Behavior, Private Languages, and Divine Omniscience (More Conversations with Dualists)

Assume we concur that God knows I'm now in pain apart from any external behaviors I might demonstrate like grimacing or shouting "ouch!" Does that automatically make the private language argument of Ludwig Wittgenstein wrong, and dualism true? That's a logically possible scenario; however, the inference from the given premises is not a necessary one. It might also be the case that God knows whether I'm experiencing pain without observing my behavior, and yet the private language argument might still be true. We first have to clarify what is meant by "private language" since the terminology is ambiguous. In this regard, Wittgenstein writes:

"But could we also imagine a language in which a person could write down or give expression to his inner experiences - his feelings, moods, and the rest - for his private use? - Well can't we do so in our ordinary language? - But that is not what I mean. The individual words of this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language."

If the private language argument as stated above is correct, then substance dualism is defeated, even if an omniscient God exists--and I believe he does exist. It's not possible to have one's own denotations for pain (a private way of expressing pain that only the individual understands) or to have a language that is inherently non-public. Language by its very nature is a public venture; even idiolects depend on sociolects.

John 8:44-Truth Is Not in the Devil

Jesus professes that "truth is not in the Devil" (ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ). It may be significant that the statement is introduced by ὅτι, which is also preceded by a dative of sphere (or reference)--καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν. Jesus could therefore be saying that the reason for Satan's defection (ἀποστασία) is his inveterate propensity for lying. If that is the case, then it would seem that the exclamation--ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ--is a dative of sphere that one can view as the complete antithesis of Eph. 4:21, where we are told that truth is in Jesus (καθὼς ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ).

Here are observations from one commentary found at biblegateway:

John portrays the devil as exactly the opposite of Jesus. Here the devil is described with respect to a beginning (v. 44), as is Jesus also (1:1). But Jesus is life (14:6) and has life in himself and gives life (1:4; 5:26), whereas the devil is a murderer (v. 44). Furthermore, the devil was not holding to the truth (more literally, "did not stand in the truth," en te aletheia ouk esteken), because there is no truth in him (v. 44). In John's thought "truth" (aletheia) "means eternal reality as revealed to men—either the reality itself or the revelation of it" (Dodd 1953:177). These two aspects of truth are united in Jesus who both is the truth (14:6) and speaks the truth (8:40). Just as it is Jesus' very nature to be the truth, so it is the devil's very nature to lack the truth and speak lies, for he is a liar and the father of lies. So John depicts the devil as the personification of what is the exact opposite of Jesus.

The three main characteristics of the devil in this verse move from the exterior to the interior, as it were. The first description is of the devil's external activity as a murderer. This is followed by a general reference to his alienation from the truth. The description concludes with the assertion that this alienation from the truth is thorough; to his very core there is no truth in him, but rather lies. Thus, John is pointing to the inner core of the devil just as he points to the heart of the opponents.

See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:44

Dabar (Psalm 33:6)-Creation By Means of the "Deed"

Did God produce the cosmos by merely speaking or uttering commands? Genesis 1:1-31 possibly indicates no such thing. For while AMAR can mean "to say, speak, utter, tell, or declare," Ps. 33:6 proclaims that the DABAR and RUACH of YHWH brought forth the heavens and the earth. DABAR can refer to a word or deed: its semantic import is not confined to utterances. DABAR and RUACH are apparently employed as synonyms in Ps. 33:6. Furthermore, since Genesis implies that a divine force was moving to and fro over the primordial waters (1:2), I submit that it possibly was not God's spoken utterance that brought forth the universe, but his deed or act produced the cosmos by means of holy spirit (compare Jer. 5:28). As Goethe's Faust exclaims: "In the beginning was the deed."

Now I am not suggesting that one should construe John 1:1 in a Faustian fashion per se. What I am contending, however, is that the Johannine Prologue may lend support to the idea that God's deed (his work through holy spirit) brought forth the cosmos. More than utterances were potentially involved when God created the universe. This point has been recognized by ancient writers of sacred literature and modern physicists like Einstein.

What We Miss By Missing Metaphors (Brief Note Concerning Hyperliterality)

I once studied the Bible with a man, who was quite intelligent, but he would read the Bible hyperliterally. Admittedly, one can read Scripture hypermetaphorically too, but reading and understanding everything scriptural at face value (and hyperliterally) also has its pitfalls. To illustrate:

Gen. 1:3-God speaks light into existence.

Gen. 3:8-"And they hear the sound of Jehovah God walking up and down in the garden at the breeze of the day" (YLT)

"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (ERV)

Deut. 23:14-"for Jehovah thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy, that he may not see an unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee" (ASV).

Should these verses be understood literally (even hyperliterally) or be construed metaphorically? Did God just speak light into existence? Did Jehovah or his voice walk about in Eden? Did Jehovah circumambulate in the Israelite camp, and need to avoid human excrement, if Israel did not obey Deut. 23:13?

All of these verses make more sense, it appears, when they're read as metaphors or understood to be figures of speech.

Hebrews 12:28 (PARALAMBANONTES)

I think the words βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες ἔχωμεν are rightly translated "receiving an unshakeable kingdom" or "we are to receive [are receiving] an unshakeable kingdom."

(1) I take the participle παραλαμβάνοντες as a participle of grounds, because of Διὸ in Heb. 12:28, which can be rendered: "therefore," "seeing that" or "since." One could of course translate παραλαμβάνοντες as "receiving." But such a rendition is by no means necessary. In fact, Wallace encourages the Greek student "to translate the force of the participle with more than an -ing gloss." So either "receiving" or "to receive" is acceptable from a grammatical perspective.

(2) As far as the time frame delineated by the participle, it must be remembered that we should probably recall aspect morphology here. I.e., the writer's use of the present active participle is his way of subjectively focusing on the action delineated in the account.

