τοῦτον τὸν θεόν φησι κεχρῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς ἦν αὐτοῦ θεός· κεχρῖσθαι δέ, ἐπεὶ «παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους» αὐτοῦ οὗτος ἠγάπησε «δικαιοσύνην» καὶ ἐμίσησεν «ἀνομίαν». Καὶ μέμνημαί γε πάνυ θλίψας τὸν Ἰουδαῖον νομιζόμενον σοφὸν ἐκ τῆς λέξεως ταύτης· ὃς πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀπορῶν εἰπεῖν τὰ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἰουδαϊσμῷ ἀκόλουθα, εἶπε πρὸς μὲν τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν εἰρῆσθαι τὸ «Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου», πρὸς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν τὸ «Ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς.]

See http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/origenes/cc/gr/

One Supreme Being Argument from Descartes (A Reconstruction of Meditation 1, 3)

As far as I can tell, Rene Descartes makes this kind of argument in Mediation 1 of his work Meditations on First Philosophy.

1. A supremely good being does not create humans such that they are continually deceived.

2. God is a/the supremely good being.

3. God did not create humans such that they (we) are continually deceived.

4. It is possible that God would not allow humans to be deceived even occasionally. (premise)

5. However, humans are occasionally deceived. (negation of 4)

6. So either it is possible that God allows us to be deceived even occasionally or it is possible that God does not exist. (disjunctive syllogism of 4, 5)

7. Assume God does not exist (by denial of the second disjunct in 6, which is done for the sake of argument)

8. However, if God does not exist, then chance, fate, or some long causal chain of events account for my existence.

9. But these causes are clearly less perfect than God.

10. It is more likely that we are deceived if some imperfect cause accounts for our existence than if God explains our existence.

11. Therefore, it is possible that God exists and that he allows us to be deceived even occasionally.

One can then reason that if God's existence is possible, then it's actual. Descartes also makes the point that our chances of being continually deceived are greatly lessened by the existence of God, who is supremely good and perfect.

The Lake of Fire Understood as the Second Death (A Dialogue)-Part 1

[Edgar]
In fact, the lake of fire is said to represent the second death (indicating that the lake of fire is symbolic).

[Jean]
I do not know if your conclusion can be safely drawn. Scripture says about the lake of fire: "this is the second death, the lake of fire." The text does not say that the lake of fire is symbolic, though that may be the case. Nor does it say that it merely represents the second death. It says that the lake of fire is the second death. This may mean that the lake of fire as an experience is the second death. To be in the lake of fire is to experience the second death.

[Edgar]
Admittedly, the actual wording of verses like Rev. 21:8 is as follows: hO ESTIN hO QANATOS hO DEUTEROS (Cf. Rev. 20:14b). But ESTIN can carry the meaning "represents" or "signifies" as it does elsewhere in Scripture (Matt. 13:38). In fact, the very first passage found in Revelation indicates that the book is filled with symbolisms. As John reports: KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi.

The verb SHMAINEIN can mean "to indicate clearly" (Louw-Nida) or more likely in this context, it conveys the thought, 'to communicate a message that is enigmatic in nature and difficult to interpret' (Aune, Revelation, Volume 52A:15). So ESTIN in Rev. 21:8 could mean "represents." Therefore, based on Rev. 1:1, the lake of fire may very well be symbolic. In view of other Scriptures concerning the eschaton, it would be fitting if the lake of fire served as a symbol of everlasting annihilation (2 Thess. 1:9).

[Edgar Continued]
Furthermore, death and hell are cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and the wild beast and the false prophet (Rev. 20:13-15). Do you think that death and hell and Satan and the wild beast and the false prophet will literally be tormented day and night for all eternity in the lake of fire?

[Jean]
When Scripture says that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire, the meaning is difficult to grasp. It seems to be saying that there will be no more death and hades, since their conditions will be supplanted by the lake of fire. Yes, I think that Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and those who are thrown into the lake of fire will be tormented day and night for all eternity.

[Edgar]
I think you rightly admit that abstractions like death and places such as hades cannot be tormented or experience the second death in a literal way. Why, then, do you think that Satan or the beast (evidently a symbolic creature) or the "false prophet" (another symbolic entity) will undergo literal toments in an everlasting fire? Heb. 2:14, 15 indicates that the Devil will be annihilated or brought to nothing? How do you understand or interpret 2:14, 15?

Followup on Aquinas, the Trinity, and Divine Personhood

This entry is mainly addressed to David Waltz. Thanks for your interaction on this issue, David.

1) After reviewing a number of things written by Aquinas, wherein he explains in what sense the Father is greater than the Son, I have concluded that it's possible to interpret the taciturn Doctor in different ways. I understand Aquinas' application of John 14:28 to the human nature of Christ; others believe he applies the verse to both the divine and human nature of Christ, whereas yet others understand Aquinas to be saying that John 14:28 might apply to both natures.

In any event, another statement from Aquinas is found in Contra Errores Graecorum, Part One, Chapter II.:

But when Basil asserts that the Spirit is second from the Son in dignity, he appears more seriously mistaken, because he seems to posit degrees of dignity in the Trinity, whereas all three persons are equal in dignity. This statement, however, can be explained as referring, not to natural, but to personal dignity in God, just as we say that “a person is a hypostasis in virtue of a distinct property entailing dignity.” Footnote Hilary adopts this manner of speaking when he says Footnote that the Father is greater than the Son by reason of authority of origin. But by reason of oneness in substance the Son is not thereby less than the Father.

See http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

I would also suggest my own revised M.Th. thesis (my book about Tertullian), which contains a discussion of the pre-Nicenes and John 14:28.

2) Aquinas analyzes "person" language as well as cause and effect statements about God. See Part One, Chapter I of Contra Errores.

3) For Aquinas' definition of person, please see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-trinity-doctrine-and-personhood-my.html

The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a utile article on divine personhood too. That article can be found online for the older version of the encyclopedia.

For another discussion on the western view of divine personhood, see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/10/karl-rahner-on-trinity-qua-relations.html

Another Trinititarian Perspective on John 14:28 (Thomas Manton)

Though God be Christ’s Father, as second Person, yet they are all equal in power, dignity, and glory; 41but as Mediator, God is his Father in another respect. So it is said, John xiv. 28, ‘My Father is greater than I’—not as God, for so he was equal; ‘He thought it no robbery to be equal with God:’ Phil. ii. 6. But ‘greater than I;’ that is, consider him as man and mediator, in the state of his humiliation; for it is notable to consider upon what occasion Christ speaks these words: ‘If ye love me ye would rejoice because I said I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I;’ that is, You admire me and prize my company exceedingly, because you see the power which I put forth in the miracles which I do; ye would rejoice if you understood it aright; he is infinitely more glorious than I appear in this state of abasement and humiliation. Thus, with respect to Christ, God, the first Person, may be called the Father.

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/manton/manton01.i_3.html#i_3-p21.2 for the context of this quote.

For some historical background on Manton, see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/manton

Aquinas and the Soul (Summa Theologiae I.75.2-4)

In the Summa Theologiae or Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas outlines distinct senses for the noun phrase "subsistent thing" (i.e., this particular thing). I guess that ST I.75.2, Reply to Obj. 1 touches on the question I used to have when reading Aquinas. He there maintains that "this particular thing" can be understood in two senses: a) "for anything subsistent" and b)"for that which subsists, and is complete in a specific nature." The soul (according to Aquinas) is "this particular thing" in the first sense, but evidently not in the second. So he does not conceive of the soul as subsisting in a Cartesian manner. Descartes memorably refers to himself as a "thinking thing" (res cogitans) yet it doesn't seem that Aquinas would identify the person with the soul like the French Catholic Descartes does.

Kevin Corcoran parses the topic in Rethinking Human Nature: "Here is one way to mark the difference between Aquinas and Descartes. In both views, there are two 'things.' In Descartes' view, the two things are complete substances (soul and body). In Aquinas' view, there are two incomplete substances (soul and matter) that jointly compose a complete substance (a human being)." See Corcoran, page 38.

This observation is based on ST I.75.4: "Not every particular substance is a hypostasis or a person, but that which has the complete nature of its species. Hence a hand, or a foot, is not called a hypostasis, or a person; nor, likewise, is the soul alone so called, since it is a part of the human species."

