My Review of Frederick C. Copleston's "Medieval Philosophy"

Frederick C. Copleston is a master historian. His nine-volume A History of Philosophy is remarkable for its breadth, depth and analyticity. These qualities especially can be attributed to his book on ancient Greek philosophy. However, Copleston's introductory study A History of Medieval Philosophy seems dry. It's consequently a little harder to read than other works he has produced.

The familiar objectivity and precision of other volumes which comprise the series is still on display in this historical coverage of the middle ages; but I would submit that Copleston needed to give this work some much needed life. That is the main problem I have with this history of medieval thought, one of many that I've read. That complaint notwithstanding, the text is definitively magisterial and characteristically erudite.

Copleston begins chronicling the medieval period by showing the important nexus between ancient Christianity and philosophy in the middle ages. He then discusses such thinkers as John Erigena, Berengarius of Tours and Roscelin of Compiegne. The book laconically recounts famed controversies surrounding transubstantiation in the case of Berengarius and purported tritheism (an accusation that was lodged at Roscelin) before turning to Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Abelard--the infamous dialectician and lover of Heloise.

Anselm is known for developing what's called the "ontological argument" for God's existence. The basic premise of Anselm is that God must exist in reality, if God exists within the mind. Otherwise, God would not qualify as "that being than which a greater could not be conceived." Yet the main thinker of the period (Thomas Aquinas) faulted the ontological argument for conflating different senses of the expression "self-evident." It quickly becomes obvious from this brief example that medieval philosophy is fairly technical and generally recondite.

Nevertheless, a quite helpful part of this book is Copleston's analysis of the debate between those philosophers who are nominalists and those known as philosophical realists: the so-called "problem of universals." He convincingly demonstrates that there is a continuum which existed between nominalism and realism. For example, realism exists in moderate and extreme forms.

Maybe A History of Medieval Philosophy could have spared certain unnecessary details in much of the book. That is always the challenge with relating historical developments or events. How do those of us who work in history or related fields tell stories without boring our audience? At any rate, Copleston's account should be read by all those who are serious about medieval philosophy. It is the perfect place to immerse oneself in theoretical ideas of the past.

The Use of AUTOS and Its Antecedents in 1 John 1 (Chapter One)

The following is a list of how AUTOS possibly functions in 1 John 1.
____________________________________________________________________

1 John 1:3-The antecedent is TOU PATROS.
1:5-The antecedent is evidently IHSOU XRISTOU in 1:3.
1:5d-The antecedent is hO QEOS in 1:5c.
1:6-hO QEOS is again the antecedent.
1:7-Both AUTOS and AUTOU refer to hO QEOS as the phrase TOU hUIOU AUTOU makes clear.
1:10-hO LOGOS AUTOU also has reference to God's word (Go back to 1:5).

Amended Version of 1 John and AUTOS

Thanks to Duncan for adding the Greek characters below!

1 John 2:2- αυτος refers to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αυτου is probably Ιησουν χριστον.
2:3b-αυτου evidently refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4a-αυτον also seems to reference Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4b-αυτον points to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:5a-αυτου τον λογον describes Jesus' λογον.
2:5c-εν τουτω refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-εν αυτω speaks of "remaining" (μενειν) in Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-The antecedent of ουτω is ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν.
2:8b-εν αυτω again speaks of Ιησουν χριστον.
2:9c-The antecedent is ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι.
2:10-αυτου and αυτω refer to ο αγαπων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:11-Both occurrences of αυτου refer to ο δε μισων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:15e-αυτω describes the one loving the world (εαν τις αγαπα τον κοσμον).
2:21-The antecedent of αυτην is αληθειας.
2:25b-The antecedent of αυτος is τω πατρι (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,20).
2:27-αυτου refers to the Father.
2:28-αυτω in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that αυτου in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term παρουσια seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (εξ αυτου γεγεννηται).

1 John and AUTOS

Dear blog readers,

This list is a continuation of previous work that I've done on αὐτὸς in 1 John. It is my long-term goal to expand on these documented examples, and change the characters below to actual Greek letters/words.

Best,

Edgar
____________________________________________________________________
1 John 2:2-αὐτὸς refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αὐτόν is probably Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:3b-αὐτοῦ evidently refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4a-αὐτόν also seems to reference Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4b-αὐτοῦ points to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν in 2:1d.
2:5a-αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον describes Jesus' λόγον.
2:5c-EN AUTWi refers to IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-EN AUTWi speaks of "remaining" (MENEIN) in IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-The antecedent of AUTOS is hO LEGWN EN AUTWi MENEIN.
2:8b-EN AUTWi again speaks of Jesus Christ.
2:9c-The antecedent is hO LEGWN EN TWi FWTI EINAI.
2:10-AUTOU and AUTWi refer to hO AGAPWN TON ADELFON AUTOU.
2:11-Both occurrences of AUTOU refer to hO MISWN TON ADELFON
AUTOU.
2:15e-AUTWi describes the one loving the world (EAN TIS AGAPA TON
KOSMON).
2:21-The antecedent of AUTHN is ALHQEIAN.
2::25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,
20).
2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father.
2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).

The Meaning of NEPES/PSYCHE in Scripture

The word "soul" (Hebrew nepes and Greek psyche) apparently has three primary meanings in the Bible:

(1) A human person (Genesis 2:7).

(2) An animal.

(3) The life enjoyed by a person or animal (Genesis 9:3-5).

Genesis 2:7 describes Adam becoming a "living being" (Amplified Bible) or a "living soul" (New World Translation 1984). The Apostle Paul invokes this account when reproving some in the Corinthian ecclesia (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, the Bible calls animals "souls" in Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9; Revelation 8:9; 16:3. For an example of psyche denoting "life," see Matthew 16:25; 20:28.

Technically, I do not believe there is a metaphysical dichotomy between the body and the soul in the OT or NT. A number of biblical commentators have noted this point:

"The Jewish origin of the word [psyche] is determinative: Nephesh is the living quality of the flesh. The soul belongs to man's earthly existence. It does not exist without physical life. It is not, say, freed by death, then to live its untrammelled purity. Death is its end. The word psyche can also mean the person, and this is related to SWMA, SARX and PNEUMA (Rom. 16:4: hUPER THS YUXHS MOU 'For my life')" (An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Hans Conzelmann. 179).

Notice where the "souls" are located in Rev. 6:9; they are "at the foot of the altar" (Amplified Bible), and this description reminds one of Lev. 4:7 where the Aaronic priest is commanded to pour out the blood of a bull at the "base of the altar" (Amplified Bible). Why was the priest to pour out blood at the foot of the altar? Because the life ("soul") of the flesh was in the blood (Lev. 17:14). That's why there is no remission of sins unless blood is poured out (Heb. 9:22ff).

What bearing does this information have on Rev. 6:9? Well in that verse the blood of martyrs is symbolically envisioned at God's heavenly "altar." The blood is not poured out to forgive sins within that context: it has been spilled by God's enemies. Therefore, the blood ("souls") in Rev. 6:9 does not cry for mercy, but for vengeance. The same thing happened when Abel's blood was shed (Gen. 4:10,11; Heb. 12:24). His blood also cried from the ground. Did this mean that Abel's blood was a living thing? Or was this simply a personification of an inanimate thing because of what blood symbolizes in the Bible? Please note that James 5:4 exclaims that "wages" held back from poor workers cried out in the first century. Surely "wages" are not living, sentient things, are they? I hope this discussion will give some insight into why I do not believe that Rev. 6:9 teaches the soul is immortal (cf. Rev. 18:11-13). Nor do other scriptural verses.

Pronouncing Ancient Greek Words

How should ancient Greek morphemes be pronounced? According to Brooks and Winbery's book on morphology, there are at least 4 principal ways to pronounce Greek phonemes/morphemes. Moreover, one Gifford Fellow at the University of Glasgow, who was completing his doctoral work at Cambridge University when I resided in the UK, told me that Cambridge (UK) has its own distinct way to pronounce Latin and Greek words. His statement accords with what I've studied about ancient Greek and Latin phonology wherein books delineate how those in Great Britain traditionally have articulated Latin or Greek. So this subject opens a can of worms to be sure.

None of us can be sure how ancient Greek words were or should be pronounced. Some argue that modern Greek vocalization is pretty close to the ancient while others vigorously dispute the claim. At any rate, I'm not always consistent in my pronunciation of omega. Sometimes I pronounce it as an English long "o" (as in "go") and other times I say "aw" as in the English "saw" or "law." See Donald Mastronarde's Intro to Attic Greek, p. 12.

In ANTILUTRON (1 Timothy 2:6, I once stated that the iota could be either long or short, depending on the Greek accent; however, I would now urge readers to pronounce it with long "i" although some might demur from my suggestion. But the upsilon should probably be pronounced like a long/short French or German "u."

Okay, let the beating commence.

Exodus 3:5 and Joshua 5:15: Sandals/Sandal

A friend asked me about the language contained in Exodus 3:5 and Joshua 5:15. One verse says "take off your sandals" but the other passage speaks of one sandal rather than two. Why the difference?

My answer:

Interesting question about the sandals. A book written by Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke (Hebrew Syntax) addresses the issue. In section 7.2.1 of Waltke's "Syntax," here's what we read:

"With countables the singular serves to enumerate one object. With entities that Hebrew counts as 'one object' or 'more than one object,' the singular usually enumerates the referent as an individual. Countable nouns are the most common."