William L. Lane, in his Word commentary on Hebrews, writes: "The participle 'we are receiving,' does not express possession . . . but acceptance of a gift or office that is being bestowed" (Lane 47b:484). Lane adds: "The present tense of the participle emphasizes that Christians are now only in the process of receiving this gift and that this process will continue into the future" (Lane 47b:484).

(3) Some have pointed to the eschatological character of Heb. 12:28ff, a point that we must also bear in mind.

The Divine "Sealing" and "In Christ" Language

The Johannine "in me" formula is pretty much
synonymous with Paul's concept of a Christian disciple
being "in Christ." In his high-priestly prayer, Jesus
beseeched his Father in this way (according to the
NASB):

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those
also who believe in Me through their word; that they
may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I
in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world
may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have
given Me I have given to them, that they may be one,
just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they
may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know
that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have
loved Me" (Jn 17:20-23).

The language above reminds us of the EN verses that we
find in the Johannine epistles (1 Jn 3:5-6, 23; 4:4).
And we must not forget how Jesus expresses himself at
Jn 6:56, a very controversial passage. At any rate, I
see no need to radically differentiate these passages
from those that we find in Paul (see the BDAG entry for EN).
Jesus' statements about being "in" him were proleptic.
That is, they would come to fruition after his death and resurrection.
Jn 15:6 would primarily apply to Christ's disciples
subsequent to the death and Ascension of the Son.

While being "in Christ" chiefly entails
being sealed by God's spirit--a point I don't think John would have
denied--the Scriptures do not teach that the sealing is
necessarily permanent. To the contrary, the sealing mentioned in
the NT is called an ARRABWN, a down payment or earnest
money (Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:1-5). A Christian must not
only be sealed initially; he or she must preserve the
divine seal until the day of redemption from the
sinful and fallen body (Rev 7:1-8).

"Iridescence in Ezekiel" (Link for Journal Article)

See http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2960&context=auss

Article deals with rainbow imagery in Ezekiel.

Review of "Church History, Volume Two: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day" (Woodbridge and James III)

The book's full title is Church History, Volume Two: From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context (Hardcover) by John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James III. Published by Zondervan, 2013.

My specialty in church history is the ancient and medieval period. This book covers the 14th-21st centuries, so it allows me to fill in the gaps concerning other periods. It's a somewhat advanced account of numerous events that occurred in the middle ages, the Renaissance period and during modernity. Some of the highlights include a section on the Great Schism, chapters on the Protestant Reformation, information about seventeenth-century Christianity, historical periods that challenged the church, and chapters explaining how the Enlightenment period affected professed followers of Christ.

This work contains a general bibliography, a general index, maps, charts, pictures and helpful chapter summaries. One additional feature of this book is its propensity to supply plenty of historical context for each narrative it relates. How did Deism affect the church? What about the Scientific Revolution? This study answers such questions since it discusses Sir Isaac Newton, the French Philosophes along with Copernicus and Johannes Kepler. I've found this book to be a good pedagogical resource. It's a keeper in my opinion.

Christopher Seitz on the Tetragrammaton

Taken from the book edited by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr. entitled This Is My
Name Forever: The Trinity & Gender Language for God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), page 26:

"The notion that God has a proper name and can be differentiated from
other deities with proper names is absolutely clear in the Old
Testament. Other gods (ELOHIM) lay claims on humanity, but Israel is
to have no god (ELOHIM) before or beside YHWH (Ex 20:3). Moreover, the character of the name is itself a matter of reverence, since the name really coheres with the God it names (20:7). One cannot therefore malign the name or substitute for the name another name, and somehow leave untouched the deity with whom the name is attached . . . Not taking the name of YHWH in vain implies, at a minimum, understanding
that YHWH is not an 'accident' [non-essential property] detachable
from a deeper 'substance,' that is, 'God himself.'"

Contrast the early church fathers, who believed God the Father does not have a proper name or does not need to be distinguished from other entities since he is sui generis.

The Ancient Church and War (Patristic Quotes)

It is interesting how the early church writers understood Matthew 26:52:

"But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a
believer may turn himself unto military service, and
whether the military may be admitted unto the faith,
even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to
whom there is no necessity for taking part in
sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no
agreement between the divine and the human sacrament,
the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil,
the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul
cannot be due to two masters-God and Caesar. And yet
Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John
(Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of
Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if
it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will
a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in
peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away?
For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had
received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise,
a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in
disarming Peter, unbed every soldier. No dress is
lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action"
(Tertullian, De Idolatria XIX).

Justin Martyr writes:

"And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting
things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this
way: 'For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge
among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and
their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift
up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more.' And that it did so come to pass, we can
convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into
the world, men, twelve in number, and these
illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the
power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that
they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of
God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do
not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,
but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our
examiners, willingly die confessing Christ" (1
Apologia XXXIX).


"For we do not train our women like Amazons to
manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be
peaceable. I hear that the Sarmatian women practise
war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacae
besides, who shoot backwards, feigning flight as well
as the men" (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata IV.VIII).

"If an applicant or believer seeks to become a
soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God"
(Apostolic Tradition 16).

1 Corinthians 8:10 and Temples of Idols

I once heard a talk in which the speaker brought out a point that was new for me. He read 1 Cor. 8:10 ("For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols.")

The speaker pointed out that this verse is quite difficult to understand. Are we to assume that first-century Christians reclined in idol temples, as they cleaned their dishes of meat sacrificed to idols?