Question of the Day for Trinitarians

My question of the day for Trinitarians:

Some Trinitarians believe that God the Son voluntarily submitted himself to God the Father when he became incarnate or when he assumed humanity, even though he was divine.

But my question stems from the fact that the triune deity is supposed to be three persons, but only one God. Trinitarians usually say that "person" (persona in Latin) does not mean "individual center of consciousness" when applied to God. In other words, God (the triune deity) is only analogously a person, but not univocally a person. God is not a person like we are persons, they say.

However, if it's true that neither person of the Trinity is a distinct or individual center of consciousness, then how was it possible for the Son to "volunteer" to become subordinate to the Father, and assume humanity into his divinity? Would it not take consciousness for person 2 to submit to person 1? How could the Son submit to the Father if he's not a distinct mind from his Father?

Wallace, Sharp's Rule, and Jude 4 (Some Quotes)

See https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule

Begin Quotes:

Sharp invoked dubious textual variants in four of the eight texts to support his rule (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Jude 4).151 As well, in 1 Tim 5:21 and 2 Tim 4:1, if the almost certainly authentic reading of τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (for τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ) is accepted, then the text can also be dispensed with, for “Christ Jesus” is surely a proper name, and thus does not fall within the limitations of Sharp’s rule. Further, two other passages seem to involve proper names. Second Thessalonians 1:12 does not have merely “Lord” in the equation, but “Lord Jesus Christ.” Only by detaching κυρίου from ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ152 could one apply Sharp’s rule to this construction.153 Ephesians 5:5 has the name “Christ” in the equation, though one would be hard-pressed to view this as less than a proper name in the epistles.154

This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1, which have escaped the difficulties of textual uncertainty155 and the charge of disqualification via proper names.156 If indeed these texts contain explicit statements of Christ’s deity, it is not without significance that they occur in epistles which are among the later books of the NT. Before we can explore more fully these texts, it is necessary to expand our horizons on the legitimacy of Sharp’s principle. That is to say, two other factors directly related to these passages should be addressed.157

Also from footnote 151 of Wallace's article:

In Jude 4 the variant θεός is found in P, Ψ, and the majority text; it is absent from ∏72, ∏78, א, A, B, C, 0251, 33, 81, 1739, al. (Without this v.l., the text still fits Sharp’s canon [τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν], though lacking an explicit identification of Christ with God.)

John 1:1ff (A Work in Progress)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1)

So many writers have commented on the Johannine Prologue that it seems like there's nothing new to say about it. I'll mainly be exploring syntax, grammar, and reviewing what others have written about this famed part of the Fourth Gospel. I will also be progressively working on this document and adding to this entry periodically.

The first part of the verse Ἐν ἀρχῇ (the Greek preposition + the dative form) is usually understood to be definite ("in the beginning") and scholars argue that the words allude to Genesis 1:1. One of the most recent articles on the subject is by Jan Van der Watt and Chrys Caragounis. See http://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestamentaria/vol-21-2008/a-grammatical-analysis-of-john-1-1/525/

These authors focus on why one could possibly claim that the anarthrous phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ is definite rather than indefinite. Why not "in a beginning"?

In order to answer this question, Van der Watt and Caragounis first review what other scholars have written concerning the rationale for treating the anarthous construction in John 1:1a as definite. They quote Greek grammars and scholarly writings that give various reasons for deciding that the verse should be understood as "in the beginning." Some argue that the construction contains a monadic noun, whereas others argue that the phrase is anarthrous because of the preposition which it contains. However, after reviewing even more explanations, both authors of the journal article find their predecessors' reasons for choosing "the beginning" to be somewhat wanting. See Van der Watt and Caragounis, pages 95-97.

Caragounis and Van der Watt think "in a beginning" is nonsense. Furthermore, they argue that Ἐν ἀρχῇ can mean the same thing with or without the article, and they contend that Demotic Neohellenic allows for the construction to be definite (99-100).

Andreas Kostenberger considers intertexual factors when explaining 1:1a. He believes that John is repeating Genesis 1:1--a text that seems to speak of the absolute beginning. He reasons that the Fourth Gospel's opening words forge "a canonical link between the first words of the OT Scriptures and the present Gospel" (John, page 25). He cites four Johannine scholars, besides himself, who all favor viewing "beginning" at 1:1a as a time before the divine creation of heaven and earth (Ibid.). Possibly, John might also have meant by using Ἐν ἀρχῇ, "at the root of the universe," another meaning suggested by Morris. See Kostenberger, ibid.

Henry Alford takes this perspective on 1:1a: "ἐν ἀρχῇ = πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, ch. 17:5. The expression is indefinite, and must be interpreted relatively to the matter spoken of. Thus in Acts 11:15, it is ‘the beginning of the Gospel:’ and by the same principle of interpretation, here it is the beginning of all things, on account of the πάντα διʼ αὐτ. ἐγ. ver. 3." See http://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/john/1.htm

While E. Haenchen links the ἀρχῇ of John 1:1, 2 with Gen. 1:1 (LXX) like G.R.Beasley-Murray does, it seems that one must analyze both the context of the passage under consideration and the semantic domain of ἀρχή, before one firmly decides that ἀρχῇ in Gen. 1:1 is the same as ἀρχῇ in John 1:1, 2.

The verb ἦν (imperfect active indicative 3rd person singular) appears three times in 1:1, but each occurrence signifies something different:

"Was [ἦν]: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication" (Ftn. NABRE John 1:1).

So John apparently meant that the Word (ὁ λόγος) existed "in the beginning" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ) although this part of the verse raises numerous questions.

Some years ago, a person with whom I was conversing tried to argue that ἀρχῇ in John 1:1a is timeless and dimensionless because the word is anarthrous there. But what grammatical evidence do we have that ἀρχῇ, when employed anarthrously within a context like this one, has a special or unique lexical import? I don't know how you feel about the issue of Johannine authorship, but I personally believe that the apostle John wrote both the Gospels and the three Epistles. If this is so, the opening verses of the first Epistle shed illumination on the Prologue of Jn 1.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1).

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς (1 John 1:1).

Please notice that ἀρχῆς in the first Epistle is also anarthrous. Yet there is no indication that the writer is employing ἀρχῆς in a timeless--from a human viewpoint--sense. He goes to great lengths to locate the ἀρχῆς within history (within time). "From the beginning," the disciples "heard" "saw" "looked upon" and "handled" τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. There is no indication of a dimensionless ἀρχή in the Johannine Epistle. This seems significant in view of the fact that ἀρχή here [Jn 1:1a] is also anarthrous. Of course, my argument relies heavily on a literary nexus between the Johannine Gospel and Epistles, but even if different writers composed these Scriptural works, 1 John 1:1 still serves as an example of an anarthrous ἀρχή that is manifestly historical.

The same could also be said for John 1:1:

Louw-Nida says that ἀρχή (the lexical form) may denote "a point of time at the beginning of a duration." This reference work also says the following: "ἀρχή: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος 'in the beginning was the Word' or 'before the world was created, the Word (already) existed' or 'at a time in the past when there was nothing . . . ' Jn 1:1" (67.65).

While not giving total assent to L-N here, one point I would like to stress is that ἀρχή can simply refer to "a point of time at the beginning of a duration." With that thought in mind, personally, I do not think that John clearly defines what the "beginning" denotes in 1:1, 2. Most commentators would probably be inclined to associate Gen. 1:1 with John 1:1 because of the creation setting in both accounts. Surely 1 John 1:1 does not help us much here when it declares that Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. ἀρχή in 1 John 1:1 undoubtedly refers to the "beginning" of Jesus' ministry, not to any "absolute beginning." But there is another route we can take, which may clear up what "the beginning" signifies in 1:1, 2. Since οὗτος serves as a deictic reference at John 1:2, one may humbly submit that John appears to be emphasizing what he has already stated in 1:1.

Jude 4: τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν

In Jude 4, we read that Jesus Christ (I am aware of variant readings and interpretations) is "our only Owner and Lord" (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ).

If Jesus is the only referent discussed in this passage, then Jude's use of "only" may prima facie be slightly problematic since (as subordinationists generally understand the matter) Jesus is not the "only" Lord (strictly speaking) for Christians.