"With collectives the singular designates a group. Some words in Hebrew, like 'fish,’ ‘sheep,’ and ‘fruit’ in English, are treated as collectives and represented by the singular. As noted above, English and Hebrew differ in their distribution of countables and collectives. Collectives occur in both grammatical genders. A collective singular may not agree in number with other words in the sentence syntactically related to it (cf. English ‘the sheep are in the field’ versus ‘the wheat is…’; 6.6); thus a singular collective noun can govern a plural verb. We distinguish between words in Hebrew that are conventionally collective (i.e., words almost always represented in the singular) and those that are nonconventionally collective (i.e., words that are often represented by the plural but for contextual reasons may be represented by a collective)."

When I checked Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew-English Lexicon, it said the usage in Joshua 5:15 is an example of a "dual" form. In other words, the singular is used to describe a "pair" of sandals rather than just one shoe. That is why translations usually render with the plural "sandals" although the word is grammatically singular or "dual." Compare Amos 2:6; 8:6.

This subject also makes me wonder about Augustine of Hippo's famous Latin words, inquietum est cor nostrum, which are usually translated "our hearts are restless."

Proverbs 12:10a (Showing Mercy to Animals)

Some of the older commentators somewhat entertain me as I'm reading them. For instance, John Trapp on Proverbs 12:10a:

"There be beasts ad usum, et ad esum. Some are profitable alive, not dead, as the dog, horse, &c.; some dead, not alive, as the hog; some both, as the ox. There is a mercy to be shewed to these dumb creatures, as we see in Eleazar; [Genesis 24:32] and the contrary in Balaam, who spurred his ass till she spake. [Numbers 22:27-28] Otherwise we shall make them 'groan under the bondage of our corruption,' [Romans 8:21] and he that hears the young ravens, may hear them, for 'he is gracious.' [Exodus 22:27] The restraint that was of eating the blood of dead beasts, declared that he would not have tyranny exercised on them while they are alive."

On the other hand, Michael V. Fox writes:

"In only a few places in the Bible is humanitarian concern shown toward animals: One must not muzzle an ox when threshing (Deut 25:4). When taking eggs from a nest, one must not seize 'the mother together with the children' (Deut 22:6). A sacrificial animal must be left with its mother for seven days after birth (Exod 22:29; Lev 22:27). One must not sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day (Lev 22:28). One must not seethe a kid in its mother's milk (Exod 23:19b = 34:26b = Deut 14:21b; see Haran 1985). The motives for these injunctions are not transparent, but humanitarian feelings are certainly reflected in some of them. These concerns may be motivated less by sympathy for the animals' suffering (for they will still suffer) than by a sense of decency, a desire to respect the
proper order. Solicitude for one's livestock also has a practical aspect, since it is
just good husbandry to keep them well-fed; see Prov 27:23–27" (Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation, Anchor Bible Commentary).

From Bruce Waltke (The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1-15):

The topic of sensible wealth (v. 8) now shifts from the well-earned prosperity of the righteous in contrast to feigned wealth (v. 9) to caring for, not exploiting, the worker (v. 10). A righteous person, who by definition serves others, not self (see p. 97-98), is one who knows [i.e., listens to, pays attention to, and internally empathizes with the need; see 1:2]⁵⁵ the desires [or “appetites and drives,” nepeš; see p. 90) of his animal (behēmâ). Behēmâ refers to any four-footed domesticated animal such as a horse or mule (see Neh. 12:14; Isa. 30:6; 46:1), or one of his cattle or flocks (see Lev. 1:2). The Creator has compassion for animals (cf. Deut. 11:15; Pss. 36:6b [7b]; 104:14, 17; Jon. 4:11) and in his law he commanded Israel to share his sabbaths with them (Exod. 20:10; 23:11–12; Lev. 25:1–7). The proverb probably entails an argument a minores ad maiores. If one shows mercy in the lesser creation, how much more in the greater.⁵⁶ Providing for the needs of the working ox functions in the law as a proverb for taking care of one’s workers (Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9–10).⁵⁷ If so, there may be a connection between owning a slave (v. 9) and caring for him by anticipating his needs (v. 10).

Genesis 3:21--Whence the Skins?

"And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them" (ASV).

A basic question that arises with this account is from where did Jehovah derive the "coats of skins." Were animals slain in order for Adam and Eve to be given these coats?

Expositor's Bible Commentary--Old Testament (Abridged Edition): "The mention of the type of clothing that God made—'garments of skin,' i.e., tunics—is perhaps intended to recall the state of the man and the woman before the Fall: 'naked' and 'no shame' (2:25). The author may also be anticipating the notion of sacrifice in the animals slain for the making of the skin garments (cf. Ex 28:42)."

Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-17: "It is probably reading too much into this verse to see in the coats of skin a hint of the use of animals and blood in the sacrificial system of the OT cultus.¹² The word we have translated coats is the one that is used to describe the garment Jacob made for Joseph (e.g., 37:3). It is true that the word skin here refers to animal skins, and we do have in Genesis itself the idea of animal skins as coverings. See 27:16, where Rebekah 'put on' (same verb as here) the hands and neck of Jacob 'the skins of the kids' so that Jacob would feel like and smell like Esau to Isaac. But keṯōneṯ is more than simply a covering. It is an actual robelike garment worn next to one's skin. Both men (2 Sam. 15:32) and women (2 Sam. 13:18, 19; Cant. 5:3) could wear it (cf. Gen. 3:21). A keṯōneṯ was also one of the garments worn by the priests, and it was made from linen (Exod. 28:39; 39:27)."

While conducting research on this question, I read that Augustine of Hippo believed God used "dead cattle" to provide skins for Adam and Eve. One source also quotes another view of interest:

THEODORET OF CYRUS. How are we to understand the clothing of skins? Allegorizing commentators (Origen, Didymus, and Theodore) have claimed that the skins were mortal flesh, others that they were made from the bark of trees. But I adopt neither of these views; the latter is merely inquisitive, the former too much of a mythological fable. Since holy Scripture says that the body was formed even before the soul, how can this claim that the man and woman took mortal flesh only after the transgression of the commandment amount to anything but a fable? And it strikes me as futile to pry into the way God came by skins and to imagine a novel form of clothing. We should be content with the text, acknowledge that there is no task beyond the Creator of the universe, and admire the unlimited goodness of God who, taking care for sinners, did not overlook their need for clothing when they were naked. [Theodoret of Cyrus, Question 39 on Genesis]

See https://litteraldotorg.wordpress.com/genesis-3/

Luke 18:8--"The Faith" and "This Faith"

Notes for Luke 18:8

Greek: λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν ἐν τάχει. πλὴν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐλθὼν ἆρα εὑρήσει τὴν πίστιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

NET: "I tell you, he will give them justice speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

NWT 2013: "I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?"

Luke's Greek has the definite article ("the"), but to emphasize that a particular kind of faith is being discussed contextually, NWT translates "this faith" which indicates demonstrative force. In other words, the "faith" discussed must be interpreted in harmony with the parable of the unrighteous judge and the persistent widow.

Albert Barnes' Notes: "He asks them here whether, when he came, he should find 'this faith,' or a belief of 'this truth,' among his followers? Would they be found persevering in prayer, and 'believing' that God would yet avenge them; or would they cease to pray 'always, and faint?'"

Robertson's Word Pictures: "āra comes in the middle of the sentence instead of near the beginning, an unusual position for either inferential αρα — āra or interrogative αρα — āra
On the whole the interrogative αρα — āra is probably correct, meaning to question if the Son will find a persistence of faith like that of the widow."

Henry Alford's GT: "for ἡ πίστις, though ‘faith’ generally, is yet here faith in reference to the object of the parable—faith which has endured in prayer without fainting. Or the meaning may be general and objective; as in reff."

Bengel's Gnomon: "τὴν πίστιν) the faith, whereby the godly trust in the Lord, and cry to Him."

Cambridge Greek Testament: "ἆρα εὑρήσει τὴν πίστιν; ‘Shall He find this faith on the earth?’ So St Peter tells of scoffers in the last days who shall say 'Where is the promise of His coming?' 2 Peter 3:3-4; and before that day 'the love of many shall wax cold,' Matthew 24:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Even the faith of God's elect will in the last days be sorely tried (Matthew 24:22). Ἆρα is like the Latin num. Comp. Galatians 2:17 ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος;"

Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke: "In fact, according to the Greek text of v 8, Jesus' question is not concerned with 'faith' (in general) but with 'the faith'⁷⁵—that is, that manner of faith demonstrated by the widow in the antecedent parable. These two motifs—the certainty of God's justice and the call for resolute faithfulness in anticipation of that certainty—come in for development on account of the situation Jesus has anticipated in 17:22–25."

John, Jesus, History, volume 3. See BDAG.

Job 6:2-3: "Wild Talk"

Anguish (mental and physical pain or suffering) sometimes causes us to say and do things that we don't really mean; what people say in the midst of pain may not truly reflect what they are at heart (Ecclesiastes 7:7). For instance, the faithful man Job experienced indescribable anguish at the hands of Satan the Devil. What can we learn from his mental and physical anguish?

In Job 6:2-3 (ESV), we read this exclamation:

“Oh that my vexation were weighed, and all my calamity laid in the balances! For then it would be heavier than the sand of the sea; therefore my words have been rash."

