The Meaning of KATABOLH in the GNT

For KATABOLH, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has:

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

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

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

But a friend stated:

"I know from experience that if we consult a lexicon, it is simply asking the writer of that lexicon his/her opinion of a word meaning. This is why a concordance is always safer than a lexicon."

My reply:

I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. BDAG, Louw-Nida, Abbott-Smith or LSJ, IMO, do more than give opinions on word meanings. BDAG is the product of rigorous lexicography; Danker (and others before him) has examined a number of texts and contexts. Ergo, though BDAG is far from being infallbile, I would not just want to chalk up Danker's lexical judgments to personal opinion. On the other hand, I'm not too trusting of concordances when it comes to lexical semantics.

My friend continues:

"For example, here is the word KATABOLE found in Heb 11:11 from the NWT: 'By faith also Sarah herself received power to CONCEIVE seed...' Why not say that she FOUNDATIONED seed...? The word here clearly 'means' something else. In fact, Sarah was 'casting down', or discharging seed from her ovaries... The very elements of KATABOLE: 'Down Casting.'"

My reply:

You seem to be relying on etymology or diachrony; a more reliable approach, linguists have shown, is synchrony or how a word is used at a particular time in a particular literary context (i.e., cotext). I have no problems with the NWT rendering of Heb 11:11: it is an acceptable and good way to translate this passage. But the reason we don't say that she "foundationed" seed is because of sense issues vis-a`-vis the target language and because of contexual considerations. Moreover, as [Marcus] has already stated, etymology is often not a reliable guide when it comes to establishing the meaning of a word. BDAG shows that KATABOLH is elsewhere employed with TOU SPERMATOS to mean "the sowing of seed."

Friend's reply:

"A word has one basic meaning, even tho' we can use 'variants' at times. Usage is another thing. But the basic meaning of a word must be present in its contexts.

My reply:

Do words have "basic meanings"? What is the basic meaning of LOGOS or PARQENOS? How about PAIS? One more we might add to the list is PAQOS.

For the record, I'm not in total disagreement with you. I just tend to believe that words have "potential meanings" or senses (Sinnen); contexts determines which sense is being communicated by the author.

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-grammar-of-hebrews-1111.html

The New Testament Is Reliable (Sir Frederic Kenyon)

No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading, such as the plan of this book necessitates, might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations of it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world. Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil, yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands. (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Frederic G. Kenyon, 10-11)

Please see http://blogforthelordjesusreferenceshelf.com/2014/06/13/scholarly-attestation-that-the-new-testament-we-read-is-what-was-originally-written/

Peter and the Rock (Chrys Caragounis)--Matthew 16:18

On page 89 of Peter and the Rock, Caragounis writes that "in normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the speaker and his interlocutor. Therefore, if this phrase here--contrary to syntax--is to be referred to Peter, some very good reasons for this anomaly will need to be presented. However, to date no one seems to have been able to produce any such reasons. Consequently, it must be firmly asserted that Greek syntax goes against the assumption that PETRA refers to PETROS, and since there is no valid explanation for this violation of syntax, it must be concluded that there are no objective grounds for referring PETRA to PETROS."

He concludes (in this section of his book) that if Matthew had wanted us to think Peter is the "rock" of Matt. 16:18, he probably would have written: SU EI PETROS, KAI EPI SE OIKODOMHSW. This construction, avers Caragounis, "would have put the matter beyond reasonable doubt" (89).

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part VII)

This entry is my penultimate submission on the topic of Caragounis v. Porter. One other post will follow this one.

Caragounis not only criticizes Stanley Porter's treatment of various biblical passages and his papyri translations, but he's also less than kind to the "aspect only" approach. He points out that the advocates for "aspect only" either root their theoretical claims in a) secondary moods of Greek verbs (i.e., imperative, subjunctive, and the optative "along with the infinitive and the participle") or b) appeal to "a few odd or special cases of the indicative." See Caragounis, 331.

According to Caragounis, Buist Fanning employs the first method, while Porter relies upon the second:

"This is a fatal methodological error that leads to a distorted picture of tense and aspect" (332). Why does he see the need to correct the aspect only view?

1. One should begin with ordinary instances of the indicative mood, not odd or unusual cases. These represent the bulk of uses for the indicative mood, and the "ordinary indicative" is "the mood most frequently-occurring" (332). Caragounis provides data which allows us to test his claims. Even a cursory look at how Greek moods are employed in the GNT shows that writers overwhelmingly use the "ordinary indicative." So why not start there instead of beginning with special uses of the indicative or with the non-indicative moods?

2. Caragounis next looks at particular texts that Porter analyzes in Verbal Aspect in order that he might critically discuss where he thinks Porter falls short. Some of the texts that are considered include 2 Cor. 9:7; Mt. 7:19; 26:18; 2 Pet. 2:19; James 5:2-3; Acts 10:45. Porter analyzes other texts, but Caragounis uses the aforementioned passages to illustrate how wrongheaded it is to conclude Greek is tenseless, based on passages like these. Some of the verses represent special cases, whereas others occur in contexts that show the uses are gnomic, omnipresent or future. On the other hand, Caragounis believes that Porter disregards Acts 10:45 which seems to militate against his thesis that Greek is "aspect only."

3. Therefore, based on 15 texts or so, Porter concludes that Greek verbs do not grammaticalize tense. To quote Caragounis:

"This is Porter's evidence. On the basis of this 'evidence,' which he explains in an eigensinnig manner (texts, which are capable of other and better explanations), he arrives at the untenable conclusion that the Greek verb expresses no time - a conclusion that flies in the face of seventeen million Greeks, who daily use the verb to express time! And it is on the basis of these texts that he decides that the Greek verb expresses only aspect."

Matthew 16:18ff (Super Hanc Petram)

The Jesuit commentator Maldonatus says:

"'There are, among the ancient authors those who interpret SUPER HANC PETRAM to mean upon this faith, or upon this confession of faith, by which thou hast acknowledged Me to be the Son of God, as S. Hilary, S. Gregory of Nyssa, S. Chrystostom, and S. Cyril of Alexandria. S. Augustine, going even further, interprets SUPER HANC PETRAM to mean upon Me Myself, that is, upon Christ Himself, since Christ is the Rock. And Origen says that SUPER HANC PETRAM means upon all those who hold this faith'" (Qt. in F.N. Oxenham, The Validity of Papal Claims, page 26).

"For what was said to him was not 'Thou art the rock,' but 'Thou art Peter.' But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these two interpretations is the more likely to be correct, let the reader choose" (Augustine, Retractions, Book 1, Chap. 21). Now as for the interpretation he preferred and expounded in sermons, Augustine made it clear that he 'frequently explained [that] the words of our Lord' refer to 'him whom Peter confessed when he said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'" (Ibid.).

"But, as a matter of fact, so far from this being the 'clear' meaning of this text [that Peter is the rock], there is nothing whatever in this text itself to make this meaning 'clear,' and there is a great deal in other parts of Scripture which renders such a meaning inadmissible" (F.N. Oxenham p. 25. The Validity of Papal Claims).

Zechariah 12:10--Pierced Whom?

Interlocutor:
"They shall look at him [whom] they pierced"
(Aramaic John/Yoch
19:37 quoting Zech)

Now if we take a look at the texts the Greeks had
available to quote
from,
there's...

"They shall look upon me (ET) whom ..." (Hebrew
Zech 12:10)
"They shall look upon me ..." (Greek Zech 12:10)
"They shall look upon me at him ..." (Aramaic
Peshitta Zech 12:10)
"They shall look at him ..." (Aramaic John/Yoch
19:37 quoting Zech)
"They shall look at him ..." (Greek John/Yoch
19:37 quoting Zech)

It's clear that the Greek John must have been a
translation of the
Aramaic
John/Yochanan.

RESPONSE:

It is far from clear that the Greek John is a translation of an Aramaic John/Yochanan. Besides the burden of proof being upon you to provide evidence of an Aramaic John preceding the "Greek" John, there are a number of possibilities that you are overlooking in trying to set forth your argument. For instance, the NJB reads: "They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced . . ." The Zech 12:10 footnote in the NJB then informs us:

"We preserve the MT reading by making a clear break after 'to me'. Theodotion understood 'to the one whom they have pierced', and this reading is followed by John (Jn 19:37)."

David Aune adds:

"Jellicoe (Septuagint, 87) claims that the citation from Zech 12:10 in Rev 1:7 [and also in Jn 19:37] reflects a Theodotiontic reading, perhaps more accurately described as a proto-Theodotiontic reading. Justin reads 'and your people will see [OYETAI] and will recognize whom they have pierced [EIS hON EXEKENTHSAN]'(Dial. 14.8); cf. 1 Apol. 52.12: 'and then they will see the one whom they pierced [EIS hON EXEKENTHSAN]'; this is identical with the Lucianic text" (Revelation 1-5, p. 56).

The point is that John is not the only person to have read the Hebrew text in the way that he did. On the other hand, another possibility is mentioned by Gerald Borchert in his commentary on John:

"The Johannine renderings of these Old Testament texts [Zech 12:10, etc.] are not exact quotations as though he had a copy of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures in front of him, but in substance they certainly represent accurately the meanings of those cited texts" (John 12-21, p. 279).

Finally, the Expositor's Greek Testament observes:

"John gives a more accurate translation: OYONTAI EIS hON EXEKENTHSAN: 'They shall look on Him whom (EKEINON hON) they pierced'. The same rendering is adopted in the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, and is also found in Ignatius, Ep. Trall., 10; Justin, I. Apol., i. 77; and cf. Rev. 1:7, and Barnabas, Ep., 7" (p. 860).