The speaker explained the text somewhat like Marion Soards does in the New International Biblical Commentary. Hope you enjoy this point:

"The verse creates complications for interpretation, because Paul specifically mentions the possible presence of believers in the temple of pagan deities. Whether Paul is discussing a possibility, a probability, or a reality is impossible to determine; he may be overstating the case to make his point with indisputable clarity . . . Whatever kind of meat and wherever someone may eat it, Paul's point is this: if Christians give no thought to their actions when those actions are controversial, then although their actions are seemingly correct for them, others who do not share their convictions may misunderstand and be led astray" (1 Corinthians, page 178).

Tweaking an Old Argument Pertaining to Divine Foreknowledge (Editing Stage)

It is quite possible that God knows all that is knowable (possible to know) and only all that is knowable. This would mean that Jehovah knows the potential as potential, the indeterminate as indeterminate, that which is necessary as necessary and that which is actual qua actual: he also would know the incongruent or false as either incongruent or false. Hence, we could express the situation in the following ways:

(1) If P is true, God knows that P.
(2) If ~P is true, God knows that ~P.
(3) If potentially P is true, God knows that potentially P.
(4) If necessarily P is true, God knows that necessarily P.

And so forth. If I had more time I would refine these statements. Nevertheless, you should get the basic point: God knows the potential as potential or God possibly knows what is knowable. So if Adam and Eve had the potential to sin and their apostasy was just possible or contingent (not necessary)--then God would know about Adam and Eve's deviation as a potential or contingent event rather than an actuality.

My position is not that God was required to act before the Fall if he knew that Adam and Eve would sin. Rather, the problem I have with many accounts of the Edenic Fall is that if Jehovah God knows an event will surely happen prior to its occurrence, then it seems that we live in a deterministic universe and libertarian free will is evidently illusory. But quantum mechanics indicates that contingency (indeterminacy) is part of our ontological experience (the subatomic cosmos is likely contingent, even if we cannot prove that the macrocosm is too). Now if the cosmos is contingent and if ontological contingency is not an illusion, then God evidently knows the contingent nature of the subatomic cosmos as contingent (i.e., Jehovah does not know the subatomic cosmos as necessary). I believe that the same principle applies to human existence, which is highly contingent since we have genuine free will or free choice.

Conversely, if God already knew that Adam and Eve would fall away spiritually before he issued the command at Genesis 2:16-17, then knowledge of the Fall was apparently possessed before that divine warning and God's knowledge would have preceded Adam and Eve's opportunity to make their own choice regarding the tree in the midst of Eden. But I might simply point out that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin before they disobeyed him, then it appears that Adam and Eve had no other choice but to sin. For if Jehovah knows at T1 that I will have a math test on quadratic equations at T2, then I will have a test on quadratic equations at T2. If I did not have the test on quadratic equations at T2, but God knew that I would have the test (i.e., he knew it as a necessary event), I would thereby falsify what God knew at T1.

Applying this principle to Adam and Eve: If God knew that the Fall was an actuality before it happened, then how could it not happen? If G (an omniscient Being) knows that at T1, Jones will cut his grass at T2, then it seems that Jones must cut his grass at T2. If Jones changes His mind and decides to go fishing at T2 instead, he would thereby falsify the belief that G held at T1. But since G is an omniscient Being, beliefs that G holds at any time (T) cannot be falsified. So Jones (or Adam and Eve) has no choice but to cut his grass at T2 if G holds that Jones will act thus. The only possible way I see out of this dilemma is for someone to posit divine timelessness, which Boethius and Thomas Aquinas did. However, this approach raises other difficulties.

Sources:

[I also want to clean up the "Jones" part, which derives from a work by Nelson Pike]

Article Pertaining to Ancient Greek Pronunciation

See https://domainthirtythree.com/2016/04/25/thoughts-on-koine-greek-pronunciation/

The Marked Difference Between Substance Dualism and Theism

The "father of modern philosophy" Rene Descartes (1596-1650 CE) contends that animals do not have rational souls. He makes a distinction between an "extended thing (res extensa) and a "thinking thing" (res cogitans) with the former having reference to material entities like bodies and the latter referring to the immaterial soul (mind). Descartes' position is known as substance dualism. He famously defines a "thinking thing" in this way: "But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives" (Meditations on First Philosophy).

So substance dualism argues that mind is non-spatial and non-physical; that is not necessarily my view. Moreover, while Jehovah and the angels (spirit beings) are non-physical and inherently non-spatial, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all spirit persons have spiritual bodies, whereas it's clear that a pure Cartesian soul/mind does not. Jehovah and the angels are spirits, but does that mean their relation to space is analogous to a Cartesian soul's relation to space? Not necessarily. Thomas Aquinas believes that angels are spatial though he argues they do not have bodies. That idea is not outside the realm of possibility, but a pure Cartesian soul (by definition) cannot exist or operate in space. Nor can a res cogitans have spatial location. Of course, I'm referring to the Cartesian soul in se.

The exact mechanism used by angels to interact with space is important. Materialization is a special case of angelic interaction with space. And it's important to note that God and angels are embodied (spiritually) on the Witness view of matters, but the Cartesian soul is not. Yet even granting that interaction between the spirit realm and the material realm is possible, it's not clear how such interaction occurs.

Richard Bauckham Explicates Revelation 4:3

Robert Bowman and Matthew 10:28 (God's Ability to Destroy in Gehenna)

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]" (Matthew 10:28 NET Bible).

[Edgar]
It is also important to notice that Jesus said God "can"
(DUNAMENON) destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. The Messiah is not necessarily saying that God WILL destroy both the body and the soul, though this text obviously serves as a reminder that God is the One we should reverence and fear (not man). Other biblical passages also tell us that God will everlastingly destroy those who do not know God or obey the Gospel about the Christ (2 Thess 1:6-9).