LXX:

εἰ γάρ τις ἱστῶν στήσαι μου τὴν ὀργήν τὰς δὲ ὀδύνας μου ἄραι ἐν ζυγῷ ὁμοθυμαδόν
καὶ δὴ ἄμμου παραλίας βαρυτέρα ἔσται ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἔοικεν τὰ ῥήματά μού ἐστιν φαῦλα

Brenton translates Job 6:3: "And verily they would be heavier than the sand by the seashore: but, as it seems, my words are vain."

But see how Aquila renders the Hebrew account: https://books.google.com/books?id=75YUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA566&lpg=PA566&dq=%CF%86%CE%B1%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%CE%B1+job+6:3+septuagint&source=bl&ots=rqc73BAPED&sig=Eyq5LWLyjAyVgRL4dARigUX6D8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN1JKKyvTcAhWHtlMKHe1XD6QQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%CF%86%CE%B1%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%CE%B1%20job%206%3A3%20septuagint&f=false

See 1 Maccabees 3:51.

Luther Bible in German (1912): Denn nun ist es schwerer als Sand am Meer; darum gehen meine Worte irre.

Keil-Delitzsch: Referring to Job, they say, "His words are like those of one in delirium."

Job speaks of his anguish or vexation being "heavier than the sand of the sea." The result is that his speech becomes "wild talk" (NWT) or as the footnote in the NWT points out: “rash or reckless speech.” Compare Proverbs 20:25.

So Job articulated thoughts in a way that did not reflect his true heart motivation--he also apparently thought that Jehovah no longer cared whether he remained faithful or not (Job 9:20-22). Consequently, Job exclaimed that he did not want to go on living: "Therefore, I will not restrain my mouth. I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in my bitter distress. I loathe my life; I do not want to go on living. Leave me alone, for my days are like a breath” (Job 7:11, 16).

Similarly today, a brother or sister might become utterly discouraged or depressed. They may begin to speak “wildly” or rashly; but how might this kind of talk be handled?

Although it may be difficult, in these circumstances, it is good to remember how anguish can affect people. In the words of Proverbs 24:10: "If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small" (ESV). Since anguish tends to drain our strength both mentally and physically, the Bible encourages Christians to support the weak, and speak consolingly to depressed persons (1 Thessalonians 5:14), and show insight, because having insight will slow down our anger (Proverbs 19:11). This counsel is especially important when parents deal with “wild talk” from their children.

Sources:

NWT

ESV

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/202016088#h=1:0-10:0

Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas: Notes on Divine Infinity

John Duns Scotus imputes the following line of reasoning to Thomas Aquinas:

1) If form is limited by matter, then form is finite (if p, then q--mp)
2) God, being simple, is not limited by matter (deny the antecedent, ~p)
3) So God is not finite (true conclusion, but invalid argument, ~q)

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/

Scotus thereby indicates that Aquinas reasons fallaciously which naturally leads to an invalid argument. By "invalid," I mean that the conclusion does not follow deductively from the premises (3 cannot be deduced from 1, 2). In other words, 1) and 2) do not entail 3).

The argument would be deductively valid if someone reasoned:

1) If form is limited by matter, then form is finite.
2) God is not finite (deny the consequent, ~q).
3) So God is not limited by matter (~p).

I am using the ~ (tilde) for negation.

Now Scotus appears to posit that something is finite or infinite by reason of "its own intrinsic degree of finite or infinite perfection." He argues that simplicity (non-compoundedness) or the state of being non-mereological will not necessarily produce infinity; on the other hand, Scotus asserts that finitude "is not a result of composition." For Scotus, infinity is potentially a positive, intrinsic property--"an intrinsic degree of perfection." But Aquinas clearly believes that infinity is a negative property: it tells us what something is not, namely, not finite or limited.

This technical debates makes us wonder, Is infinite being a measure of intrinsic and unbounded excellence? Imagine an actual qualitative infinity filled with various degrees of perfection. We would normally call such an infinity, "God." So Scotus thinks God is filled with maximal degrees of perfection; hence, Scotus reckons it's possible to deduce other perfections from the attribute of divine infinity.

Ezekiel 16:30 and NWT 2013

The NWT 2013 Revision has some interesting features; it is not just a continuation of NWT Refib8 1984. For example:

"O how I am filled up with rage against you,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘by your doing all these things, the work of a woman, a domineering prostitute!" (Ezekiel 16:30 1984 edition)

Compare the 2013 Revision:

"'How sick your heart was,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when you did all these things, behaving like a brazen prostitute!'"

I'm particularly focusing on the first part of Ezekiel 16:30 which reflects an utter difference in the text: "O how I am filled up with rage against you" versus "How sick your heart was"

Why the disparity between 1984 and 2013?

In the footnote of the 2013 edition, it informs us, "Or possibly, 'O how I am filled up with rage against you.'"

That leads to another question. Why relegate the words about Jehovah's rage to the footnote in the newer version of NWT?

To help answer this question, consider that the ESV chooses the rendering: “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord God, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute,"

ESV explains that "How I am filled with anger against you" comes about from revocalizing the Hebrew words of Ezekiel. So NET translates Ezekiel 16:30: “‘How sick is your heart, declares the sovereign Lord, when you perform all of these acts, the deeds of a bold prostitute."

No explanatory footnote is offered, but we again witness the translational assonance between NWT 2013, ESV, and NET here although NWT in the latest iteration uses the verb "was" as opposed to "is."

Back to the original question, why prefer "How sick your heart was/is," to "O how I am filled up with rage against you"?

The explanation is complex and lengthy, but here are some preliminary remarks:

Bob Utley:

"how languishing is your heart" This is the only occurrence of this verb (BDB 51, KB 63, Qal participle) in the Qal stem. Its basic meaning is "weak," implying weak-willed. But this does not fit the context of the next phrase. Some early copies of the Hebrew OT were found in a hidden room behind the shelves that contain the Scripture scrolls in Cairo, Egypt. These copies have 'How inflamed was your heart,' which fits the context much better and may be the source of the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of "how strong" (cf. NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 426).

See https://bible.org/seriespage/ezekiel-16

K.J. Cathcart Writes:

The unsatisfactory translations of 'mlh lbtk (Ezek. 16:30) in many modern English Bibles illustrate what might be described as an example of wilful resistance to knowledge gained from comparative philology. The NRSV has: ‘How sick is your heart’; the NAB, 'How wild is your lust’, and the JPSV, ‘How sick was your heart’. The JPSV translator does admit in a footnote that, on the basis of the Akkadian, a change of vocalisation will give, ‘How furious I was with you’. The NEB and REB have a satisfactory version: 'How you anger me!’ The correct understanding of this verse was first published by David Hartwig Baneth in 1914, when he published a suggestion made by his father Eduard Baneth that Akk. libb¯ati malˆ u, ‘to become angry with’, had a counterpart in Ezek. 16:30.17 It was noted that the same idiom occurred in Aramaic too. Godfrey Rolles Driver made the same proposal in 1928, and elaborated on it in 1931. All the main Hebrew lexicons admit this identification by Baneth, and the Akkadian loan has been subjected to further scrutiny by Harold Cohen and again thoroughly by Paul Mankowski in his very important published Harvard dissertation. Among early modern commentators, G.A. Cooke accepted the Akkadian and Aramaic evidence for the correct understanding of the text, but some commentators still prefer the interpretation apparently intended by whoever pointed the ˜M. The interpretation of the Akkadian loanword, lbh, ‘anger’, as a cognate of Heb. l¯eb, ‘heart’, is an example of a loanword in the consonantal Hebrew text of the Bible being wrongly interpreted in the Massoretic text. It is interesting to note that the Ì (‘How should I dispose of your daughter?’) and the Í (‘Why should I judge your daughter?’) did not interpret lbtk as ‘your heart’.

See The Old Testament in Its World, edited by R.P. Gordon and J.C. de Moor, pages 5-6.

Knox Translation: "Salve is none, says the Lord God, for such a heart as thine, set on following a harlot’s ways."

Latin Vulgate: In quo mundabo cor tuum, ait Dominus Deus, cum facias omnia hæc opera mulieris meretricis et procacis?

LXX: τί διαθῶ τὴν θυγατέρα σου λέγει κύριος ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί σε ταῦτα πάντα ἔργα γυναικὸς πόρνης καὶ ἐξεπόρνευσας τρισσῶς

A Brief Comment with Respect to Psalm 25 (Lange)

This statement is taken from Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. He is talking about Psalm 25 when he claims:

"the individual features are not concrete enough, to refer them directly to historical events in the life of David."

So I understand Lange to be saying that although Psalm 25 might be Davidic, a datum he does not seem to reject, still nothing in the psalm helps us to pin down historical specifics in David's life such that we could determine when he wrote the psalm, etc.

The Greek Aorist and Its Diverse Uses

The aorist "tense" has numerous uses in ancient Greek speech/writing. I outline some uses, definitions, and examples here:

1) Constative aorist- K.L. McKay (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, page 46) points out that the constative aorist expresses the totality of an activity. See Acts 28:30; Revelation 20:4. 2 Corinthians 8:9 is possibly an example, but more than likely the aorist there is inceptive ("he became poor"). See McKay, ibid.


2) Ingressive (inceptive, inchoative) aorist- The aorist participle λαβών, if translated
woodenly, would be rendered "having taken" (active) or "having received" (passive) the form of a servant: it would thus have reference to an action that is antecedent to the main verb. Yet there are times when the aorist participle also possesses ingressive force and makes an action's beginning salient to the hearer/reader.