John 1:1c and the Deity of Christ

Regarding Jn 1:1c, Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarians both say that the Logos was deity in a qualitative sense (i.e., he was "divine"):

Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself (Rbi8, 1579).

The 10/15/93 WT (pp. 27-28) clarifies this statement even more:

The New World Translation, correctly viewing the word “God” as indefinite, as well as bringing out the qualitative aspect indicated by the Greek structure, uses the indefinite article in English: “The Word was a god.”

So Witnesses say QEOS in John 1:1c has both indefinite and qualitative semantic force: the Word is a god or divine being. One difference, however, is that Witnesses employ the adnominal "divine" in its weaker sense, whereas Trinitarians utilize "divine" with a stronger sense or meaning, so that it only applies to God (compare the AT at 1:1c). Professor Dale Tuggy helpfully has made distinctions between the strong and weak sense of "divine" in his work on the Trinity doctrine. I highly recommend his analyses.

Another difference is that while Trinitarians like Richard A. Young or Daniel B. Wallace are inclined to view QEOS in Jn 1:1c as a "monadic" or one-of-a-kind noun, Jehovah's Witnesses evidently believe QEOS is a count noun since we encounter the plural QEOI in both the LXX and NT with no indication that the writers in these particular instances are using the nominal QEOS pejoratively (Ps 8:4-5).

Now it's a well-known fact that Trinitarians make the afirmation, "Jesus is God." But one nagging logical difficulty that I think attends the Trinitarian proposition "Jesus is God" is that Trinitarians seem forced to view the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as "relatively identical" with the Godhead (i.e., God). Yet those who study identity in a non-theological context have pointed out that "relative identity" appears to be a sketchy concept. A logician named Peter Geach developed a sophisticated argument for relative identity that Richard Cartwright and other logicians aptly tried to refute, and did refute IMO.

Some elementary principles of logic are that A = A, identity relations are transitive, and identity is absolute/necessary:

(1) Cicero is Tully.
(2) Water is H20.
(3) Heat is the motion of molecules/atoms.
(4) Hesperus is Phosphorus.
(5) 2 + 2 = 4.

Leibniz's law also comes into play here and says that if X and Y commonly exemplify all properties, then X and Y are identical. The converse of this statement is that if X and Y are identical, then X and Y commonly exemplify all properties. That is why Cicero (X) is said to be identical with Y (Tully), KAI TO LOIPON. 2 + 2 = 4 is also a statement of identity.

But Trinitarians are saying none of the above when they assert that "Jesus is God." Rather, the proposition "Jesus is God" only claims that the Son of God is relatively identical with the Godhead, according to Geach and others. The Trinitarian proposition is thus akin to the assertions: "Aristotle is rational" or "Socrates is wise."

Klaus Koch and Daniel's Canonical Status

I've saved the file to my computer, but you can see the information online here: https://zrhaydon1.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/koch-stages-of-canon.pdf

Koch concludes that Daniel progressively became part of the Hebrew-Aramaic canon, but Jews and Christians likely accepted the book as canonical by the end of the 1st century CE.

Addressing Charges of Historical Inaccuracy or Lack of Grammaticality in John's Gospel

Interlocutor:
"John 1:35 seems to create a conflict with Mark 1:12 in the Greek Gospels, since both place him at different places 3 days after His baptism. However, the Aramaic version of John/Yoch 1:35 reads 'on another day' instead of the Greek 'the next day', eliminating any conflict with Mark 1:12."

Edgar:
Firstly, I must point out that this is not an example of a Johannine grammatical or linguistic error. At most, it would be a textual error, but there is nothing ungrammatical about John writing THi EPAURION PALIN hISTHKEI IWANHS in Jn 1:35. What you are actually positing is a historical inaccuracy or biblical contradiction, not a grammatical error. However, I fail to see how you can even discern a conflict between Mk 1:12 and Jn 1:35. Mark records the events that immediately transpired after Jesus' baptism. John, on the other hand, recounts Jesus' baptism without actually recording that Jesus was immersed by the Baptizer or that he even went into the wilderness afterwards. His focus is on what happened after Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Larry Hurtado writes concerning Mk 1:9-13:

"It is interesting, by comparison, that the Fourth Gospel does not actually say that Jesus was baptized by John (John 1:29-34) but includes a lengthy passage where the Baptist explicitly describes Jesus' superiority (John 3:22-30). In the passage before us [Mk 1:9ff], there is no such reluctance to associate the beginnings of Jesus' ministry with the Baptist" (Mark, p. 19).

Interlocutor:
"The Greek version of John 19:31 contains one line of bad grammar, which reads, 'the Jews did not want the bodies [plural] left on the cross [singular] during the Sabbath'. The Aramaic version says, "the Jews did not want the bodies [plural] left on the crosses [plural] during the Sabbath". So which ancient version should be considered more reliable - the Greek version with bad grammar or the Aramaic version without any?"

Edgar:
I think it is a bit strong to call EPI TOU STAUROU TA SWMATA EN TWi SABBATWi "bad grammar." To be sure, we apparently do have an example of what is called a CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM in Jn 19:31. However, Daniel B. Wallace explains:

"Although there is a lack of concord in such constructions, they are not infrequent. Indeed, a neuter plural subject normally takes a singular verb. It is an example of CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM (construction according to sense, rather than according to strict grammatical concord). Since the neuter usually refers to impersonal things (including animals), the singular verb regards the plural subject as a collective whole. It is appropriate to translate the subject as a plural as well as the verb, rather than translate both as singulars" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 399).

Examples of AD SENSUM constructions are:

Acts 2:43; 1 Cor 10:7; Rev 8:9; 11:18.

Interestingly, David Aune also notes concerning the so-called barbarisms or solecisms in the book of Revelation:

"In most of these instances, there is MS evidence that scribes have tried to correct these constructions by making them congruent in number . . . In each instance, however, the presence of the CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM is probably LECTIO ORIGINALIS" (Revelation 1-5, p. CCV).

Translating Genesis 2:19 (An Exploration)

There have been questions raised about Genesis 2:19, and how it should be rendered:

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was its name" (KJV 2000).

"And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that is its name" (YLT).

"And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name" (Darby BT).

Should one translate the Hebrew with the English "formed" or "had formed"?

There is certainly not unanimous consent on this issue, although many translations choose "formed" to convey the thought in 2:19.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: "The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: 'God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed.'"

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible:

"And out of the ground Jehovah formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

"God formed every beast ..." The proper way to translate this is "God had formed,"[26] etc. This is not the record of another creation, or a contradictory account of that given in Genesis 1, but a sub-section evidently given to reveal the intelligent genius of Adam, thus demonstrating the necessity of finding a mate for him who would partake in every way of his genius and ability, a problem that God solved by creating woman out of Adam himself. "Whatsoever the man called every living creature..." As Whitelaw commented:

"In this it is implied that man was created with the faculty of speech, the distinct gift of articulate and rational utterance, and the capacity of attaching words to ideas ... Already man had received from God his first lesson in the exercise of speech in the naming of the trees (in Eden) and the imposing of the prohibition."[27]

The NET Bible uses "formed," and here is the note provided (note 58):

tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

See https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/collins_gen2discourse_wtj.pdf

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1039

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part VI)

Just to keep readers up to date, these set of posts deal with Chrys C. Caragounis' analysis/critique of Stanley Porter's verbal aspect theory. I am basing this discussion on Caragounis' book, The Development of Greek and the New Testament.

Caragounis finds Porter's translation of Acts 15:38, Acts 21:12, and Matthew 18:25 to be deficient. Another text he examines is Philemon 21.

A. Acts 15:38

Greek: Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου, τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον, μὴ συνπαραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον.

Porter: "was thinking not to take him."

NWT 2013: "Paul, however, was not in favor of taking him along with them"

Caragounis: He calls Porter's rendition, "a strange translation," then continues by writing, "That this is not simply a question of a mere thought on Paul's part, but of a demand or insistence, is proved beyond any doubt by the quarrel that ensued between Paul and Barnabas" (330).

NET Bible: "but Paul insisted that they should not take along this one"


B. Acts 21:12


Greek: ὡς δὲ ἠκούσαμεν ταῦτα, παρεκαλοῦμεν ἡμεῖς τε καὶ οἱ ἐντόπιοι τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.

Porter: "we and those with us were beseeching him not to go."

NWT 2013: "Now when we heard this, both we and those of that place began entreating him not to go up to Jerusalem."

Byington: "And when we heard this, both we and the people of the place appealed to him not to go up to Jerusalem."

Caragounis: ἐντόπιοι certainly does not denote "those with us," but rather "the local people" or "the people who lived in that place" (330).

C. Matthew 18:25

Greek: μὴ ἔχοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος πραθῆναι καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει, καὶ ἀποδοθῆναι.

Porter: "When he did not have by which to pay back, the master ordered him to sell both his wife and children and all that he had, and to be repayed!"

NWT 2013: "But because he did not have the means to pay it back, his master ordered him and his wife and his children and all the things he owned to be sold and payment to be made."

Caragounis: He calls Porter's translation, "hair-raising" on the basis of πραθῆναι being the passive aorist infinitive form. So he maintains that the word or this particular morphology doesn't mean "to sell." Moreover, Caragounis accuses Porter of "playing havoc with tense and voice" (330-331). So he prefers the rendering: "his master ordered that he and his wife and his children . . . be sold, and that payment be made."

D. Philemon 21

Greek: Πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου ἔγραψά σοι, εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω ποιήσεις.

Porter: "being persuaded of your reputation I write to you"

Caragounis: "Since when has the word ὑπακοῇ taken on the sense of 'reputation?'"