[Bowman]
I'm not clear as to the point of the above observations, though
I'm guessing they may in some way anticipate my question above. It is
true, technically, that Jesus said that God "can" and not
that God "will" destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. But the
warning to fear God in this verse (Matt. 10:28a) would have no "teeth"
if this were understood as an abstract possibility only and not as
something that was actually going to befall some people. The use of "can"
(DUNAMENON) in the second half of the saying is meant to be taken,
not in contrast to an unstated "will," but as part of the
deliberate contrasting parallel with "cannot" (MH DUNAMENWN) in the
first half of the saying:

[Edgar]
IMHO, if we are going to deal with what this verse actually says, then we must pay attention to details like the foregoing. While Jesus admittedly contrasts the "can" of God with the "cannot" of man, he is clearly juxtaposing human incapability with divine omnipotentia. This passage plainly does not say what God "will" do; it simply warns Jesus' disciples what God "could" do in certain attendant circumstances. Other verses do, however, assure us that God will actualize His potential in this regard (contra Thomas Aquinas and others).

[Bowman]
In view of this careful parallelism, the word "can" (DUNAMENON) in Matthew 10:28b ought to be understood as set in contrast to "cannot," and the notion that Jesus is saying that God "could" do something that he won't will have to be set aside as foreign to the context.

[Edgar]
Note bene [sic]: I am not contending that Jesus declared God can do something "that he won't." But I am suggesting that one cannot necessarily infer on the basis of Mt 10:28 alone that God "will" destroy body and soul in Gehenna. The passage simply does not say that. If S says that he CAN chew O up and spit him/her out, it does not logically follow that S WILL chew O up and spit him/her out. A more down to earth example might also be that of a parent who "can" revoke a child's privileges or ground a son or daughter for misbehavior. Parents have even been known to make their ability to ground or revoke privileges known to their children. We cannot infer that a parent will punish his/her child just because he or she makes known his/her ability to do such. I do not think that a parent's warning has any less "teeth" because he or she never actualizes his or her respective potentia. But the main point I am trying to make is that Mt 10:28 only affirms God's capacity to destroy "soul and body." The text does not technically say that God WILL carry out the aforesaid action.

James McGrath Offers An Explanation of Monotheism

https://www.academia.edu/27865398/Monotheism_article_in_Vocabulary_for_the_Study_of_Religion_

Interesting study although I don't fully endorse any link/article posted here. My blog posts also represent personal reflections, and I never intend to speak for Lenoir-Rhyne University, Catawba Valley Community College or any other official entity, religious or otherwise.

It's sometimes good to state this formal disclaimer.

Martin Hengel and Ancient Greek-Speaking Cities of Palestine

In view of discussions we've had on this blog recently
concerning the possible influence that Hellenism had on
ancient Christianity, I thought some here might
enjoy knowing about Louis H. Feldman's article in JBL 96/3
(1977): 371-382 entitled "Hengel's Judaism and
Hellenism in Retrospect."

The Hengel that Feldman has in mind is, of course, the
author of Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer
Begegnung unter besonderer Berucksichtigung Palastinas
bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh.s v. Chr. otherwise known as
Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in
Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).

Martin Hengel has essayed an influential historical
account of how ancient Judaism (more specifically,
Judaism from 330 BCE onward) was cross-fertilized
conceptually by the "inroads of Hellenism."
Hengel thus argues that we should not make a sharp
differentiation between Hellenistic and Palestinian
Judaism. Secondly, he maintains that Greek
influence on Judaism was much more pervasive (much
earlier) than has been previously thought. The upshot
of Hengel's suggestions are that "the background of
the NT in Palestine was a Judaism that had been
hellenized for the preceding 360 years." Feldman,
however, attempts to refute 22 points
put forward by Hengel; his retorts are definitely worthy of
consideration. Some may conclude that he has indeed
successfully confuted the arguments posited by Hengel.


In any event, Feldman rightfully points out:

"There is actually very little in Hengel that has not
been said before. It is, however, the sheer
accumulation and evaluation of evidence that is
impressive" (Feldman, page 371).

Here are some brief observations from Hengel's book
Judentum und Hellenismus concerning ancient
Greek-speaking communities in Palestine.

1. After the sixth century, Greek merchandise and
coins came to Palestine. See Ezek. 27:11-25a, which
Hengel thinks may apply to the 4th century BCE. Hengel
writes (1:32): "Both Isaeus and his pupil Demosthenes
mention a colony of Greek merchants some decades later
[[than 460 BCE] in Ake (Acco)."

2. In Gaza and Sidon, two long Greek verse
inscriptions (the epitaph of two Ptolemaic officers
and their families as well as the victory inscription
of Diotimus) dating from the period circa 200 BCE have
been discovered (1:83).

3. A graffito from tomb I of Marisa "with an erotic
poem" that basically contains the song of "a hETAIRA"
exulting over her lover, whose coat she has kept as a
pledge, also points to Greek speakers living in
Palestine around the pertinent time.

For detailed proofs of the foregoing, see Hengel, vol.
2:56.

Here is a link for the single-volume edition of Hengel's work: https://www.amazon.com/Judaism-Hellenism-Encounter-Palestine-Hellenistic/dp/1592441866/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214408278&sr=1-1

XARA (Galatians 5:22)

XARA [χαρά] is normally glossed as "joy." BDAG remarks that one
sense of XARA is "the experience of gladness." This
word is employed metonymically for "a state of
joyfulness" (whether its referent is divine or human)
and XARA may refer to a person, thing or event that
causes joy.

Additionally, Moulton-Milligan offer evidence from the
Greek papyri to demonstrate that XARA not only denoted
"joy" in antiquity but also functioned as a proper
name at times. Lastly, MM points out: "In MGr the word
is used for a 'festival,' 'wedding'" (page 683).

