Moderating the Next Few Days

 I will be busy for the next 3 days. Will try to approve posts the best I can. Thanks.

"If a man dies, shall he live again?"--Job and the Resurrection (Modified Talk)

The well-known "Collins Dictionary" defines death as "the permanent end of the life of a person or animal."

This definition ties in well with the title of our Treasures talk this week: If a man dies, can he live again?

That question, which comes from the book of Job, is a rhetorical question. As we know, rhetorical questions makes us think and they usually have a presupposed answer which is either yes or no. So what about the question, if a man dies, can he live again?

If we consider this question from the human angle, let's see what answer we get from Job 14:1,2, 4, 10. (Read)

Human life is temporary and uncertain like a shadow and it's filled with trouble; humans are powerless to prevent death and once a person dies, no mortal can restore his or her life.

The elixir of immortality: some alchemists in the past tried to produce elixirs that would produce immortality and the Chinese Taoists believed that they could change the body’s chemistry by means of meditation, breathing exercises, special dieting and thus produce human immortality or invulnerability. However, in harmony with the words of Job, none of these things worked. The miraculous fountain of life keeps eluding humanity's grasp, but does this mean that death is permanent as the Collins Dictionary says?

Looking at Job 14:7-9, we find a brighter prospect. (Read)

Maybe Job had the vibrant olive tree in mind when he spoke so assuredly about the dead coming back to life again. Job knew that Jehovah is the God who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9). However, not only will Jehovah raise the dead, Job 14:14-15 tells us something else about our God.

After reading

If a man dies, can he live again? Jehovah loves and deeply appreciates his loyal ones: he has a special yearning to raise them from the dead.

The Hebrew word rendered "a yearning" is “unquestionably one of the strongest words to express the emotion of longing desires,” says one scholar. Yes, not only does Jehovah remember his worshippers but he longs to raise them from the dead.

As we think about our picture for tonight and meditation question, I believe we all can give a vibrant "yes" to the rhetorical question that Job posed. Jehovah will call the dead through his Son and the dead will answer by rising to life again.

WoundedEgo Banned

Banned not because of "dissenting posts," but because he would not abide by this blog's rules and he continually insults Jehovah's Witnesses and calls me/us a cult. 

Plenty of readers have offered dissenting views and I did not block them, but continued disregard for this blog's purpose can result in the moderator showing you the door. Thanks.

Paula Fredriksen on Philippians 2:6 (Screenshot)

 

The Nazarene Commentary and "No part of the world" (Screenshot)

 

Duns Scotus and the Will

Duns Scotus scribit: "In potestate voluntatis nostrae est habere nolle et velle, quae sunt contraria, respectu unius obiecti" 

Hannah Arendt translates this Latin sentence: "It is in the power of our will to nill and to will, which are contraries, with respect to the same object."

Doctor Subtilis evidently advocates counterfactual freedom here. Is it possible that while a rational subject wills or nills in relation to one object, the contrary option remains possible such that one could have willed otherwise? 

The language of contraries reminds me of logic's square of opposition where two statements (a universal affirmative and a universal negative) cannot both be true but they can both be false. E.g., "All whales are marine mammals" (universal affirmative) versus "No whales are marine mammals" (universal negative). Therefore, it's fitting for Scotus to juxtapose nilling and willing as contraries with respect to the same object. 

See the discussion in John Duns Scotus 1265-1965 on page 88 (note 22), edited by John K. Ryan and Bernardine M. Bonansea (CUA Press, Mar 2, 2018).

Note 22 states in part:  Oxon., II, d. 25, q. un., n. 6; XIII, p. 201a: "In potestate voluntatis nostrae est habere nolle et velle, quae sunt contraria respectu unius obiecti"; Ord., I, d. I, n. 149 II, p. 100: "In potestate voluntatis est non tantum sic et sic velIe, sed etiam velle et non velle, quia libertas eius est ad agendum vel non agendum."