NWT 2013: "I am confident that you will comply, so I am writing you, knowing that you will do even more than what I say."

NET Bible: "Since I was confident that you would obey, I wrote to you, because I knew that you would do even more than what I am asking you to do."

2 Timothy 3:17 (ARTIOS)

"The adjective 'perfect' [in 2 Tim. 3:17] is ARTIOS (only here in NT), and 'thoroughly furnished' is the perfect passive participle of the verb EXARTIZW, based on the adjective. The verb is found here and in Acts 21:5 ('accomplished'; that is, 'finished'). The basic meaning of ARTIOS is 'fitted' or 'complete.' Trench comments . . . the man of God, St. Paul would say (2 Tim. 3:17), should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed" (Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament).

Robertson's Word Pictures:

The man of God (ο του θεου ανθρωπος). See 1Ti 6:11.

May be complete (ινα η αρτιος). Final clause with ινα and present subjunctive of ειμ. Αρτιος is old word (from root αρω, to fit), specially adapted, here only in N.T.

Furnished completely (εξηρτισμενος). Perfect passive participle of εξαρτιζω, rare verb, to furnish (fit) fully (perfective use of εξ), in N.T. only here and Ac 21:5. In Josephus. For καταρτιζω, see Lu 6:40; 2Co 13:11 .

"our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible" (Cyril of Jerusalem).

"Vincent of Le'rins (c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was 'sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes'" (J. N. D. Kelly 43).

"'How then,' says one, 'shall we be able to renew it [i.e., the soul], thus fallen and relaxed, to strength? what doing, what saying?' By applying ourselves to the divine words of the prophets, of the Apostles, of the Gospels, and all the others; then we shall know that it is far better to feed on these than on impure food, for so we must term our unseasonable idle talking and assemblies" (HOMILY XVIII. JOHN 1:35-37).

John Trapp's Commentary: May be perfect] αρτιος ( omnibus numeris absotutus), with a perfection of parts, able and apt to make use of the Holy Scriptures to all the former purposes, for the behoof or benefit of his hearers. The authority of the Fathers, saith a grave and learned divine, I never urge for necessity of proof (the Scripture is thereto all-sufficient and superabundant), but only either in some singular points to show consent; or, 2. In our controversies against anti-christians, anti-nomists, Neopelagians; or, 3. When some honest passage of sanctification or seasonable opposition to the corruption of the times is falsely charged with novelty, singularity, and too much preciseness. (Mr Bolton’s Four Last Things.)

For a time, oral teaching served a vital purpose in the Christian ecclesia. But in order to preserve the Gospel and facilitate its spread, the ecclesia committed its beliefs to writing (Cf. 2 Pet. 3:1, 2). Interestingly, Lucius Lactantius also contended that Holy Writ did not grow out of the Christian religion, but the Christian religion out of Holy Writ (Divine Institutes 4.4.5). Yes, Christians are supposed to be "people of the book." Jehovah God always purposed that the teachings of Christ would be committed to writing, and these writings as Vincent said, are sufficient "and more than sufficient" for all Christian purposes, even though Vincent thought tradition was vital to avoid misinterpreting Scripture. I'm not sure he would insists that tradition precedes the Bible though.

Luke 20:36, Angels, and Immortality

Written 7/17/03 and edited 6/27/16; 7/24/16; 8/6/16.

The Greek is οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν, καὶ υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες (WH).

This portion of the Lukan verse has, for some time, perplexed me. But I'd rather not get into the aporetic facets of this passage since it would force me to speculate on what Luke might have intended, thus carrying me beyond what the Greek found in the account putatively states.

Suffice to say that angels are evidently not immortal. The only beings that seem to possess immortality (i.e., the quality of deathlessness, indestructibility, and autarchy qua life) are God the Father (Hab. 1:12); the Risen Christ (Rom. 6:9-10; Heb. 7:16) and Christians who participate via divine χάρις in the first resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:53-54). But immortality is never predicated of the angels by any scriptural writer. In fact, some angels actually sinned and apostatized from God, including the one called Devil and Satan (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 12:9). These beings now stand on death row, as it were: it thus seems that angels are not inherently immortal.

δύνανται is the present indicative middle/passive 3rd person plural of δύναμαι(can, am able, be capable, have the power to do X). Hence, I like the way that NWT renders the verse. Rotherham also has "For they cannot even die anymore."

However, if these words do apply to those who will live forever on earth, do they necessarily convey the idea that those privileged to dwell eternally on earth will be immortal? Could not Luke simply be professing what the apostle John also prophesies concerning the future inhabitants of the "new earth" in Rev. 21:3-4?

Grammatically, I don't see why we should make a distinction between the individuals mentioned in Lk. 20:34-35 and those mentioned in 20:36. Notice that the Gospel writer employs the Greek postpositive γὰρ, which NWT renders "In fact" (Lk. 20:36):

"Now that" (KJV) "But that" (REV) "But even" (NET)

Luke's use of γὰρ after discussing those who neither marry nor are given in marriage suggests that verse 36 is a continuation of what one finds discussed in 20:34-35. The NWT also evidently construes γὰρ as an emphatic particle by employing the translation, "In fact . . . "

NWT 2013: "In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God's children by being children of the resurrection."

Redundancy, Pleonastic Speech, and the Bible

When I say that the Bible contains redundancies, I use the term in the way that linguists do. Moises Silva offers the following input with regard to Biblical redundancies:

"It is unfortunate, however, that the term redundancy continues to be viewed in a purely negative light. Linguists, drawing on the work of communication engineers, have long recognized that redundancy is a built-in feature of every language and that it aids, rather than hinders, the process of communication" (Philippians, 12-13).

A prime example of redundancy in the Bible is Philippians 2:1 which B. F. Lightfoot describes as a "tautology of earnestness." This observation does not make Scripture any less sacred, but it simply recognizes the fact that God had Scripture recorded in human language and thus Bible writers follow normal syntactical and morphological rules and other standard speech conventions.

D. A. Black likewise provides discusses this subject in Linguistics for Students of NT Greek. On pp. 132-136, Black supplies examples of rhetorical devices like anaphora, anastrophe, asyndeton, polysyndeton, litotes, and pleonasm (redundancy).

Some examples of pleonasm are Colossians 1:23; Philippians 1:23; 2:1.

As for Philippians 2:1 in Greek, it reads:

Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part V)

So far in this analysis of Caragounis' criticisms of Porter's aspect theory and biblical translations (verses that he has rendered from Greek into English), we can see that Porter has not fared well at the hands of Chrys Caragounis. But I'm not trying to determine which scholar is correct: my objective is to spell out the disagreement between these men, then let my readers decide whose argument best explains the biblical data. In this post, I'll also continue to see how NWT 2013 renders the verses that Caragounis has chosen to analyze.

A. Matthew 18:15

Greek in part: ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου· (WH)

Porter: "if he hears you, you gain your brother."

Caragounis: He is highly critical of this rendering since it appears "to miss the force of the aorist" (page 329).

NWT 2013: "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

One criticism of Porter's translation is that his rendering possibly confuses the aorist and present verbal forms. As a side note, I also like "listens" for ἀκούσῃ better than "hears." Another thing Caragounis notes regarding Porter's translation is that while Matthew could/should have used the future indicative here, he employed the aorist instead to rhetorically "dramatize the effect of winning a falling brother . . . " (277). Hence, the act is also treated as a fait accompli.

NET Bible: "If he listens to you, you have regained your brother."

B. Mark 3:24

Greek ex toto: καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Porter: "if a kingdom might be divided upon itself, that kingdom is not able to stand."

NWT 2013: "If a kingdom becomes divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand"

Needless to say, Caragounis thinks that Porter once again misses the mark.

C. Mark 3:22

Greek: καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων καταβάντες ἔλεγον ὅτι Βεεζεβοὺλ ἔχει, καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια. (WH)

Porter: "in the power of the demons he cast out demons."

Caragounis: ἄρχων does not signify "power," but "Prince" or "Leader." Porter might have mistook ἄρχων for ἀρχὴ.

NWT 2013: "he expels the demons by means of the ruler of the demons."

NET Bible: "By the ruler of demons he casts out demons."

John 1:3-4 (PANTA, Etc.)

John 1:3-4 (Greek): πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

It is possible that John 1:3c-4 addresses the same time frame as 1:3b:

"4b ('this life was the light of men') seems to indicate that not all creation but only living creatures or, more likely, men are meant by 'that-which-had-come-to-be in 4a'" (Raymond E. Brown, Anchor Bible Commentary on John, Vol. 1:7).

Quoting from Brown again:

"following vs. 3, the clause represents a narrowing down of creation; v. 4 is not going to talk about the whole of creation but a special creation in the Word [i.e., men]" (Ibid.).

I partly concur with Brown's construal of ὃ γέγονεν, but I would not limit v. 4 to the creation of men. Instead it potentially refers to the entire material order and not only references humans. At any rate, Brown's comments show that πάντα in John 1 may be understood in a relative sense. Moreover, ὃ γέγονεν might elucidate "all things." Read in context, John 1:3-4b possibly does not refer to the earthly ministry of Jesus, but could deal with his preexistent activity as the Word, whereby he shares in creating the material universe as a whole.

To reiterate, I am saying that John 1:3-4 narrates the creation of the material order (including humans): the content of those verses potentially does not encompass the angels or the spiritual realm.

Ephesians 3:3 (Ignatius of Antioch)

Greek: καὶ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ γνώμη, ὡς καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, οἱ κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες, ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώμῃ εἰσίν.

"For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ" (New Advent).

"Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ" (Kleist).