Assuming a subordinationist understanding of matters, I would like to ask whether the word "only" excludes others from serving as lords for Christian followers of Jesus. In other words, does μόνον have to mean that there is no other Lord for the Christian congregation but Jesus Christ? The question is understandable in light of what Revelation 15:4 says about God:

τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ, κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομά σου, ὅτι μόνος ὅσιος

Yet we also read that an "overseer" (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) must be ὅσιον (Tit 1:8). Furthermore, Christians are exhorted to lift up "holy hands" (ὁσίους χεῖρας) in prayer to God (1 Ti 2:8).

So the doxological exclamation μόνος ὅσιος (in Rev 15:4) does not mean that others cannot be ὅσιος or live ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Luke 1:75). In fact, we are called to be holy as God is holy.

For the record, one dictionary defines the English word "only" in this way (obviously depending on the context):

"unquestionably the best--PEERLESS; alone in its class
or kind: SOLE "

So is Christ the only Lord for Christians? Not according to Psalm 110:1-2 and Acts 2:36. The latter verse teaches that God the Father made Christ the Lord of Christians, but the Father is the ultimate Lord (LORD) of all. The KJV renders the Hebrew letters YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah) as LORD in Psalm 110:1 and throughout the Hebrew Bible.

Catholic View of the Soul

The online Catholic Encyclopedia makes this point regarding the soul:

"the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311; the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature."

I emphasize that the Church believes the soul is a substance, but not a complete one, which is contrary to the Cartesian conception of the soul. Rene Descartes (although he was a devout Catholic) posited that the soul is a complete but dependent substance: it is a res cogitans which is nonextended spatially and able to survive the body's death in virtue of its latent immortality.

However, the language of "form" used above emanates from Aristotelian philosophy--specifically, the ancient Philosopher's thinking on metaphysics.

One Suggestion for the Magnificat (Luke 1:46): Biblical Poetry

The "Magnificat" is evidently styled along the lines of 1 Samuel (chapter 2), which contains the prayer of Hannah. So it is no surprise that it would be linked with LXX-style poetry. Craig A. Evans observes in one commentary:

"The Magnificat reads more like a warrior's song of
victory than that of a young maiden praising God for
the gift of a child. Accordingly, it has been
suggested that underlying the Magnificat is an early
Christian hymn praising God for vindicating Jesus
through his resurrection. This is possible, but again
it is quite speculative, for there is no mention of
Jesus or the resurrection. More probably the
Magnificat represents an early Christian hymn, thought
to derive from Mary, that has been enriched by
components reflecting Israel's psalms of military
celebration. Consider the following scriptural
allusions:

My soul glorifies [or magnifies] the Lord: 1 Sam. 2:1;
Ps. 69:30; 34:3; 35:9; Sir 43:31" (Luke, p. 29)."

Reflecting on the Greek notion of "poet-craft," R.G. Collingwood explains ποιητική τέχνη in this way:

"The poet is a kind of skilled producer; he produces
for consumers; and the effect of his skill is to bring
about in them certain states of mind, which are
conceived in advance as desirable states" (The
Principles of Art, p. 18).

While not everything that Collingwood says is applicable to biblical poetry, one can't help but notice the powerful effect that scriptural poetry has on its readers.

Persons and Points (Trinity Doctrine): A Thought Experiment

Imagine a straight line with three points (A, B, and C) plotted on it. Let A = the Father, B = the Son, and C = the Holy Spirit. In that case, we would have three points (with zero-dimension) that are distinct and collinear, but each point would still have something in common with the other; namely, they are all points (they all exemplify pointness) on a straight line, yet each point is distinct from the other. Would it be possible to illustrate the Trinity doctrine by using this geometrical example?

I've never seen anyone use geometrical points to illustrate the Trinity, but maybe someone who lives somewhere has done it. Thanks to Euclid and his successors. I'm just toying with possible arguments that Trinitarians might use.

After completing this post, I did find (via Google):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/685386?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Williams.pdf

(A very complex article)

Jerome's Prologue to the Book of Daniel (A Quote)

Concerning which subject, leaving the judgment to the decision of the reader, I warn him Daniel is not to be found in the Prophets among the Hebrews, but among those which they titled the Hagiographa. Since indeed all of Scripture is divided by them into three parts, into the Law, into the Prophets, (and) into the Hagiographa, that is, into five and eight and eleven books, which is not (necessary) to explain at this time. And to those things of this prophet, or rather against this book, which Porphyry accused, the witnesses are Methodius, Eusebius, (and) Apollinaris, who, responding to his madness with many thousands of verses, I do not know whether they are satisfying to the interested reader. For which reason I entreat you, O Paula and Eustochium, pour out prayers for me to the Lord, so that as long as I am in this little body, I might write something pleasing to you, useful to the Church, (and) worthy to posterity. I am indeed not greatly moved by the judgments of the present, which on either side are in error either by love or by hate.

You can find the complete Prologue here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_daniel.htm

Dating 2 Peter

J.N.D. Kelly gives 2 Peter a relatively late date (between 100-110 C.E.). The Anchor Bible Commentary provides this information: "many scholars have assigned Second Peter to a date as late as around A.D. 150. This has been done on insufficient grounds. References to Gnosticism and other movements are not conclusive, as these were already present in the first century . . . The present writer is inclined to date Second Peter about A.D. 90" (Bo Reicke, 144-145).

Norman Hillyer (New International Biblical Commentary) concludes that "2 Peter itself must have been widely accepted as authentic at an early date [in the first century], despite any later uncertainties that crept in" (Hillyer, 12). He puts paid to the notion that Peter copied from Jude. So does Bo Reicke.

I plan to wrote more on this subject.

Grammar in the Petrine Epistles and Revelation (Message to a Friend)

I'd like to recommend A. T. Robertson's big grammar (pp. 125-127) for his helpful discussion of Greek style. For instance, one feature of the Petrine epistles that makes scholars think 1 and 2 Peter have two different authors is the difference in style and vocabulary of the two compositions. Furthermore, Peter's writing is filled with vernacular speech, he can be pleonastic, the Apostle uses "picture-words," (see 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:1ff) technical speech, and may even have included ad sensum constructions or solecisms in his epistles. But the Greek is generally good in terms of its quality.

Although I've modified my view of the Greek found in Revelation, I'm inclined to believe that the jury is still out on this issue. A descriptivist approach to the work tends to read John's Apocalypse in the light of the Saussurean distinction between la langue and la parole. From this vantage-point, John's work is not ungrammatical, but fully in accord with communicative situational principles. Nevertheless, David Aune (in no uncertain terms) argues: "The Greek of Revelation is not only difficult and awkward, but it also contains lexical and syntactical features that no native speaker of Greek would have written" (Revelation, cxcix).

Granted, ancient writers such as Dionysius of Alexandria complained about the solecisms and barbarisms as well as the "inaccurate Greek" in Revelation. And modern scholars attempt to discover the reason for so-called ad sensum constructions by contending, inter alia, that Revelation was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic or possibly the writer was bilingual and "Semitic interference" thus reared its head in the Apocalypse. Aune's discussion is quite detailed and I recommend that you at least consult pp. cc in his introduction. His comments will help you to see why Revelation is considered "translation Greek" along the lines of the LXX. See also David Aune's bibliography on pages clx-clxii. Another recommended work is S. Thompson's The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Bishops in the First Century (Continued)

Hierarchy implies rank. In normal human hierarchies, one person is usually stands a little higher on the ladder than another. However, the first-century Christian Church was not arranged in this way.

Ignatius of Antioch may have proposed a three-point system of ecclesiastical rank, but the Primitive Christians knew of no such arrangement. Concerning EPISKOPOS, J. Rohde contends: "one is not to conclude from the [singular usage in 1 Tim. 3:2] that already a single bishop is assumed as a monarchical leader at the head of the community" (Exegetical Dictionary of the NT, Vol. 2:36).

Rohde reasons that the use of the singular in 1 Tim. 3:2 is generic and the context likely supports his view. He thus concludes:

"The monarchical bishop appears first in Ignatius. It
is not certain, however, whether Ignatius describes
existing conditions or sets up ideal requirements that
do not correspond to reality." (Ibid.)

Again, Christ taught: "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. You, though, are not to be that way. But let him that is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one acting as chief as the one ministering" (Lk. 22:25-27).