Is Wine a Gift from God? (Psalm 104:15)

Regarding alcohol: Psalm 104:15 exclaims that God created wine to make the heart of man rejoice. Paul also told Timothy to take a "little wine" for his stomach and frequent cases of illness, and Jesus both turned water into wine and imbibed moderately himself from time to time (1 Tim 5:21). He was accused of being a glutton and winebibber, which wouldn't make much sense unless he ate food of some kind and drank wine to some degree. Of course the charges were false, but teetotalers normally don't get accused of being winebibbers unless there is some ulterior motive for making the charge or it could just be a mistaken view of the individual suffering the calumny.

Christian elders are also told to drink in moderation--if they drink at all (1 Timothy 3:3). This is not to say that one has to drink alcoholic beverages, but the Bible indicates that wine or other fermented beverages are loving gifts from God. Even a biblical proverb says that strong drink should be given to those perishing, and wine should be provided to those heavy of heart (Prov 31:6). Yes, we have to guard against becoming hooked on alcohol or using it improperly: if we decide to drink, it needs to be in moderation. But doesn't that same principle apply to food, sleep, and using one's tongue? About any good thing can be abused, even the atom. but abuse does not vitiate use.

John Chrysostom once observed:

"Drunkenness then surely does not arise from wine, but from intemperance. Wine is bestowed upon us for no other purpose than for bodily health; but this purpose also is thwarted by immoderate use."

Ecclesiastes 3:11-"eternity in their hearts"

What did Qoheleth mean when he wrote that God "put eternity" (הָעֹלָם֙) in the heart of man? And how does the last part of the verse connect with the preceding portion?

Robert Alter (The Hebrew Bible: A Translation): "Everything He has done aptly in its time. Eternity, too, He has put in their heart, without man’s grasping at all what it is God has done from beginning to end."

Alter's Footnote: "The Hebrew ʿolam means 'eternity' in the biblical language, though some interpreters argue that here it has the sense of 'world' that it carries in rabbinic Hebrew—that is, God has planted in the human heart the love of the world. It seems more likely that the intended meaning is: man is conscious of the idea of eternity (Qohelet as philosopher surely is), but that is the source of further frustration, for he is incapable of grasping 'what it is God has done from beginning to end.' Other interpreters reverse the second and third consonants of ʿolam to yield ʿamal, 'toil.' "

See also https://www.academia.edu/3770261/A_Reexamination_of_Eternity_in_Ecclesiastes_3_11

Philippians 2:6 in the Amplified Bible

"who, although He existed in the form and unchanging essence of God [as One with Him, possessing the fullness of all the divine attributes—the entire nature of deity], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped or asserted [as if He did not already possess it, or was afraid of losing it];" (Philippians 2:6, Amplified Bible)

Sorry, but there is great overreach in this verse by the Amplified Bible. While this passage is a highly contentious verse in NT scholarship, rendering morphe as "unchanging essence" does not seem warranted here at all and the bracketed "amplification" isn't any better.

P. M. Casey writes:

"On a strict definition of 'incarnation,' Philippians 2:6-11 does not qualify because Jesus was not fully divine, in the view of the original author" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God [Cambridge, UK and Louisville, KY: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 112-114).

While the NIV translates Phil. 2:6, "Who being in very nature God," Carolyn Osiek believes that this translation is not wholly faithful to the Greek text. Contra the NIV, she does not think 2:6 teaches the absolute Deity of Christ (See Osiek 2000:60ff).

C.A. Wannamaker's article on Phil. 2:6ff contains the following observation:

"In this passage Paul maintains that Christ's universal sovereignty derives from the Father and that ultimately the Son shall be subject to the Father when he returns his present sovereignty to God. The subordinationist character of 1 Cor. 15:24-28 demonstrates quite clearly that Paul did not believe in Christ's absolute equality with God" (Wannamaker 187-188).

Observations from Wannamaker's article are found in my Christology and Trinity book, which can be purchased on amazon.com.

See C.A. Wannamaker (NT Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 179-193).

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible treats the Greek this way: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped."

