De + the Ablative Case (Brief Remarks About Latin)

Cyprian of Carthage uses patre (ablative singular of pater) with the preposition, de. I guess the whole expression is "De Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est - Et hi tres unum sunt." So, a question arises concerning what kind of ablative this construction is.

De + the ablative is a standard construction in Latin and it frequently occurs among the ante/post-Nicene Fathers. I teach students about de re and de dicto utterances; many of the ecclesiastical works in Latin also have de + the ablative constructions. For instance, De Trinitate by Augustine of Hippo, Novatian of Rome and Hilary of Poitiers, also De Civitate Dei by Augustine and so forth. Other familiar constructs are de facto and de jure.

De + patre can be rendered "of, about, concerning or regarding the Father." Basil Gildersleeve calls this usage, an ablative of object (section 417.5), which he distinguishes from the ablative of reference ("according to"). Another source classifies de + the ablative as a figurative use of de since the preposition is used elsewhere to reference a literal place (e.g., dē caelō dēmissus). See https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/uses-prepositions#rfn3

There is also a good explanation here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dde2

Lewis and Short explain that de + the ablative eventually came to replace the genitive and its object: they write that de along with the ablative is able to "indicate the thing with reference to which any thing is done, with respect to, concerning."

Hebrews and the Holy Places/Holy Place (Greek Texts)

The Holy Places/Holy Place in Hebrews

Hebrews 8:2-τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.

9:1-Εἶχε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.

9:2-σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγεται Ἅγια·

9:8-τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν,

9:12-οὐδὲ δι' αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.

9:24-οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια Χριστός, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ' εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·

9:25-οὐδ' ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ,

10:19-Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ,

13:11-ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίεται ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς·

Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XIII-Aorist Indicatives

I'm finally getting back to discussing Merkle's "Exegetical Gems": I will post four more submissions about the book before concluding my discussion of his work. This post deals with chapter 16, which covers aorist imperatives.

Merkle begins by referencing the famed article by Frank Stagg on "The Abused Aorist" (published in JBL 1972). Stagg's goal was to refute suggestions that the aorist verbal form is inherently or necessarily punctiliar (Merkle 71). Rather, any punctiliarity associated with the aorist comes from "the lexical meaning of the verb and the context."

See Easley. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/07/aorist-verbs-vis-vis-present-tense.html

Merkle illustrates this point by invoking Ephesians 4:20: ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν

The verb there (ἐμάθετε) is aorist indicative 2nd person plural and it's negated by οὐχ ("you did not learn"). HCSB: "But that is not how you learned about the Messiah"

With this verse in mind, Merkle asks the following questions:

"In using the aorist form, is Paul indicating that this verb should be viewed as a onetime action or a single event such as conversion? Or can the verb communicate a summary statement that would allow an undetermined period of time?" 

Before answering these questions, Merkle supplies an overview of Greek aorist indicatives. This verbal tense-form is the most frequently used in the New Testament: the aorist portrays action as a whole without respect "to its progress or duration." It is the default tense for narratives, and this tense-form occurs with a past reference 80% of the time. To find out more about various uses of the aorist (e.g., ingressive, constative, etc.), see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-greek-aorist-and-its-diverse-uses.html

Getting back to the chapter's focus, Merkle addresses whether ἐμάθετε in his estimation is punctiliar or could allow for an extended period of time. He begins by reviewing and assessing the stance of Ernest Best, who argues that the aorist verb in Ephesians 4:20 is punctiliar: he thinks it refers to the time when the Ephesians became Christians. However, as we read the next verse, two other verbs come into play: ἠκούσατε and ἐδιδάχθητε. Both of these verbs are aorist ("heard" and "were taught"), so how should we construe them? Moreover, what impact do they have on Ephesians 4:20?

Best applies ἠκούσατε to "the time of conversion" and ἐδιδάχθητε to "a past period of teaching" since he reckons the verb does not appropriately fit with the depiction of ongoing action. This commentator concludes: “The two verbs of hearing and being taught may refer to the same event of becoming a Christian looked at from distinct angles." The bottom line is that Best believes the aorist verbs in Ephesians 4:20-21 depict punctiliar rather than ongoing action.

On the other hand, Harold Hoehner insists that ἐμάθετε is inceptive, portraying the action at its initial stage. This would mean that the verb in this context points to "the time of conversion. Gentiles and Jews who had previously opposed God, heard Christ preached and received him. This then is the beginning point of their ‘learning Christ’" (Merkle quoting Hoehner). 