3) Consummative (ecbatic) aorist-: This use of the aorist stresses an action's termination (its end). An example is Revelation 19:7: χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν, καὶ δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήν

Certain scholars think ἦλθεν is a consummative aorist (i.e., "has come") whereas others indicate ἦλθεν could be proleptic (futuristic). See https://books.google.com/books?id=p02PCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=consummative+aorist&source=bl&ots=gq3yKxRFh4&sig=nvmj5rQRS5Q8BJFpWApdTPtj0Vk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKsJ7Y893cAhVO5awKHXMdBnMQ6AEwD3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=consummative%20aorist&f=false

4) Gnomic aorist-: Gnomic aorists express timeless generic truths like "Grass dries up, and flowers fall to the ground" (1 Peter 1:24 CEV). Compare James 1:11.

One contrived example I've used to illustrate the gnomic aorist is "The winds blow and the blades [of grass] dance."

"The Greek gnomic aorist is a perfective past tense that is used to represent a generic fact, habitual truth, or habitual action."

See http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics/gnomic-aorist-SIM_00000465

5) Epistolary aorist- This use of the aorist occurs when authors write letters from the vantage-point of their audience (from the standpoint of those receiving the letter). An example is 1 John 5:13.

Cambridge Bible: "As in 1 John 2:21; 1 John 2:26, 'I have written' is literally, 'I wrote': it is the epistolary aorist, which may be represented in English either by the present or the perfect."

6) Proleptic (Futuristic) aorist- The aorist sometimes delineates a future event and in this way stresses an act's definitiveness (Jude 14). Revelation 10:7 is a possible example; compare Revelation 15:1.

7) Immediate Past (Dramatic) aorist- "The aorist tense can be used of an event that happened rather recently." See Matthew 26:65.

Other Sources: http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html

Richard Young

BDF

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Morris-Jones_Welsh_Grammar_0318.png

Commentary on Isaiah 6:2 from the International Critical Commentary (George Buchanan Gray)

Page 105 of the ICC.

Notes for Luke 15:23

NIV: "Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate" (NIV).

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible:

fattened calf. Would feed the entire village. Calves would be fattened with a special occasion in mind, such as a wedding, a son’s coming of age, or some other celebration beyond the purview of the parable. A fattened calf offered more meat than a young goat (v. 29). have a feast. A person of means invited as many people as possible to a major celebration.

The IVP New Testament Commentary Series:

the son proceeds with his confession, but the father interrupts. The son is satisfied to be a slave, but the father will restore him to full sonship. So the father orders the servants to bring the best robe, a ring for the son's hand and sandals for his feet. A fattened calf is prepared, and a party will be held. Fatted calves were saved for special occasions like the Day of Atonement. This is not just any party; it is a rare and complete celebration. There will be rejoicing for the lost son, now found (vv. 7, 10).

Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke:

Within the co-text provided by the parable itself as well as the co-text in which the parable is set, the father’s instructions in vv 23–24 bear particular significance. As in the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, recovery gives way to celebration (vv 5–6, 9).²⁴⁶ Here, though, that celebration comes in the guise of a full-blown banquet, with the table set with the best and most expensive beef, enough for dozens, perhaps even scores, of guests.²⁴⁷ It is as if the father had declared, “Spare no effort! Spare no expense!” Why? Because the son who had slandered his father, the son who had proposed to return as nothing more than a day laborer in his father’s fields, is nevertheless “this son of mine” (v 24).

In a footnote, Green explains:

The adjective σιτευτός refers here to grain-fed beef. In Through Peasant Eyes (94), K. E. Bailey notes that a slaughtered calf would provide enough meat for 35 to 75 persons; elsewhere he speaks of over a hundred at the table (Poet and Peasant, 187).

Luke Timothy John's Comments Regarding Luke 15:23:

the fatted calf. Is literally "the grain-fed" (sitos). In contrast to the cattle left to graze on grass, the beast destined for special feasts is stuffed with grain to put on extra weight and tenderness. It is a mark of great esteem to spend this valuable possession for a celebration. The phrase occurs in the LXX of Judg 6:25, 28 and Jer 46:21.

See Johnson's The Gospel of Luke, page 238.

Bernard S. Jackson also published a work with Brill in 2008 entitled Essays on Halakhah in the New Testament. Chapter Six of the book is "The Jewish Background to the Prodigal Son: An Unrsolved Problem" (page 111). Jackson supplies helpful remarks about the fatted calf throughout the chapter, but please consult page 147 for an estimate of how many people might be fed by the calf. He relies on Bailey on that page.

Of course, calves and bulls were sacrificed to Jehovah God in ancient times. Yet the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery edited by Leland Ryken, et al. points to other uses of calves (page 484):

A fatted (grain-fed, stall-kept) calf also symbolized hospitality and celebration. When guests arrived, proper etiquette dictated a meal with meat (Gen 18:7; 1 Sam 28:24). This show of proper respect for the guest also provided an opportunity to display the prosperity of the host. The indolence of the calf tied in its stall for fattening typifies those who do no work (Jer 46:21). A diet of fatted calves marks an opulent, indulgent life style (Amos 6:4). The fatted calf appears as a symbol of exuberant celebration in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:23). In the days prior to refrigeration, meat was used quickly; hence the amount of food butchered indicates the size of the celebration. A feast built around the slaughter of a “fattened calf” might well include as many as two hundred guests (see Hospitality).

Co-workers or Fellow Workers (1 and 2 Corinthians)--συνεργοί

1 Corinthians 3:9: θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί· θεοῦ γεώργιον, θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε.

Commentary: Who are the co-workers of God mentioned by Paul? In this context, he is likely talking about himself and Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:5-6). They were both ministers of God and each man had "farmed" in Corinth by planting and watering, but God caused the seed of truth to grow.

A second question I have is why Paul uses the language "God's field" (θεοῦ γεώργιον). To what does θεοῦ γεώργιον refer? Could the apostle have been comparing the Corinthian ecclesia to a field in which Jehovah God does his divine work? Granted, Jesus identified the field as the world in Matthew. However, Paul here writes that the Corinthians are the field of God. Therefore, he is more specific here.

Thirdly, why does Paul use the mixed metaphor θεοῦ οἰκοδομή in 1 Corinthians 3:9? In what sense are the Corinthians the house of God? Is there an allusion to temple language here? Both the context and Greek-English lexicons suggest the answer is affirmative. See 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22.

Paul's language in 1 Corinthians 3:9 also naturally leads into 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 about Paul building with fire-resistant materials.

2 Corinthians 1:24: οὐχ ὅτι κυριεύομεν ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς ὑμῶν, τῇ γὰρ πίστει ἑστήκατε.

Commentary: So who are the συνεργοί mentioned in this passage? Could Paul be referring to himself and Timothy? See 2 Corinthians 1:1; 3:1-4. The context of Paul's utterance is the defense of his apostolic authority.

2 Corinthians 8:23: εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου, κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς συνεργός· εἴτε ἀδελφοὶ ἡμῶν, ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν, δόξα Χριστοῦ.

ἄνθρωπος in 1 Timothy 2:5

Looking over Donald J. Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek (p. 40), one quickly notes that ἄνθρωπος is a generic term describing a class. The examples that Mastronarde gives are ὁ ἄνθρωπος (man, mankind) and οἱ ἄνθρωποι (humans in general). See Matthew 12:36. Compare the famed Greek utterance of Protagoras: πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν.

Smyth 1129: "Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. So ἄνθρωπος, στρατηγός, θεός divinity, god (ὁ θεός the particular god)."

For this reason, some commentators argue that ἄνθρωπος at 1 Tim. 2:5 is possibly generic. The context, however, may allow for a different understanding, namely, that Jesus Christ is "a man" (a person) which would be an indefinite sense--not generic.

William Mounce proffers: "ἄνθρωπος is anarthrous, emphasizing the quality of being human; i.e., it was as a human being that Christ gave himself for all humanity (cf. Marshall, SNTU-A 13 [1988] 173). This is not a denial of Christ's divinity (contra Windisch [ZNW 34 [1935] 213– 38], who says the PE teach that Jesus is exalted but subordinate to God and not divine) but an emphatic assertion of the incarnation."

Later, Mounce reiterates: "But ἄνθρωπος is anarthrous, designating not identity ('the Son of man') but quality (i.e., that which makes a person human)."

Yet he offers this explanation as well: "It is difficult, but acceptable, to translate ἄνθρωπος in v 5c generically as 'person' as is often the case with this term (cf. 1 Tim 4:10; 2 Tim 3:2)."

I disagree with Mounce regarding the Son's "incarnation," but his work shows how ἄνθρωπός might be understood in 1 Tim. 2:5.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 7848-7849). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 7845-7846). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 7836-7839). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Location 7836). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Notes on Isaiah 6:2 (Six Wings of the Seraphim)

Hebrew: See https://www.blueletterbible.org/wlc/isa/6/1/s_685001

ESV: "Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."

NWT 2013: "Seraphs were standing above him; each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two."

Targums:

JPS 6:2 - "Above Him stood the seraphim; each one had six wings: with twain he covered his face and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly."

TJBU 6:2 - "Holy ministers on high stood before him: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, that it should not see; and with twain he covered his body, that it should not be seen; and with twain he was ministering."

See https://juchre.org/targums/isaiah/comp/isa06.htm

LXX: καὶ σεραφιν εἱστήκεισαν κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ ἓξ πτέρυγες τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ ἓξ πτέρυγες τῷ ἑνί καὶ ταῖς μὲν δυσὶν κατεκάλυπτον τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ ταῖς δυσὶν κατεκάλυπτον τοὺς πόδας καὶ ταῖς δυσὶν ἐπέταντο

The Great Isaiah Scroll (DSS): "Seraphs stood above him, each with six wings. With two they covered their face, with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew."