The Catholic NABRE reads similarly and contains this footnote on Phil. 2:6:

"[2:6] Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6."

In any event, the Catholic Bibles I've consulted don't translate the Greek phrase, morphe theou as "in very nature God"

Places Where Tertullian of Carthage Refers to God the Father As "Creator"

Adversus Praxean 3: "I prefer your exercising yourself on the meaning of the thing rather than on the sound of the word. Now you must understand the overthrow of a monarchy to be this, when another dominion, which has a framework and a state peculiar to itself (and is therefore a rival), is brought in over and above it: when, e.g., some other god is introduced in opposition to the Creator, as in the opinions of Marcion; or when many gods are introduced, according to your Valentinuses and your Prodicuses. Then it amounts to an overthrow of the Monarchy, since it involves the destruction of the Creator."

The context shows that he is referring to the Father.

Adv Prax 19: "But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His singleness. I have, says He, stretched out the heaven alone. Undoubtedly alone as regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him? (Proverbs 8:27) — even though the apostle asks, Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor? (Romans 11:34) meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him. (Proverbs 8:30) In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. Except Wisdom, however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as except the Son, who is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God, (1 Corinthians 1:24) according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. For who knows the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him? (1 Corinthians 2:11) Not, observe, without Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except alone from all other gods. But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. (John 1:3) And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit. Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is alone (and apart) from all other gods."

Adv Herm 22: "He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. In the beginning, then, God made the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. (John 1:3) But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. (Revelation 22:18-19)"

Ezekiel 41:11 and the Temple Vision

Hebrew (Leningrad Codex): וּפֶ֤תַח הַצֵּלָע֙ לַמֻּנָּ֔ח פֶּ֤תַח אֶחָד֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ הַצָּפֹ֔ון וּפֶ֥תַח אֶחָ֖ד לַדָּרֹ֑ום וְרֹ֙חַב֙ מְקֹ֣ום הַמֻּנָּ֔ח חָמֵ֥שׁ אַמֹּ֖ות סָבִ֥יב ׀ סָבִֽיב׃

Ezekiel's temple vision is one of the most fascinating accounts in the Bible to me--it raises numerous questions and there is so much to learn from the vision. I've often tried to envision just what the prophet saw although our Pure Worship publication supplied some help.

NET: "There were entrances from the side chambers toward the open area, one entrance toward the north, and another entrance toward the south; the width of the open area was 8¾ feet[a] all around."

Ftn: tn Heb “5 cubits” (i.e., 2.625 meters).

The NA Commentary on Ezekiel (Lamar E. Cooper, Sr.) makes these remarks:  "The base extended away from the building for five cubits on every side (v. 11). Behind the temple was another building seventy by ninety cubits with a wall five cubits thick (v. 12). The exact function of this building is unknown (see Figs. 2 and 3),42 although it has been associated with the parbar (“court”) of 1 Chr 26:18, which probably was an open area. This open area may have been in front of the building, or it may refer to the open area of the large room inside the building, whose purpose is unclear."

2 Corinthians 1:9-'the God who raises up the dead"

Greek (NA28)-2 Corinthians 1:9: ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαμεν, ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες ὦμεν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς·

In 2 Corinthians 1:8, after a discussion about Jehovah being the God of all comfort and the Father of tender mercies (1:3-4), the inspired apostle then recounts how that he and his co-workers faced perilous danger when they first entered Asia Minor. It sounds like Paul and his fellow laborers nearly died, but this happened with God's permission. Yet why did he allow them to hover over the abyss of death?

In order that their trust might be ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς

What does this part of the verse signify? Here are some possibilities.