XARA occurs once in Galatians (according to my Gk.
concordance) and five times in Phillipians, where
rejoicing is a prominent theme.

Jesus is also said to have endured a STAUROS because
of THS PROKEIMENHS AUTWi XARAS (Heb 12:2).
Significantly, Luke (Acts 13:52) records that the early
Christians "continued to be filled with joy and holy
spirit" (hOI TE MAQHTAI EPLHROUNTO XARAS KAI PNEUMATOS
hAGIOU) implying that joy is a product of God's
spirit.

It seems that Paul proclaims there is one KARPOS
PNEUMATOS, strictly speaking, and that the other
so-called qualities mentioned in Gal 5:22-23 are
in reality expressions of the one fruit, which is AGAPH.
The apostle indicates that XARA is an expression of
AGAPH in 1 Cor 13:6, writing:
OU XAIREI EPI THi ADIKIA SUNXAIREI De THi ALHQEIAi.

There are various ways that Paul's letter to the
Corinthians implies XARA and the other qualities listed
in Gal 5:22-23 are possibly manifestations of AGAPH, but godly XARA
is "not a selfish emotion, but a sun whose rays warm and gladden
all within the sphere of its influence" (Cambridge Bible).

1 John 5:7 Qua Scribal Gloss?

Some writers want to identify 1 John 5:7 as a "scribal gloss," but the spurious text is more than a scribal expansion to me. It has been added to the Bible, plain and simple, as more than an explanatory remark. Describing the religious situation in the nineteenth century, Jaroslav Pelikan wrote: "One group of reasons for the jeopardy into which the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity had come was basically literary and textual. The most pertinacious and conservative in various communions were still holding out for the authenticity of the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7, despite all the textual and patristic evidence against it, but there was an all but unanimous consensus among textual critics that it represented a later interpolation" (Christian Tradition 5:193).

The New American Heritage Dictionary reports that glosses are usually notes inserted within the margins or between the lines of texts or manuscripts. I would consider 1 John 5:7 more than just a gloss in that sense. It was an addition that totally misconstrued the original intent of the first-century writer, and the passage contributed to deceiving people throughout the centuries in order that they might believe the Trinity doctrine has some merit. The historian Paul Johnson also tried to impute good motives to the scribe who added the Comma Johanneum. See his work A History of Christianity.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 ("caught up in the clouds")

The verse (1 Thess 4:17) proclaims:

ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα

Clouds are heavenly like the air. The celestial meeting discussed in 1 Thess 4:17 surely does not suggest that the meeting occurs on earth.

E. J. Richard (First and Second Thessalonians. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1995) suggests four bits of data that point toward a heavenly entrance in 1 Thess 4:17. I want to list three of the factors that Richard discusses.

(1) The clouds and "snatching" imagery indicate that
the chosen ones enjoy an "aerial meeting." The Greek term
for air is employed within Jewish cosmology to delineate
the "ethereal region between heaven and earth." See
Richard 247 and TDNT 1:165-66.

(2) The Son of Man sends out angels to gather his elect when he comes in the clouds (Matt 24:30-31).

(3) 2 Cor 5:8 indicates that the believer's future dwelling will be heavenly sans an earthly or fleshly body. Some would argue that human bodies will be glorified by the Lord. See Philippians 3:20-21.

John 1:1b-c and the LOGOS: Again? (Gender and Intimacy)

Brooks' and Winbery's Syntax of NT Greek (Lanham, MD: Univesity Press of America, 1979) points out that ὁ Λόγος in Jn 1:1c is the subject nominative within the construction since that noun phrase has the article while the preverbal anarthrous PN does not (page 78).

Of course there are exceptions to the aforesaid general rule, as Richard A. Young shows in his Intermediate NT Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994) on pages 64-65. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to conclude that ὁ Λόγος is the subject nominative in 1:1c.

There is a question about whether one could rightly conclude that the articular occurrence of Λόγος in 1:1c necessarily signifies a person over against a non-personal entity (especially in view of the fact that the article can be and is used in the NT to describe impersonal objects). But there are possibly other indicators in the context that suggest ὁ Λόγος is a person.

Jn 1:1b declares that ὁ Λόγος was πρὸς τὸν θεόν. A number of grammarians and commentators believe this part of the verse describes the intimate relationship between ὁ Λόγος and τὸν θεόν.

1:9-14 also indicates that John delineated the features of a person. As he writes in 1:14:

"So the Word became flesh and resided among us . . ."

Additionally from Young (page 101): "John writes that the Word was with God (John 1:1 acc.). Harris (1978:1205) suggests that the πρὸς in John 1:1 refers to active communication rather than passive association."

Lastly, ὁ Λόγος is masculine: so is αὐτοῦ and μονογενοῦς, which doesn't necessarily mean the Word is a person, but the gender of nouns and pronouns along with the literary context definitely affects how we translate Bible verses.

Ginomai Verses

Here are some examples of GINOMAI (the aorist middle form EGENETO is employed in John 1:14) and brief comments about how it is utilized in each cited verse:

Matt. 4:3-used by Satan who asks Jesus to make some stones become loaves of bread.

John 1:3-John writes that all things (PANTA) came into being through the LOGOS.

John 1:12-Humans who exercise faith in Jesus and receive him are given the authority "to become" (GENESQAI) God's children (TEKNA QEOU).

John 1:14-The LOGOS became flesh.

Heb. 11:3-TOUS AIWNAS came to be out of things that do not appear.

Cf. Matt. 5:45 and countless other examples.

G. C. Berkouwer and Holy Scripture as the Word of God

Theopedia supplies this description for G. C. Berkouwer:

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) was a minister of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (GKN) and a Christian theologian. He was the chair of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, and a prolific author. While critical of the teachings of Karl Barth, Klaas Schilder, and Roman Catholicism, he is also known for leading the ecumenical movement of his day.