"for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ" (Lightfoot).

"For Jesus Christ—that life from which we can't be torn—is the Father's mind, as the bishops too, appointed the world over, reflect the mind of Jesus Christ" (Cyril Richardson).

For the complete Greek text of Ephesians 3:3ff, see http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-ephesians.htm

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part IV)

I base this part of the discussion on page 329 of Caragounis' The Development of Greek and the New Testament. Translations of Stanley Porter are analyzed by Caragounis, then he explains why he finds them wanting. My posting this information does not necessarily signal my consent with Caragounis: I just want to put this data out there. Additionally, I'm going to post NWT 2013 renditions to compare them with Porter and Caragounis.

A. Mark 11:27

Greek in Part (NA28): Καὶ ἔρχονται πάλιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.

Porter: "and they were coming again into Jerusalem."

Caragounis: "And they came again to Jerusalem."

NWT 2013: "They came again to Jerusalem."


B. John 17:14

Greek in Part: ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς

Caragounis argues that Porter misinterprets this Johannine verse. He avers that one should not translate these words as "the world is going to hate them" since the passage is talking about a fait accompli. See John 15:18ff.

Caragounis writes: "it is true that this process, which has already begun, will continue and be accentuated in the future" (329). Nevertheless, as he explains in footnote 323 on the same page: "But if, in spite of this, the main weight is placed on the future, then it is the special use of the perfect treated in the present Chapter, 4, above. In either case it is not susceptible to PORTER's interpretation."

NWT 2013: "the world has hated them"


C. Ephesians 5:29

Greek in Part: Οὐδεὶς . . . τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν

Porter: "no one ever hates . . . "

Caragounis: He reasons that Porter's translational choice is not erroneous per se, but "no one has ever hated his own flesh" more closely reflects the apostle's intention.

NWT 2013: "for no man ever hated his own body [lit., 'flesh']"


D. Luke 16:14

Greek in Part: ἔγνων τί ποιήσω

Caragounis thinks Porter "does not take account of the special force of the verb itself. In English it corresponds to 'I('ve) got it!'" (page 329).

NWT 2013: "Ah! I know what I will do"

Thomas Aquinas on the Blessed Who Witness the Massa Damnata Suffer

"I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly."

(Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 94, Article 1)

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

Second and Revised Edition, 1920

Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province

Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight

Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.

Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.

APPROBATIO ORDINIS

Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.

Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part III)

In part III of my review about the debate between Caragounis and Porter, I now focus on Revelation 1:8 and how one might translate the verse:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, λέγει Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ (WH).

"'I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,' says Jehovah God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'" (NWT 2013 Rev.)

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (KJV)

"I am the A and the Z, says the Lord God; the one who Is and Was and Is Coming; the Almighty." (Byington)

"the one who is and who was and who is coming" (Porter).

Caragounis suggests that the way Porter renders 1:8 indicates present time, but he criticizes Porter, accusing him of misunderstanding the import of Euripides, other classical Greek texts and Revelation 1:8.

Porter's error in this case is supposed to be that he thinks the aorist, present, and future tenses are not used of "past, present, and future time as some would expect. Instead, the Perfect and Present are each used for past reference, and the Present is used for future reference." See Caragounis, page 328; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 82, ftn. 5.

There is a problem with this explanation of Revelation 1:8, however, and other related texts--Caragounis would say.

He notes that ἦν is imperfect (not present) and the verb expresses past time; "ὁ ἐρχόμενος expresses future time not because it is a present participle, but because future time is natural to this verb, cf. υπαγω, etc." (328, ftn. 321).

Caragounis closes this part of his analysis, though there's more to come, with these remarks:

"The above was a critique of Porter's Introduction and first chapter, in which he tried to prove previous scholars wrong in order to establish his own theory. It was shown that Porter often fails to represent his opponents correctly, considers all scholars to have misunderstood the nature of Greek including both ancient and modern Greeks, and seems to regard himself as the only one who really knows what the verb expresses. Further, he often misunderstands and mistranslates the ancient authors" (p. 328).

I need to review Porter for myself, since I read his study in grad school, but not much since that time. Nevertheless, you get a feel for how strongly Caragounis critiques Porter's material.

Ignatius (Updated Replying to a Trinitarian)

From time to time, I get requests for information dealing with Ignatius of Antioch. I'm providing a variant of a post submitted here before. I've also linked to an earlier discussion on this subject.

Ephesians 3:3 (Ignatius)
Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father (IHSOU CRISTOU TO ADIAKRITON HMEN ZHN TOU PATROS H GUWMH WS)

I think the transliteration should be GNWMH and not GUWMH. I am not being pedantic or mean but it is important to understand that Ignatius is comparing Jesus to the divine "will" of God and not to God's mind. GNWMH is at times used in Greek literature as a substitute for QELHMA. See Plutarch De def. orac. and Schoedel (page 50). Schoedel translates the passage:

"Indeed Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the Father's purpose; as also the bishops appointed in every quarter, are in the purpose of Jesus Christ" (Schoedel 48).

Schoedel also points out, though he is a Trinitarian, it seems: "The theological implications of Christ as the 'purpose' of the Father are thus probably minimal" (50).

Ephesians 7:2
There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passable and then impassable, Jesus Christ our Lord (EIS IATROS ESTIN SARKIKOS KAI PNEUMATIKOS GENNHTOS KAI AGENNHTOS EN ANQRWPW QEOS EN QANATW ZON ALHQINH KAI EK MARIAS KAI EK QEOU PRWTON PAQHTOS KAI TOTE APAQHS IHSOUS XRISTOS hO KURIOS HMEN)

Schoedel writes that the distinction made by Ignatius above cannot apply to the "internal relations of the Godhead" but only applies to the incarnate Christ. However, I am puzzled over how one can stipulate that Ignatius' words refer to the immanent Trinity or the economic Trinity. Subsequent professed believers of Christ declared that the Son is
begotten, not created and that the Father is unbegotten. But how does one consider Christ "unbegotten" in relation to the cosmos (humanity) that he came to save? It is no wonder that Bart Ehrman writes in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that theologians would later find Ignatius' formulation in Eph. 7:2 to be "vague." It does not seem to assist the Trinitarian case at all, IMHO, and therefore has no theological force.

Interestingly, Cyril C. Richardson plainly writes that Christ is called hO QEOS by Ignatius and he further points out that the bishop "does not explain, he only asserts that Christ is God" (Ignatius of Antioch, page 45). Nevertheless, Richardson goes beyond the surface structure or prima facie meaning of Ignatius' terminology and he explores "what type of picture Ignatius has in mind" when he employs the signifier QEOS or even hO QEOS. What does he conclude?

"Unlike Theophilus of Antioch, he has nothing to say about God as creator; His eternity and invisibility are mentioned only in Pol. 3.2, and He is never predicated with immortality, the chief attribute of the heathen 'Gods'. For Ignatius QEOS means essentially a superhuman, moral being" (45).

Richardson adds: "There is never a hint in his writing that Christ was in any way absorbed in God or confused with Him. He always stands in a place secondary and inferior to him" (44).

Consult The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, New York: AMS Press, 1967.

I also recommend Milton P. Brown, The Authentic Writings of Ignatius: A Study of Linguistic Criteria, Durham, N.C: Duke University Press, 1963 for a solid analysis of the textual issues appertaining to the Ignatian epistles and a look at how he uses QEOS.

One Trinitarian writes: "8:2 there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word (hOTI EIS QEOS ESTIN hO FANERWSAS hEAUTON DIA IHSOU CRISTOU TOU UIOU AUTOU hOS ESTIN AUTOU LOGOS)

Once again Ignatius returns to the theme of the ONE TRUE GOD became evidential reality through the agency of Jesus. The case becomes more and more overwhelming that Ignatius believed Jesus to be God in the unqualified sense more and more.

EDGAR RESPONSE: I think you need to read this text more carefully. The "one God" who manifested Himself through the Son, according to Ignatius, is the Father. I thus do not believe that this passage serves as an effective prooftext
for you. Please note:

"There is one God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son--who, being His Word, came forth out of the silence into the world and won the full approval of him whose Ambassador he was' (Magnesians 8).

Notice how the context of Magnesians 8 militates against your interpretation of this text.

Another good source is William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, edited by Helmut Koester, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-ignatius-of-antioch-dialogue.html

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part II)

I have already pointed out that Caragounis severely castigates Stanley Porter in The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. On pages 327-328, he continues the onslaught against Porter's translation and/or exegesis of biblical and other ancient Greek texts. Firstly, Caragounis selects the papyri to level criticisms at Porter before he deploys Platonic texts and one Euripidean passage from classical Greek.

In terms of classical works (non-Greek papyri), Caragounis quotes what's supposed to be Plato's Politeia 329d, although I tried to confirm the passage, and could not find the exact words in the Republic (Politeia). But Caragounis asserts that Porter improperly translates this passage as "it is a narration of the things that have come about, that are and are intended" instead of "are to come/will come."

The problem reportedly arises when Porter attempts to treat the future as though it does not express future action:

"His eagerness to prove the thesis, that the future does not express future time, leads him to treat reference and meaning less carefully than desired" (Caragounis 327).

The next bit of Greek that Porter supposedly does not understand aright is Plato's Parmenides 141d-e. But Caragounis avers that the words really derive from Euripides' Troades 467-468. Now I had a much easier time finding the exact quote for these Euripidean sentiments:

ἐᾶτέ μ᾽ — οὔτοι φίλα τὰ μὴ φίλ᾽, ὦ κόραι —
κεῖσθαι πεσοῦσαν: πτωμάτων γὰρ ἄξια
πάσχω τε καὶ πέπονθα κἄτι πείσομαι.

