Revelation 21:3--"from the throne" or "from heaven"?

Greek: καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης Ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετ' αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ' αὐτῶν ἔσται

Alexandrian and Vulgate have the variant ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου, but Andreas reads οὐρανοῦ. Compare Scrivener's NT (1894).

Aune writes:

Variants: (1) θρόνου] A (lacuna in C) 94 vg IrenaeusLat Ambrose Tyc3. (2) οὐρανοῦ] 025 046 051 Oecumenius2053 Andreas Byzantine itgig syrph Tyc2 Beatus. The context (21:5) favors reading (1), while the origin of (2) can be explained as a mechanical repetition of the phrase ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in 21:2 (see Schmid, Studien 2: 83; TCGNT 1, 763; TCGNT 2, 688).

Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

On the voice coming from the throne, see Rev. 4:5; 16:17; 19:5. Edmondo F. Lupieri also perceives a connection between ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ and the tabernacle in Exodus (compare Leviticus 26:12; Rev. 7:15; 13:6; 15:5). See Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, pages 333-334.

The Possible Meaning of Hebrews 12:23 (The Soul and Spirit)

Hebrews 12:23 is somewhat complex, so my response to the dualist interpretation of the passage will consist
of three areas.

I want to show that Heb. 12:23 does not mean the soul of man is immortal.In order to facilitate this discussion, I want to focus on YUXH and not just PNEUMA in this discussion.

A) The Semantic Domain of YUXH

When we research the signifier YUXH, it becomes evident there are divergent opinions and views about the denotation of this term. BAGD lists the following senses (glosses) of YUXH:

(1) Life on earth in its external, physical aspects--breath of life, life-principle, soul of animals (Gen. 9:4; Rev. 8:9).

Under this category, BAGD states that when the YUXH leaves the body, "death occurs." From there, this lexicon claims the YUXH evidently lives in Hades "or some other place outside the earth" (Rev. 6:9; 20:4).

(2) YUXH can denote earthly life itself (Mt. 20:28). Rev. 12:11 seemingly describes "loving one's life" (something the "brothers" mentioned in that self-same verse refuse to do).

(3) YUXH is the seat and center of the inner life of man in its varied aspects (Ps. 106:9; Prov. 25:25; Rev. 18:14).

(4) YUXH may also depict the feelings and emotions of humans (Mk 12:30-33).

(5) Lastly, BAGD claims YUXH sometimes conveys the sense of "the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly" (Phaedo 28; Mt. 10:28).

Thus speaks BAGD. Conversely, Louw-Nida gives us an entirely different picture of YUXH. Based on the semantic domains listed in their lexicon, it's possible that the soul is not an incorporeal "substance" which departs from man at death; that is, Louw-Nida makes us wonder if the soul is an entity capable of living in another realm when a person ceases to live "under the sun." Here are the semantic fields listed by L-N:

(1) The inner self (26.4). See Phil. 1:27.

(2) Life (23.88).

(3) A person (9.20).

(4) A living creature (4.1). Cf. Rev. 16:3.

Furthermore, I now list Louw-Nida on PNEUMA according to its Semantic Domains:

(12.18) The Holy Spirit.

(12.33) Spirit, in general (a supernatural being). Cf. John 4:24

(12.37) Evil spirit.

(12.42) A ghost (Luke 24:37). But read this information carefully. It does
not necessarily prove that the common cenception of "ghost" is under
discussion in Luke 24:37.

(26.9) Inner being.

(30.6) Wind.

After examining YUXH and PNEUMA, I will try to explain Heb. 12:23 from my own personal religious paradigm. This discussion is not intended to serve as an exercise in proselytism or question begging, I simply want to show why
the common view of Heb. 12:23 might just be wrong. I will analyze this verse from two perspectives.

(1) The lexical perspective

(2) From a discourse perspective (i.e., I will look at the macrostructure of Hebrews)

I have already covered some lexical aspects of the problem and demonstrated that the best GNT lexica do not fully resolve questions about the afterlife from a New Testament perspective. Now I want to take a deeper look at the lexical semantics of Heb. 12:23 and its literary context.

The relevant text reads: KAI PNEUMASI DIKAIWN TETELEIWMENWN.

The writer of Hebrews uses PNEUMATWN to describe the role that God the Father plays in disciplining us so that we might partake of His holiness. Heb. 12:9 calls God the "Father of our spirits" ["our spiritual life" NWT 2013].

DIKAIOS is also utilized in Heb. 10:38 where the term clearly applies to Christians in the "here and now." Of course, one might feel tempted to include "righteous" Abel in the phrase KAI PNEUMASI DIKAIWN TETELEIWMENWN, but this does not harmonize with the author's use of the perfect participle TETELEIWMENWN. Cf. Heb. 11:40.

The only persons truly spoken of as "perfected" in Hebrews are Jesus (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) and his "children" (those who are being sanctified). Compare Heb. 2:10-13 with Heb. 10:14. Notice that the sanctifying is evidently ongoing, but the "perfecting" is accomplished in the present. This point is forcefully brought out in Heb. 10:14:

"For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (RSV).

"for by one offering he has brought those who were to be sanctified into perfect status in perpetuity" (Byington's Bible in Living English).

"With one sacrifice, then, he has made perfect forever those who are purified from sin" (TEV).

As the context and (imperfective) aspect of hAGIAZOMENOUS (present passive middle participle) of 10:14 demonstrate, the sanctifying is continual but the perfecting is completed when one is justified via Christ's blood. My point: the discussion about "spirits" in Heb. 12:23 does not apply to men and women who have departed, but to living, breathing beings who have already been perfected and are being sanctified.

This is the same conclusion George Wesley Buchanan reaches in his Anchor Bible Commentary. Commenting upon this lingual unit, KAI KRITHi QEWi PANTWN, Buchanan writes:

"Also present was God [the] Judge of all on the Day of Atonement . . . If the sacrifices were properly performed so that atonement really took place, on the Day of Atonement "[the] spirits of the righteous were "perfected," meaning that all their sins were removed and they were sanctified" (Buchanan 223).

Indeed the macrostructure of Hebrews suggests such an interpretation. In the context of Heb. 9-10, the Day of Atonement is the topic of discourse. In these fateful chapters, the writer both engages in comparing and contrasting the ancient Israelite ritual with what Christ accomplished. What the Mosaic covenant was unable to effect, the new covenant is able to accomplish. Through the blood of the new covenant, Jesus makes perfect the spirits of those who are being sanctified. He is the antitypical priest who has presided over the greater Day of Atonement. As pointed out by Buchanan, being "perfected" means that one's sins are "removed," as it were (i.e., one's sins are no longer imputed to one's personal being). One does not have to wait until death to reach this goal (TELOS).

Hebrews 11:5-6 (Enoch Pleased God Well)

Hebrews 11:4-5 (Greek, THGNT): Πίστει Ἐνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός· πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐηρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ· 6 χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον εὐαρεστῆσαι· πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ θεῷ ὅτι ἔστιν καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται.

Genesis 5:24 (LXX): καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός

Robertson's WP: "That he had been well-pleasing unto God (ευαρεστηκενα τω θεω). Perfect active infinitive of ευαρεστεω, late compound from ευαρεστος (well-pleasing), in N.T. only in Heb 11:5f.; 13:16 . With dative case θεω. Quoted here from Ge 5:22,24. The word is common of a servant pleasing his master."

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

For LXX occurrences of this word, see Genesis 5:22, 24; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 39:4; 48:15; Exodus 21:8; Judges 10:16; Psalm 26:3; 35:14; 56:13; 116:9.

Genesis 5:22 (Brenton): "And Enoch was well-pleasing to God after his begetting Mathusala, two hundred years, and he begot sons and daughters."

5:24 (Brenton): "And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him."

To see how euaresteo functions thematically in the Epistle to Hebrews, vide David A. desilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews," Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, pages 389-392.

Psalm 105:19--The Saying of Jehovah Refined Him?

Psalm 105:19 (ASV): "Until the time that his word came to pass, The word of Jehovah tried him."

Darby: "Until the time when what he said came about: the word of Jehovah tried him."

ESV: "until what he had said came to pass, the word of the Lord tested him."

NABRE: "Till his prediction came to pass, and the word of the Lord proved him true."

NET: "until the time when his prediction came true. The Lord’s word proved him right."

NWT 2013: "Until the time that his word proved true, The saying of Jehovah is what refined him."

NICOT Commentary:

The psalm, like the book of Genesis, asserts that God’s will was being worked out through the suffering and agency of a singular, vulnerable ancestor — Joseph. The sufferings of Joseph are described metaphorically in v. 18: they inflicted his feet with a fetter; his neck was placed in iron. The transition to the story of Joseph comes in v. 19, with the understated phrase: until his word came to be. The verse is a reference to the tradition of Joseph’s gift of interpreting dreams and the story that he languished in prison until the time came when his word was fulfilled. The second half of the verse — until the word of the LORD tested him — is variously interpreted. One view (cf. NIV) is that the word of the LORD “proved him true,” meaning that the word came true and thus proved Joseph’s authenticity (2 Sam. 22:31 provides a possible support for this view, but the passive use of the verb ṣārap there undermines the interpretation). The preferable interpretation is that Joseph himself was tested, with God’s word refining him as in a blacksmith’s forge. The meaning of ṣārap is “to be refined, tested” (cf. Ps. 12:6; 26:2 Qere). Not to be missed is the deliberate double entendre. In the first phrase, the word is Joseph’s and it comes to be; in the second phrase the word belongs to the LORD, and it refines Joseph. There is deliberate ambiguity — the distinction between the prophetic word as “divine” and as “prophetic” is always a matter of guity [sic].