Berkouwer allows us to perceive his view of Scripture in one important work:

"We are also reminded in the discussion of Scripture of the function of the phrase 'it is written' as the final and ultimate appeal of the Lord himself in his temptations (Mt. 4:4, 6, 10), and we are reminded of many statements, both warning and admonishing, 'to live according to the scripture' (1 Cor. 4:6). Such statements constituted the background of the discussion and the heeding of the Word in the church and of the conviction that Holy Scripture is the trustworthy Word of God." (Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, page 12.)

While making such lofty professions about Scripture, Berkouwer disappointed many Evangelicals by means of his insistence that a priori formalizations of the Bible should be eschewed. He believed that we should pay close attention to the divine and human elements of Holy Writ.

The Physical Kosmos in Relation to the Spiritual Kosmos: God, Cause and Effect

It's logically possible for a Christian physicalist to accept the existence of a non-physical God, who created a wholly physical universe filled with stars, planets, atoms, particles, humans and animals, etc. So I don't see a necessary entailment between a defeater for anthropological dualism and a defeater for the existence of an omnipotent spirit person. By "defeater," I mean an argument that overcomes/refutes another contention. So we can have one without necessarily having the other: God can exist without dualism being true.

1) A non-physical God exists.
2) A physical world exists.
3) Dualism is false.

These three propositions do not inherently conflict with one another. Hence, it's logically possible for a non-physical God to exist alongside a physical kosmos. By "dualism," I mean "anthropological dualism."

Secondly, pace my dualist friends, I wonder why we have to reject David Hume's three causal elements. While I don't accept Hume's take on causation, let it be sufficient to note that causes possibly take place within a nexus of relations (i.e., there are causal linkages).

The astrophysicist Paul Davies refers to "causal linkages" (networks) rather than ascribing causal potencies to objects themselves. For example, I put my foot on the accelerator, and this event increases the velocity of my car. Therefore, I say that the cause of my car picking up speed is the act of pressing the accelerator with my foot. However, if there's no gas in the car or if some other factor prevents the vehicle from moving (no engine, someone stole all of my tires, bad spark plugs), then pressing the gas pedal will have little to no effect. For simplicity's sake, though, there's nothing wrong with insisting that pressing the accelerator (gas pedal) makes cars go, and pressing the brake with enough force causes vehicles to stop. Yet it seems that there is a causal relationship which exists between event A (pressing the gas pedal) and event B (the car picking up speed) to provide the glue that joins them; different causal events likely will not make my car go (i.e., the event of pitching a baseball or the event of opening the door to my house). By the way, Immanuel Kant wrote that cause-effect relations are not analytic a priori, but synthetic a priori whereas Hume suggests they are synthetic a posteriori.

Part of John H. P. Reumann's Commentary on Philippians 1:1-2 (Jesus as Kurios)

Reumann's commentary is part of the Anchor Bible series.

2 Corinthians 5:8 (The Lexical Semantics of SWMA)

About the Greek word σῶμα.

θαρροῦμεν δὲ καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον· (2 Cor. 5:8).

The operative words for me are ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Regarding the use of σῶμα in Rom. 8:10, we read:

"It should first be noted that SWMA (body) should be taken literally. That it refers to the physical body [in Rom. 8:10] is almost certain" (Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the NT, 177).

σῶμα also signifies the physical body in 2 Cor. 5:8. If this observation is true, however, then 2 Cor. 5:8 does not pose a difficulty for my theological beliefs about the condition of the dead. For while the physical body of those Christians who are privileged to "see God and be like him" (1 John 3:1-2) may be "dissolved" at death (2 Cor. 5:1-2), 1 Cor. 15:42ff indicates that these same Christians are given new spiritual bodies when God resurrects them. As Paul so clearly expressed matters: "If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one" (1 Cor. 15:44).

Therefore, when the apostle speaks of Christians being "absent from the body," he is evidently referring to the physical body. Those who put on/assume immortality and incorruption, however, will acquire renewed bodies made like unto the Son's glorious corpus (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:20, 21). These new bodies will not be souls, but nonetheless they will be spiritual.

John W. Cooper on Names for the TRES PERSONAE

John W. Cooper (Professor of Philosophical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary) contends that the triune name for God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) cannot be replaced salva veritate. Names or titles such as Lover, Beloved, and Love (Augustine of Hippo) or Source, Word and Comforter do not adequately describe God and neither does the language, "God, Christ and Spirit" as Cooper explains:

"God, Christ, and Spirit is also impeccably biblical (cf. 2 Cor. 13:14). Moreover, this formula uses personal names or titles. But it is not equivalent to the triune name. For taken on its own, it seems to imply that Christ and the Spirit are not God. That implication might not be disastrous for Christ as a referent to the human nature of Jesus. But it still leaves the Holy Spirit out of the Godhead. It also juxtaposes God with the humanity of Jesus, failing to communicate that Jesus is God the Son. Though this trio of terms is biblical, it is not even close to the meaning of the triune name. Like the other formulas, it depends on the triune name to be understood in a trinitarian sense" (Our Father in Heaven: Christian Faith and Inclusive Language for God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), page 212.

Old Dialogue Concerning Religion, the Intellect, and Authority

[Interlocutor]
I personally do not find subsuming your intellect, the authority of the scriptures or your reputation to a religious organization. Whatever Paul meant by 1 Cor 1:10, it would be distressing to think that he meant this [speaking in agreement as Witnesses do].