(Taken from Gilbert Murray's Greek Text of 1913. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0124%3Acard%3D462)

Porter renders part of this text: "I am suffering and I have suffered and I intend to suffer" (πάσχω τε καὶ πέπονθα κἄτι πείσομαι)

Caragounis proffers the rendition: "let me lie fallen (on the ground); the things that I suffer and have suffered and will yet suffer are only fit for corpses (i.e. those that lie down (fallen) on the ground)."

E. P. Coleridge translates these fateful words thus: "Leave me, my maidens—unwelcome service does not grow welcome—lying where I fell; my sufferings now, my troubles past, afflictions yet to come, all claim this lowly posture" (ἐᾶτέ μ᾽ — οὔτοι φίλα τὰ μὴ φίλ᾽, ὦ κόραι — κεῖσθαι πεσοῦσαν: πτωμάτων γὰρ ἄξια πάσχω τε καὶ πέπονθα κἄτι πείσομαι).

G. Theodoridis offers yet another way of treating the Greek: "The body knows its proper place. It is here, on the ground. Because of what I have suffered, because of what I am suffering and because of what I am about to suffer, this is its rightful place. O, Gods!"

See http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/TrojanWomen.htm

Part of this whole debate seems to be muddled by the challenge of tracking down the correct references, but Caragounis probably raises a legitimate issue regarding Porter's handling of Troades 467-468.

Revelation 1:1 Syntax

Revelation 1:1:

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, (UBS5)

"Revelation of-Jesus Christ which gave to-him the God to-show to-the slaves of-him which(things) it-is-binding to-occur in quickness and he-showed-by-signs having-sent off through the angel of-him to-the slave of-him to-John (Kingdom Interlinear).

We have three occurrences of αὐτοῦ in  this verse: this form is the singular genitival case of αὐτός.

How can we tell from the syntax whether the referent of αὐτοῦ is God or Jesus Christ?

Quite frankly, it is challenging to determine the pronominal referents on the basis of syntax alone. But it is quite possible that the referent of τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ and τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ and διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ is God. Yet Christ could be viewed as the intermediate agent of the revelation. That is, God is possibly the specific referent in Rev. 1:1, but He acts through Christ. Conversely, God (Jehovah) could have given the revelation to Christ, who in turn sent "his" angel to God's servant John.

Rev 22:6 explicitly states: Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί, καὶ ὁ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει (UBS5).

In Rev 22:16, the Risen Christ himself makes this expression: Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is hard to be dogmatic about Rev. 1:1, especially when it comes to basing one's decision on syntax alone. For example, David Aune writes that "the subject of the verb ἐσήμανεν, 'he made known,' is ambiguous: it could be either God or Jesus Christ, though the latter is logically more probable since the revelation was transmitted by God to Jesus Christ, and it must be Jesus Christ who then further communicates the revelation" (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 15).

Aune observes that it could be either God or Christ who sent the angel. John later writes that both parties did in fact send the angel (Rev. 22:6, 16). Nevertheless, I think the seeming confusion can be resolved if we appeal to the notion of divine agency and pay attention to what other NT texts say about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the angels under his command.

Chrys Caragounis Vs. Stanley Porter (Part I)

This series of blog posts will revolve around a book written by Chrys Caragounis entitled The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2006).

I will start on page 316, then pick out certain portions of Caragounis' work to make my focus. On pp. 316-321, Caragounis argues by means of numerous sources that Greek has both tense and aspect (contra Porter). His entire critique of Porter's work is quite strong and direct: he mercilessly castigates Porter's findings.

I'm not going to spend much time on the tense-aspect debate, because it's already been covered many times, including on this blog. Interested parties can see:

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/10/matthew-1619-and-greek-aspect.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/11/aspect-and-aktionsart-john-1032-and.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/05/ism-time-grammaticalized-in-new.html


I will spend more time on subsequent analyses of Caragounis' book and his major disagreements with Porter.

2 Chronicles 24:17 (LXX) and Proskynesis

2 Chronicles 24:17:

καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν ᾿Ιωδαὲ εἰσῆλθον οἱ ἄρχοντες ᾿Ιούδα καὶ προσεκύνησαν τὸν βασιλέα· τότε ἐπήκουσεν αὐτοῖς ὁ βασιλεύς.

"And it came to pass after the death of Jodae, that the princes of Juda went in, and did obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened to them" (Brenton LXX).

"And it happened after Iodae's death that the rulers of Ioudas entered and did obeisance to the king. Then the king heeded them" (NETS).

Isaiah 9:6 (Otto Kaiser's OTL Commentary)

(1) Otto Kaiser (OTL) professes that the King (or Messiah) mentioned in Isa. 9:6 is EL GIBBOHR insofar as he is "the representative and viceregent of God on earth, who, as the one endowed with this spirit (cf. 11:1), shares in his nature and his will" (Isaiah 1-12, Page 213).

When Kaiser claims that the Messiah-King shares in "the nature" and "will" of God, his statement should not be construed to mean that he believes the King shares the essence of God (i.e., the divine attributes). To the contrary, the King that Kaiser provides commentary about is fully human. This point is clearly brought out when Kaiser explains that the words "Wonderful Counselor" characterize: "the ruler as a man who, like God, can make extraordinary resolves and then carry them out. Illuminated by Yahweh himself, he needs no counsel from others . . . The second name [Mighty God] stresses his abundance of power, calling men to their God" (213).

Kaiser also contends that Isa. 9:6 possibly shows hints of Egyptian influence on the royal ritual of Israel (a point some have insisted applies to Ps. 45 and Heb. 1). For an interesting discussion of this matter vis-a'-vis Revelation 5:1ff and the coronation of the Lamb, see David Aune's thorough notes in his Word commentary (Revelation 1-5). But whether Isa. 9:6 shows Egyptian influence or not, Kaiser demonstrates by means of parallels why Isa. 9:6 is not necessarily proof for the Deity of Jesus (even though it is clearly Messianic). Please see the Catholic NAB and its handling of this OT passage since the NABRE appears to have changed the footnote found in the older NAB.

(2) Isa. 9:7 indicates that the Messiah would rule by the power of YHWH. A similar point is made at Mic. 5:4, where the Messiah is said to rule in the strength of YHWH. There is abundant proof that Mic. 5:1-4 is what we would today call--a subordinationist delineation of the Messiah.

For Kaiser's commentary, see https://books.google.com/books?id=15a7BwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isaiah+1-12+kaiser&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf6669vsvNAhUF5iYKHSkLD1MQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=isaiah%201-12%20kaiser&f=false

Tertullian on the Joy That Results from Watching People Suffer Eternal Punishment (Spectacles 30)

What a panorama of spectacle on that day! Which sight shall excite my wonder? Which, my laughter? Where shall I rejoice, where exult--as I see so many and so mighty kings, whose ascent to heaven used to be made known by public announcement, now along with Jupiter himself, along with the very witnesses of their ascent, groaning in the depths of darkness? Governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the name of the Lord, melting in flames fiercer than those they themselves kindled in their rage against the Christians braving them with contempt?

Whom else shall I behold? Those wise philosophers blushing before their followers as they burn together, the followers whom they taught that the world is no concern of God's whom they assured that either they had no souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to their former bodies? The poets also, trembling, not before the judgment seat of Rhadamanthus or of Minos, but of Christ whom they did not expect to meet.

Then will the tragic actors be worth hearing, more vocal in their own catastrophe; then the comic actors will be worth watching, more lither of limb in the fire; then the charioteer will be worth seeing, red all over on his fiery wheel; then the athletes will be worth observing, not in their gymnasiums, but thrown about by fire--unless I might not wish to look at them even then but would prefer to turn an insatiable gaze on those who vented their rage on the Lord.

"This is He," I will say, "the son of the carpenter and the harlot, the sabbath-breaker, the Samaritan who had a devil. This is He whom you purchased from Judas, this is He who was struck with reed and fist, defiled with spittle, given gall and vinegar to drink. This is He whom the disciples secretly stole away to spread the story of His resurrection, or whom the gardener removed lest his lettuces be trampled by the throng of curious idlers."

What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest with all his munificence will ever bestow on you the favor of beholding and exulting in such sights? Yet, such scenes as these are in a measure already ours by faith in the vision of the spirit. But what are those things which "eye has not seen nor ear heard and which have not entered into the heart of man"? Things of greater delight, I believe, than circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium.

Comments on 1 John 5:20 (Omar)

Omar,

You asked about the prepositions used in 1 John 5:20, and why NWT renders the verse the way it does. The verse reads in WH: οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν· καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Others may have some points to add, and I might have more to say as well. But here are some initial comments that might help:

Benson Commentary: and we are in him that is true — In his favour, and in a state of union and fellowship with him; even — This particle is not in the Greek; in — Or rather; through; his Son Jesus Christ — Through whose mediation alone we can have access to, or intercourse with, the Father.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible: And we are in him that is true - That is, we are united to him; we belong to him; we are his friends. This idea is often expressed in the Scriptures by being "in him." It denotes a most intimate union, as if we were one with him - or were a part of him - as the branch is in the vine, John 15:4, John 15:6. The Greek construction is the same as that applied to "the wicked one," 1 John 5:19, (ἐν τῷ ἀληθινᾧ en tō alēthinō.)

Tyndale's NT (1 John 5:20-21):

We know that the son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him which is true: and we are in him that is true, through his son Iesu Christ. This same is very God, and eternal life. Babes keep yourselves from images. Amen.

Williams-New Testament in the Language of the People:

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us insight to recognize the True One; and we are in union with the True One through His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."