Rashi:

the saying of the Lord purified him: It tried Joseph, for he was tested and he overcame the temptation [to sin] with his master’s wife, and he was tortured because of her and purified with tortures to place him in the dungeon.

"Non Sum Dignus" (Luke and Plautus)

I am familiar with the Catholic practice of uttering "Domine, non sum dignus" in the so-called "Holy Communion of the Traditional Latin Rite." Moreover, my understanding is that the locus classicus of these words is Luke 7:6 (Vulgata) although I have found a similar use of the operative phrase in Plautus (254-184 BCE). He writes: "Quia enim non sum dignus prae te, ut figam palum in parietem" (from the play, Miles Gloriosus 1140).

2 Peter 3:1 (Greek and Latin Texts)

Greek: Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν, ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν (Westcott-Hort)

Stepbible Manuscript Variant Apparatus: ὑμῶν] p72 ‭א A B C Byz WH

ἡμῶν] al ς

omit] pc

Latin Vulgate: hanc ecce vobis carissimi secundam scribo epistulam in quibus excito vestram in commonitione sinceram mentem

Gene Green Remarks (BECNT):

Peter addresses the readers/hearers with the vocative “beloved,” saying, Ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν (Tautēn ēdē, agapētoi, deuteran hymin graphō epistolēn, This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you). Throughout this section he returns to address them in the same way (3:8, 14, 17) as he makes his appeal to them to heed his teaching and not to succumb to the heretics’ appeal to engage in an immoral way of life. The ones normally called “beloved” were children, especially only children (Homer, Od. 2.365; 4.817; Il. 6.401; Demosthenes, Speeches 21.165; Tob. 10:13 LXX; Mark 9:7; 12:6), and indeed, when used outside the context of the family, the family comparison is near at hand (as Aristotle, Pol. 2.1262B.23). The use of “beloved” within the early church was a marker of the familial relationship between the disciples of Christ, who call on one Father (Acts 15:25; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 4:17; Eph. 5:1). Since one of the principal contexts of moral exhortation was the family, we are not surprised to find that our author repeatedly appeals to the recipients of the letter as “beloved” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14; 10:14; 1 Pet. 2:11; 4:12). The address lends force to Peter’s appeal and at the same time marks the solidarity of the readers with the author. They are those who are inside, within the circle of the family, and not those separated off, as were the heretics. The force of Peter’s appeal is highlighted by the recollection that this is now the second missive the author is writing to these churches. In the literature on 2 Peter, the weight of discussion about this declaration centers on which letter the author refers to (1 Peter, a lost letter, or even Jude?) and the evidences for any relationship between this letter and 1 Peter. As important as these questions are, especially in relationship to debates about authorship, Peter’s point is sometimes lost in these interpretive conundrums. The opening words of the sentence, Ταύτην ἤδη (Tautēn ēdē, This is now), sometimes appear at the head of numbered sequences (as Gen. 27:36 LXX: “And he said, Rightly was his name called Jacob, for lo! this second time [ἤδη δεύτερον τοῦτο, ēdē deuteron touto] has he supplanted me”; John 21:14 NRSV: “This was now the third time [τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον, touto ēdē triton] that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead”). The emphasis is on the way the second or third in the sequence serves as a confirmation of the previous. The “second” occurrence of some event also appears to hold some particular importance as a confirmation of a previous event (Matt. 26:42; John 4:54; 9:24; Acts 7:13; 10:15; 2 Cor. 13:2; Titus 3:10; Heb. 8:7; 9:28; 10:9; Jude 5 and comments). Euripides remarked about “second thoughts”: “Among mortals second thoughts are, I suppose, wiser” (Hipp. 436). Peter’s comment that this is his second letter confirms the content of the first epistle but, at the same time, highlights the importance of the present teaching. In fact, it elevates the importance of this letter above the first. The expression underscores the weight and authority of the present teaching and thus becomes the basis of the appeal the author makes through the final section of the letter.

My Comments: Compare Jude 17 with 2 Peter 3:1-2. Jude reads: Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀγαπητοί, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

Notes from "On Communitarian Divinity" by Okechukwu Ogbonnaya

I started these notes years ago, but never finished them because too many things got in the way. Roman has inspired me to post what I have so far. Maybe I will build on these notes. All page references are for On Communitarian Divinity: An African Interpretation of the Trinity, New York: Paragon House, 1994. The viewpoints expressed here represent the author's stance, not mine.

Notes from On Communitarian Divinity by Okechukwu A. Ogbonnaya:

Ogbonnaya insists that too much discourse about God is Eurocentric; even African theologians, who traditionally seem to rely on the notion of communality, still adhere to Eurocentric concepts in their theological discussions (x).

Page xiii-Tertullian's historical context permitted him to shape a notion of God "as community." The community notion of God purportedly allows for "ontological equality, personal distinctiveness within the Divine" and "functional subordination among the persons of the Trinity that is temporal rather than ontological."

Later debates about God in the Christian church "fostered concepts of ontological hierarchy instead of equality" (ibid.).

Ogbonnaya relates that Arians misconstrued Tertullian's proclamation, "there was a time when the Son was not" because they did not comprehend the notion of "communal ontological equality," which Tertullian was supposed to have advocated (ibid.). He allegedly expressed this view in Adversus Praxeas but actually expressed the concept more explicitly in Adv Hermogenem 3.4.

There is some debate among scholars as to whether Egyptian religion was monotheistic or polytheistic (33-38).

Ogbonnaya contends that evidence from the primary and secondary literature about religion in ancient Egypt suggests that Egyptian gods "were seen as a community of related beings who are of similar substance" but yet they were differentiated in terms of their hypostaticity and agential features (44). However, Ogbonnaya issues the following admonition: do not confuse modern conceptions of personhood (i.e., individuality) with ancient notions which are framed in relational terms. He points to Grant Allen, who urges that the word "god" anciently signified "a class or community of beings who share something in common" (ibid). The Egyptian gods were viewed as a community: these beings were consubstantial, coequal, but maintained "an independent existence" (45).

Notes on Colossians 1:9-10

Greek (SBLGNT): Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ, περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ,

M.J. Harris: Επίγνωσις (ἐπί + γνῶσις), -εως, ἡ, may mean “complete understanding,” “clear knowledge” (Weymouth), “deeper knowledge” (TCNT), or “ever-growing knowledge” (Barclay; intensive or perfective ἐπί; cf. R 600; Robertson, Pictures 475; sim. Lightfoot 136), but this compound noun need not signify more than γνῶσις (cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT 1: 704– 8). Indeed, after a detailed discussion of the issue (pp. 248– 54), J. A. Robinson concludes that γνῶσις is the wider word, “knowledge” in the fullest sense and in the abstract, ἐπίγνωσις expressing knowledge directed toward (ἐπί) a particular object that, if expressed, is indicated by the obj. gen. (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [London: Macmillan, 1928 ²], 254), viz., τοῦ θελήματος in v. 9 and τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 10. See also the discussion of ἐπέγωτε in 1:6 and K. Sullivan, “Epignosis in the Epistles of St. Paul,” Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 2.405– 16. See For Further Study 12, “The Will of God (1: 9).”

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1277-1287). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

G.K. Beale: The content of the “knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσις) is defined as consisting “in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”: ἐν (en, in) plus the dative (πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει, pasē sophia kai synesei) modifies the verbal noun “knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσις) and indicates content.6 It is possible that the prepositional phrase modifies “filled,” so that “in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” is the instrumentation by which God will “fill.”7 However, that “wisdom and understanding” modifies and unpacks the content of the verbal notion of “knowing” (i.e., “knowledge”) is apparent from our preceding observation that this phrase is part of an allusion to Exod. 31 and 35 and 1 Kings 7, as well as perhaps secondarily Isa. 11:2, where “knowledge,” “wisdom,” and “understanding” are placed in synonymous parallelism, and all convey the general notion of “effective understanding.”8 This is a “wisdom and understanding” about God’s will, especially how he wants them to live.

Beale, BECNT on Colossians, Philemon.

Scripture As the Written Word of God (Sailhamer)

I've been reading a book by John H. Sailhamer that discusses Old Testament theology: it seems to be one of the more thorough OT theology introductions. In any event, Sailhamer makes this point about calling written scripture, the Word of God:

We will argue that both Scripture itself and the classical formulations of the doctrine of Scripture in the church lay the stress on the written Word of God as the locus of special revelation. In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul writes, “All scripture is inspired by God.” In calling Scripture “inspired,” Paul gives it the highest claim to authority. It is specifically “Scripture” that Paul points to as the locus of God’s revelation. We should add that it was the OT that Paul was primarily referring to in this passage as Scripture. Moreover, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter says, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Passages such as these in the NT have been primarily responsible for the classical identification of Scripture (sacra scriptura) and God’s Word (verbum dei) in Protestant theology.¹⁴ Although such an understanding of the nature of Scripture cannot claim universal acceptance among modern theologians,¹⁵ it remains the hallmark of those theologians who call themselves evangelical.¹⁶

From Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (pages 54-55, electronic edition), published by Zondervan, 2010.