[Edgar]
Who said you have to "subsume your intellect" to a religious organization? A sacrificium intellectus is most abhorrent to yours truly. Jesus taught us to love God with our whole mind. However, I believe that it is perfectly viable and legitimate for a theologian or Christian thinker to work within his or her own religious tradition while simultaneously refusing to turn a blind eye to error. The Bible encourages Christians to submit to those taking the lead among them, to wit, those who govern (Heb 13:7, 17). That may not sound so lovely to our postmodernist society which takes delight in flouting authority, for the most part. But the Bible shows that the first-century Christians submitted themselves to the apostles and older men of Jerusalem and other local overseers of the Primitive Congregation (Acts 2:40-42; Acts 15:1-29). Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses strive to do the same in their worship to God the Father today.

There is one major difference between us and the Catholic Church. In the Roman Catholic Church, the buck stops at the pope. You can't question the papacy because it supposedly has the "requisite authority" to interpret Scripture and even to declare certain doctrines infallible. You technically have to submit to the pope whether what he says is backed by Scripture or not. Jehovah's Witnesses do not go beyond the things written (1 Cor. 4:6). We believe in "making sure of all things," including what we're taught by the Governing Body (1 Thess. 5:21). Of course, we believe that we are being taught Scriptural truth, therefore we humbly submit to the Governing Body. But if a teaching ever turned out to be unscriptural or downright harmful, we would not just follow along like gullible little puppies. [No Jim Jones people here!]

Jesus and Proverbs 30:8-9

In Proverbs 30:8-9, we read:

"Remove far from me vanity and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the bread of my daily need: lest I be full and deny [thee], and say, Who is Jehovah? or lest I be poor and steal, and outrage the name of my God" (Darby).

The words above are said to be the utterances of Agur the son of Jakeh (Prov 30:1-Darby). However, for our present purposes, who pinned the words is not as pertinent as the intended meaning of the individual, who spoke or wrote these utterances.

Agur exclaims that he desires neither poverty nor riches; he only wants "the bread of his daily need" or "the food that is [his] portion" (NASB). In other words, Agur believes that there is a "golden mean" between the pecuniary extremes of poverty and riches: he desires a proper monetary balance and only wants sustenance and covering for each day. In this way, he might avoid becoming either self-satisfied or (morbidly) autarchic (i.e., self sufficient) and forget his God or steal because of depleted funds and thereby assail the name of his God, YHWH.

Those of us who accept the full inspiration (= the theopneustic or God-breathed character) of the sacred writings believe that Almighty God Himself inspired the words of Prov 30:8-9. We think God is telling us that we should seek a balance when it comes to money or material possessions. This is why I find Paul's words in 2 Cor 8:9 of so much interest:

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich" (ESV).

There are many "gems" contained in this verse, but one point I would like to consider is the thought of God's Son becoming poor, so that we might become rich by means of his poverty.

Jesus was materially poor during the time of his earthly enfleshment. (This assertion does not imply that I believe Jesus is still enfleshed in the celestial heights.) He apparently did not experience that "golden mean" which Agur suggests in Prov 30:8-9 since Jesus did not even have a place to lay his head. Yet we are told that Christ set an example for us by the way he conducted himself on earth. Did he therefore show us a new and more exalted way than that espoused by Agur?

How do we harmonize Prov 30:8-9 with 2 Cor 8:9, if such a harmonization is even necessary? Is there anything we can learn from Paul's words about how we ought to view pecuniary matters as Christians? Thomas Aquinas would later write that the poverty of Christ was voluntarily undertaken for our sakes. Maybe his words ring true in this case.

Ktisis (Colossians 1:23)

Although I take a specific position in my blog entries, I just want to remind those on this site that my positions are always up for revision or correction.

What does κτίσις mean in Colossians 1:23? The verse most certainly uses κτίσις (the lexical form) as a reference to the known human creation which existed in Paul's time. At the very least, a subset of humanity is being discussed in this passage. While it might seem odd to argue that κτίσις bears this meaning in 1:23, we must note that the long conclusion of Mark's Gospel found in MSS that include aleph, B (et al.) contains a similar use of κτίσις at Mark 16:15. Are we to believe that animals or non-humans are the referents there?

Most importantly Revelation 5:13 proclaims:

καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ἐστίν, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἤκουσα λέγοντας Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

In the foregoing passage, κτίσις certainly refers to animate rather than inanimate creatures. It does not have reference to the earth or the heavens or to any other inanimate referent that someone might have in mind. Compare Colossians 1:15.

Matthew Poole's Commentary: "Creature with the Hebrews doth eminently signify man, by an antonomasia, or a synecdeche [sic], putting the general for a particular. In the original it is, in all the creature; and so it may be, in all the world, (creature being sometimes used for the system of the world, Romans 8:19-21), in opposition to Judea, i.e. in those other parts of the earth which the Greeks and Romans knew to be then inhabited: under heaven, which is a pleonasm, but of the greatest emphasis, as Acts 4:12."

For more about the rhetorical device, pleonasm, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/07/redundancy-pleonastic-speech-and-bible.html

More On Interaction Between Body and Soul/Spirit (Dialogue with a Friend)

I've edited the material below to preserve anonymity and to make the discussion more concise. Sean K., maybe this material will be helpful to you.

God could make a human with a non-material mind, then fully determine that mind (theological determinism). Dualism doesn't automatically make the problem of free will go away, and it [actually] raises a new problem of agent-causation. How does an immaterial will bring about action in conjunction with all of the physical factors that exert causal influence on us? That question is not easily answered with the tools of science or philosophy. See Watson, Gary (editor). Free will. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003. Flanagan, Owen J. The problem of the soul: two visions of mind and how to reconcile them. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Here is where I'll broach the problem of overdetermination again. I'm not that comfortable saying "I am my brain" or "free will does not exist." It just seems that higher-level processes of the brain could explain free will and other conscious states. Conversely, I'm curious as to why you'd say that we need dualism to explain Alzheimer, addiction, hormones (etc.)? Could we not explain all of these phenomena by appealing to neurobiological processes? And if a physical cause is able to explain an effect, then why propose another cause for the effect (i.e., the problem of overdetermination)?