Based on these dominical utterances from our Lord, I have no problem acknowledging that there are individuals in the
congregation, who take the lead and even govern the Christian ecclesia (Hb. 13:7, 17). But I would no more call these men "leaders" than call myself the "leader" or "chieftain" of my family since my decisions are "binding" (in principle) as head of my family. But the family head is not necessarily the family "leader" (1 Cor. 11:3).

One Catholic commentator believes that the term EKKLHSIA in Mt. 18:17 has reference to the local Christian community (A.T. Robertson explains this passage in a similar fashion). The Catholic scholar writes: "The local congregation is meant, whether in formal assembly for meeting or through its board of elders" (Daniel J Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew [Sacra Pagina Series], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1991, page 269).

Jehovah's Witnesses take Jesus' words seriously and try to imitate what Harrington (S.J.) calls the "Matthean community." He supplements his observation about EKKLHSIA with these words:

"Against this common Near Eastern tendency toward
social hierarchy Matthew forbids the use of titles and
the exercise of highly authoritative roles (23:8-12) .
. . The resistance to hierarchically structured roles
and emphasis on equality is typical of sects in the
first generation. All the members have begun a new
life together and are to participate fully and equally
in the emerging community" (Harrington, op. cit., page
323).

While I do not agree with Harrington's assessment of Matthew's Gospel as a whole, and while I do not accept his historical-critical presuppositions, his exegesis of Mt. 23:8-12 appears to be on target. If rejecting ecclesiastical hierarchy places me in company with the "Matthean community," then so be it!

To clarify the position set forth here, though, I have no problem with elders, ministerial servants (DIAKONOI) or different types of overseers supervising the ecclesia today.

One Final Thought on the Canon (For Now)

I'm going to post one more quote about the canonicity issue for now, then move on. I acknowledge that there are two sides to the debate, but I think Beckwith's arguments are strong and refute the view that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals) should be included within the OT canon. Anyway, here's a quote that I believe constitutes fair use from the NIV Study Bible (published by Zondervan). Bibliographical details are below after the quote:

Although the evidence is sparse and open to debate, on balance it seems likely that the canon (i.e., the authoritative list of books) of the OT was closed well before the time of Jesus. While some scholars contend that the library of OT books remained fluid until the latter part of the first century AD, the earliest surviving evidence suggests that the books of the OT, or the Hebrew Bible as it is sometimes called, were viewed as an authoritative collection of writings by about 150 BC at the latest. In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), a Greek translation of a Hebrew book known as Sirach, the translator, writing about 132 BC, refers to the OT using the following expressions: “the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them”; “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors”; “the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books.” This threefold division reflects the later Jewish custom of referring to the Hebrew Bible as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Unfortunately, no ancient texts survive to explain how the process of canonization happened and what criteria were used to determine which books should be included. The process itself may well have occurred in stages over several centuries, and individual books were probably viewed as special long before the different sections of the canon were finally closed. Although some Christian traditions hold that various other Jewish writings should be viewed as canonical, the earliest evidence, including the authoritative testimony of the NT, suggests that only those books that comprise the Hebrew Bible are divinely inspired. On the inspiration and authority of the NT, see Introduction to the New Testament.

Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1674-1675). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1670-1674). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1666-1670). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1663-1666). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Biblical Canonicity and the Ancient Ecclesia

Here are two quotes that deal with biblical canonicity as it applied to the early Christian congregation:

"While the New Testament writers all used the Septuagint, to a greater or lesser degree, none of them tells us precisely what the limits of its contents were. The 'scriptures' to which they appealed covered substantially the same range as the Hebrew Bible [which did not contain the apocrypha]" (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 50ff).

Jerome himself wrote: "Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes [Sirach and Parables] for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogma" (Prologue to the books of Wisdom).

One Jewish perspective on the Hebrew canon is given here: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/creating-the-canon/

I would still recommend Roger Beckwith's 500-page+ study on this issue.

2 Timothy 3:15 (Commentary Link)

For more on the expression, "holy writings" in Timothy, see http://www.studylight.org/commentary/2-timothy/3-15.html

As an example, from Robertson's WPNT:

The sacred writings (ιερα γραμματα — hiera grammata). “Sacred writings” or “Holy Scriptures.” Here alone in N.T., though in Josephus (Proem to Ant. 3; Apion 1, etc.) and in Philo. The adjective ιερος — hieros occurs in 1 Corinthians 9:13 of the temple worship, and γραμμα — gramma in contrast to πνευμα — pneuma in 2 Corinthians 3:6.; Romans 2:29 and in John 5:47 of Moses‘ writings, in Acts 28:21 of an epistle, in Galatians 6:11 of letters (characters). In Ephesus there were Επεσια γραμματα — Ephesia grammata that were βεβηλα — bebēla (Acts 19:19), not ιερα — hiera

However, Vincent's Word Studies has a slightly different take on the verse. He applies the terminology to "the learning acquired from Scripture by the rabbinic methods, according to which the Old Testament books were carefully searched for meanings hidden in each word and letter, and especially for messianic intimations."

Flavius Josephus and the Hebrew Canon

See http://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius/church_history/chapter_x_the_manner_in_which.htm

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/29/29-1/29-1-pp037-046_JETS.pdf

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon

2 Corinthians 5:8 and KAI

Richard Young notes: "the basic syntactic function of KAI is simply to join two coordinate elements together" (187). But KAI can also be used as a simple additive without specifying any particular relationship between two coordinate elements (see Rev. 7:12). After looking at the various uses of KAI in the NT, it seems that the KAI in 2 Cor. 5:8 is best understood as a simple additive that connects two contrasting thoughts without specifying the temporal aspect of either one. 2 Cor. 5:8 is an expressed desire, not a prophecy per se.

One of the best discussions I've run across on the utilization of KAI in the NT is Kermit Titrud's "The function of KAI in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter" found in D.A. Black's Linguistics and NT Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. His paper will expose you to the numerous aspects of the Greek conjunction KAI.

Bishops in the First Century? (Francis Beare and H. Meyer)

The office of "bishop" apparently was non-existent in the first century. A number of sources demonstrate this datum to be the case including BDAG, but let us consult other works for now. Francis Beare writes concerning Phil. 1:1:

"The two [Greek] words translated bishops and deacons have been much debated. In the second century they became specialized in ecclesiastical usage; the bishop as the head of the local Christian community, the deacons as his assistants in whatever duties he might assign them."

Beare then adds: "Negatively, it may be said that the use of the plurals [in Phil. 1:1] rules out any possibility that the Philippian church is governed by a monarchical bishop."

After citing Polycarp and other sources, he concludes: "This passing reference [to EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI in Phil. 1:1] does not provide us with any crumb of information about the status or function of EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI at Philippi; and we are not entitled to read into them in this context the significance which belongs to them in later Catholic usage" (Francis Beare, Epistle to the Philippians, 1959, pp. 49-50).

So while the Primitive Congregation used such men to govern the ecclesia, it does not follow that these "offices" were hierarchically arranged or that these men were "leaders" of the Church.

Jesus Christ commanded: "Neither be called 'leaders,' [KAQHGHTAI] for your Leader [KAQHGHTHS] is one, the Christ [hO XRISTOS" (Mt. 23:10 NWT).

The term translated "Leader" can evidently mean either "leader, master, guide, teacher or professor." Certain scholars favor the sense "teachers" in this passage, but I think that "leader" is just as likely in view of Mt. 23:6-8.

The Geneva Bible of 1599 has: "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ."

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, [even] the Christ" (ASV).

"nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ" (YLT).

"Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ" (NET Bible).

The fact remains that the first century ecclesia had no human leaders: the closest the NT comes to using such language is Hb 13:7, 17. The head (KEFALH) of the congregation--the one who truly made the binding decisions under the guidance of holy spirit--was Christ (Col. 1:18). Those tending the first century ecclesia had to submit to their head and his God and Father (Eph. 1:17). Furthermore, it also seems that they were in subjection to the local congregation (ecclesia) that existed under apostolic governance. The EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI were "individuals designated for special service within the Church and perhaps subject to the Church" (Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Series, page 8).

Heinrich Meyer likewise concludes: "We may add that placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by SUN, are characteristic of the relation between the two [the overseers, the assistants and the flock], which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation" (Meyer, Philippians and Colossians, page 14).