See http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/translating-in.html

See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm

Notice what entry 6b says.

Tripartite Anthropology and Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

Charles Ryrie (whom I understand to be a dispensationalist) apparently does not interpret 1 Thess. 5:23 in a tripartite manner. He seems to openly rejects a tripartite interpretation of humanity for 1 Thess. 5:23. And he is not alone. David J. Williams writes: "One would be hard pressed to draw a distinction between spirit and soul; and, while it may be easier to distinguish between spirit and body, the biblical notion of the wholeness of our being must be kept in view" (1 and 2 Thessalonians, p. 103).

Simply put, Williams rejects the tripartite interpretation of this verse as does Ryrie. Gen. 2:7 also seems to militate against any tripartite understanding of humanity. So those who believe in soul and body can make some kind of distinction between body, soul, and spirit or they can equate the soul with the human spirit. I've also seen theologians of Christendom define "spirit" as the vital force for humans and animals. But they try to argue that the human spirit differs from the spirit of animals.

Henry Alford on 1 Thessalonians 5:23:

τὸ πν. κ. ἡ ψυχ. κ. τὸ σῶμα] τὸ πνεῦμα is the spirit, the highest and distinctive part of man, the immortal and responsible soul, in our common parlance: ἡ ψυχή is the lower or animal soul, containing the passions and desires (αιτία κινήσεως ζωικῆς ζώων, Plato, Deff. p. 411), which we have in common with the brutes, but which in us is ennobled and drawn up by the πνεῦμα. That St. Paul had these distinctions in mind, is plain (against Jowett) from such places as 1 Corinthians 2:14. The spirit, that part whereby we are receptive of the Holy Spirit of God, is, in the unspiritual man, crushed down and subordinated to the animal soul (ψυχή): he therefore is called ψυχικὸς πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχων, Jude 1:19: see also note on 1 Cor. as above.

Upcoming Material About Caragounis and Porter

Now that summer is here, my work schedule has changed, and I am able to do other things besides work in the classroom and grade papers. I want to take the next few weeks to closely analyze Chrys Caragounis' critique of Stanley Porter's work regarding aspect. That will be the primary focus of my blog activity for the next 3-4 weeks. So while I'll be blogging about other issues, I just wanted to let readers know what my chief focus will be.

Stanley Porter Reviews Daniel B. Wallace's Book on Sharp's Rule

Porter is harsh on Wallace in certain parts of the review. See http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_93-100_Porter.pdf

Some good points are made about Sharp's Rule.

Addressing Other Questions Pertaining to Ruach and Christian Materialism

Regarding RUACH: What makes us justified in believing that the import of RUACH in Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 12:7 is different from the import of RUACH in Psalm 104:29-30; Ecclesiastes 3:19-22, especially when Qoheleth writes that man and beast have "one spirit" and the same eventuality? My question is a linguistic rather than a theological one. I believe that we must be as objective as possible about defining words and exegeting texts. Ecclesiastes 3:19-22 is very compelling evidence that man and beast have the same RUACH or vital force. Of course, RUACH has different meanings in other contexts.

The meaning of RUACH is going to depend on the setting of the passage we're examining. Its basic denotations are "spirit, wind or breath." In Ecclesiastes 3:19-22; 12:7 and Psalm 104:29; 146:4, I believe that it denotes "life force." My understanding of "life force" is harmonious with the view presented in Insight on the Scriptures II:1025: the word "life force" refers to that energy or vitality which is active in our body's cells.


Concerning Christian materialism: Not all Christian materialists hold the same beliefs about human uniqueness. From the perspective of science, the way our brains have developed (especially the neocortex) makes us unique in terms of rationality, language, and spirituality. At the present time, I have no good reasons for attributing my spiritual appetite or my rational and sociable nature to anything but neurobiological processes. If there is something else that explains human uniqueness, it seems to go beyond the purview of empirical and naturalistic science. But you will find divergent views of materialism/physicalism among those who consider themselves Christian. And while Witnesses don't technically label themselves as "Christian materialists," I've just found that it's a convenient way to describe what I/we believe.

Finally, it's interesting to think about the role that the human body has qua identity. The Apostle Paul painstakingly outlines a position that says the body raised is not the same corpus as the body that was sown in death (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). While his inspired comments apply to those raised to immortal life in the heavens, based on what we seem to know about the resurrection of Christ and others, those resurrected in the new earth will probably have bodies that look similar to those bodies that were sown. In other words, God will not bring the same (exact) body to life that one had in this world.

Isaiah, Daniel, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Patrick Zuckeran)

These quotes originate with Zuckeran:

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided further proof that the Old Testament canon existed prior to the third century B.C. Thousands of manuscript fragments from all the Old Testament books except Esther were found predating Christ's birth, and some date as early as the third century B.C. For example, portions from the book of Samuel date that early, and fragments from Daniel date to the second century B.C. Portions from the twelve Minor Prophets date from 150 B.C. to 25 B.C. Since the documents were found to be identical with our Masoretic Text, we can be reasonably sure that our Old Testament is the same one that the Essenes were studying and working from.

One of the most important Dead Sea documents is the Isaiah Scroll. This twenty-four foot long scroll is well preserved and contains the complete book of Isaiah. The scroll is dated 100 B.C. and contains one of the clearest and most detailed prophecies of the Messiah in chapter fifty-three, called the "Suffering Servant." Although some Jewish scholars teach that this refers to Israel, a careful reading shows that this prophecy can only refer to Christ.

[SPACE]

Before the discovery of the scrolls, critical scholars argued that the Aramaic language used in Daniel was from a time no earlier than 167 B.C. during the Maccabean period. Other scholars, such as well-respected archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen, studied Daniel and found that ninety percent of Daniel's Aramaic vocabulary was used in documents from the fifth century B.C. or earlier. The Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that Kitchen's conclusion was well founded. The Aramaic language used in the Dead Sea Scrolls proved to be very different from that found in the book of Daniel. Old Testament scholars have concluded that the Aramaic in Daniel is closer to the form used in the fourth and fifth century B.C. than to the second century B.C.

To read the entire article, see https://bible.org/article/dead-sea-scrolls

Compare http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/blog/prof-kenneth-kitchen-on-the-aramaic-of-daniel/#.V2XOfaLVvQo

A Dialogue on the Condition of the Dead

My interlocutor's statements will appear in quotation marks, and they are in block quotation form. I'll indicate where my responses are.

Edgar: Gen 2:7 does not say that Adam 'became a living spirit.' The Hebrew word, as you know, is NEPHESH. It refers to a human person, an animal, or the life which an animal or human experiences.

"No, the word is 'Neshamah'. Animals have a nefesh, but they do not have a neshamah."

RESPONSE: May I suggest that you look at the verse again. Gen 2:7 does not say that Adam *became* a "Neshamah" but that he came to be a NEPHESH ("Adam chay nephesh"). Furthermore, animals are said to *be* creatures or souls. An animal, in other words, does not simply possess a NEPHESH but *is* one (Num 31:26-28). Additionally, Gen 7:22 certainly indicates that animals have NESHAMAH: "All in whose nostrils [was] the breath [NESHAMAH] of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

"The Neshamah, according to Jewish tradition, is that part of the spiritual man that transcends the nefesh (or soul - which even animals have) and the ruach (spirit - which animals don't have) and gets even closer to the essence of who a man is than even the ruach/spirit. Animals have neither a neshamah nor a ruach/spirit, but they do have a nefesh/soul."

RESPONSE: According to Scripture, animals have a NESHAMAH (Gen 7:22; Ps 150:6); RUACH (Eccl 3:19-21) and they are souls (Gen 1:21-24; Rev 16:3).

"2 Cor 5:1 says 'If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed....' 'We' here lives in a 'tent', thus, the 'tent' is not part of 'we'. It also says ...

RESPONSE: The verse does not actually say that "we" are not part of our respective tents. Nor does Gen 2:7 make such a claim. What the first book of the Pentateuch does say, however (in perfect harmony with 2 Cor 5:1), is that the body + the breath of life (NESHAMAH) together constitute the human person (i.e., "we"). The person = the soul, that is, the union of body and NESHAMAH make up the human NEPHESH. Without either element, "we" would not exist as persons.

"'when we are clothed, we will not be found naked' (2 Cor 5:3) [and] 'You clothe me in skin and flesh' (Job 10:11)"

RESPONSE: The body is [metaphorical] clothing, to be sure. That does not mean that the body is merely a temporary house for the spirit of man. Without my "clothing," I cease to be a "living soul" (NEPHESH) and become an unconscious carcass or corpse (i.e., a dead soul). Eccl 9:5 relates that the dead know nothing. Jesus affirms this teaching in Jn 11:11-14. The dead sleep the sleep of AQANATOS (Ps 13:3) until God calls them forth from Sheol. Interestingly, Paul does not say that he will become incorporeal after death. He envisions being given, though he states it in a conditional way, a new building out of heaven from God, an eternal house in the very heavens of God's presence (2 Cor 5:1-2). Similar to the teaching of Tertullian, Paul believes that the resurrected dead who see God and become like Him will possess spiritual bodies suited to their new heavenly environment (1 Jn 3:1-3).

"So our flesh is something we wear - like clothing - but our clothes are not us. Revelation also uses this language. We also find the idea that man is a spiritual being living in a fleshly body promoted in numerous ancient Jewish writings (e.g. Zohar I (on Bereshit), 20b )."

RESPONSE: Neither the flesh nor the NESHAMAH is "us." It is the unity of BASAR and NESHAMAH that constitutes the human person. Without a brain, there is no human consciousness, mind or spirit. As the psalmist writes, when man's RUACH goes out, he returns to the dust and his thoughts cease (Ps 146:3-4).