Alfred Plummer (2 Corinthians in the ICC Series, page 19):



Ben Witherington III (2 Corinthians): "There is some question as to how we should translate apokrima in 1:9. The word occurs nowhere else in the NT. In secular Greek it refers to a decree, verdict, or decision that settles a matter.4 Here we are told that it was a decree or verdict of death. But Paul says that he has received this verdict within himself, which leads to the suggestion that he is talking about some sort of illness. He knows that there is no cure, short of resurrection, for the terminal illness by which all, as fallen creatures, die. He believes in a God who raises the dead and so is able to talk of hope beyond and triumphing over death, not of a hope that seeks somehow to bypass death. Paul acquired this death sentence in himself (cf. the 'thorn in the flesh' in 12:7) so that he would not trust in his own strength but in God who raises the dead. But Paul has received a stay of execution. He has been rescued from imminent danger in Asia (1:8, 10), and he believes that ultimately God will rescue him, and so he fixes his hope on God. In v. 11 he speaks of the partnership he and the Corinthians have. They can both pray and give thanks for one another."

Despite making different things their focus, both commentators agree that Paul is referencing the God who raises up the dead. That precious resurrection gives us hope and keeps Christians steadfast especially when enduring severe trial. 

Greek Information of the Day: Intensive Particles (Quote From Blackwelder)

Note the strong inferential force of dē with the aorist imperative denoting urgency in I Corinthians 6:20, “For you were bought with a price: now [or indeed, really, by all means therefore] glorify God in your body.” Findlay points out that the command to glorify God in, not with, the body, makes it the temple wherein each man serves as priest.[135] “Paul’s argument stands four-square for the dignity of the body as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit united to the Lord Jesus.”[136]
The most common intensive particle in the New Testament is men. Its original function was “emphatic confirmation of single words, usually the weightiest word in the sentence.”[137] It may be translated surely, indeed, in truth, and the like. Sometimes men has a concessive force (e.g., II Cor. 11:4, “For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus”), and there are instances where it implies contrast. “Its most common usage is to help differentiate the word or clause with which it occurs from that which follows.”

Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 2612-2623). Reformation Publishers. Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition.

Words of the Month (December 2023)

1. The English word "agglutination" may denote the "Combination in which root words are united with little or no change of form or loss of meaning" (Webster Dictionary, 1913).

Definition given by AI: "Agglutination is a linguistic term that refers to languages where words are made up of easily distinguishable units, or morphemes. The meaning of a word in an agglutinative language can be understood by breaking it down into its base word and word endings"

Compare the Turkish word ev-ler-du ( evlerdu = from the houses). Here, the word contains a stem and two further morphemes.

See http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Morphology/AgglutinatingIncorporatingAndInfixingLanguages

2. Anomalous monism (English)-Collins Dictionary gives this definition: "the philosophical doctrine that although all mental states consist merely in states of the brain, there exist no regular correspondences between classes of mental and physical states, and so no psychophysical laws"

This terminology was first proffered by Donald Davidson in 1970: anomalous monism implies that mental states or events are reducible to physical states or events.

3. σοφία (Greek)-A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Abbott-Smith) defines the word thus: "[in LXX chiefly for chokmah] skill, intelligence, wisdom, ranging from knowledge of the arts and matters of daily life to mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense"

See the entry for sophia to access the entire definition given in A-S; compare BDAG.

Remain Humble and Modest Before Jehovah (Modified Talk)

There is one indispensable quality that all servants of Jehovah need--that is humility. In addition to humility, we also need to be modest or aware of our limitations. King Saul was initially humble and modest, but did he remain that way?

Jehovah picked Saul as the first human king of Israel, yet how did he react to this divine selection? Let's notice Saul's reaction in 1 Samuel 9:21 (read)

Was Saul humble and modest at the outset? Yes, since he referred to his family as insignificant and the smallest tribe in Israel. Saul displayed lowliness of mind, and he was aware of his limitations. 1 Samuel 10:20-22 confirms this point. (read)

When Saul was officially selected, where was he? He was "hiding himself among the luggage." Why did he do this? Saul was humble and modest at first: he did not assume more responsibility despite being chosen by Jehovah through the prophet Samuel. However, did Saul remain humble and modest? He did not but later displayed presumptuous and undue pride. This ancient king is a warning example for us today: he illustrates how we must always work on being humble and modest.