While Hoehner doesn't agree in toto with Best, Merkle appears to be less than satisfied with either explanation. He invokes Wallace, Thielman, and Lincoln to make a case for construing ἐμάθετε as a constative aorist. He quotes Wallace, who writes that a constative aorist "describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically."

Therefore, Merkle concludes that the aorist in Ephesians 4:20 delineates action as a whole: it is not punctiliar or depicting a one-time action. Another scholar invoked is William J. Larkin. To quote Merkle, "Thus Larkin is certainly correct in writing, 'A point in time event like conversion reads too much into the aorist tense."

The next chapter in his book is about perfect and pluperfect indicatives. 

Revelation 21:4 ("He will wipe away every tear")

Greek (WH): καὶ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι· οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν.

ἐξαλείψει is the future active indicative 3rd singular of ἐξαλείφω.

Denotations for ἐξαλείφω: "to cause to disappear by wiping" or "wipe away" (both from BDAG).

Louw-Nida (Semantic Domain 47.18): "to remove a liquid by wiping off - ‘to wipe away.’"

EGF: It is possible that Revelation 7:17; 21:4 allude to Isaiah 25:8 although there are potential difficulties with trying to link these verses in terms of how John words them. Nevertheless, it seems clear that God is the subject of the verb "wipe away." See Dave Mathewson. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1-22.5. LNTS. T&T Clark, 2003. Pages 57-58.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit (Paul Davies and Whether the Cosmos is a Brute Fact or Not)

"Ex nihilo nihil fit"

It seems that just as every house must have a builder and every supernova explosion likely must have an antecedently sufficient cause, so all things must issue forth from an omnipotent and intelligent cause (Hebrews 3:4). At any rate, it's difficult to believe that the cosmos is a result of chance or some accident. 

To give some food for thought, I share this quote from physicist Paul Davies' text The Mind of God (page 16):

"I belong to a group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must,
it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind--i.e., conscious awareness of the world--is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality. That is not to say that we are the purpose for which the universe exists. Far from it. I do, however, believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way" (Italicized word appears in the original).

Robert Alter Discusses the Literary and Syntactical Features of Genesis 2

"Now, after the grand choreography of resonant parallel utterances of the cosmogony, the style changes sharply. Instead of the symmetry of parataxis, hypotaxis is initially prominent: the second account begins with elaborate syntactical subordination in a long complex sentence that uncoils all the way from the second part of [Genesis] verse 4 to the end of verse 7" (Robert Alter, Genesis, comments on Genesis 2:4).

Genesis 2:7 in Alter's work now calls God "YHWH Elohim" rather than Elohim simpliciter.

"Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal" (by H. Gunkel)--For Sale

 Please see https://www.ebay.com/itm/386573942099

Some of the Best Books About Greek Ever!

A lot of different books could have been included, but I wanted to give a sampling of the great instructional guides and aids out there as well as some of the lexica. 

1. N. Marinone. All the Greek Verbs. 2016. 1st ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

2. Herbert Weir Smyth. Greek Grammar. 1956. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

3. A.T. Robertson. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman Press. ISBN: 9780805413083, 0805413081.

4. M. G. Balme, Gilbert Lawall, and James Morwood. Athenaze : An Introduction to Ancient Greek Book I-II. 2015 Third ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

5. James Hope Moulton, W. F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. 1908–1976. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

6. Donald J. Mastronarde. Introduction to Attic Greek. 1993. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

7. James Morwood. The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. 2002. Oxford; New York. Oxford University Press.

8. Albert Rijksbaron. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek : An Introduction. 2006. 3rd ed. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.

9. William D. Mounce. Morphology of Biblical Greek. 1994. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

10. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery. A Morphology of New Testament Greek: A Review and Reference Grammar. 1994. Lanham: University Press of America.

11. BDAG-Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2000. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12. Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course. Reading Greek. 2007. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 1992. 2nd Revised Edition. 1992. Fordham University Press.

14. J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 1999. 2nd Ed. 2 Volume Set. United Bible Societies.

Put Faith in Jehovah Your God! (Modified Talk)

What does it mean to put faith in Jehovah God? What benefits can we expect by placing our faith in the living God?

King Jehoshaphat and the people of ancient Judah provide answers to these questions.

They simultaneously faced three menacing groups of enemies: the Moabites, Ammonites, and the Ammonim. This "large crowd" (2 Chronicles 20:1-2) threatened Judah and King Jehoshaphat. How would they handle this threat? Please turn to 2 Chronicles 20:12-13.