Osiris Described as "most great god" in the Greek Papyri

According to Amazon, I purchased Select Papyri, Volume II, Public Documents (Loeb 282, Greek) on 8/20/2004. This volume contains a reference to Osiris being called the great god; here is the image from the Loeb work:

Contra Celsum 8.30 (Origen)--On Food

As to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on this point, to recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus, which is known to most Christians: "The eating of animals," says he, "is a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is more agreeable to reason." It is not, therefore, simply an account of some traditions of our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those called gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have here mentioned. It is not to be supposed, however, that we are to abstain from the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to abstain from all race and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only from the flesh of animals, but from all other kinds of food, if we cannot partake of them without incurring evil, and the consequences of evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or for the mere gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes. If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it is evidently, therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it is the reasonable soul alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily organs with due honours to the grave. For it is not right that the dwelling-place of the rational soul should be cast aside anywhere without honour, like the carcasses of brute beasts; and so much the more when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the honour of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the organs of the body in which it resided.

For his complete statement, see https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm

Example of Logic Exam

In order to do theology, it helps to know logic. So I now provide you with a sample logic assessment:

Logic Assessment 2 (PHI 101.01)

Dr. E.G. Foster

I. Identifying Deductive and Inductive Arguments

1. Is it possible for a valid deductive argument to have all true premises and a false conclusion? Explain your answer.


2. Is the following argument deductive or inductive?

A) For native speakers of English, Japanese is more difficult than French.
B) For native speakers of English, Chinese is more difficult than Japanese.
C) Therefore, for native speakers of English, Chinese is more difficult than French.

3. Define “inductive argument.”


4. Is the following argument inductive or deductive?

A) Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder.
B) John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon.
C) John confessed to the crime.
D) Therefore, John committed the murder.

5. Is the following argument, valid or invalid?

A) No S are P
B) Some M are S
C) Therefore, Some M are P

A Little Latin (6/13/2020)

I'm trying to introduce a modicum of Latin in my blog entries. Today, I'll briefly discuss present indicative active verbs: second conjugation. My source is John F. Collins' work, A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin.

Collins teaches that the present indicative active Latin verb of the second conjugation is formed by removing the -re ending from the present infinitive, which is the second principal part of the verb. In other words, if we take the verb, moneo, the principal parts are moneo, monere, monui, monitus ("warn, advice"). Notice that the second principal part of moneo is monere, which is a present infinitive. So if we drop the -re ending on monere, we've now derived the present stem, which is mone (with a macron over the 'e').

From that present stem, we can now build present indicative active, second conjugation Latin verbs. Like Collins, I will list the paradigm for moneo:

Singular
1. moneo (I warn)
2. mones (you warn)
3. monet (he/she/it warns)

Plural
1. monemus (we warn)
2. monetis (you warn)
3. monent (they warn)

One thing we learn by analyzing Greek or Latin verbs is the regular patterns that occur in both languages: once you learn the patterns, other facets of the language begin to make sense.

Guide for the Perplexed 3.XXXII (Maimonides)

In Guide for the Perplexed, 3.XXXII, Rabbi Maimonides writes:

What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. v. 26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire] the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.

Friedlander Edition

1 John 5:7 in Hixson/Gurry

Elijah Hixson and Peter Gurry discuss 1 John 5:7 in more than one place. But in their book, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, they make these remarks on pages 207-8. I actually use three different copies of this book: one in PDF, another on Scribd, and I have the paperback version: talk about largesse. At any rate, here's one quote about 1 John 5:7:

Sometimes the impression from the apologetic literature is that variants do not matter at all. Others are more careful to claim only that “no orthodox doctrine or ethical practice of Christianity depends solely on any disputed wording.”⁵⁴ Daniel Wallace is even more precise, admitting that some “noncentral” beliefs or practices seem to be affected by viable variants but that “no viable variant affects any cardinal truth of the New Testament.”⁵⁵ Both qualifications (“viable” and “cardinal”) are important and match what we have here called difficult and important variants. In this sense, Wallace is surely right that no core Christian doctrine (e.g., the resurrection, the deity of Christ, salvation, the Trinity) is based solely on a textually difficult passage. Even Bart Ehrman grants that his own view is not a problem for this conclusion. He has said publicly that his view is not at odds with that of his mentor, Bruce Metzger, which is that “essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”⁵⁶ That is not to say, however, that no passage that addresses or touches on core doctrines is textually suspect. Some certainly are, such as 1 John 5:7-8, which says in the King James Version, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” That is as explicit a definition of the Trinity as one finds in the Bible. Yet no serious textual critic today accepts this reading as authentic, and neither do evangelical theologians, who are still quite able to make a biblical case for the doctrine of the Trinity.⁵⁷ In other words, the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity in no way depends on this variant reading even though the variant in question certainly addresses that doctrine. As for variants touching on matters of Christian practice, we might mention the text-critical debates over Romans 16:7 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the bearing they have for some on the question of women’s ordination.⁵⁸ In light of such cases, we cannot claim without qualification that variants never affect texts that touch on Christian doctrine or practice. Sometimes they clearly do. Yet no one would claim that an issue such as the Trinity or the ordination of women is hanging in the balance because of these disputed texts. It would be better to say, then, that no Christian doctrine or practice—major or minor—is determined by a textually difficult passage.

Augustine of Hippo (Confessions--Book 1, Chapter XIII)

But why did I so much hate the Greek, which I studied as a boy? I do not yet fully know. For the Latin I loved; not what my first masters, but what the so-called grammarians taught me. For those first lessons, reading, writing and arithmetic, I thought as great a burden and penalty as any Greek. And yet whence was this too, but from the sin and vanity of this life, because I was flesh, and a breath that passeth away and cometh not again? For those first lessons were better certainly, because more certain; by them I obtained, and still retain, the power of reading what I find written, and myself writing what I will; whereas in the others, I was forced to learn the wanderings of one Aeneas, forgetful of my own, and to weep for dead Dido, because she killed herself for love; the while, with dry eyes, I endured my miserable self dying among these things, far from Thee, O God my life.

See https://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.ii.xiii.html

One Way to Understand Colossians 2:21-22 (N.T. Wright)

N.T. Wright:

It hardly needs to be said that this verse is a contemptuous reference to the sort of regulations Paul is opposing, not a statement of his own views. NIV has, in fact, brought this out by putting quotation marks round the three prohibitions, and a question mark at the end of the verse. The verb here translated ‘handle’ ⁴⁵ is stronger than that rendered ‘touch’, thus producing a downward sliding scale (Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!) which corresponds to the upward rise in absurd scrupulosity. Examples of this sort of regulation are not difficult to find in the Judaism roughly contemporary with Paul. There is no reason either to look to pagan sources or to imagine that only when one has found a religion which said exactly what Paul here says has the correct background been located. The tone throughout the passage has been heavily ironic, and this continues to the end of the chapter. The two arguments here advanced against regulations of this sort are so close to those found on the lips of Jesus in Matthew 15:1–20 and Mark 7:1–23⁴⁶ that many scholars have suggested a conscious echo on Paul’s part. This may be judged probable whether or not the Colossians would have picked up such a reference. The first argument, these are all destined to perish with use, highlights the futility of regulations dealing with materials – i.e. foodstuffs – whose proper use is also their destruction (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13). ‘Perish with use’ does not just mean ‘may wear out in time’, but indicates that ‘the things could not be used without rendering them unfit for further use’. ⁴⁷ The second argument, because they are based on human commands or teachings, refers, like Matthew 15:9, to Isaiah 29:13, where the prophet condemns his contemporaries for their heartless outward show of religion. NIV seems to imply, with its addition of ‘because’ to the Greek original, that this clause is supposed to be the reason why foodstuffs will perish with use, but this is clearly absurd. The two clauses stand in parallel, both commenting independently on the regulations mocked in verse 21.

David Conway and the Problem of Evil

In "The Philosophical Problem of Evil," David A. Conway argues that the proposition "Evil is omni-preventable" is true, regardless of whether it is necessarily or contingently true. He chides those who attempt to make modal distinctions regarding truth as necessarily or contingently true--at least, in this case he does (e.g., Alvin Plantinga).

Does modal logic have a proper role to play in analyzing the logical problem of evil? Modal logic theorizes about logical necessity, logical possibility/impossibility and moral obligations (e.g., "It is possible that P). Its effectiveness with resolving the truthfulness of certain utterances has been called into question, but I'll deal with one sample utterance to illustrate the importance of modal logic when analyzing the logical problem of evil.