See http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#6:2

Commentary by John Ostwalt (The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39):

One pair of wings is used to cover their faces, for even the most perfect of creatures dare not gaze brazenly into the face of the Creator. The sight would be too much. Another pair covers their feet. The precise meaning of this action is not clear. The Targum has “body” for “feet” and says the body was covered so that it might not be seen. “Feet” is sometimes used in ancient Near Eastern literature as a euphemism for genitalia, and it is possible that such a meaning is intended here (cf. also Ruth 3:4, 7, 8). In any case, the sense is the same, with the part standing for the whole body. As the creature should not look upon the Creator, so the created should not be displayed in the sight of the Creator. But to be in the presence of the Creator is not primarily to be prostrated with awe. Rather, it is to be filled with praise. So, with the third pair of wings the seraphim were flying, all the while calling out their ecstatic song.

I want to build on these notes, but one question I've had lately is why do the seraphs (seraphim) in Isaiah's vision have six wings. Is there any significance beyond the stated reasons given in the verse. Just a question that I have since the number six sometimes depicts uncleanness in Scripture or human imperfection.

Polycarp (Philippians 4)

The following is taken from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 4 which I culled in part from Charles Ryrie's The Role of Women in the Church (page 100). Polycarp exhorts the Philippians:

"Teach the widows to be discreet as respects the faith of the Lord, praying continually for all, being far from all slandering, evil-speaking, false-witnessing, love of money, and every kind of evil; knowing that they are God's altar, that He clearly perceives all things, and that nothing is hid from Him, neither reasonings, nor reflections, nor any one of the secret things of the heart."

Greek:

τὰς χήρας σωφρονούσας περὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου πίστιν, ἐντυγχανούσας ἀδιαλείπτως περὶ πάντων, μακρὰν οὔσας πάσης διαβολῆς, καταλαλιᾶς, ψευδομαρτυρίας, φιλαργυρίας καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ, γινωσκούσας ὅτι εἰσὶ θυσιαστήριον θεοῦ καὶ ὅτι πάντα μωμοσκοπεῖται, καὶ λέληθεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε λογισμῶν οὔτε ἐννοιῶν οὔτε τι τῶν κρυπτῶν τῆς καρδίας.

The Potential Meaning of SHACHAH/PROSKUNEW (Zodhiates and Gesenius)

"SHACHAH; to depress, to prostrate oneself (in homage to royalty or to God, Gen. 23:7, 37:7, 9, 10; Lev. 26:1); to bow down (Is 51:23); to crouch; to fall down, sink down; to humbly beseech; to do obeisance; to worship (1 Sam. 15:25; Jer. 7:2). SHACHAH was not used in the general sense of worship, but specifically to bow down, to prostrate oneself as an act of respect before a superior being. Joseph saw sheaves, representing his brothers, bowing down before his sheaf (Gen. 37:5, 9, 10). Ruth bowed before Boaz (Ruth 2:10). David bowed before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). This honor was shown not only to superiors, such as kings and princes (2 Sam. 9:8) or to equals (Gen. 23:7), but especially in worshiping a deity. Therefore it meant to honor God with prayers (Gen. 22:5; 1 Sam. 1:3), even without prostrating the body (Gen. 47:31; 1 Kings 1:47). However, those who used this mode of salutation often fell upon their knees and touched the ground with their foreheads (Gen. 19:1; 48:12). In short, it was a way of showing submission (Ps 45:11) . . . See the equivalent, PROSKUNEW" (Complete Word Study: Old Testament [Spiros Zodhiates]).

"this honour [SHACHAH] was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes . . . but also to equals; Gen. 23:7; 37:7, 9, 10 [?]; but especially-- (2) in worshipping a deity; hence to honour God with prayers, Gen. 22:5; 1 Sam. 1:3; even without prostration of the body, Gen. 47:31; 1 Ki 1:47. (3) to do homage, to submit oneself. Ps. 45:12" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament).

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/shachah.html

1 Timothy 5:17: "Double Pay"?

Greek: Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ·

One Translation: "Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching" (NAB).

Gordon Fee offers the following comments:

"It is clear from verse 18 that honor (see on v. 3) here includes at least pay. But it is highly unlikely that double honor means 'double pay' (as GNB), implying either twice as much as others who do not teach or twice as much as the widows. Rather it means 'twofold honor,' the honor and respect due those in such positions as well as remuneration" (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, pp. 128-129).

From William Mounce's Word Commentary:

Paul begins the first of his four statements about elders on the same note with which he began and ended the preceding discussion of widows— honor— and in both cases honor involves money. The elders who were following his instructions and doing a good job not only were worthy of the peoples’ respect but should also be paid for their work (“double honor”). He will continue in v 18 with his reason: workers should be paid. This was Paul’s general rule (1 Cor 9: 4–6; cf. Rom 13:7) although he himself often chose to earn his own living (cf. 1 Cor 4: 12; 2 Cor 11: 7– 9; 1 Thess 2: 9; cf. 2 Thess 3: 7– 9; Acts 18:3).

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 14412-14413). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 14409-14412). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Raymond Brown and John 3:13

Looking At Greek "Tense" From An Internal Perspective (Emic Approach)

1) The ancient Greek writers were no more hyper-grammatical than we moderns are today when uttering our own native languages. For instance, most English speakers do not stop and think about nit-picky distinctions between inceptive, customary or iterative present-tense verbs. We simply speak according to the conventions of our respective speech community and normally get our message across just fine. Similarly, ancient Greek speakers did not usually stop and ask whether the verbs they read or heard were durative presents, conative presents, or ingressive aorists (an emic perspective). We "outsiders" use these categories to make sense of what we are reading (an etic perspective). The same principle applies to Latin where one encounters ablatives of specification or datives of possession. I do not think most ancient Romans had to stop and think about what kind of ablative or dative a certain construction was. But the Greeks obviously did use tenses and aspects to communicate with other Greek speakers as the Romans employed various cases in their writing and speech.

2) I think we need to differentiate between the Bible writers' grammar and the way we perceive their use of grammar. While I believe a knowledge of aspect morphology or Aktionsart can benefit the modern-day Bible student or exegete, I do not suppose the Bible writers always employed certain verb "tenses" or aspects to make theological points. Maybe the Bible writers did not use verbal tenses to formulate theological nuances at all: that is a larger question in this debate.

Rabbinic Literature in Ancient Judaism (A Brief Primer)

Religion scholars commonly distinguish biblical from rabbinic Judaism. The primary way to differentiate one type from the other is by appealing to 70 CE as the dividing point for biblical and rabbinic Judaism, when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple and the city of Jerusalem. The type of religion practiced before 70 CE is categorized as "biblical," whereas Judaism after 70 is deemed "rabbinic." Of course, by "rabbi," I mean a teacher belonging to the Jewish religion. Jesus' disciples impute the designation to him sometimes (John 1:49). However, after 70 CE, the Jewish rabbis developed a huge body of writings respectively known as Midrashim, the Mishnah, the Gemara, and the Talmud. I will discuss each type of rabbinic literature below. Much of this discussion is indebted to Michael Molloy's book Experiencing the World's Religions, but I do not take my source material exclusively from his book.

Midrashim

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) offers this explanation of the Hebrew word, "midrash" (singular):

A term occurring as early as II Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 27, though perhaps not in the sense in which it came to be used later, and denoting "exposition," "exegesis," especially that of the Scriptures. In contradistinction to literal interpretation, subsequently called "peshaṭ" (comp. Geiger's "Wiss. Zeit. Jüd. Theol." v. 244), the term "midrash" designates an exegesis which, going more deeply than the mere literal sense, attempts to penetrate into the spirit of the Scriptures, to examine the text from all sides, and thereby to derive interpretations which are not immediately obvious.

An example of midrash (exegesis): Walter Brueggemann (Theology of the Old Testament, page 326) gives Amos 9:8 as an illustration of midrash insofar as it deals with "surface irregularities" of the biblical text. That verse reads:

"Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; save that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith Jehovah" (ASV).

Mishnah:

Here is one description of the Mishnah:

Compiled around 200 [CE] by Judah the Prince, the Mishnah, meaning "repetition", is the earliest authoritative body of Jewish oral law. It records the views of rabbinic sages known as the Tannaim (from the Aramaic "tena", meaning to teach).

The Torah - the first five books of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, as handed down by God to Moses - forms the basis of Jewish written law. The Mishnah supplements the Torah, but its laws lack all scriptural references.

See http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/mishnah.html

Gemara:

The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah: it is the second part of the Talmud and the word Gemara means "supplement" or "completion"; the Gemara and Mishnah jointly comprise the Talmud. The Gemara is comprised of analysis and exposition.

Talmud (Palestinian and Babylonian):

The word "Talmud" usually denotes "doctrine" or "instruction." There is a Jerusalem Talmud (also known as the "Palestinian Talmud" and its more notable counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud was completed ca. 500 CE, but gradually edited over time--any deviation from the Talmud is considered to be heretical.

See https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2652565/jewish/The-Babylonian-Talmud.htm

Obiter Dictum Pertaining to Pantheism

Writers define the concept "pantheism" as the belief that God is everything and everything is God; or some prefer to define nature in its totality as sacred, that is, all of nature is God.