However, as long as Saul relied on Jehovah, he kept a proper estimation of himself. For example, he did not act rashly when others unfairly criticized him. Let's read 1 Samuel 10:27.

Who criticized Saul. The scripture says it was "worthless men." How did Saul react to their unjust criticisms? He refused to answer or respond in kind. 1 Samuel 11:12-13 further illustrates how Saul viewed criticism.

So did Saul take undue criticism to heart? No, he did not, and the reason why is because he was humble and modest. Saul refused to punish Israelites who spoke out against his kingship even though he could have felt justified in defending his God-given position, and when he defeated the Ammonites, to whom did he direct the credit? Saul gave credit to Jehovah. What humility he first displayed.

One other way that Saul showed humility and modesty is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:5-7 (read)

Saul followed the leadings of Jehovah's spirit. Did you notice the courage he displayed because the spirit of Jehovah empowered Saul and he humbly followed the spirit's leadings? What a good start that Saul had; he should have continued to show humility and modesty.

[picture and discussion]

Humility will help us view our privileges and abilities as gifts from Jehovah. (Romans 12:3, 16; 1Corinthians 4:7) Also, if we are humble, we will continue to rely on Jehovah for guidance.

May we start and then remain humble and modest before Jehovah.

Sketching Infinity: The Makings of a Book?

I may never write a book on infinity, but these are some of my meditations in sketch form:

A Relatively Short History of Infinity (Greek Thought)

1) Etymology and background of the word/concept "infinity" in Greek

2) intensive infinity

3) extensive infinity

4) negative infinity

5) potential infinity

6) actual infinity

7) conceptual problems

8) an infinite God

9) transfinite math

10) infinite sets

11) an infinite past?

https://www.google.com/search?q=types+of+infinity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab http://factmyth.com/factoids/there-are-different-types-of-infinity/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003

Scriptures for Encouragement and Support

1) Isaiah 33:24; 35:1-5; 41:10-13; 43:1-7; 59:1.

2)  Psalm 23:1-6; 34:19; 41:1-3; 56:8; 68:19; 145:14, 18; Job 14:13-14.

3) Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 21:3-5; Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:4-6;

4) 2 Corinthians 1:1-9; 4:7-10, 16-18; 7:4-7; 12:9-10.

5) Philippians 4:6-9; 1 Chronicles 7:20-22; 1 Peter 5:6-7; James 5:11.

Matthew 6:9-15--Is Calling It the "Model Prayer" Wrong?

Some places on the Internet where Matthew 6:9-15 is called the "model prayer":

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-15&version=NKJV

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/model-prayer

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A9-13&version=HCSB

https://www.newcovenantgj.org/the-model-prayer/

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-paternoster-model-prayer-matthew-69-15

Numerous examples here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=matthew+6+%22model+prayer%22&btnG=

Acts 1:3 and the The Hapax Legomenon, "Infallible Proofs"

Acts 1:3-Greek (NA28): Οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις, δι’ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ·

Louw-Nida: " 'by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death' Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages 'convincing proof' is rendered as 'that which causes one to know for sure' or 'with certainty' " (Semantic Domain 28.45).

BDAG Greek-English Lexicon: τεκμήριον, ου, τό ⟦tekmḗrion⟧ (Aeschyl., Hdt., Thu.+) that which causes someth. to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof (demonstrative proof: Aristot., An. Pr. 70b, 2; Rh. 1357b 4; 1402b 19; Diod S 17, 51, 3 τεκμήρια τῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσεως; SIG 867, 37 μέγιστον τεκμήριον w. ref. to Artemis; 685, 84; PGiss 39, 9) ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις by many convincing proofs Ac 1:3 (DMealand, ZNW 80, ’89, 134f [Hell. reff.]; cp. Jos., Ant. 5, 39 διὰ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων.— τεκ. used w. παραστῆσαι Jos., Ant. 17, 128. Cp. Libanius, Or. 18, 13 τὸ τῆς φύσεως βασιλικὸν πολλοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις τεκμηρίοις ἐμηνύετο=his regal nature was attested by many exceptional signs).—DELG. M-M.