Let's examine Conway's claim that the proposition "Evil is omni-preventable" is true. Quite frankly, I have reservations about his approach since the modal distinctions apparently make a big difference here. I do not believe that it will suffice to assume that the foregoing proposition is simply true without qualification (simpliciter). Why is that the case? Imagine S (a person smoking three packs of cigarettes daily) who has made a choice which could be described as "evil" (morally speaking) that leads to yet another evil or bad state of affairs, namely, lung cancer.

Granted, one might argue that God "could" have prevented S from smoking 3 packs a day and he could have prevented S from getting lung cancer by means of this "evil" habit. Yet, in order for God (the omnipotent and omniscient being of Christianity and Judaism) to prevent these two evils, it seems that God might not have created S or the world in which S lives such that S smoked three packs daily and got lung cancer; in that case, God could have prevented these evils. However, while God could have prevented such evils by not creating the world he did or by making a different kind of world, it's logically possible there are good reasons why God did not take such a course of action.

By "logical possibility," I mean "not self-contradictory" or "terminologically congruent." For example, if I utter the words, "Larry is a married bachelor," the statement would be logically impossible; on the other hand, "The cow jumped over the moon" is not logically impossible because the statement does not contradict itself and it's terminologically congruent.

So even if Conway wants to argue that God could have made the world such that S might never have made the decision to smoke, I truly do not see how the occurrence of these previously-mentioned evils disprove God's existence. Why reason that way, since it appears that God possibly has good reasons for making a world in S chooses to smoke or might refrain from smoking? Because if God controls the willing of S, then how is the will of S truly free? What is meritorious about preventing S from putting the cigarette to the lips of S? We might encourage, exhort, warn or admonish someone not to smoke; however, we usually don't force or coerce adults to refrain from smoking cigarettes.

In summary, one of my objections to Conway's assertion concerns the proposition "Evil is omni-preventable" is true: I agree with Plantinga that modal distinctions are requisite in matters of this sort. We have to make subtle distinctions concerning evil and show why God should or would bring it about that S could not choose to smoke 3 packs a day, drink alcohol in copious amounts, become a serial killer or drive 120 mph on I-40, all actions which could be characterized as "evil" in some sense.

David A. Conway, "The Philosophical Problem of Evil," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, (Jul. - September, 1988), pp. 35-66.

Craig Keener Observations About Acts 10:15-16

Keener's remarks are more extensive than what I'm posting here, but this should give you some idea regarding his stance. Taken from his thick and multi-volume Acts commentary, Volume 2:

The voice, correcting Peter’s inappropriate attitude, commands him to stop regarding as common what God has cleansed (Acts 10:15).[438] This passage should probably be included among the early Christian texts that challenged the necessity of kashrut, at least for the Gentiles (Mark 7:18–19; probably Rom 14:2–3; Col 2:21–22; 1 Tim 4:3; Heb 13:9).[439] Some scholars cite a later Jewish tradition about the cleansing of unclean animals in the world to come, as they were clean before Noah’s day;[440] this tradition is probably too late to constitute background for this text, however.[441] The primary point, in any case, is not the cleansing of foods but the cleansing of people who eat them (Acts 10:28).[442] Not calling foods impure in context refers to not calling Gentiles impure,[443] but there is a reason that the image for Gentiles involves cuisine.[444] The image of pure foods represents the Gentiles in two ways. First, because ancient moralists used the language of external “purity” also for the soul and moral behavior,[445] the analogy between “pure” foods and pure people was a natural one.[446] But second, table fellowship between Jew and Gentile was a major factor in emphasizing Gentiles’ impure status. Food purity is related to the basis for table fellowship with Gentiles (cf. esp. 15:20, 29) and is an important issue in Peter’s interaction with Cornelius, at least from the perspective of its critics within the Jerusalem church (11:3). Both in Rom 14:2–23 (in the entire context of Romans) and in Mark 7:19 (if closely related to its following context), the debate over pure foods also addresses the welcoming of Gentiles into the Jesus movement. Part of the original purpose of the kashrut was separation (Lev 11:44); various nations had their own respective food customs (see comment above on Acts 10:12). Acts 10 does not forbid the usefulness of kashrut for Jews, but it forbids making food rules (except the minor ones in Acts 15:20, 29) a basis for eating together.

Expansion of 1 Kings 18:27 Remarks

Donald J. Wiseman (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries):

Elijah’s taunt is that Baal was acting in a merely human manner. He uses terms known to the people from the Ugaritic Baal myths. Was the god musing on the action to take (deep in thought)? Had he gone aside to answer the call of nature (so Targum; NEB ‘engaged’; NIV, after LXX, busy) or had he left on a journey with Phoenician merchants? Was Baal asleep as Yahweh was not (Ps. 121:3–4)? The practice of self-inflicted wounds to arouse a deity’s pity or response is attested in Ugarit when men ‘bathed in their own blood like an ecstatic prophet’.³⁰ In mourning this was forbidden to the Hebrews (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1). Baal’s priests acted like ecstatic prophets (v. 29, NIV, frantic prophesying; better RSV ‘ranted and raved’). This rare form of the verb (Heb. hitnabbē’) is used of mad actions (cf. 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer. 29:26). The fact that there is no response indicates Baal’s impotence (Jer. 10:5).

Simon J. De Vries (Word Biblical Commentary):

MT adds the scurrilous gloss, “and perhaps he is defecating.”

“Elijah . . . ridicule[d]”: Heb. This is the sole biblical occurrence of the word, but its meaning is evident from the context (see the LXX). “Call in a loud voice”—the same as above, only more so. “He is musing (Heb . . . gone aside (Heb . . . gone on a journey.” The interpretation is somewhat conjectural. It is tempting to go along with some Jewish exegetes in taking this as a racy, sly sarcasm meaning “busy at the privy.” “He is asleep and needs to be awakened”: various ancient religions conceived of their gods going to sleep at night—but this is noonday!

The Difference That Greek Prepositions Make (More from Harris)

Originally, then, it was the case that showed the meaning of the preposition, but ultimately the preposition was regarded as giving a particular meaning to the case. To express the point another way, at the outset cases “governed” prepositions, but in the end prepositions were thought to “govern” cases in the sense of determining the case of a noun or pronoun that would produce a specific meaning. Since a plain case is often capable of various senses, an added preposition or prepositional phrase can clarify and reinforce the intended meaning or actually remove ambiguity. For example, a phrase such as ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2Co 5:14) could mean “the love shown by Christ” (subjective genitive) or “love for Christ” (objective genitive), but ἡ ἀγάπη ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ would express the former meaning unequivocally.

(Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek Testament)

Gerald Hawthorne on Philippians 2:26 (Revised Word Biblical Commentary)

Hawthorne translation of 2:26: "I must do this because he was very homesick for all of you and greatly distressed because you heard he was sick."

Hawthorne Commentary on 2:26 (pages 560-561 of electronic version):

ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἦν πάντας ὑμᾶς καὶ ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἠσθένησεν, “I must do this because he was very homesick for all of you and greatly distressed because you heard he was sick.” Two of the reasons for Paul’s decision to send Epaphroditus to Philippi are discussed in this verse and in very strong words: ἐπιποθῶν ἦν, “he was very homesick,” and ἀδημονῶν [ἦν], “[he was] greatly distressed.” The first of these words, ἐπιποθεῖν, denotes a deep “yearning” or “longing” (cf. Phil 1:8). When the object of this yearning is one’s family or friends, as here, it may describe the painful experience of homesickness (Plummer, Martin [1959], Loh [sic] and Nida). The other of these words, ἀδημονεῖν, “greatly distressed,” is the same word used of Jesus’ anguish in Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). It “describes the confused, restless, half-distracted state which is produced by physical derangement or mental distress” (Lightfoot, 123). This distress seems to have been caused by Epaphroditus’s anxiety for the Philippians’ anxiety for him upon their learning that he was sick (v 26b). For some interpreters this is strange behavior for a grown man—that he should be worried about their worry for him (Barth). But a second-century papyrus letter, written by a soldier to his mother, who had somehow learned that he was sick (P.Oxy. 12.1481.4, cited in MM, 382, s.v. λυπέω), shows that this is quite a natural reaction, and it is plainly understandable in any age. This soldier’s words parallel the idea expressed in this verse: “So do not grieve about me. I was much grieved to hear that you had heard about me, for I was not seriously ill.” Like Epaphroditus, this soldier’s pain was increased by the knowledge of the pain that news of his illness had caused one who loved him (Moffatt, JTS o.s. 18 [1917] 311–12). Furthermore, both these verbs (ἐπιποθῶν ἦν, “he was very homesick”/ἀδημονῶν [ἦν], “[he was] greatly distressed”) are periphrastic. This kind of construction gives voice to a persistent continuance in something—in this case, in homesickness and in mental distress. Hence, what Epaphroditus was experiencing was not an easily satisfied yearning, on the one hand, or a cavalierly dismissed state of the mind, on the other. Apparently only a trip home could relieve these deep-seated emotional tensions.

Some of My Latest Acquisitions

Rare Cases of Sarcasm in the Bible

Two ways to define "sarcasm":

n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to express contempt or ridicule.
2. A form of wit characterized by the use of such remarks: detected a hint of sarcasm in his voice.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm

Two possible cases of sarcasm in the Bible are Zechariah 11:13 and 2 Cor. 11:12-29. Another one that comes to mind is the account regarding Elijah in 1 Kings 17-19: the way that Elijah deals with the prophets of Baal is filled with explicit and derisive irony.