Is the Lamb of Revelation Vulnerable or Militaristic (Dr. Loren Johns)

Dr. Loren Johns once wrote a piece entitled "The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program of the Apocalypse of John." In this work, building on previous research, he argued that Christ is portrayed as a Lamb in Revelation to depict his vulnerability or unconventional way of conquering his enemies. Johns reads the Apocalypse through Mennonite lenses which supplies a unique interpretation of the Bible's last book, but his reading of the Johannine text is highly implausible to me. Granted, God is said to hate those who love violence (Psalm 11:5) and the Son of God exhorted his followers to avoid living by the sword lest they perish by it (Matthew 26:52). But Revelation descriptively narrates God and the Lamb waging war (call it violently if you wish) against the enemies of YHWH (17:16-17; 19:11-21; 20:1-10). However, I still find Dr. Johns' use of classical rhetoric to be instructive.

See http://www.ambs.edu/ljohns/LambRPAJ.htm

Questions Regarding Hylomorphic/Thomistic Souls

Does the hylomorphic soul (as conceived by Aquinas and the Church) contemplate God while subsisting in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection? Would not the activity of contemplation also raise some questions about the post-mortem soul's condition? Finally, I would question whether the soul alone would be enough to preserve a person's numerical identity since the body and soul are believed to be separated at death. Moreover, it still remains a mystery how the body that's reunited with the soul in the resurrection turns out to be numerically identical with the body that existed prior to death. I am aware of Aquinas' explanation for the preservation of numerical identity despite the body's decay (its return to the dust), but his account has been criticized by Kevin Corcoran and other philosophers who interpret gaps in existence as possible grounds for the recreation or reconstitution of something new.

Let's imagine S accidentally makes a whole burnt-offering of his prestigious 2nd-century papyrus fragment from ancient Egypt. Assuming that the fragment is utterly consumed, would we still identify a reconstituted fragment (the same atom for atom) as the numerically identical object which underwent an accidental burning? My point is that dualists and physicalists must take pains to supply a coherent narrative about the resurrected body, whether it's spirit or flesh. Dualists cannot rightly assert that Christian physicalists lack the adequate resources for explaining a bodily resurrection: the former have not supplied a thorough and satisfactory account of the resurrection either.

A Brief Thought on Satan and Free Will

We've discussed the possible referent of 2 Cor. 4:4. I still believe it's Satan, whereas some argue that Jehovah (YHWH) is the god of this age (world). Let's assume that Paul is referring to Satan. The verse states that the god of this world blinds the minds of the unbelievers. I used to wonder how Jehovah could allow Satan to blind someone's mind from the good news about the Christ. How can God punish someone who does not accept the truth, if he allowed Satan to blind their minds?

I've since learned that Satan can only blind the minds of those, who do not love divine truth. Paul writes:

"And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ASV).

Jehovah allows the desires of their hearts to be fulfilled, in accordance with their free choice.

Catholic NABRE Footnote on Luke 17:21

[17:21] Among you: the Greek preposition translated as among can also be translated as “within.” In the light of other statements in Luke's gospel about the presence of the kingdom (see Lk 10:9, 11; 11:20) “among” is to be preferred.

Reading List for the Subject of Free Will (From Spring Semester 2014)

PHI 318 (Spring Semester 2014)-List of Readings for the Semester

January 23-28: “Free Will, Praise and Blame” (J. J. C. Smart); “Towards a Reasonable Libertarianism” (David Wiggins) in Watson.

“Compatibilism” (John Martin Fischer) and “Hard Compatibilism” (Derk Pereboom) in Four Views

January 30-February 4: “Are We Free to Break the Laws” (David Lewis); “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” (Harry G. Frankfurt), and “Libertarianism and Frankfurt's Attack on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities” (David Widerker) in Watson.

February 6-11: “Revisionism” (Manuel Vargas); “Response to Fischer, Pereboom, and Vargas” (Robert Kane) in Four Views.

February 13-18: “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (Galen Strawson); “Toward a Credible Agent-Causal Account of Free Will” (Randolph Clarke) in Watson.

February 20-27: “Response to Kane, Pereboom, and Vargas” (John Martin Fischer); “Response to Kane, Fischer, and Vargas” (Derk Pereboom); “Response to Kane, Fischer, and Pereboom” (Manuel Vargas) in Four Views.

March 1-6: “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person” (Harry G. Frankfurt); “Free Agency” (Gary Watson); “The Significance of Choice” (T. M. Scanlon) in Watson.

March 7-13: “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” (Susan Wolf); “Freedom of Will and Freedom of Action” (Rogers Albritton); “Addiction as Defect of the Will: Some Philosophical Reflections” (R. Jay Wallace) in Watson.

March 14-20: “On the Free Choice of the Will” (Augustine), pages 3-30; Aristotle in Pereboom, 1-4.

March 21-27: “On the Free Choice of the Will” (Augustine), pages 30-72; Stoics in Pereboom, 5-16.

March 28-April 3: “On the Free Choice of the Will” (Augustine), 72-126; Lucretius in Pereboom, 17-18 and Aquinas, pages 34-42 (ibid.).

April 4-10: “On Grace and Free Choice” (Augustine), pages 141-184; Aquinas in Pereboom, pages 43-56.

April 11-17: “On the Gift of Perseverance,” 225-245; Spinoza in Pereboom, pages 57-75.

April 18-24: Hume, pages 76-104; Kant in Pereboom, 105-129.

April 25-May 1: Thomas Reid, 130-138; Ayer in Pereboom, 139-147.

Explaining Consciousness By Using (Christian) Physicalism

A number of philosophers argue that consciousness cannot in principle be explained by materialist/physicalist methods. They believe that subjectivity is not amenable to a physicalist explanation.

I self-identify as a Christian materialist, which means that while I believe spirits exist (God, angels, and resurrected spirit beings), I do not believe in immortal souls nor do I think the human sphere contains a "mental" or spiritual component. In other words, I reject the existence of an immortal soul or a res cogitans as Rene Descartes famously expressed matters. It seems that humans are purely physical: we do not have non-material souls or spirits.

Scientific work is just beginning (in earnest) on questions pertaining to consciousness and subjectivity. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has written books that possibly attempt to integrate free will and a physicalist account of the self. He and Hanna Damasio (along with many others) have extensively studied the case of Phineas Gage, and what it might tell us about mentality. See Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio. There's also a book that I'll start reading soon entitled The Neuroscience of Freedom and Creativity: Our Predictive Brain written by Joaquin M. Fuster (Cambridge Press). Joel B. Green has also published works that partly analyze the role of brain activity in our mental life. Admittedly though, much work needs to be done in this area. But I would not agree that science lacks the resources in principle to explain memory (for instance) or pain in physicalist terms, since joint pain could be explained by the overabundance of uric acid or the wearing away of cartilage.

Long-term memory can be explained by the hippocampus or the fight/flight response could be explained by the amygdala. As for free will, Nancey Murphy addresses that question. She demonstrates the possibility that free will could exist even though we might be purely material beings. Physicalists have worked on qualia too, with no definitive result. It's still an open question just what qualia are. Almost every writer that I've read in the philosophy of mind accepts the existence of qualia. However, there's no unanimous consensus respecting how we experience "raw feels" or subjective sensations. Does dualism fully address this question? Not to my knowledge. Dualism offers suggestions for how mentality works, just like Christian physicalism does. Neither approach definitively explains consciousness.

Aquinas Responds to the Question: Did the Godhead of Jesus Die? (FYI)

The grace of God is so great and His love for us is such that we cannot understand what He has done for us. Now, we must believe that, although Christ suffered death, yet His Godhead did not die; it was the human nature in Christ that died. For He did not die as God, but as man.[2]

This will be clear from two examples, one of which is taken from himself. Now, when a man dies, in the separation of the soul from the body the soul does not die but the body or flesh does die. So also in the death of Christ, His Divinity did not die, but His man nature suffered death. But if the Jews did not slay the Divinity of Christ, it would seem that their sin was not any greater than if they killed any ordinary man. In answering this we say that it is as if a king were clothed only in one garment, and if someone befouled this garment, such a one has committed as grave a crime as if he had defiled the king himself. Likewise, although the Jews could not slay God, yet in putting to death the human nature which Christ assumed, they were as severely punished as if they had put the Godhead itself to death. Another example is had from what we said before, viz., that the Son of God is the Word of God, and the Word of God made flesh is like the word of a king written on paper.[3] So if one should tear this royal paper in pieces, it would be considered that he had rent apart the word of the king. Thus, the sin of the Jews was as grievous as if they had slain the Word of God.

See http://jimmyakin.com/the-catechism-of-st-thomas-aquinas-the-fourth-article

Partial Letter to a Friend Concerning God's Organization

I'm only quoting part of my email in order to keep certain things confidential:

Granted, Jehovah's Witnesses believe they (we) are God's organization and sole channel for [biblical] truth on the earth. However, the brothers recognize that the Catholic Church (for example) is responsible for preserving quite a bit of scripture that has come down to us. What about all of the biblical scholarship that takes place in Christendom? Do we not use and benefit from those things? The churches sometimes also have good observations on how to understand a text or [scriptural] matter. Even Brother Russell acknowledged that Lutherans, Baptists (etc.) know some truth: they are not completely devoid of truth. Please also see the 6/15/1992 WT about the figurative dragnet.

[The Proclaimers book also discusses how C.T. Russell took fragments of the truth from respective groups, then later modified or adjusted those verities.]