To help list-members understand Meyer's comments concerning Phil 1:1, I post the Greek of that passage for you:

PAULOS KAI TIMOQEOS DOULOI XRISTOU IHSOU PASIN TOIS hAGIOIS EN XRISTWi IHSOU TOIS OUSIN EN FILIPPOIS SUN EPISKOPOIS KAI DIAKONOIS.

Church Tradition (PARADOSIS) and the Bible Canon

The Greek word usually rendered "tradition" is PARADOSIS (παράδοσις) which is derived from PARADIDOMI ("to surrender, intrust, transmit"). This signifier is employed in Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. 11:2; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:15, 16; 3:6.

For PARADOSIS, BAGD has "handing down or over." When considering this word in the context of tradition vis-a'-vis Scripture, I think we must avoid projecting later significations of the term back onto the writings of the NT. That is, we should not interpret Paul's use of PARADOSIS through the exegetical template of Trent (a sixteenth-century council of the Church). In 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul writes that Christian tradition requires loyal adherence whether it is oral or written. Thus we can be confident that none of the traditions Paul mentions in his Epistles lack scriptural backing, and moreover, they are not limited to what is spoken (i.e., oral tradition). None of the traditions (PARADOSEIS) Paul speaks about conflict with what we find in Scripture. Conversely, I do not think the same can be said for the present traditions held by the Catholic Church.

Anglican priest Rebecca Lyman writes the following about tradition: "Our English word 'tradition' cames from the Latin verb tradere, which means literally 'to hand on.' When we speak of tradition, we mean those things that are passed along from one generation to another as important and essential to our identity" (Early Christian Traditions, p. 4).

Stone and Duke add that PARADOSIS is both the act of handing on and subsequently that which is handed on or transmitted.

However, continuing, Lyman also notes: "Christians usually distinguish 'scripture' from 'tradition' in order to emphasize the stronger authority we give to the Bible as the word of God. Yet the Bible itself is the selection of writings chosen and revered by the faithful community" (Lyman, p. 4).

Lyman's definition and comments are helpful although I think she errs by saying that the "faithful community" chose which writings were to be revered. God ultimately decides which writings are canonical, not humans. So while Paul may
have written and known about the importance of PARADOSIS, he would have undoubtedly castigated Dom Gregory Dix when he wrote: "eucharistic worship from the outset was based not on scripture at all, but solely on tradition" (Qt. in The Principles of Christian Theology, John Macquarrie, p. 11).

Charles Ryrie more likely states the truth of the matter: "It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the [Bible] books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true becausde of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 105).

In a notable piece of scholarship, we also read: "the Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98" (Benjamin B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 455-56).

Are the Scriptures "God-breathed"? (NIV)

(Written before the advent of BDAG and slightly edited 3/18/16 and 5/19/17)

The best approach to word studies is the synchronic method; that is, one should consider what terms possibly mean at a certain time--not what they potentially denote through history. Finding the "exact meaning" of a word can be extremely challenging or elusive, but fortunately there are entries in the major NT lexica for terms, including the word θεόπνευστος.

BAGD supplies us an example from Plutarch: THS QEOPNESTOU SOFIHSLOGOS ESTIN ARISTOS. It also recommends the thorough work by B.B. Warfield "Revelation and Inspiration" 27, 229-259. Lastly, BAGD lists 2 Tim. 3:16 and then provides "inspired by God" for θεόπνευστος.

Nevertheless, one caveat needs to be made. Warfield cites the source this way:

In the unique passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): ‘tous oneirous tous theopneustous kat anagken ginesthai’. ‘Tous de phusikous aneidolopoioumenes psuches to sumtheron aute ktl’., it is very probably to be ascribed to the copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, in the place of ‘theopemptous’. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo- Phocylides, v. 121: ‘tes de theopneustou sophies logos estin aristos’— unless the whole line is, with Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to the sense—as well as in the fifth book of the “Sibyllines,” v. 308: ‘Kume d he mora sun namasi tois theopneustois’, and v. 406, ‘Alla megan genetera theon panton theopneuston En thusiais egerairon kai hagias ekatombas’. The Psuedo-Phocylides was, however, a Hellenist, and the author of the fifth book of the “Sibyllines” was, most probably, an Egyptian Jew living in the time of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find it in II Tim. iii. 16, which is possibly the earliest written employment of it to which we can point.

I need to verify the exact wording myself, but the main point of this missive is what θεόπνευστος possibly denotes. See https://www.the-highway.com/God-Inspired-Scripture_Warfield.html

Louw-Nida has: "θεόπνευστος, ον: pertaining to a communication which has been inspired by God--inspired by God, divinely inspired" (Semantic Domain 33.261). Ralph Earle writes that the phrase "Given by inspiration" (KJV) is "one word in Greek, QEOPNEUSTOS (only here in NT). It literally means 'God-breathed'--QEOS, 'god,' and PNEW, 'breathe.' That is, God breathed His truth into the hearts and minds of the writers of Scripture. The best translation is 'God-breathed' " (NIV).

Yet Louw-Nida warn us that a dictational view of θεόπνευστος should not be adopted (33.261). So we must acknowledge that God apparently did not dictate his thoughts to men. Furthermore, as we study the Bible, we find that concepts are not limited to words: one should not confuse Wort with Begriff. For example, the book of Hosea hardly uses the word (or related terms) "love." Yet the Divine acts depicted therein give evidence of Jehovah's love even if the prophet does not employ the exact term. Linguistically speaking, one word can be used to express many different concepts (polysemy) and one concept can be expressed by many different words (synonymy or overlapping relations).

Applying this principle to θεόπνευστος, it can be observed that while the word does not mean "infallible and inerrant," we are seemingly justified inferring that when God speaks--He speaks utterances that do not contain error and untruth. If we compare 2 Pet. 1:20, 21 with 2 Tim. 3:16, we may conclude that θεόπνευστος suggests infallibility and inerrancy. As the psalmist writes: "The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings, As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times" (Ps. 12:6, 7).

See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=qeo/pneustos

http://bbwarfield.com/works/inspiration/

D.A. Carson's Exact Words on KEFALH ("Head")

KEFALH = "Head"? (Duncan)

BDAG says that KEFALH, when employed metaphorically,
may denote:

(1) A being of high status (Iren. 1, 5, 3; Hippol.
Ref. 7, 23, 3).

(a) "in the case of living beings, to denote superior
rank."

BDAG lists 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23a as examples of what I
have labeled 1a. Cf. Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23b.

Marion Soards (1 Corinthians in the NIBC Series)
discusses the views of commentators such as G. Fee and
N. Watson, who both argue that KEFALH means "source"
in 1 Cor 11:3. But he then adds the following caveat
on page 229 of his commentary:

"Nevertheless, the interpretive debate is not settled.
J. A. Fitzmyer ('Another Look at KEFALH in 1
Corinthians 11:3,' NTS 35 [1989], pp. 503-11) examines
the LXX and Philo alongside Paul to argue 'head' could
be understood as 'authority over' another person; also
J. A. Fitzmyer, 'KEFALH in 1 Corinthians 11:3,' Int
47 (1993), pp. 52-59. In a creative interpretive
essay, S. E. McGinn ('EXOUSIAN EXEIN EPI THS KEFALHS:
1 Cor 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority Woman,' List
31 [1996], pp. 91-104) argues that the charismatic
gift of prophecy gave the women who were endowed with
this gift an authority over their heads--the
men--because of the Spirit's presence and power at
work in their contributions to the congregation's
worship."

D. A. Carson also reports the following in Exegetical
Fallacies (2nd Edition):

"Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses
of KEFALH . . . could be taken to mean 'source,' all
other factors being equal, in no case is that the
required meaning; and in every instance the notion of
'headship' implying authority fits equally well or
better. The relevant lexica are full of examples, all
culled from the ancient texts, in which KEFALH . . .
connotes 'authority'" (pp. 37-38).