Read the letters to the Galatians and Philippians for more examples of derisive speech.

See also https://www.leadershipresources.org/sarcasm-in-the-bible-dale-ralph-davis

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200275063

2 Corinthians 8:18, 22--Identity of the Unnamed Brother

Greek (WH): συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ μετ' αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀδελφὸν οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν

NET: "And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his work in spreading the gospel."

Who was the unnamed brother (τὸν ἀδελφὸν) accompanying Titus (see verses 16-17)? No doctrinal point seems to turn on knowing his identity, but the question routinely has preoccupied scholars. Compare also 2 Cor. 8:22.

Ellicott warns us that we can do no more than conjecture this brother's identity, but going along with the patristics, he indicates it might have been Luke.

Barnes reflects the same uncertainty as Ellicott, but he suggests Luke as Titus's companion while giving the reminder that this conclusion is far from certain. On the other hand, the Cambridge Bible states that the brother might have been Luke, Trophimus or Tychicus.

I'm not sure who the anonymous brother was, but I lean toward Timothy because of his role as one of Paul's συνεργοί.

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/43727044?seq=1

ἐπί, Places, and People (More from Harris)

Robert Bowman claims that ἐπί should not be rendered "over" when it occurs with place names, but that view certainly is not right. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-addendum-to-revelation-510-post.html

Another claim has been that ἐπί should be rendered "on" when persons are being discussed. I've argued contra that view on this blog, but the following quote indicates another reason for rejecting that view.

Murray J. Harris (Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament, page 266, electronic version) writes:

"in marking 'power, authority, control of or over someone or someth[ing]' (BDAG 365c), ἐπί is found with: the accusative (Lk 12:14), 'as judge over you' the genitive (Lk 12:42), 'over his household servants' the dative (Lk 12:44), 'set over all his possessions'"

Two out of three examples above deal with persons ("you" and "household servants,") so how can it be true that ἐπί + the genitive must be translated "on" when the referent is personal rather than impersonal?

Diagnosing the Human Condition: Christianity v. Hinduism

Leslie Stevenson wrote a book that has seen numerous iterations: I guess it's now called Thirteen Theories of Human Nature. See https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/thirteen-theories-of-human-nature-9780190604721?cc=ca&lang=en&

One interesting thing that Stevenson and the other authors of this book do, is compare varying diagnoses for the human condition. What is wrong with humanity? Why are humans so aggressive? Why do we fight one another, envy and slay one another? The answers to these questions are manifold, but a stark difference between Hinduism and Christianity can be witnessed by how each religion answers this question.

The basic Hindu answer to the human predicament is ignorance (avidya). We could say that for Hindus, speaking generally, human problems occur for epistemological reasons whereas the answer Christianity that gives is sin (Romans 5:12; 7:15-23), which is somewhat of a moral failing although it's also a spiritual problem--spiritual in the sense of being related to Almighty God. The heart of a human is bad from his youth up--that is why we sin and commit evils against God and others (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9).

This is just one way among many that Hinduism differs from Christianity.

For more on avidya, see https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095437199

One Explanation of Pahad Elohim and Yirat Elohim (Screenshot)

The Most Popular Scripure That Non-Witnesses Ask Jehovah's Witnesses to Defend Is?

Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

NIV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I have not taken a formal poll or studied this question scientifically, but it seems that the verse I've been asked about, more than any other, is John 1:1, particularly, John 1:1c.

Now we all know John 1:1c has been beaten to death kinda like a dead horse; therefore, I'm not going to keep flogging it, but let's briefly consider John 1:1a. Exactly what does Ἐν ἀρχῇ potentially mean? How should we understand this part of the verse?

The consensus among scholars is that John 1:1 references the same beginning as Genesis 1:1 does. That passage in the LXX states: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

Scholars debate just what "the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 is, but the important consideration here is that it's likely not some indefinite past or eternal past referenced in the verse. Genesis 1:1 is likely about the beginning of creation, that is, the initial point of the physical universe. Even if someone wants to question the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 connection, it's still a fact that Greek grammar cannot settle the question pertaining to the timing for the Johannine Ἐν ἀρχῇ.

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/04/john-11ff-work-in-progress.html

Murray J. Harris Discussing Philippians 2:10-11

I've been reading Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament by Murray Harris, and while I like some of what he does, I would venture to say these pronouncements stretch things a bit:

There can be little doubt that the climax of the “hymn” is found in the universal confession κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, but the four words that follow are certainly no anticlimax or afterthought, no merely formal appendage. Rather, they testify to Paul’s unwavering belief in the ultimacy of God the Father. The worship of the Son ultimately redounds to the glory of the Father, enhancing the divine prestige (cf. BDAG 257d); “wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is glorified” (Chrysostom). If the Son represents penultimacy in the divine economy, the Father represents ultimacy: at the end, God the Father will be “all in all,” utterly supreme (1Co 15:27–28). Paul can affirm not only that τὰ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (2Co 5:18) or ἐξ αὐτοῦ … τὰ πάντα (Ro 11:36), but also that εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Ro 11:36). Yet the Father himself has endowed Jesus Christ with the name (κύριος) that surpasses every name so that the title εἷς κύριος can be applied to Jesus (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5). Paul has clearly reformulated his inherited Jewish monotheism so as to include Christ within the Godhead.

That last sentence above doesn't have to be a stretch, but when read in a wider context, one sees that Harris is claiming Jesus Christ has been taken into a Godhead that was once monotheistic (or monolatrous), but it's now supposed to be a triune Godhead. As Jurgen Moltmann used to say, Christianity does not allow for "radical monotheism," but it must rather be tritheistic. My point here is that Philippians 2:10-11 can be read another way: it stretches the textual/scriptural language to implicate Paul in some reformulation of his Jewish monotheism which affirmed the words of Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5.

Matthew 6:13b (Murray J. Harris)

In the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:13b), not ἐκ but ἀπό follows ῥῦσαι. In the NT ῥύεσθαι ἐκ denotes deliverance from nonpersonal evil (7×; note esp. 2Pe 2:9, ἐκ πειρασμοῦ), never personal enemies, while (elsewhere) ἀπό with ῥύεσθαι is twice used with persons (Ro 15:31; 2Th 3:2) and once with a nonpersonal object (2Ti 4:18). In Mt 13:19, 38 and probably 5:37, as also in Jn 17:15, ὁ πονηρός refers to “the evil one” (= the devil/Satan). If τοῦ πονηροῦ in Mt 6:13 referred to “evil,” we might have expected ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ (“from all/every kind of evil”; cf. πᾶν πονηρόν in Mt 5:11). Cf. 2Ti 4:18, ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ. The probability, then, is that τοῦ πονηροῦ means “the evil one” rather than “evil.”

From Murray J, Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament, page 63 (electronic edition).

The Victory Song in Psalm 68:15ff

I don't have a set view on Psalm 68:15-16, but here's something I found in the NICOT for Psalms:

Victory songs often contain not only a declaration of victory, but a coming of the divine warrior to his new mountain temple.⁴³ This is the content of vv. 14-16. Shaddai, another ancient name for God, appears in v. 14 (the Almighty), and the scattering of the kings is associated with snow, another form of God’s control over nature and water. Verse 15 continues to proclaim that once the kings are scattered, God settles into a home on the mountain. Scholars have offered a whole host of geographical places for the names Zalmon and Bashan, but the point of the passage seems to be God’s taking of the mountain, not the exact location of the mountain conquered. Verse 16 declares that the warrior king has settled, and thus the battle is ended: the LORD will dwell forever.

11QPsd appears to contain an extra word, zah (“here”). Only the first letter is visible, and the text is very fragmentary. This would help clarify the situation, for the DSS reads this as declaring a specific place for God on this mountain (Florentino García Martínez, Eibert Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11: II, 11Q2-18, 11Q20-31 [DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], p. 72).

A Brief Lesson in Latin: Why Study It?

Why study or learn Latin? Why should anyone be preoccupied with a "dead language"?

I will give three reasons for studying Latin in this blog entry. Of course, I realize that most people will never study Latin in any great depth or at any great length, but I want to impart some knowledge of Latin and show why it's important to know the language to some extent.

1) Knowing Latin facilitates the study of ancient and medieval theology. Through a knowledge of Latin, one can study ancient or medieval documents in the original language. Scholars know that it's precarious to rely on translations. Furthermore, if one also wants to establish the most likely reading of the text, then it's essential to know Latin well. Some important works written in Latin include Adversus Praxean (Tertullian), De Trinitate (Novatian/Augustine), the Latin Vulgate and the Summa Theologiae. There's also the work by Peter Abelard entitled Sic et Non. The only way to appreciate these documents fully is by knowing Latin.

2) Since Jerome translated the whole Bible into Latin, and that Bible became the official text for the Catholic Church, we have another reason to study Latin. If one compares the Masoretic Text with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint version (LXX), and the Latin Vulgate, his or her study of the Bible will be enhanced. Moreover, many notes in critical editions of Greek texts or Greek lexicons are written in Latin.