However, pantheism is not going to work as a serious Judeo-Christian doctrine of God despite the 17th century efforts of Baruch Spinoza. I'm sorry, but pantheism is less than credible in my estimation and it conflicts with Scripture (Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 4:11). Furthermore, pantheism has unseemly implications for human nature and it abolishes the ontological distinction between the Creator and the creature. I also have trouble seeing how a contingent universe could be God. Spinoza's alternative was to posit the universe as God, say everything else is a divine mode, then declare freedom to be non-existent. We call that view, hard determinism.

Immanuel Kant and German Theology

Two things I'll say compactly about The Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft):

On one hand, it has caused a number of its readers to be skeptical and doubt the existence of an objective or mind-independent world. The fruits of Kantianism with respect to German theology likewise are telling, as J.C. O'Neill brings out in The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery of Thinkers from Lessing to Bultmann.

O'Neill writes:

"Kant is dogmatic about free-will in morality, but sceptical in natural science; he is dogmatic about the teleological principle of the natural order, but sceptical about teleology in morality. We must posit an almighty originator of the world [according to Kant], but we are to be completely sceptical about his existence" (page 64).

Another criticism of Kant's thinking or the legacy that emanated from it, is the proclivity to sharply dichotomize facts and values, otherwise known as the epistemological cleaving of phenomena and noumena. Mikhail Bakhtin criticized Kant on another score, namely, his evisceration of the particular ought in favor of the universal ought.

These are some negative points concerning Kant, not to mention his wrongheadedness (in some ways) and utter begging of the question when it comes to synthetic a priori judgments.

On the other hand, Kant is such an important historical figure and influential thinker that it is hard to ignore him in some ways. He analyzes the ontological and cosmological arguments for God's existence and has some interesting things to say regarding them. Those who choose to read Kant probably need to remember the biblical reminder at Ecclesiastes 12:11-12.

ζητεῖτε, Matthew 6:33 and Aspect/Aktionsart

(1) From The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (p. 15):

"ζητεῖτε (#2426) pres. imp. act. to seek. Pres. calls for a constant attitude. Imp. followed by the fut. forms the apodosis in a Semitic cond. cl. (Beyer, 252-55)."

(2) From Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 499):

"In general, we can say that aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features. Thus, the present tense views the action from within, without respect to beginning or end (aspect), while some uses of the present tense can be iterative, historical, futuristic, etc. (all of these belong to Aktionsart and are meanings of the verb affected by other features of the language). This is the same kind of distinction we have called ontological vs. phenomenological (terms that can be applied to ANY morpho-syntactic category, not just the verb tense)."

Also, from GGBB, p. 2:

"Along the same lines, a careful distinction needs to be made between the unaffected or ontological meaning of the construction and the affected or phenomenological meaning. By 'unaffected' is meant the meaning of the construction in a vacuum--apart from contextual, lexical, or other grammatical intrusions. By 'affected' is meant the meaning of the construction in its environment--i.e., 'real life' instances."

(3) After discussing the present imperatives in Mt. 7:7 and the aorist in 1 Jn. 5:21, Moises Silva writes:

"In conclusion, we may say that an interpreter is unwise to emphasize an idea that allegedly comes from the use of a tense (or some other subtle grammatical distinction) unless the context as a whole clearly sets forth that idea. Whether the use of the tense contributes to that idea or whether it is the idea that contributes to the use of the tense is perhaps debatable, but no interpretation is worth considering unless it has strong contextual support. If it doesn't, then the use of the grammatical detail becomes irrelevant; if it does, then the grammar is at best a pointer to, not the basis of, the correct interpretation" (See Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, pp. 262-263 edited by Moises Silva).

Answering Questions About Judaic Angelology

(1) A Dictionary of Angels (Gustav Davidson) reports that the belief in seven archangels is derived from various sources and authorities, including 1 Enoch, 3 Enoch, Testament of Solomon and Gregory the Great (et al.).

(2) Later Judaism also interpreted the plural pronoun "us" in Gen. 1:26 as a reference to the heavenly angelic council mentioned elsewhere in Scripture (1 Kings 22:19). Of course, Irenaeus tried to combat this idea in Adversus Haereses, as did later writers in the Greek Orthodox tradition (as documented in the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition).

(3) I do not believe it is possible for us lowly humans to answer questions about how seraphs or messenger angels differ in appearance compared to cherubs. As the apostle John wrote, what "we" (anointed Christians) are going to be has not yet been made manifest (1 Jn. 3:1-3). Therefore, if the intricate details of heavenly or celestial realities have not been revealed to those who will one day attend the throne of God in heaven (Rev 4:1-11), is it even possible to talk meaningfully about how the angels truly appear metaphysically? The Bible does not provide a definitive answer to such questions.

Henry Alford's Explanation of 2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1: Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. But here, as there, considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning. I have fully discussed the question in the note on that passage, to which I would refer the reader as my justification for interpreting here, as there, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν of the Father, and σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ of the Son. Here, there is the additional consideration in favour of this view, that the Two are distinguished most plainly in the next verse)

From Henry Alford - Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary

Dating the Gospel of John (External and Internal Testimony)

It is likely that Irenaeus of Lyons and Origen of Alexandria testify to the early acceptation of GJohn and they help us to see how the Fourth Gospel might be dated. There is also Ignatius of Antioch whose date is usually given as ca. 110 CE. So he would be an earlier witness in favor of the Fourth Gospel being written ca. 98 CE and its being accepted as inspired by the Christian ecclesia. Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 120-185) and Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 110/120-180) would also be such witnesses to GJohn's canonicity.

One view of the Fourth Gospel's dating is given by Robert Mounce:

"More recently, the traditional arguments for a late date have been countered by the view that it must have been written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. For John not to have mentioned this incredibly important event of Jewish history is held to be highly improbable. Carson suggests AD 80– 85 as a reasonable date."

Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Location 1233-1236). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

I am more convinced by the late dating of GJohn, but I could accept D.A. Carson's ca. 85 CE dating--it is feasible, even if the date is not correct. In a fairly recent work, Stanley Porter also offers reasons why the omission of Jerusalem's temple destruction is not the coup de grâce for a late date.

Now concerning Poimandres (part of the Hermetic literature), yes, some themes might be similar to GJohn--even some of the language. But that does not prove GJohn uses Poimandres as a polemical foil. Nor do the surface commonalities between GJohn and Poimandres demonstrate textual dependence since the subjects discussed in both works were customarily featured in the ancient world. Compare the DSS and Gnostic works.

As for dating GJohn or any other ancient document, historians don't merely rely on style. NT scholars (for example) use internal and external evidence to determine when a document might have been written. So it is not simply a matter of style, but historians look for corroboration and they explore intertextuality inter alia. There is so much to historical spadework and dating things that are written: the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for ecclesiastical history is quite enlightening.

Translating Proverbs 22:13

A question I once posed to some friends. Any input is appreciated.

Dear "Hebrew" brothers,

I have a question about the translation of Proverbs 22:13. The NWT renders the passage: "The lazy one has said: There is a lion outside! In the midst of the public squares I shall be murdered!"

Yet, the English morpheme "murder," denotes (in this particular context):

"transitive and intransitive verb kill somebody illegally: to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law."

The term "murder" also carries the idea of one human being killing another human with premediation or willful/criminal intent (mens rea). Therefore, would "kill" be a more fitting rendering of RTSH (ratsach) here?

Wilma A. Bailey (author of "You Shall Not Kill" or "You Shall Not Murder"?) writes:

"The word RTSH [ratsach] appears in this verse [Proverbs 22:13] in verbal form, but it cannot mean murder. Animals may indeed kill, but they do not make moral judgments" (page 13).

I will defer to you brothers who know more Hebrew than I do.

Addendum: See Insight on the Scriptures for more details. NWT 2013 renders Prov. 22:13 with "I will be killed" instead of "murdered."

Notes for the Gospel of Mark 2:1-12

The Gospel of Mark tells a vivid and swift-moving story: it is a dynamic Gospel that's relatively short but still contains a lively narrative. Mark reports that unclean spirits and violent winds obey Jesus (1:25-27; 4:36-39). The Lord also performs miracles, but commands people not to talk about being healed (8:30). So what encouragement can we derive from this Gospel when it comes to sin and disease?

In Mark 2:4-5, four men carry a paralytic to Jesus while the Lord is teaching at a house in Capernaum, his usual center of activity. Yet the men cannot directly enter the house since the place is too crowded: there is no more room, not even around the door (Mark 2:2). Hence, these determined persons remove the roof that is above Jesus--they make an opening, then lower the paralyzed man down to Jesus. When Jesus beholds their faith, he's motivated to declare that the paralyzed man's sins are forgiven. Yet some Jewish scribes are at the house and they inwardly begin to question Jesus' authority and his ability to forgive sins. "Only God can forgive sins," they reason (Mark 2:6-7). These scribes consequently accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

Remarking on this account, Eckhard J. Schnabel observes:

Blasphemy is not only the pronouncement of the divine name (Yahweh), as in the technical rabbinic sense (m. Sanh. 7:5), but covers a wider range of offences, including idolatry, arrogant disrespect towards God or insulting God's chosen leaders.

Larry Hurtado adds these informative details about Mark 2:8ff:

Blasphemy is usually regarded as the worst sin among religious people, and so the issue is by no means a small one. The direct forgiveness given by Jesus here in 2:6 is very different from John's "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" in 1:4, and prompts the theological complaint of these teachers in 2:7: Who can forgive sins but God alone? We should note also that the charge of blasphemy anticipates the condemnation of Jesus in 14:63–64, and it seems likely that in this first controversy scene in his Gospel, Mark intended to give the reader a foretaste of the final opposition and the issue that would lead to Jesus' execution (see note on v. 7).