Thomas Aquinas-"Of God and His Creatures" (Chapter XXVII)

Of the Incarnation of the Word According to the Tradition of Holy Scripture

OF all the works of God, the mystery of the Incarnation most transcends reason. Nothing more astonishing could be imagined as done by God than that the true God and Son of God should become true man. To this chief of wonders all other wonders are subordinate. We confess this wonderful Incarnation under the teaching of divine authority, John i, 14: Phil. ii, 6-11. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself also declare it, in that sometimes He says of Himself humble and human things, e.g., The Father is greater than I (John xiv, 28): My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Matt. xxvi, 38): which belonged to Him in the humanity which He had assumed: at other times lofty and divine things, e.g., I and the Father are one (John x, 30): All things that the Father hath are mine (John xvi, 15): which attach to Him in His divine nature. And the actions that are recorded of Him show the same duality of nature. His being stricken with fear, sadness, hunger, death, belongs to His human nature: His healing the sick by His own power, His raising the dead and effectually commanding the elements, His casting out of devils, forgiving of sins, His rising from the dead when He willed, and finally ascending into heaven, show the power of God that was in Him.

See the Bibliographical Information Here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.i.html

Micah 5:2: "Ancient Days" and the First Creation of YHWH

At some point in their history, the ancient Jews apparently believed in a created being alongside YHWH, who was subsequently used to bring the sum total of reality ("all things") into existence. This belief is reflected in the rabbinic writings, but it is also latent in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. Micah 5:2 reads: "out of you [Bethlehem] shall One come forth for Me Who is to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been of old, from ancient days (eternity)" (Amplified Bible).

Now while it is true that the Amplified Bible and other translations render the Hebrew OLAM as "eternity"--the rendition "ancient days" seem to be preferable in this context: "'Origin' (MOSAOT, elsewhere only 2 Kings 10:27 with a quite different meaning!) echoes the verb 'come forth' (YS') and thinks of children originating in the loins of their father (BDB, YS', 1h, p. 423). Bethlehem as the 'parent' of the ruler belongs to a period now viewed as an era behind the current order and so belonging to 'ancient days' " (James Mays. Micah [Old Testament Library], pp. 115-116).

By no means do I necessarily agree with every sentiment expressed by Mays--in a sense, Bethlehem would bring forth the promised Messiah. Nevertheless, his years would stretch back to "ancient days" because he existed in heaven before coming to the earth. This does not imply that the Messiah was not created, however: he issued forth from his Father as the first creation of God and was not eternal in his preexistence (see Rev. 3:14). This point (about OLAM meaning "ancient days") is also forcefully brought out by Joseph Klausner:

"the words, 'from of old, from ancient days' indicate only the antiquity of his origin (since from the time of David to the time of Micah several centuries had passed), but nothing more" (The Messianic Idea in Israel. p. 76).

Probably supplying even more robust evidence for the idea of a created preexistent being with God is Prov. 8:22: "The Lord formed me and brought me [Wisdom] forth at the beginning of His way, before his acts of old" (Amplified Bible).

While admittedly this verse has been hotly debated, it seems most appropriate to translate QANAH as "created" instead of "possessed" as others construe this passage. In poetic contexts, QANAH is understood to mean "create" or "form" (Gen. 14:19-22; Ps. 139:13). Interestingly in Deut. 32:6, the word is parallel to ASAH ("to make") suggesting that it may have the meaning "create." Thus if the preexistent Messiah is under consideration as the figure of Wisdom in Prov. 8:22--then it would seem fitting to view him as being the first creation of Yahweh, then afterwards being used to create all things as the intermediary agent of the Most High God.

Neuroscience and the Soul: Some Reflections

Edward Feser, Stephen Barr, and Jerome M. Adler have tried to formulate theoretical accounts that confute reductive materialism. While I agree with their opposition to materialism or naturalism simpliciter, my disagreement with these thinkers stems from their belief in the rational soul. Objections can be made to hylomorphism (a theory posited by Aristotle and received by the Church in modified form) on the grounds of both reason and Scripture. Let us consider the issue of concept-formation for starters.

I am using "concept" to describe representations that are generated by neural machinery as it interacts with sensory stimuli and decodes information which initially arises from sense experience. Additionally, I deny the existence of objective universals (i.e., supersensible intelligibles) and essential natures as they are usually conceived in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy; however, I can almost guarantee that the ability to form concepts of concepts (second-order reflection) is not precluded by a Christian materialist account of intellection. Such ideas could merely be reinterpreted especially when the materialistic/physicalistic account is understood in the light of Scripture.

For instance, a Christian physicalist could reflect on what it means for X to be a round square although round squares are logically and factually impossible. We can entertain the term "round square" in the mind via imagination and reason, although it's impossible to produce a mental image of such an object. One could also form the concept of a unicorn purely from sensory experience, reflection, abstraction and mental recombination since we do perceive horses and animals with horns. Or it is possible that the contents of a subject and predicate construction (an abstract structure) might be ontologically posterior to what we encounter through sensory experience (ontic subjects and predicates are sensed each day) and thereby such things could be parasitic and supervene on sensible instances of subjects and predicates witnessed experientially (e.g. houses and white objects).

It must be conceded that our ability to form categorical propositions like "All swans are white" or "No swans are white" is something that only rational creatures can do. But it seems that we don't need souls or intelligible substances to justify this ability. We have been gifted with language, and what makes la langue and la parole possible is the human brain (the neocortex along with Broca's and Wernicke's areas). Furthermore, la langue makes abstract categorization possible. We're able to manipulate symbols (concepts) because we are lingual beings. So concept-formation can be explained without recourse to multiplying entities beyond necessity (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

Brief Note on What It Means for a Being To Be "Maximally Great"

One student of mine recently expressed astonishment that someone besides God cannot have an omniproperty in the strict sense of the word. He was under the impression that a person (S) could have the property of omnipotence (OP), for example, and still not be God. Only a being having every omniproperty would be God (in his estimation).

However, there is more than one reason why his idea of God needs to be adjusted. I mentioned some reasons to him, and they appeared to be sufficient for the time being. But the whole point of the ontological argument for God's existence is supposed to be that only a perfect being is maximally great, and only a perfect being (in the absolute sense of the word) is necessary (exists in all possible worlds), and compossibly instantiates all omniproperties.

Another way of viewing this issue logically is to say that only God could be all-knowing and maximally powerful. How could a creature ever have such properties? Nevertheless, to emphasize this point, instantiating all omniproperties seems to be a logical consequence of having one omniproperty. For a being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient without being maximally excellent, it seems.

Two other ways of handling my student's question is to reference transcendentals like "good" "beauty" and unity; God also has incommunicable properties that only God exemplifies. See http://www.theopedia.com/classification-of-the-attributes-of-god

Duns Scotus argues that God's chief attribute is infinity. So he evidently contends that all divine properties are really just an extension of divine infinity.

Pascal, Reason and Religion (Romans 12:1)

"The last function of reason is to recognize that there are an infinity of things which surpass it" (Blaise Pascal).

That being said, it must be pointed out that reason plays a significant role in Christianity. We cannot fully understand God's infinite existence; we don't fully comprehend how God has always been, without beginning (his a se esse). On the other hand, should we hold views that blatantly contradict reason and scripture?

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your intelligent service" (Romans 12:1 DBT).

τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν could be translated "spiritual worship" (ESV), "reasonable service" (KJV, NET) or "logical service" (Aramaic Bible in Plain English).

Regardless of the translational approach to Romans 12:1, most religions agree that reason has a place in one's belief system. The question is just to what degree we should let reason influence our worship to God. Hence, we see widely divergent approaches in the Western and Eastern churches with the latter favoring a mystical approach over a more rational one.

While we need to exercise due humility before Jehovah (YHWH) and walk modestly in his sight, let us not excuse contradictory thinking or illogical reasoning by seeking refuge in divine mysteries. The Bible speaks of "mysteries" (Revelation 10:7 KJV) in the sense that we cannot know certain things until God reveals them in his proper time. But Jehovah does not contravene reason or disclose himself or his purpose in a confused or incoherent manner. Therefore, while reason will always be surpassed by an "infinity of things," those things which transcend or excel reason must never contravene it (i.e., must never go contrary to reason).

Response to Robert M. Bowman on Philippians 2:7 (Ongoing Project to Edit)

(1) Assuming a slave's form is a fitting expression of Christ's humility. Nevertheless, a fatal objection to Robert Bowman's view of the participial phrase in Phil. 2:7 is that his explanation makes KENOW refer to an act of addition--not to an act of subtraction. Yet lexical evidence for this use of KENOW is sadly lacking. One may consult BDAG, Louw-Nida, LSJ or Moulton-Milligan's and he or she will likely not find one instance where KENOW describes an act of addition. Neither in Holy Writ nor in extra-biblical literature does one find an instance of this Greek verb employed in the manner that Bowman suggests.