3) Study of Latin improves vocabulary, one's writing style, and it can build knowledge of literary tropes. My erstwhile professor in classics also concentrated on Greek meter when studying for the doctoral degree; he likewise introduced me to the wonderful world of Latin meter. Admittedly, I'm still trying to master Greek and Latin meter in my reading of classical poetry, but I'm starting to discern the value of poetic scansion.

Of the many fascinating aspects of Latin can be found in section 427 of the Allen and Greenough Latin grammar, which explains how Latin describes the concept of place without using prepositions. This is not to say that Latin avoids the use of prepositions altogether when delineating location, but it sometimes does. For instance with words like bellī, mīlitiae, and domī. Terrā marīque is another good one.

This post just illustrates the remarkable value that the knowledge of Latin has.

Book Review of "Reliability of the Gospel Tradition" by Birger Gerhardsson (In Progress)

Birger Gerhardsson, Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, Hendrickson, 2001. Foreword by Donald Hagner.

Should we trust the four Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John? Modern scholarship as a whole has cast extreme doubt on the authenticity, veracity, and reliability of the four Gospels. While pushback to these critical tendencies has appeared, one thing that makes Birger Gerhardsson's book unique is his approach to the Gospel’s reliability. He contends that like a good Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth passed on his teachings to early Christian disciples and he made them memorize his teachings.

Gerhardsson's work consists of three sections: a) The Origins of the Gospel Tradition; b) The Path of the Gospel Tradition; c) The Gospel Tradition. These sections try to address questions raised during the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries by Hermann S. Reimarus and David F. Strauss. They question the Gospel’s historicity, hence, their reliability. Especially was this the case with Strauss, who argued that the Gospels largely consist of non-historical myths. The most crushing blow to twentieth-century New Testament readers came with Rudolf Bultmann. He was a German theologian and New Testament scholar still highly respected for his learning and ability to examine texts. However, the downside to Bultmann was his skepticism towards and lack of concern for the Gospel’s historicity: all that mattered to him was Christian kerygma (proclamation), not facts about Jesus.

It is within this context that Gerhardsson sets his task. The assault on the Gospels’ reliability continues to this day. It has not abated. So we need a study that addresses claims of those who cast doubt on the Gospels. And one finds a solid answer to the critics in Gerharddson's study.

Strengths: He contends that the Gospels can be trusted because they contain dependable accounts of what the Master said to his disciples. Granted, the Gospels existed in oral form before Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote them down. Does this mean that by the time they were written, possibly thirty years later, the contents of what Jesus taught his disciples had radically changed? Gerhardsson argues that is not the case. For if we compare the methods of Jesus’ teaching with ancient rabbis and other oral traditions, it seems that no changes of the sort proposed by the Jesus Seminar or Bart Ehrman occurred. The statement could be established by the method Gerhardsson uses and by the results of textual criticism.

Titus 2:13 and the "Great God"

While studying the Greek papyri some years ago, I came across another example that might be of interest for the "great god" discussion that pertains to Titus 2:13: ASKLAS ONNWFRIS hO PROGEGRAMMENOS, OSMOLCIS ADELFOS WN KAI hIEROGLUFOS OSEIRIOS QEOU MEGISTOU.

If I find the text again, I will alter the characters to make them Greek, but I find the nomenclature for Osiris of interest. And he is surely being called "the most great god" (A.S. Hunt), not great one of God.

Important Biblical Dates: Do You Remember What Happened and When?

These are the dates given in Witness publications. Some of them may coincide with secular dating.

1037 BCE-

997 BCE-
ca. 740 BCE-
632 BCE-
607 BCE-
539 BCE-
537 BCE-
515 BCE-
455 BCE-
323 BCE-
167-164 BCE-

How Ancient Greek Changed (Taken from "Exegetical Gems")

Quote is from Exegetical Gems from Biblical Greek by Benjamin L. Merkle:

The Greek language used during the time of the writing of the NT is known as Koine (common) Greek (300 BC–AD 330). Before this era, the Greek language is known as Classical Greek (800–500 BC) and Ionic-Attic Greek (500–300 BC). Many significant changes occurred in the transition from the Classical/Attic Greek to Koine Greek. Here are some of those changes:

•The increased use of prepositions rather than cases alone to communicate the relationship between words (e.g., Eph. 1:5, προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, “He pre- destined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,” NASB), as well as a lack of precision between prepositions (e.g., διά/ἐκ [Rom. 3:30], ἐν/εἰς or περί/ὑπέρ).

•The decreased use of the optative mood (found only 68 times in the NT). Most occurrences are found in formulaic constructions such as μὴ γένοιτο (“May it never be!” NASB; used 14 times by Paul and once by Luke) and εἴη (“could be”; used 11 times by Luke and once by John).

•The spelling change of certain verbs such as first-aorist endings applied to second-aorist verbs(εἶπαν instead of εἶπον, “they said”) and omega-verb endings found on some μι verbs (ἀφίουσιν instead of ἀφιέασιν, “they allow/forgive”).

•The increase of shorter, simpler sentences and as well as the increase of coordinated clauses (parataxis).

Observations About Revelation 21:22

Greek Text: καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ· ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστὶν καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον. (THGNT)

καὶ εἶδον is a stock formula in Revelation, but here, John employs οὐκ with the direct object ναὸν, which is accusative masculine singular: "And I did not see a temple"

"Now I saw no temple in the city" (NET Bible)

Translation Notes for NET, Rev. 21:22:

tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic. Every verse from here to the end of this chapter begins with καί in Greek, but due to differences between Greek and contemporary English style, these have not been translated.

tn On this word BDAG 755 s.v. παντοκράτωρ states, “the Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) only of God…(ὁ) κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ π.…Rv 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 21:22.”

From D. Aune:

This explicit and surprising denial of the presence of a temple within the New Jerusalem suggests that the traditions with which John was familiar expected to have an eschatological temple as the center of the eschatological Jerusalem, for οὐκ εἶδον, “I did not see,” implies “I expected to see but did not.” One important issue is whether this extremely unusual view is possible only within early Christianity, or is it a view compatible with the apocalyptic outlook of segments of early Judaism? It is possible to regard the absence of the eschatological temple in this vision as part of an anti-temple and anti-priestly polemic that existed in various segments of early Judaism, though certainly the expectation of an eschatological temple would be the normal expectation of Jewish eschatology.

Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

αὐτῇ is dative feminine singular of αὐτός, but usually rendered "it" rather than "her" in Rev. 21:22: That is, there was no temple "in it" (the city of New Jerusalem).

Heinrich Meyer:

They, therefore, need not the light of sun and moon; for[4355] the δόξα of God and the Lamb itself fill them with light.[4356] Here where, indeed, the description implies that the δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ corresponds to the sun, and that of the Lamb to the moon,[4357] it does not follow that the same distinction is made also in Revelation 21:11,[4358] because there it is only a φωστήρ that is mentioned, viz., the δόξα τ. θ. appears as φωστήρ, because it φωτίζωι (Revelation 21:23).

Some Questions from an Old Testament Exam I Gave Years Ago (Posted for Fun)

I don't plan on getting written replies for this post, and I'm definitely not going to grade this exam. :)

1. Explain the significance of Israel's Passover feast. (short answer)



2. A man named ____________________ led Israel into the Promised Land.


3. What purpose did the Sabbath serve? Why did YHWH command that Jacob's progeny should observe the Sabbath?



4. Explain the ritual procedures for Atonement Day (Yom Kippur) and why it was observed. (essay question)



5. The book of Psalms is divided into ____________ parts of unequal length.

6. Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” is an example of __________________ parallelism.

7. The longest and shortest psalms respectively are Psalm _________ and Psalm ______________.

8. Job 3:3: “Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night [in which] it was said, There is a man child conceived” is an example of ____________________ parallelism.


9. Proverbs 26:4: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” is an example of _____________________ parallelism.


10. Discuss the family details of the prophets Hosea and Isaiah.

11. What is the main theme of Obadiah?

Philippians 1:23 and DE

Greek for Philippians 1:23: συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, πολλῷ γὰρ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον,

NWT 2013: "I am torn between these two things, for I do desire the releasing and the being with Christ, which is, to be sure, far better."

Expositor's GT: "Philippians 1:23. συνέχομαι δέ (with most authorr.). δέ = 'rather'. Cf. Romans 4:20.— συνέχ. ἐκ. Apparently the idea is that of a strong pressure bearing upon him from (ἐκ the source) two sides and keeping him motionless."

Another Dialogue About EPI and Revelation 5:9-10

The following is a dialogue that I had some years ago about EPI in Rev. 5:9-10. I am now more convinced than ever that "over" is a more than acceptable translation for EPI in that context, and likely to be the right translation.

Greetings H*****,

Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you on this subject. I'm just offering a few closing remarks, but I'll be glad to allow you the last word, if there are any other observations you want to make. My replies will be indicated by my use of the abbreviation EF below.