Jesus knows what these men are thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Admittedly, it's possible for someone to claim authority to forgive sins, but with no evidence, the person making such a pronouncement could be defrauding others. However, Jesus banishes all room for doubt by commanding the paralytic to pick up his stretcher and walk. The man thus picks up his stretcher as he proceeds to walk home; all subsequently glorify Jehovah God for the marvelous work that he's performed (Mark 2:11-12).

Jesus accomplished at least three things by performing this miracle:

A) He demonstrated that sickness is associated with sin.

B) Jesus shows that he possesses the God-given authority to forgive sins on earth and he wields this power to heal the sick.

C) Finally, the Lord provides a foregleam of how, as the rightly appointed King of God's Kingdom, he will eradicate sin and imperfection forever.

This biblical account gives us the strength to keep our eyes not on the things seen, but on the things unseen (2 Corinthians 4:16-18). If we are suffering from illness or have loved ones dealing with serious maladies, Mark's account of the healed paralytic helps us to endure as we intently consider our Lord and exemplar, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 12:1-3).

Jehovah long ago promised to heal all maladies. [Ps 103]

Sources:

Jw.org

Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017.

Image is courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

John Duns Scotus and Universal Hylomorphism

Warning: Recondite Post Ahead

Hylomorphism is the philosophical thesis that posits "every physical object is a compound of matter and form" (SEP). By "matter" (hyle), Aristotle potentially denotes the structural material of X (a concrete particular). On the other hand, "form" (morphe) signifies what X is: the essence or substance of X. To use a hackneyed example, wood might be a chair's matter but its form would be chairness. A tree is material--its treeness presumably is not.

Philosophers normally trace hylomorphism back to Aristotle, but in this brief discussion, my comments about hylomorphic entities will be confined to the metaphysical framework of John Duns Scotus (1266-1308 CE), who built on Aristotle's work like many other philosophers and theologians did.

Scotus denies "universal hylomorphism," which maintained: "all substances except God were composed of matter and form, whereas God is entirely immaterial."

It is common to find God portrayed as the being, who is pure form (without matter) and thus simple, that is, God is supposed to have no spatiotemporal parts. He is thus purportedly non-spatial and timeless--existing completely outside of space and time. That is the basic claim of classical theology. So while finite beings may be constituted of form and matter, since Scotus' theology is classically conditioned, he would not say that God is a hylomorphic compound. Nevertheless, by denying universal hylomorphism, Scotus would also insist that material entities have more than one form. According to Thomas Ward, "the Subtle Doctor" contends that material things have a number of substantial forms. Furthermore, what about angels? Would Scotus believe they are pure form with no matter?

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/binarium/#1.1

Compare John Duns Scotus on Parts, Wholes, and Hylomorphism by Thomas M. Ward (pages 76-77).

Notice the thoughts expressed here: http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2007/11/scotus-and-universal-hylomorphism.html

Source of Duns Scotus Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/John_Duns_Scotus_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1178460.jpg/220px-John_Duns_Scotus_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1178460.jpg

Sergius Bulgakov and the Pre-Nicenes (ANF)

I once acquired a book written by an Orthodox theologian from Russia named Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944). As I began to peruse Bulgakov's work, I was surprised at how critical he was of the "subordinationism" evidently found in the writings of Tertullian and Origen. He even talks about the "patristic failure" of theology and not only because the early writers of the church were "subordinationistic."

I do not have time to post much from Bulgakov's book which is entitled The Comforter, but I'd like to briefly relate what he says in a paragraph or two of his book.

Bulgakov insists that the church eventually conquered the pagan philosophy which it assimilated over time. However, the church did not "conquer" or transform the SOFIA TOU AIONOS without a perilous fight or "struggle," he argues:

"At times pagan philosophy infiltrated Christian theology without dissolving in it; and therefore it colored, and even distorted, this theology, having on it an inappropriate and excessive influence. Of course, this influence remained subtle and was not perceived by the theologians themselves. It was chiefly manifested not in specific doctrines but in the problematic, in the manner in which problems were approached or posed, which was what determined the paths thought was to take" (p. 5).

While I believe Bulgakov goes a little easy on the ANF and their relationship with philosophy here, he does admit that pagan philosophy "at times" seeped into Christian theology without being effectively reworked. My disagreement with him aside here, what Bulgakov states on page 6 of The Comforter is quite incisive:

"But we must also mention Stoicism, NeoPlatonism, and Aristoteleanism [in addition to Platonism], for they too color various systems of Christian theology, which therefore cannot be fully understood without taking this influence into account" (p. 6).

This is what I'm saying about Tertullian, Justin or Origen. One cannot grasp where they are coming from theologically without having some knowledge of the schools of philosophy mentioned by Bulgakov. One other point I want to make is that I believe there is great value in studying the ANF. While I primarily examine their writings from a historical perspective, I would not say that it is just an academic exercise for me. The ANF help us to see what "Christianity" believed at certain points in history. As Jesus foretold, the wheat and the weeds would exist in the field together until "the conclusion of a system of things" (NWT), so both truth and error would obtain in the congregation of Jesus Christ until this momentous distantly future age. And while the Bible is the norma normans for Witnesses, the ANF may in some ways possibly function as a norma normata for us.

I hope my last statement here is rightly construed. I am not saying that ANF teachings should determine Witness belief, but I am suggesting that the way Justin or Tertullian exegeted certain scriptural passages may give us food for thought as we try to perceive God's will (Eph. 5:15-17). As Origen was fond of saying, sometimes a drunkard stumbles upon a certain part of the truth or he/she gets a figurative "thorn" stuck in
his/her hand (as it were).

The "Dishonest Steward of Jesus' Parable in Luke 16: Scholarly Comments

καὶ ἐπῄνεσεν ὁ κύριος τὸν οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας ὅτι φρονίμως ἐποίησεν· ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτὸς εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν εἰσιν. (Luke 16:8, Nestle GNT 1904)

The steward in Luke 16 is commended because he acted φρονίμως. The term usually rendered "dishonest" (even by the ESV) is ἀδικίας. Earlier, we're told that the steward is wasteful and Joel Green thinks all attempts to explain the commendation of the dishonest steward ultimately fail. But here are other thoughts on Luke 16:1-8:

James R. Edwards:

Positive appraisals of the steward run aground on the reef of v. 8, for the steward is summarily described as “a steward of unrighteousness.” Thus the actions of the steward are not upheld as models in the parable. They are expressly called adikia, which in Greek means “wickedness, injustice, wrongdoing.” Moreover, the steward is not called a “son of light,” but rather a “son of this world” (v. 8; NIV “people of this world”). What the steward is praised for is not his unrighteousness but his “shrewdness” or “prudence.” This is the key that unlocks the parable.²² The Greek word for “shrewdly,” phronimōs, occurs only this once in the Bible, although its adjectival form characterizes “the faithful and wise [Gk. phronimos] manager” in 12:42. Throughout the Wisdom literature this same adjective is upheld as the ideal of the wise and prudent person. “Shrewdness,” no less than “praise,” is a commendation in v. 8.

Mikeal C. Parsons:

The manager's actions can be interpreted in one of two ways:

1.His action is not dishonest at all. Either he is foregoing his own commission on the deal (so using what is properly his own quite legitimately and to good effect) or he is canceling out that part of the debt that is interest on the loan, thus bringing his master into line with the OT prohibitions on the charging of interest (Lev. 25:36). It is doubtful, however, that the steward's own commission would be included in the state- ment of the amount owed to the master.
2.More probably, the manager’s action effectively puts the master into a corner: the relieved debtors will be so full of gratitude and praise for the master for his unexpected generosity that either the master has to risk great bitterness by disowning the steward’s action, or he is forced, what- ever he really feels privately, to praise the steward for his action: Then the master commended the crooked manager because he had acted shrewdly (16:8a). In this sense, the story is again part of the larger stock of slave-as-trickster stories (as in the Life of Aesop), in which the shrewd slave outwits the master. These stories found their way into Jewish tradition as well (see Culpepper 1995, 310).

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:

became he had done wisely
for himself: the wit, and not the goodness of the man is commended; which, in the language and sense of the Jews, may be thus expressed F16:

``because a man, (עושה טובה לעצמו) , "does good" for himself with "mammon" which is not his own.''

Sources:

James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, The Pillar NT Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2015.

Mikeal C. Parsons, Luke, Paideia Commentary on the NT, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Other articles may be found here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=luke+16+steward&btnG=

Notes on Acts 11:26

From the NIDNTT:

NT 1. In the NT chrēmatizō has 2 distinct senses. It may be connected with chrēsmos, oracle, and with chrēmata, business. (a) In the infancy stories of Jesus, it is used of the instruction of people by revelations. It is usually in the pass., and the recipient is regarded as an instrument of God. Thus the wise men are warned in a dream not to return to Herod (Matt. 2:12). Joseph is likewise warned not to go to Judea where Archelaus ruled and so withdraws to Galilee (2:22). It was "revealed" to Simeon by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Messiah (Lk. 2:26).

In a similar way, in the account of the opening of the church to the Gentiles, an angel "told" Cornelius to send for Peter to come to his house in order to speak to him (Acts 10:22). Heb. 11:7 speaks of how Noah responded "when warned about things not yet seen," and 12:25 encourages professing Christians not to ignore any message from God, for the Israelites did not escape a less serious message from Moses, "who warned them on earth" (cf. also the use of this vb. for the warning given to Moses in 8:5).