Herodotus writes:

[2.13.1] "This, too, that the priests told me about Egypt, is a strong proof : when Moeris was king, if the river rose as much as thirteen feet, it watered all of Egypt below Memphis. Moeris had not been dead nine hundred years when I heard this from the priests. But now, if the river does not rise at least twenty-six or twenty-five feet, the land is not flooded."

[The Histories, 2.13.1] ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τόδε μοι μέγα τεκμήριον περὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης οἱ ἱρέες, ὡς ἐπὶ Μοίριος βασιλέος, ὅκως ἔλθοι ὁ ποταμὸς ἐπὶ ὀκτὼ πήχεας τὸ ἐλάχιστον, ἄρδεσκε Αἴγυπτον τὴν ἔνερθε Μέμφιος: καὶ Μοίρι οὔκω ἦν ἔτεα εἰνακόσια τετελευτηκότι ὅτε τῶν ἱρέων ταῦτα ἐγὼ ἤκουον. νῦν δὲ εἰ μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἑκκαίδεκα ἢ πεντεκαίδεκα πήχεας ἀναβῇ τὸ ἐλάχιστον ὁ ποταμός, οὐκ ὑπερβαίνει ἐς τὴν χώρην.

Additionally, Sophocles pens these words in one of his plays:

Clytemnestra states:

"No, not in vain; how can you say 'in vain' when you have brought me sure proofs of his death?" (Soph. Electra 774)

Greek: οὔτοι μάτην γε: πῶς γὰρ ἂν μάτην λέγοις, εἴ μοι θανόντος πίστ᾽ ἔχων τεκμήρια
προσῆλθες

Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 97) commenting on Acts 1:3: "Infallible Proofs--This is one word in Greek, tekmeriois--a strong term (only here in the NT). J. R. Lumby says, 'A tekmerion is such an evidence as to remove all doubt.' "

In the final analysis, Earle cites "convincing proofs" (NASB, NIV) as a suitable rendering for tekmeriois.

The Amplified Bible prefers "unquestionable evidence" and another possibility is
"indubitable proof." The word's semantic range allow for this rendering. In the context of Acts 1:3, "unquestionable" or "indubitable" seems to be a good choice. The apostles are being shown signs that will make them suitable witnesses of Christ throughout the earth (Acts 1:8). Surely they would have needed strong proof to be convinced and to persuade others.

Another consideration here is the Classical usage of tekmerion. When consulting LSJ, I found that tekmerion was variously defined as "sure proof" or "strong proof" as well as "evidence." The word seems to have strong connotations of evidence that is undeniable. 

The Cambridge Greek Lexicon: τεκμήριον ου η.

1 sure sign or principle, criterion (for adopting a particular course of action) A.

2 piece of evidence seen or heard, sign, evidence, proof (of sthg.) Hdt. Trag. Men.

3 evidence from facts or logic, evidence, proof (of sthg.)

Hdt. Trag. Th. Ar. Att.orats. +

4 evidence which constitutes proof in a logical argument, necessary sign Arist.

Proverbial Sayings in the Epistles of Paul?

I wrote these thoughts some years ago, but I've since found reason to believe that my question could be answered in the affirmative now. 

This may be an off the wall question, but I've often wondered if the apostle Paul used sayings that were rooted in Roman proverbs or common maxims. After all, we know that everyday proverbs from the ancient world are found in his writings (see 1 Corinthians 15:33; 1 Timothy 6:9-10), but when I read classical Latin, there are times when the language reminds me of Paul's letters. E.g., "me miseram" ("wretched woman that I am!"). Compare Romans 7:24 (Vulgate): "infelix ego homo" or "O frustra, inquit, mihi suscepti labores!" which can be translated "O that in vain, he said, my labors have been undertaken." Think of how Paul refers to "toiling in vain."