H***** wrote:

"We are approaching the end of our discussion, but let me add a few comments to the new points you raise below"


Also, H***** said:
"Let us agree that both 'on' (location) and 'over' (jurisdiction) are possible (based on the grammars and major Greek-English lexica). We can cite dozens of translations, and the majority have chosen 'on'. This does not mean that the majority is necessarily right, but it does indicate that many translators believed this to be a possible and legitimate translation of the text, just like others believed that 'over' was to be preferred.

H***** continues:
The choice between 'on' or 'over' is not in my view based on the grammar or lexicons, but on what the text is not saying. It seems fairly clear from the context that this 'rulership' will take take place on what in Revelation is called 'earth' in contrast to 'heaven' and 'under the earth'. This is a very common contrast in Revelation (5:3,13; 6:13, 9:1, 12:4, 13:13, 14:7, 18:1, 20:11, 21:1). Whether the 'earth' in 5:10 refers to the earth during the 1000 years or the new earth, or both, is not clear. Many things in Revelation are not clear because of the many pictures and metaphors that are open to several interpretations. With the assumption that the ruling takes place on earth, it makes no real difference whether you say 'on' or 'over'. With another assumption, it seems to make a difference."


EF: With all due respect, H*****, none of the passages that you cite above substantiates the view that the "kings and priests" mentioned in Revelation (Rev. 5:9-10; 20:4-6) will rule "on" the earth. The writer of the Apocalypse juxtaposes the "new earth" with the "new heavens" (Rev. 21:1-2). This language has to be explained along with texts like Rev. 22:1-5 which suggests the fulfillment of what many have called the VISIO BEATIFICA or VISIO DEI. As far as appeals to context are concerned, that is fine, but we have to guard against subjective interpretations when we make that move. Finally, the choice for "over" is well established by what we read in the lexica and grammars. Of course, none of this means that we have to go with "over"; however, the preponderance of evidence from the best NT Greek research seems to favor it.


H***** wrote:

"And my point is that one needs to look at what kind of object is used for BASILEUW, if an object at all. This Greek preposition is indeed best rendered "over" when the object of ruling refers to people."


EF: You are the linguist, so I first granted you the benefit of the doubt. I still respect you concerning your field, but I do not believe that the conceptual (i.e., referential) and grammatical distinction that you are making between the preposition "on" being used for an object like the "earth" (i.e., the planet or land) and "over" being employed with reference to "people" will hold up under even the briefest scrutiny. The distinction does not appear to be one rooted in English grammar nor is it consistent with what we encounter in the GNT. For example, one English dictionary gives these examples for the preposition "on":

"In a position to rule or control: The director presides over the meeting.

There is no one over him in the department."

What about the nouns "meeting" and department" in these two examples. What about Matthew 24:47 (NWT): "Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings" (AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI EPI PASIN TOIS hUPARXOUSIN AUTOU KATASTHSEI AUTON). Compare Acts 8:27 (hOS HN EPI PASHS THS GAZHS).

H***** replies:

"meeting and 'ruling over the meeting' is not quite the same. I doubt the second is natural English. The two NT passages listed support my point. To be placed or be in a position "over" someTHING is different from ruling someBODY."

EF: English is relevant because that is what started the whole debate and you have leaned on English semantics to make your case throughout this discussion. Moreover, we're trying to figure out how best to render Rev. 5:10 in English (the receptor language). Why would it not be relevant in this case?

My point with the quote from the American Heritage Dictionary is that in English one can speak of being "over" people. Therefore, the distinction you have made hitherto between being "on" with respect to people and being "over" something non-personal just won't stand. English does allow for us to speak of being "over" someone in the sense of exercising authority or ruling over a person(s).

H***** replies:
This Greek verb occurs 21 times in the NT. In the vast majority of cases (15) there is no explicit object, so the text does not use EPI or anything else to show what is being ruled over. There is one case with a simple genitive:
Mat 2:22 ARCELAOS BASILEUEI THS IOUDAIAS (A. rules Judea)

Then there are four cases where it is clearly a person or group of people who are being ruled over- and in these cases, the translation "over" is appropriate and agreed upon by all (RSV):

Luk 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.

Luk 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,

Rom 8:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam


Rev 5:10 is different from all of these.

H***** continues:
In one way, it is closest to Mat 2:22 since the area of rulership is here given as "Judea" or "the Judean (land)". But it is still different, because each king is recognized by the territory he rules, so you have a "ruler of Judea",
"ruler of Galilee". One could argue that Rev 5:10 ought to be without EPI if the sense is "ruling the earth".

EF:
The entry for EPI in BDAG (not the old BAGD) is worth reading again. I also need to look up the examples listed by the lexicon. BDAG states that EPI can function as a "marker of power, authority, control of or over someone or someth., over" (see the entry for EPI, 9a). Revelation 5:10; 17:18; 20:6 are included as examples for EPI apparently functioning in this way.

H***** replies:
It is questionable to say that "EPI can function as a *marker* of power, authority or control over". This is importing the sense of a verb into the sense of the preposition. In the case of BASILEUW EPI, it is the verb that carries the sense of ruling, not EPI. EPI may indicate either the jurisdiction of that power or the location where the power is executed. If the object refers to people, then jurisdiction (over) is in view. The old BAGD is better at this point, since it does not talk about a marker.

EF:
I have demonstrated that the conceptual distinction you are making vis-a-vis "on" and "over" is artificial and AD HOC. English grammar does not seem to require that we limit our use of "over" to impersonal entities. That claim does not appear to be correct. Concerning the argument that you make about BDAG's use of the word "marker," I fail to see the probative force of your objection in the light of how linguistics commonly uses that word: "An element that indicates grammatical class or function; a derivational or inflectional morpheme."

H***** replies:
Since there is really no parallel to Rev 5:10, it seems reasonable to me to take the verb as one of those standard cases where no object is explicitly given, but the place of rulership is "the earth".

EF:
What do you think of the examples that we have in 2 Kings 11:3; 2 Chronicles 22:12?

H*****:
1st one: KAI HN MET' AUTHS EN OIKWi KURIOU KRUBOMENOS hEX ETH KAI GOQOLIA BASILEUOUSA EPI THS GHS.


like Jehu ruled EPI ISRAEL in the preceding vers 10:36. In each case, the ruler and his/her subjects live in the same land. Translations vary, e.g. reigned over the land (RSV), ruled the land (NIV), ruled as queen (GNB), ruled the country (GW). Here it would not be appropriate to say "ruled on the land". One could say for Jehu that he "ruled in Israel" and for Athaliah that she "ruled in Judah". It all communicates the same thing. We have had kings and queens in my country for a thousand years. We could say that the king ruled Denmark. We might say that he ruled over Denmark in case we wanted to exclude Norway and Sweden (once ruled by Danish royals). We could also say he ruled in Denmark, but this would be more common if the king ruled both in Denmark and in Norway. We could never say he ruled on Denmark, but we can easily say "they will rule on earth". This has to do with the preposition "in" versus "on" that are used with different types of objects. We can also say "they will rule over the earth". But as soon as we use "world" rather than "earth" it is different. Then we can say "they will rule the world" (NJB does that for Rev 5:10), or "they will rule over the world". The reasons is that "world" often implies the people in the world (like KOSMOS in Greek), whereas "earth" does not normally imply the people living on the earth. (Rolf cited the Seidelin translation in Danish, but may not be fully aware that this translation often does not use normal Danish. Mrs. Seidelin was a poet and writer and she preferred poetic language for ordinary language. Why they chose "over" here I don't know.)

EF: Aside from the disagreement that I have with you on the point about using "over" for people, I concur with how you choose to translate the examples from the LXX and how you understand them from a referential aspect.

As a concluding part of this email, I thought the observations of Carl Conrad on this issue were illuminating. See http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html3/2000-05/0204.html


Regards,

Edgar Foster

More About the Significance of Biblical "Gold" References (Screenshot)

Roland E. Murphy Comments on Proverbs 8:22 (Word Biblical Commentary)

Murphy translates Prov. 8:22: "The Lord begot me at the beginning of his ways, the first of his works from of old"

His comments that follow: Several questions are raised about this verse: (1) the meaning of: “create,” “begot,” and “acquired” are all possible. The LXX reads “create” (ἔκτισε), and this caused some turmoil in early christological disputes. In view of the following verb ( , “I was brought forth,” vv 24–25), “beget” seems preferable (cf. also Gen 4:1), despite the arguments of B. Vawter (JBL 99 [1980] 205–16) for “acquired,” which was also the understanding of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. (2) “Beginning” ( ) is the preferred translation, but it can also be rendered as “first” (born) or “best.” The above translation construes it as being in apposition to “me” (a reference back to Gen 1:1?) or as an accusative of time. For a discussion of the various renditions of v 22, see G. Baumann, Weisheitsgestalt, 116–20.

Other Interesting Uses of EPI in the LXX

Numbers 3:32: καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν Λευιτῶν Ελεαζαρ ὁ υἱὸς Ααρων τοῦ ἱερέως καθεσταμένος φυλάσσειν τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν ἁγίων

Numbers 10:14: καὶ ἐξῆραν τάγμα παρεμβολῆς υἱῶν Ιουδα πρῶτοι σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῶν Ναασσων υἱὸς Αμιναδαβ

See T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint,pages 263-4.