Addendum: On that last point, to illustrate, if pain can be explained adequately by natural factors and it's made better through analgesics, then why propose a supernatural factor to account for pain? Or if psychosis explains why a person hears voices, why claim that the person must be demon-possessed? If water can be explained by H20, why say that there must be something else that makes water, water?

Some Trinitarian "Takes" on 1 Corinthians 12:3

To illustrate how many Trinitarians interpret 1 Cor. 12:3, I will provide some quotes from biblehub.com. We could multiply such statements, but this way of producing them is most expedient for me. Nevertheless, I agree with Kaz that it seems incredible to assert that no Jew ever questioned the move from monolatry/strict monotheism to the veneration/worship of Christ and the holy spirit.

JFB Bible Commentary: "Lord—acknowledging himself as His servant (Isa 26:13). 'Lord' is the Septuagint translation for the incommunicable Hebrew name Jehovah."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: "And that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost; or Jehovah; which, with the Jews, was a name ineffable, to which the apostle might have respect. Christ is Lord of all, of angels, good and bad; of men, righteous and wicked; of the chief among men, the kings, princes, and lords of the earth; as he is God by right of nature, and as Creator of them by virtue of that; and because of his providential power and influence in the government of the universe; he is Lord of his church and people, by the Father's gift of them to him"

Pulpit Commentary: "No man can say that Jesus is [the] Lord, but by [in] the Holy Ghost. It involved a strong rebuke to the illuminati, who professed a profound spiritual insight, to tell them that no man could make the simple, humble confession of the divinity of Jesus (for 'Lord' is here an equivalent of the Hebrew 'Jehovah') except by the same inspiration as that which they so terribly abused."

Alford's GNT: "So κύρ. Ἰης., Jesus is Lord (all that is implied in κύριος, being here also implied: and we must not forget that it is the LXX verbum solenne for the Heb. Jehovah). By these last words the influence of the Holy Spirit is widened by the Apostle from the supernatural gifts to which perhaps it had been improperly confined, to the faith and confession of every Christian."

Body and Soul/Spirit Interactionism?

Conceptually or scientifically, it's not possible to know for certain that dualistic interactionism is taking place. All one can do is believe or surmise/reason that dualistic interactionism is more probable than physicalism, but the veracity of soul/spirit-body interaction cannot be known apodictically through natural means (reason, observation or experimentation). While I believe that some kind of interaction is now taking place between God, angels and the material universe, I don't know exactly how it occurs--nor does anybody else on our planet. One way that such interaction occurs is probably through secondary causes: Jehovah uses natural mechanisms to interact with physical things (e.g., the water cycle, hydrogen fusion, and weather patterns); nonetheless, secondary causes likely do not exhaust divine causation. That is where things become murkier in my view. How does Jehovah's holy spirit guide the apostles and others "in all the way of truth"? Not even a dualist can definitively answer this question. And there's also the problem of overdetermination, which I have not yet pressed.

I also hate to repeat myself, but it's problematic to use something we don't know much about to explain another phenomenon that we do not fully understand. Immanuel Kant would caution us against invoking noumena (Dinge-an-sich) to explain phenomena. Now I'm not saying that I fully buy into Kant's famed distinction--he's only brought into the discussion because it seems that invoking divine causation to explain mental causation is possibly an ill-advised move. It is like invoking the largely unknown to shed light on something else that is not completely understood. However, none of what I've said up to this point is meant to deny that Jehovah created the world, guides his congregation by means of holy spirit, and has performed miracles in the past. We just don't understand how divine causation works although we believe it works. So then how can we use an unknown to explain another largely unknown? To illustrate, some Trinitarians appeal to the Godhead to elucidate human personhood. That move likewise seems ill-advised because we know less about how spirit persons relate to one another than we know about human relations. I intentionally refrain from mentioning how wrong the Trinity is.

It would take me some time to word matters carefully and spell them out as I would like, but the spirit world and the physical/material sphere are qualitatively different in my frame of reference (Isaiah 31:3). Does that mean I view heaven and the material world as two separate realities? It depends on what is meant by "separate." For now, I say that they're qualitatively different, which means that the spirit realm is non-spatial, non-material, non-atomic, and devoid of elementary particles, and does not have any physical bodies, is not bound to the laws of physics, contains minds that are differently constituted from ours, but interaction with the physical world is still possible. I would submit that a spirit/spiritual person became human and that some humans have become/will become spirits/spiritual. Hence, there is a slight difference in how I frame the issue (spirit "minds" versus spirit persons and human "minds" versus human persons). In other words, personhood is the basic template which determines how I distinguish the spirit from the material world.

The Most High God and His Witnesses

The writer of Psalm 83:18 professes that Jehovah/YHWH is the Most High God (EL ELYON) and the Most High himself made another emphatic declaration over 2000 years ago: "You are my witnesses" (Isaiah 43:10-12). But fleshly Israel did not render Jehovah implicit obedience. As a result, the nation lost its unique privilege to exalt God's majesty (Exodus 19:5, 6). The Christian congregation is now a "people for God's name" (Acts 15:14). It is this congregation that not only witnesses about Christ, but also testifies with respect to the God and Father of Christ Jesus.

Please see Revelation 1:9 which informs us why John was placed in prison. Not only was he incarcerated because he bore witness to Christ, but he also was bound "for the word of God." John was persecuted for magnifying the Most High--the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

"and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee (καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι)"-Luke 1:35

Compare Luke 1:32, 76; 6:35; 8:28.

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