(2) The aorist participle LABWN, if translated woodenly, would be rendered "having taken" or "received" the form of a servant. It would thus have reference to an action that is antecedent to the main verb. But there are also times when the aorist participle has ingressive force.

At one time, I favored the antecedent view for the participle LABWN in Phil. 2:7. After talking with a friend and studying Stanley Porter's Idioms, however, I must concede that LABWN may be referring to consequent action or another possibility is subsequent action. At any rate, it is by no means certain that LABWN is a participle of means. While categorizing Phil. 2:7 as an example of the instrumental participle (i.e., participle of means), Brooks and Winbery admit that LABWN and GENOMENOS "may indicate manner rather than means" (Syntax of NT Greek, 150). To be fair, they also say that there's little difference between a participle of manner and one of means. However, the disparity between the two is significant enough to demonstrate that Bowman may only be appealing to a grammatical principle that suits his theology. For a brief (but lucid) explanation of the difference between means and manner, see Richard A. Young's Intermediate NT Greek, p. 154.

Bowman also writes:

"but there need not be an argument here at all. In Trinitarian theology it is true to say that Christ actively took this action [i.e., the kenosis], and it is also true to say that the Father sent Christ and gave him his human nature (including his body). It is not either/or; it is both/and."

My Response:

Maybe acording to Trinitarian theology, Christ actively "incarnated himself." But my concern is whether the Bible makes this claim. So far, you've offered one controversial text to support your theological view and not much else. And the lexicons I've checked so far all agree that KENOW does not refer to an act of addition. Furthermore, grammarians who are interested in scholarship (rather than propping up Trinitarian notions), also concede that the context of Phil. 2:7 possibly does not really favor LABWN being a participle of means. Construing it thus is only a convenient way to seemingly buttress your view of the Incarnation and God's putative triunity.

Matthew 23:9 and Father

καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος·

I hate to state the obvious here, but Jesus is not discussing biological fathers: the context is a religious one. Louw and Nida (Lexical Semantics of the Greek NT. Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1992) provide 24 examples of πατὴρ in the GNT and show that one must carefully differentiate between distinct semantic domains of πατὴρ, just as one would carefully parse between unique senses of "earth" in Scripture.

They write:

"In context 5 ('do not call anyone on earth father')
the use of PATHR is quite different from what it is in
previous contexts, since this is certainly not an
injunction against speaking about one's own father nor
is it a taboo about speaking of God as 'Father.' In
Matthew 23:9 the focus is on authority within the
believing community, and so a term appropriate to God
is not to be used in speaking about [human] persons"
(pp. 45-47).

This explanation is obvious in the context of Mt 23:9; nevertheless, some continue to insist that this Matthean verse does not rule out calling religious leaders "father."

Language, Concepts, and Neurons (Llinas)

Rodolfo R. Llinas (author of I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self) claims that language simpliciter, but particularly human language, "arose as an extension of premotor conditions, namely, those of the increasing complexities of intentionality as abstract thinking grew richer" (242). Llinas defines intentionality as "the premotor detail of the desired result of movement through which a particular emotional state is expressed: the choice of what to do before the doing of it" (228). Notice that intentionality, as opposed to being primarily mentalistic is associated with "a motor representation of what is happening inside our heads" (ibid).

Intentionality expressed in premotor activity adumbrates motor patterns (according to Llinas). He insists that language arose because premotor activity increasingly grew more complex while abstract cerebration became richer. Llinas thus provides the following account to explain the origins of abstract thinking: "Abstraction, or the collection of neural processes that generate abstraction, is a fundamental principle of nervous system function." In other words, abstraction is a natural feature of biological organisms that are equipped with neural machinery and nervous systems like we possess.

However we explain abstract thought, I believe it can be accounted for naturalistically. I have read most of Jerome M. Adler's book on the subject--as a colleague suggested I do--but it seems that anytime we're talking about linguistic phenomena, we're dealing with things that possibly yield to naturalistic explanations ex toto.

On the other hand, by "naturalistic explanations," I do not mean to exclude God (Jehovah). It just appears that a soul is unnecesary to explain speech and conceptual thought.

Judges 19:18

Since this issue has been raised in another thread on this blog.

From Keil-Delitzsch:

Behold, there came an old man from the field, who was of the mountains of Ephraim, and dwelt as a stranger in Gibeah, the inhabitants of which were Benjaminites (as is observed here, as a preliminary introduction to the account which follows). When he saw the traveller in the market-place of the town, he asked him whither he was going and whence he came; and when he had heard the particulars concerning his descent and his journey, he received him into his house. וֶאֶת־בֵּית י הֹלֵךְ אֲנִי (Jdg_19:18), “and I walk at the house of Jehovah, and no one receives me into his house” (Seb. Schm., etc.); not “I am going to the house of Jehovah” (Ros., Berth., etc.), for אֵת הָלַךְ does not signify to go to a place, for which the simple accusative is used either with or without ה local. It either means “to go through a place” (Deu_1:19, etc.), or “to go with a person,” or, when applied to things, “to go about with anything” (see Job_31:5, and Ges. Thes. p. 378). Moreover, in this instance the Levite was not going to the house of Jehovah (i.e., the tabernacle), but, as he expressly told the old man, from Bethlehem to the outermost sides of the mountains of Ephraim. The words in question explain the reason why he was staying in the market-place. Because he served at the house of Jehovah, no one in Gibeah would receive him into his house,

(Note: As Seb. Schmidt correctly observes, “the argument is taken from the indignity shown him: the Lord thinks me worthy to minister to Him, as a Levite, in His house, and there is not one of the people of the Lord who thinks me worthy to receive his hospitality.”)

although, as he adds in Jdg_19:19, he had everything with him that was requisite for his wants. “We have both straw and fodder for our asses, and bread and wine for me and thy maid, and for the young man with thy servants. No want of anything at all,” so as to cause him to be burdensome to his host. By the words “thy maid” and “thy servants” he means himself and his concubine, describing himself and his wife, according to the obsequious style of the East in olden times, as servants of the man from whom he was expecting a welcome.

From Cambridge Bible:

18. the farther side] See on Jdg 19:1.

the house of the Lord] The marg. is to be preferred; the last letter of bêthî = my house was taken as the initial of the divine name Yahweh. A converse mistake occurs in Jeremiah 6:11, where fury of Yahweh has become my fury in the LXX. There is nothing in the context to suggest that the Levite was going to Shiloh.

Footnote from NET Bible for Judges 19:18:

43 tn Heb “I went to Bethlehem in Judah, but [to] the house of the LORD I am going.” The Hebrew text has “house of the LORD,” which might refer to the shrine at Shiloh. The LXX reads “to my house.”

Kinkade on Michael the Archangel

His entire discussion is worth reading, but here's a snippet.

Antisemitism and the Gospel of John

A number of scholarly works have concluded that the
Gospel of John is woefully anti-Semitic because it
appears to employ the term "Jews" pejoratively with
frequency and also portrays a supposed conflict
between Jesus and the Jews of his time. While time
will not permit us to fully probe all of the pertinent
issues concerning this topic, I would like to use some
texts from John 4-5 as case samples to argue that the
Fourth Gospel is not an anti-Semitic work.

To the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, Jesus
exclaimed:

"Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship,
for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and
now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh
such to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and they that
worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"
(John 4:22-24 21st Century KJV).

Notice that Jesus shows a spiritual solidarity with
his fellow first-century Jewish brothers and sisters (Gal. 4:4-5)
since he insists, "we know what we worship."
However, Jesus does not merely affirm a spiritual kinship with
his contemporary "brothers" (Ps 133:1-3) but he also
makes a statement that appears to lack any element of
anti-Semitism. He declares that "salvation is
of the Jews." How could such a proposition be
construed as anti-Semitic?

Some readers of John's Gospel may, however, point to
the conflict recorded in chapter 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus
who had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews
persecute Jesus and sought to slay Him, because He had
done these things on the Sabbath day. But Jesus
answered them, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work.' Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him,
because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said
also that God was His Father, making Himself equal
with God."