Genesis 16:13 (LXX)

LXX: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Αγαρ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τοῦ λαλοῦντος πρὸς αὐτήν Σὺ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιδών με· ὅτι εἶπεν Καὶ γὰρ ἐνώπιον εἶδον ὀφθέντα μοι.

Brenton: "And she called the name of the Lord God who spoke to her, Thou art God who seest me; for she said, For I have openly seen him that appeared to me."

NETS: "And Hagar called the name of the Lord who was speaking to her, 'You-are-the-God-who-looks-upon-me,' because she said, 'For truly I saw him face to face when he appeared to me."

Two Interesting Uses of EPI from the Septuagint

Exodus 2:14: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν μὴ ἀνελεῗν με σὺ θέλεις ὃν τρόπον ἀνεῗλες ἐχθὲς τὸν Αἰγύπτιον ἐφοβήθη δὲ Μωυσῆς καὶ εἶπεν εἰ οὕτως ἐμφανὲς γέγονεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο

Esther 8:2: ἔλαβεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν δακτύλιον ὃν ἀφείλατο Αμαν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν Μαρδοχαίῳ καὶ κατέστησεν Εσθηρ Μαρδοχαῗον ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν Αμαν

Cribbed from the Greek Lexicon of the Septuagint by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie (editors) although it lists the verse in Esther as "Esther 8:12e" if I remember correctly.

Stanley Porter on "Literal" Bible Translations

From How We Got the New Testament:

Several observations are to be made regarding a literal or formal equivalence translation. First, no such translation can be as formal or literal as some would ideally like; there is always the caveat that it must still make sense in English. Otherwise, such a rendering would resemble an interlinear version, where there is word-for-word alignment and substitution. If one were to take John 1:1 as an example, a literal word-for-word rendering would read as follows (assuming that these are even the correct translational equivalents to use for the individual words):¹⁰⁷ In –beginning – was – the – word – and – the – word – was – toward – the – god – and – god – was – the – word. This makes some sense (though, realistically, only if one knows what it “should” say), but clearly it is not serviceable English even for the strictest literalist. Some English speakers say “in hospital,” but few say “in beginning.” The preposition “toward” does not sound like idiomatic English, and the word order, if it were not the familiar John 1:1, would be unusual if not unusable, apart from the last clause, which misrepresents the Greek syntax (the syntax should have “the word” as the subject of the clause). There is also the question, for literal and other translations, of whether “word” is the right rendering for λόγος, logos. I could raise questions about other words as well. So, even a simple passage like this makes strict formalism difficult if not impossible; there is always the need for accommodation to the fact that the source and target languages, because they are different and distinct language systems, are not equivalent, and so adjustments in lexis and syntax are required. A second observation, often overlooked in discussion of translation theory in general and particular translations specifically, is that such literalism (and what we now see as awkwardness) was never intended by those who were responsible for the Authorized Version in the first place. The Authorized Version was originally commissioned to be as “consonant” with the biblical languages as it could be.¹⁰⁸ Further, the guidelines to be followed by the translators indicated that biblical names were to be those commonly used, not literalistic renderings of Hebrew or Greek.

Critique of the ESV by Mark Strauss (Proverbs 30:26)--Rock Badgers Are People Too?

Mark Strauss wrote a paper some years ago that critiques the ESV. He likes the ESV, but feels that it could be improved in many ways. See https://margmowczko.com/a-critique-of-the-esv-by-mark-l-strauss/

One verse that Strauss critiques in the ESV is Proverbs 30:26. It reads: "the rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs"

Strauss mentions the "tortured word order" of the ESV for this passage and its use of the word "people" for rock badgers. Compare Prov. 30:25 which refers to ants as people too. A presidential candidate some years ago likewise insisted that corporations are people. Well, sort of . . .

NWT 2013: "The rock badgers are not mighty creatures, Yet they make their house in the crags."

In the footnote, NWT says the verse is literally "a people not strong." However, in the main text, NWT does not use "people."

But this is one of Strauss' points: "literal" translations are not necessarily good translations.

NET Bible: "rock badgers are creatures with little power, but they make their homes in the crags"

The word עַם denotes "people" in Exod. 19:5; Joshua 17:14, etc. Compare Jeremiah 5:31. BDB reports that עַם is used figuratively in Proverbs 30:25-26; compare Joel 2:2.

So the problem is not whether "people" is an accurate translation, but whether translating a word/phrase "literally" is preferable to more dynamic renderings.

Recently, I was reminded of the saying, "A translator is a traitor" (Traduttore, traditore).

As a side point, it was also interesting to learn that the KJV rendering" conies" (instead of "rock badgers" or hyraxes) is "a mistake." It's not correct.

Romans 7:14: The Spiritual Law (Jewett)

Greek: Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. (THGNT)

Robert Jewett (Romans Commentary in Hermeneia Series) writes regarding Romans 7:12: "it seems likely that Paul intends to imply that the Torah was created, activated and authorized by the Spirit."

ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν

Compare Romans 7:12; 8:4.

Jewett says ἐγὼ in Rom. 7:14 is emphatic; for a similar use of Οἴδαμεν, see 1 John 5:19 although John does not use γὰρ in that verse.

σάρκινός ("fleshly") could be used in a special Pauline way here. See Jewett, page 461; compare Rom. 7:5.

To add to Jewett's observations, he also notes (461): "For Paul, to be 'fleshly' refers not primarily to the material nature of humans but to opposition against God, for it was precisely in his own zealous advocacy of the law that Paul found himself in such opposition. In his striving to demonstrate his righteousness under the law, he found himself caught in the throes of sin."

For the expression, εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, see Leviticus 25:39; Isaiah 50:1; Jewett 461-2. Paul's use of the article (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) is also unique.

πεπραμένος is the perfect participial form (m/p) of πιπράσκω: the term in Rom. 7:14 is evidently a metaphor for slavery.

Compare Jan Jambrecht, "Grammar and Reasoning in Romans 7,12 and 7,13-14," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 80 (December 2004).

A Duns Scotus Bibliography

Duns Scotus (1266-1308 CE), theologian/philosopher/metaphysician

Bernardino M. Bonansea, Man and His Approach to God in John Duns Scotus (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983).

Frederick C. Copleston, Medieval Philosophy (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1961).

Peter King, “Duns Scotus on Metaphysics” in The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, ed. Thomas Williams (Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 15-68.

Mary Beth Ingham and Mechtild Dreyer, The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus: An Introduction (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004).

William A. Frank and Allan Bernard Wolter, Duns Scotus, Metaphysician, Purdue University Press Series in the History of Philosophy (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1995).

Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, New York: Random House, 1955.

Etienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1961.

Colin Gunton, Act and Being: Towards a Theology of the Divine Attributes , Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Anthony Kenny, Medieval Philosophy: A New History of Western Philosophy, vol. 2 Oxford University Press, 2005.

Also see:

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

https://www.academia.edu/25275580/Duns_Scotus_Bibliography_from_1950_to_the_Present_9th_edition_May_2016_

https://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-text-on-scotus-on-essence-and.html

Moisés Silva's "Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics"

Silva gives his reason for writing this book:

We wish in this book, therefore, to establish principles and develop methods for the study of all types of words (not only theological terms) as elements of language in their own right. Our goal is not to deduce the theology of New Testament writers straight out of the words they use, nor even to map out semantic fields that in themselves may reflect theological structures.⁵⁷ We have the relatively modest goal of determining the most accurate English equivalents to biblical words, of being able to decide, with as much certainty as possible, what a specific Greek or Hebrew word in a specific context actually means. To some students, this task may seem only a bit less boring than, say, textual criticism. But just as the establishment of the correct text—no matter how tedious the process involved or how unsensational the results—is a fundamental step in biblical interpretation, so lexicology takes priority in the exegetical process. We may pursue the analogy and suggest that, although not every exegete need become a professional textual critic, every exegete must have sufficient involvement in that work to evaluate and assimilate the results of the “experts.” Similarly, all biblical interpreters need exposure to and experience in lexicographic method if they would use the linguistic data in a responsible way. In a survey of biblical scholars and students conducted in the late 1960s, some respondents commented on the need for “a better understanding of the nature, use, and limitations of a lexicon” on the part of dictionary users.⁵⁸ The point, which could hardly be disputed, is still valid today. This requisite understanding, however, can only be developed on the basis of a solid grasp of the theoretical foundations of lexicology. It is to these principial questions that the present book is devoted.

Note: The electronic version I used does contain the word "principial." So I did not remove it.

Ginosko in John 17:3: 'Coming to Know'

Some Questions About Genesis

These are not questions that keep me up at night, but I mainly post these questions to illustrate the questions that might arise as one reads Genesis:

1. In what sense are humans made in God's image? Genesis 1:26-27
1a. Why does God say "let us" in Genesis 1:26?

2. Why did Lot linger before leaving Sodom? Genesis 19:16

3. Why did Lot's wife look back when Jehovah clearly told Lot and his family not to look back? Genesis 19:26

4. What was Isaac meditating on as he walked in the field? Genesis 24:63

5. Why was Abram put into a deep sleep? Why did he feel a sense of horror? Genesis 15:12