Solomon Landers' Discussion of Ruth 1:8-9

All credit goes to Brother Landers for these observations. I once asked for his thoughts on Ruth 1:8-9, and this is how he replied:

Well, since everybody else goes lazily with the stale "May [YHWH] grant..." perhaps the brothers wanted to make a more inclusive, vibrant, or "amplified" translation, embracing the various facets of meaning behind the verb *n-t-n*, i,b

The NWT has been accused of many things, but never can it be accused of being "stale." :-)

The verb and its derived forms sustain "a great variety of meanings" according to the Hebrew lexicons, with three broad areas of meaning: 1) give, 2) put or set and 3) make or constitute. TDOT gives the elemental meaning "extend the hand" in order to place an object at a specific place or to give it over to another person. One Jewish etymological source says the basic idea is simply to "give over (something)."

"May Jehovah make a gift to you" of a resting place with a husband is the thought. It's more expressive and contextual (since it would be a gift, indeed) than just "grant," and is a legitimate translation.

[It's interesting that the 2013 revision of the NWT now says: "'May Jehovah grant* that each of you finds security* in the home of your husband.' Then she kissed them, and they wept loudly." The wording "make a gift" now appears in the footnote.-EGF]

Irenaeus and Novatian on John 17:5

"In the beginning, therefore, did God form Adam, not as if He stood in need of man, but that He might have [some one] upon whom to confer His benefits. For not alone antecedently to Adam, but also before all creation, the Word glorified His Father, remaining in Him; and was Himself glorified by the Father, as He did Himself declare, 'Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was'" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.14.1).

"If, before the world was, He had glory with God, and maintained His glory with the Father, He existed before the world, for He would not have had the glory unless He Himself had existed before, so as to be able to keep the glory. For no one could possess anything, unless he himself should first be in existence to keep anything. But now Christ has the glory before the foundation of the world; therefore He Himself was before the foundation of the world. For unless He were before the foundation of the world, He could not have glory before the foundation of the world, since He Himself was not in existence. But indeed man could not have glory before the foundation of the world, seeing that he was after the world; but Christ had—therefore He was before the world. Therefore He was not man only, seeing that He was before the world. He is therefore God, because He was before the world, and held His glory before the world. Neither let this be explained by predestination, since this is not so expressed, or let them add this who think so, but woe is denounced to them who add to, even as to those who take away from, that which is written. Therefore that may not be said, which may not be added. And thus, predestination being set aside, seeing it is not so laid down, Christ was in substance before the foundation of the world" (Novatian, De Trinitate 16).

Sons of the Prophets and the Sons of Disobedience (A Continuing Dialogue)

Barnabas: "in 2 Kings 20:35 [really 1 Kings 20:35], 'a certain man of the sons of the prophet' means that the man is a prophet, as the rest of the verse verifies…everything that makes a prophet a prophet is what this man was."

Edgar: Actually, according to BDB, the Hebrew word BEN here (used in the plural) refers to one who is a member in
a guild or certain order. It does not mean that the man possesses every quality that a prophet has or should have. In fact, the NAB translates this verse, "One of the guild prophets was prompted by the LORD to say to his companion . . ."

Barnabas: "Interestingly, one definition entry in my BDB for ben has 'sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of
injustice [for un-righteous men]…'"

Edgar: This definition does not help your argument at all, considering how you define the term "nature" in relation to Jesus, the Son of God.

Barnabas: "on Ephesians 2:2, I agree that 'the sons of disobedience' means nothing more than 'disobedience
ones' or 'those that are disobedient,' the characteristic of these ones is of a disobedient nature, but you would be stretching the idiom to mean 'disobedient sons,' for the term, as the context shows, is not referring to offspring."

Edgar: The terminology "sons" is most certainly being employed metaphorically in Eph 2:2, just as we find in 1 Thess. 5:5 or Lk 16:8. And since we evidently have an instance of the descriptive genitive in Eph 2:2, why can we not render the construction "disobedient sons"?

Addendum: "in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—" (Ephesians 2:2 ESV)

"The disobedient: literally, 'the sons of disobedience,' a Semitism as at Is 30:9" (Footnote for Ephesians 2:2 in NABRE).

Jesus and Blasphemy (Luke 22:65)

Luke writes: KAI hETERA POLLA BLASFHMOUNTES ELEGON EIS
AUTON. The NWT renders Lk. 22:65 "And they went on
saying many other things in blasphemy against him."
The NAB states: "they reviled him in saying many
other things against him."

Does this text indicate that Christ is Almighty God?
What about when Stephen the martyr was accused of
"speaking blasphemous sayings against Moses and God" (Acts 6:11?)
Why was Stephen charged with uttering blasphemous speech?
Were these charges merited? Lastly, notice that he spoke not only against
God, but also against Moses. Admittedly, as the
context shows, Moses equals Torah in this case. Yet there
was a sense in which ancient Judaism thought it was
possible to blaspheme representatives of God.

In Isa. 51:7 and Zeph. 2:8, we read of Israel having
blasphemy directed toward her by ungodly men. Are we to
conclude that such actions suggest the nation of
Israel was somehow equal to God? I don't think
any reader of this blog would draw that conclusion.
From this discussion, we learn that it is possible
to blaspheme an entity who is not ontologically
equal to Jehovah, the SUMMUS DEUS.

Theology, History, and Scholarly Objectivity (Philip Walker Butin)

Taken from Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin's Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship, which is authored by P.W. Butin:

"I have no quarrel with the ideal of 'objectivity,'
properly conceived. If Yahweh alone is God, then at
least this fundamental truth obtains in all times and
places, whether or not it is acknowledged by human
beings" (p. 4).

While conceding the importance of objectivity,
"properly conceived," however, Butin adds:

"Within this conviction, however, it is for equally
theological reasons that I personally have no wish to
deny or critically overcome the contextual limitations
of my own historical and cultural standpoint. In my
view, the incarnation of Jesus Christ implies a
corresponding divine affirmation of the historical
particularity and contextuality of the church that is
his body and the individuals who comprise it. Happily,
this theological position comports well with certain
trends in recent general historiography. It is
increasingly acknowledged that historical figures
become significant precisely because of the
investments specific communities or individuals in the
present have in the living legacy they have left to
humankind" (ibid).

See https://books.google.com/books?id=6-fUGSk9pdAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=butin+calvin+trinitarianism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS1YaJoqDNAhXDpx4KHbYKAQIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=butin%20calvin%20trinitarianism&f=false

The Greek Article Across Time (Link)

See http://ins.web.auth.gr/images/MEG_PLIRI/MEG_33_76_91.pdf

Mystery and the Trinity

Taken from Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, page 15:

"In the proper religious sense of the term, 'mystery' signifies not only hiddenness but disclosure. The Greek word MUSTHRION is linked with the verb MUEIN, meaning 'to close the eyes or mouth.' The candidate for initiation into certain of the pagan mystery religions was first blindfolded and led through a maze of passages; then suddenly his eyes were uncovered and he saw, displayed all round him, the secret emblems of the cult. So, in the Christian context, we do not mean by a 'mystery' merely that which is baffling and mysterious, an enigma or insoluble problem. A mystery is, on the contrary, something that is revealed for our understanding, but which we never understand exhaustively because it leads into the depth or the darkness of God. The eyes are closed--but they are also opened."

Biblical Use of "Sons" (Plural)

Some Trinitarians try to make a distinction between the plural "sons" that allegedly denotes an "office" or function, and the singular "Son" which allegedly signifies Jesus' "nature." However, the person who offered this suggestion insisted that the "nature" of the sons mentioned in Ephesians 2:2 was being delineated. He then reversed his position and claimed that the plural use only describes an office or function (i.e., it is not ontological).

However, the distinction does not seem to hold water when we actually take the time to look at actual examples of the construction "sons of" in the relevant texts or literature. hUIOI (plural) most certainly does not refer to an office in Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Nancey Murphy on the Transition from Hylomorphism to Atomism

Nancey Murphy explains the shift from hylomorphism to atomism in these words:

"In a world composed of atoms, sensation must result from the impinging of atoms on the sensory membranes, and then from coded information conveyed to the brain and thence to the mind. Ideas in the mind are no longer identical with forms inherent in things, but mere representations produced by a complicated process of transmission, encoding, and decoding. Thus arises modern skepticism with regard to sense perception" (Bodies and Souls, Or Spirited Bodies?, 47).

My comment: On the modern scientific view of the world, which rejects hylomorphism, treeness could be interpreted as a purely natural category: there is no need to invoke Platonic or Aristotelian Forms/forms. Chemically speaking, water is H2O and salt is NaCl. But "saltness" in the Platonic or Aristotelian sense does not exist; neither does waterness. So a natural kind like cathood can be interpreted as a biological class without being understood in terms of ontological structures, abstractions or formal quiddities. Nevertheless, Platonism and Aristotelian hylomorphism continue to subsist, despite the fact that both theories posit the existence of transcendent and absolute Forms/forms.

Is Jesus Christ Physically In the Bread and Wine?

John Walvoord writes:

"Calvin held that the Lord's spiritual presence was in the elements but not his physical presence. Zwingli suggested that they were merely symbols and represented the body of Christ. The controversy cannot be settled, but many have concluded that Zwingli was probably right and that the bread and the cup become the body and blood of Christ no more than Jesus became a vine because of His words, 'I am the true vine.' These are figures of speech, although wonderfully eloquent in their meaning" (Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 215).

Schlatter adds this pertinent explanation:

"What we have to do with his flesh and blood is not chew and swallow, but recognize in his crucified body and poured out blood the ground of our life, that we hang our faith and hope on that body and blood, and draw from there our thinking and willing" (Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 4th Ed. Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 3, Stuttgart: Calwer, 1928, 116).

2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 (Omar)

See footnote 20 for the first image.