When reading pasages of this nature, one must note
that certain Jews are being discussed. Such texts do
not serve as blanket judgments against all first-century Jews.
The Gospel of John makes this point quite clear. For instance,
Jesus treats "the Jews who believed him" (Jn 8:31-32)
much differently from those who try to kill him. The
important point to keep in mind is that we have a
religious agon depicted in John's Gospel, not a racial
or ethnic one. Jesus' disagreements with certain Jews
should not be wrongly interpreted through the lens of
modern-day prejudices. Peter Ensor, in fact, may be
right when he suggests that the "Jews" whom Jesus addresses
in Jn. 5:15-18 are possibly contemporary religious
leaders--if he is right, then Jesus clearly is not
denigrating all Jews.

See Jesus and His Works: Johannine Sayings in
Historical Perspective. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Reihe 2; 85.
Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1996.

Augustine of Hippo on Creation and Time (Confessions 11.12.14)

Behold, I answer to him who asks, "What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?" I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), "He was preparing hell," says he, "for those who pry into mysteries." It is one thing to perceive, another to laugh—these things I answer not. For more willingly would I have answered, "I know not what I know not," than that I should make him a laughing-stock who asks deep things, and gain praise as one who answers false things. But I say that Thou, our God, art the Creator of every creature; and if by the term "heaven and earth" every creature is understood, I boldly say, "That before God made heaven and earth, He made not anything. For if He did, what did He make unless the creature?" And would that I knew whatever I desire to know to my advantage, as I know that no creature was made before any creature was made.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm

Zerwick and John 17:3

Zerwick-Grosvenor (A Grammatical Analysis of the GNT, page 336) understands hINA + subjunctive (John 17:3) to be/function as an epexegetical infinitive that explains hAUTH (the demonstrative), which = "namely (that)."

Cf. sec. 410 of Zerwick's Biblical Greek.

I understand Zerwick-Grosvenor to be saying that we possibly do not have periphrasis for the (non-epexegetical) infinitive at 17:3; however, while Rogers and Rogers understand this verse to be epexegetical like Zerwick-Grosvenor, they seem to allow for the possibility that it could be periphrastic for an infinitive that is not explanatory.

As I read Zerwick and Grosvenor further, I guess we could have hINA + the subjunctive mood as periphrasis for the infinitive, but that only seems to tell the reader how the demonstrative is to be understood. I don't see how the epexegetical use of hINA explains anything but how we might construe the demonstrative hAUTH.

A Question Regarding John 17:3 (NWT)

Text: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. (NA28)

γινώσκωσιν is Present Subjunctive Active 3rd person plural. KJV renders the verb (with ἵνα and σὲ) as "that they might know thee . . . "

The word "they" comes from the fact that the verb is third-person plural, whereas "might know" is because the verb is subjunctive. However, the 1984 NWT translated this construction, "their taking in knowledge of you" and 2013 has "their coming to know you . . . "

I sometimes wonder why the NWT does not explicitly render the subjunctive like KJV, Byington (I think) and others. On the other hand, some just translate "that they know you" without making the mood explicit (see Mounce and NET Bible).

I've also had the question about why we translate a third-person plural verb with a possessive pronoun "their" instead of employing "they." But I could be missing something linguistically or syntactically with the construction.

NRSV Preface on the Tetragrammaton and Use of "Jehovah"

I've noticed that there was once a time when translators, theologians, and preachers freely used the name "Jehovah." John Calvin, John Gill, and Charles H. Spurgeon along with many others all liberally employed the divine name. However, in the twentieth century, a movement began to cease writing or pronouncing "Jehovah." One instance is the NRSV Preface (by Bruce Metzger):

Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus ("Lord"). The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

We may not know the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but there must be some way to honor/glorify YHWH--the One who proclaims that he is YHWH, that is His name (Isaiah 42:8). How does omitting the name from our translations uplift and honr the Most High over all the earth?

William Loader and 1 John 5:20

"The Greek of [1 Jn] 5:20 has only the true (one) and
reads literally: we know that the Son of God has come
and has given us understanding 'so that we know the
true (one) and we are in the true (one),' in his Son
Jesus Christ. 'This (one) is the true God and eternal
life.' It is clear from this that 'the true (one)' is
God throughout. Christ is his Son. In the
final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still
to God, not to Christ, as some have suggested. It is
not unknown for Christ to be given God's name (Phil
2:9-11) or even to be called 'God' (Heb. 1:8-9; John
1:1), but that would run contrary to the theme here,
which is contrasting true and false understandings of
God for which Christ's revelation is the criterion"
(The Johannine Epistles. London: Epworth Press, 1992.
Page 79).

While I disagree with Loader's take on Jn. 1:1 and Heb. 1:8-9, what he writes about 1 Jn. 5:20 seems to represent the context faithfully and it dovetails with what others such as M. J. Harris., M. Zewick and J. Moulton have pointed out about this particular Christologically-significant Johannine passage.

John of Damascus and the Boundaries of Scripture (For Informational Purposes)

"But neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the
essence of God is, or how it is in all, or how the
Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself,
became Man of virgin blood, made by another law
contrary to nature, or how He walked with dry feet
upon the waters. It is not within our capacity,
therefore, to say anything about God or even to think
of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely
revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation,
by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and
of the New" (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
1.2).

Dialogue On Sheol, the Soul and Politics (Originally An Email Message)

I have made a few corrections for ease of reading, but the message is fundamentally the same as it was sent to my colleague:

1) Jehovah's Witnesses view Sheol in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, passages which speak of the dead knowing nothing and which portray Sheol as a locus of non-activity. Similar verses are found in Psalms and Job. I'm sure you're also familiar with the Jewish metaphor "sleep" for death. This imagery for death suggests that no activity occurs in Sheol. As for the account where prayers for the dead supposedly transpire (in Maccabees), it has been interpreted various ways. But the bottom line is that one does not necessarily have to construe the account as an instance of prayers for the dead. See the NAB footnotes on 2 Macc 12.

2) 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? I admit that an intellect qua a power of the soul is logically possible. 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 universals.

3) I have never participated in the election process because of my religious beliefs. We Witnesses think this world is beyond reform; it's incorrigible or irreformable. That which is crooked cannot be made straight (said Qoheleth). Therefore, politicians are inherently limited when it comes to positive reforms. No wonder Jesus fled when people tried to make him a king (John 6:15). He solemnly proclaimed that his kingdom was not of this world. These Johannine accounts regarding Jesus deeply influence my political stand. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it's difficult for me to vote Republican or Democrat since I disagree with a number of things each party advocates. Whether it's abortion, same-sex marriage or cutting social programs that help the poor--there are significant points of disagreement between me and Obama/Romney.

Ephesians 5:12 (Grammatical Breakdown and Comments)

Ephesians 5:12:

τὰ γὰρ κρυφῇ γινόμενα ὑπ' αὐτῶν αἰσχρόν ἐστιν καὶ λέγειν·

1)From the NET Bible: "tn The participle τὰ . . . γινόμενα (ta . . . ginomena) usually refers to 'things happening' or 'things which are,' but with the following genitive phrase ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν (Jup’ autwn), which indicates agency, the idea seems to be 'things being done.' This passive construction was translated as an active one to simplify the English style."

2) From Robertson's Word Pictures: "In secret (kruphēi). Old adverb, only here in N.T. Sin loves the dark.

Even to speak of (kai legein). And yet one must sometimes speak out, turn on the light, even if to do so is disgraceful (aischron, like 1 Co 11:6)."

3) κρυφῇ-"adv. in secret" (Grosvenor-Zerwick).

Parousia of Christ and His "Epiphany"

BDAG reveals that ἐπιφάνεια is used as a technical term for "a visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known." But if you consult entry 1b (or its equivalent in the older BAGD), you will find out that Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich associates ἐπιφάνεια vis-à-vis the "manifestation" of Christ with a time of 'appearing in judgment.' You also discover the statement about 2 Thessalonians 2:8 under this lexical entry.

While this same reference work does state that παρουσία may denote Christ's Messianic Advent in glory when he comes to judge the world at the end of the age, it also indicates that there is some type of distinction between παρουσία and ἐπιφάνεια as revealed in 2 Thess. 2:8.

The ἐπιφάνεια seems to take place amid the παρουσία and it is actually connected with the divine meting out of judgment--παρουσία, however, does not seem confined to the judgment executed by Christ. It is an extended period of time in which Christ rewards his servants, but wages righteous warfare against his enemies.