(b) In two instances chrēmatizō means to appear as something, bear a name. Thus in Antioch the disciples "were called Christians" for the first time (Acts 11:26). In Rom. 7:3, a woman "is called an adulteress" if she lives with another man while her husband is still alive.

In one of his big Acts commentaries, Craig Keener maintains that ancient Gentiles (prominent Romans in Antioch) scoffed at early followers of Jesus by deeming them "partisans of Christos," a sham king of the Jews: that seems to be how Keener understands Acts 11:26. I.e., he believes it is saying that "Christians" initially could have been a derisive term.

See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/chrematizo

Rogers and Rogers: Inf. as subject. χρηματίσαι aor. act. inf. χρηματίζω to bear a name, to be called, to be named, to bear a title (Jos., JW, 2:488; BAGD; TWNT). Inf. as subject. Χριστιανός Christian, adherents of the Anointed One (Barrett; EDNT; TDNT; Haenchen; BC, 5:383-86).

Compare Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

1 John 2:20--All of YOU Have Knowledge?

This blog entry focuses on ὑμεῖς in 1 John 2:20.

Greek: καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου· οἴδατε πάντες (WH 1881)

I.H. Marshall applies these words to "the true members [of the ecclesia] to whom John is writing." They are starkly contrasted with those who go out from the community (see 1 John 2:19). Due to their "spiritual insight," emanating from the sacred anointing (χρίσμα), these early Christians had the ability to distinguish truth from falsity. Because of the distinctions John makes here, Marshall thinks καὶ ὑμεῖς possibly ought to be rendered "And you" rather than "But you" as numerous translations do (see NIV, KJV, ESV). NWT 2013: "And you have an anointing from the holy one . . ."

Marshall appeals to BDF 442 and Schnackenburg to support the notion that καὶ can have adversative force ("and yet"). Robert W. Yarbrough (Baker Exegetical Series) concedes that John uses καὶ adversatively in 2:20; however, he thinks the conjunction appropriately ought to be rendered "but" to mark the contrast between those who leave the community and those who remain--the readers of John's missive. Furthermore, Yarbrough suggests:

The contrast is probably underscored by the second word of the verse: ὑμεῖς (hymeis, you [plural]). This often superfluous but in this case emphatic[13] pronoun has the effect of heightening the distinction between those who departed and those who remain.

Again, it is the anointing that protects members of the ecclesia even though different commentators exposit the anointing from varying perspectives. It cannot rightly be denied that whatever the anointing is, John proclaims its source is "the Holy One."

Some construe the Holy One here to be Christ (see the Cambridge Bible), but Yarbrough rightly understands the Holy One to be God himself. See Isaiah 48:17; Habakkuk 1:12; 3:3 and numerous occurrences in the Tanakh.

Karen Jobes (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series) offers a somewhat different understanding of 1 John 2:20: she considers the anarthrous χρίσμα to be a pun on Christos. In any event, Jobes identifies the Holy One as the Holy Spirit while acknowledging that the Father or Jesus Christ are grammatical possibilities. Finally, Jobes calls attention to the fact that οἴδατε possibly has no direct object even though most manuscripts supply πάντες/πάντα.

If the more difficult reading (without the direct object) is correct, Jobes suggests John could have been saying, "you are in the know." That is, by virtue of the anointing, you have the cognitive resources to know what's happening with respect to the false teachers.

To "Permit a Sorceress" (Exodus 22:18 ESV)

"You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18 ESV).

KJV famously states: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Elizabeth Sloane claims: "The original Hebrew word used in Exodus, translated as 'witch,' is mekhashepha. But what that word actually meant when Exodus was written thousands of years ago, we cannot know, leaving us with only modern interpretations."

To say that we cannot know what mekhashepha denotes, full stop, seems wrong-headed. Maybe we cannot know with absolute certainty what the word means, but scholars can approximate what it might have denoted when the text was written. We likely have enough data to approximate the meaning.

Exodus 22:18 (LXX): φαρμακοὺς οὐ περιποιήσετε

Brenton Translation: "Ye shall not save the lives of sorcerers."

Targum Jonathan on Exodus 22: "Sons of My people Israel, whosoever practiseth witchcraft you shall not suffer to live."

Compare King Saul's prohibition against "witches" in 1 Samuel 28.

Notice also the LXX connection between the Hebrew word and the Greek, pharmakeia, which is usually translated "spiritism" in the GNT. Besides, Sloane points out, Deut. 18:10-12 issues a similar warning. So it seems clear that witchcraft explicitly conflicts with the Bible's counsel to ancient Israel and the Christian ecclesia. Yet one could reject magic/witches on purely logical grounds as well (i.e., by the light of natural reason). On the other hand, Christians have not been given authority to kill witches/sorceresses.

Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary: "The feminine word mĕkaššēpâ ('sorceress') is the feminine counterpart of masculine mĕkaššēp in Deut. 18:10 (NIV, '[one who] engages in witchcraft'). The difference between the two scriptural references, apart from gender, is that Deut. 18 only condemns the practice of sorcery, while Exod. 22 punishes its practice with death."

Joe M. Sprinkle, The Book of the Covenant, 163:

"In including the case of the sorceress, the author is possibly indirectly condemning the 'sorcerers' of Pharaoh in Egypt who in the narrative had imitated the miracles of Moses (Exod. 7.11) and contributed to Pharaoh's obstinacy. The fact that a feminine form, 'sorceress', was chosen here has struck interpreters as curious. Phillips speculates that Exod. 22.17 is meant to fill a loophole in existing legislation where the prohibition of sorcery previously applied only to men.2 That divination of this type—the exact activities of this kind of divination are not well defined—was more commonly practiced by the female than the male in Canaan is likewise speculative: Deut. 18.10 confirms that men practiced this kind of divination. Interestingly, one of the most prominent diviners in the Bible (under the term 2i«) is the female medium of Endor (1 Sam. 28.7). It is at least possible that an author/ editor of this regulation, being aware of the story of the medium of Endor to come later in the Bible, condemned her by making the form here feminine."

None of the information presented here is meant to justify witch hunting or the Salem witch trials.

Stanley J. Grenz and the Congregator (Ecclesiastes 12:7)--Screenshot

Kalam Cosmological Argument and Al-Ghazali

I. Meaning of Kalam

Merriam-Webster defines "kalam" (Arabic) as "Islamic scholastic theology."

Kalam is "a school of philosophical theology originating in the 9th century a.d., asserting the existence of God as a prime mover and the freedom of the will" (dictionary.com).

One formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):

1) If the universe came into being, God brought it into being.
2) The universe came into being.
3) Therefore, God brought the universe into being.

See https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/243183

The KCA was developed by Arabic thinkers and scholars of the church. One Arabic (Muslim) name connected with the Kalam argument is Al-Ghazali (ca. 1058/9-1111 CE).

II. Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali was a notable professor of Baghdad, who also influenced the Sufi movement (a mystical version of Islam) and gave it some credence (Michael Molloy). This Muslim thinker employed Greek philosophy (chiefly logic) for apologetical reasons: he wanted to defend Islam by the use of reason. See The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. For the purposes of this discussion, it's important to remember that Al-Ghazali figures into the KCA.

See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/misp.12000

William Lane Craig's work on the subject equally has commanded wide-ranging attention. See https://books.google.com/books?id=coZKAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=craig+kalam+argument&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi18KLxs_TbAhUIbq0KHWPPAtIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=craig%20kalam%20argument&f=false


III. Premises of Ghazali's Argument and the Actual Infinite

Al-Ghazali's argument seems to rest upon the premise found in Aristotle that an actual quantitative infinite cannot exist. If the universe always existed and did not have a cause, then it would be an actual quantitative infinite. However, Al-Ghazali rejects such reasoning:

"Ghazali frames his argument simply: 'Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.'" (William Lane Craig)

See http://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/articles/Al-ghazali-argument.aspx

Craig frames the KCA thus:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (P1)
2. The universe began to exist. (P2)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (C)

The argument is formally valid since the conclusion (C) follows deductively from the argument's premises. Whether the argument is sound (both formally valid and true) is hotly debated by theists and atheists and probably some agnostics. It is not my purpose to adjudicate the merits of the KCA: I find it compelling, but know many objections have been lodged against it. I merely want to introduce blog readers to this classical argument for God's existence and shed light on Al-Ghazali's significant contribution to the argument.

IV. Summary of Argument

Among writers that discuss the KCA, Hal Flemings' discussion is worth considering. Consult the sources below.

I have given a brief version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), a line of reasoning that is compelling to me.

To conclude, some Arabic philosophers of the Middle Ages along with church thinkers reasoned that 1) The universe either had a beginning or did not have a beginning; 2) If the universe began to exist, its existence was either caused or uncaused, and 3) The cause of the universe's existence was either personal or impersonal.

J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig have argued (based on modern scientific evidence and the seeming impossibility of an extensive or quantitative infinite) that the universe did begin to exist. Therefore, since it appears everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the universe must have a cause and its cause is likely personal.

Sources for Further Reading (Intermediate to Advanced Level):

Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Wipf and Stock, 2007.

Flemings, Hal. A Philosophical, Scientific and Theological Defense for the Notion That a God Exists. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2004.

Ghazali, Al. The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Brigham Young University Press, 2000.

Nowacki, Mark R. The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1976.