Did you notice the attitude of Jehoshaphat when these forces came against him? He immediately turned to Jehovah in prayer.

There were men, little ones and wives standing before Jehovah at that time. Nevertheless, whether young or old, they strove to follow Jehovah’s direction, and he protected them from their enemies.

One way that Jehovah came to their aid was by raising up a Levite, Jahaziel. He spoke encouraging words to King Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah. Please turn with me to 2 Chronicles 20:17 to find out more about this Levite.

Jehovah comforted his people by providing them with clear direction: the battle was not theirs, but Jehovah's. Their faith in him was rewarded, but the people of Judah must have wondered what would happen next since they were instructed to go out against their enemies without using weapons. Yet their comfort would be in the fact that Jehovah promised to be with them.

If we turn to 2 Chronicles 20:21-22, we see Jehovah's response to the Judeans' faith. (Read).

Jahaziel told God's people to "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah."

That is not how armies normally fight battles, but those instructions did not come from a human: they originated with Jehovah. Therefore, with full trust in his God, Jehoshaphat implicitly followed divine instructions. When the king and his people went out to meet the enemy, he placed unarmed singers at the front of his troops, not the most skilled soldiers. Jehovah did not let Jehoshaphat down; He soundly defeated the Moabites, Ammonites, and the people from the region of Seir by making them strike one another down. Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah were rewarded for their faith in Jehovah.

Discuss picture 

Conclusion:

When Gog of Magog attacks Jehovah’s people during the great tribulation, those who put faith in Jehovah and who trust those whom he is using to take the lead will have nothing to fear (2 Chron. 20:20). Their faith in Jehovah God will be rewarded with an imperishable gift--everlasting life.

Plan for the Next Month or Two

Greetings all,

My plan for the next month is to finish my discussion of Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" and to discuss another book or two for Jan-February. I appreciate all who read this blog, whether you agree with my posts or not. Thank you. 

Origen of Alexandria and Birthdays (Comm. on Matthew 10.22)

Origen writes about birthdays in a couple of places of which I'm aware: here is one place:

For Herod having laid hold on John bound him and put him in prison, not daring to slay him outright and to take away the prophetic word from the people; but the wife of the king of Trachonitis — which is a kind of evil opinion and wicked teaching — gave birth to a daughter of the same name, whose movements, seemingly harmonious, pleasing Herod, who was fond of matters connected with birthdays, came the cause of there being no longer a prophetic head among the people. And up to this point I think that the movements of the people of the Jews, which seem to be according to the law, were nothing else than the movements of the daughter of Herodias; but the dancing of Herodias was opposed to that holy dancing with which those who have not danced will be reproached when they hear the words, We piped unto you, and you did not dance. And on birthdays, when the lawless word reigns over them, they dance so that their movements please that word. Some one of those before us has observed what is written in Genesis about the birthday of Pharaoh, and has told that the worthless man who loves things connected with birth keeps birthday festivals; and we, taking this suggestion from him, find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man. For Herod was more unjust than that famous Pharaoh; for by the latter on his birthday feast a chief baker is killed; (Genesis 40:20) but by the former, John, than whom no one greater has risen among those born of women, (Matthew 11:11) in regard to whom the Saviour says, But for what purpose did ye go out? To see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Words of the Month (January 2024)

1) The English word "geodesic" has the potential meaning: "relating to or involving the geometry of curved surfaces. noun. 2. Also called: geodesic line. the shortest line between two points on a curved or plane surface" (Collins English Dictionary).

2) Oxymoron (English)-According to Google's Generative AI: "An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory words to create a new meaning. For example, 'old news,' 'deafening silence,' or 'organized chaos' are all oxymorons."

Oxford Languages: "a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

'that fashionable rhetorical novelty, the humblebrag, is itself an oxymoron'"

3) חָרַף (Hebrew)-transliterated, the word is charaph. Michael V. Fox translates charaph as "insults" in Proverbs 27:11. William McKane (in his Proverbs commentary) uses the verbs "denigrate" and vilify" to communicate the idea behind the Hebrew. Another way to translate it would be "reproach" or "taunt."

1. 
   

Samuel Clarke: Causality versus Design

"For to say a thing is produced, and yet that there is no cause at all of that production, is to say that something is effected, when it is effected by nothing; that is, at the same time when it is not effected at all.—Whatever exists, has a cause, a reason, a ground of its existence; (a foundation, on which its existence relies; a ground or reason why it doth exist rather than not exist;) either in the necessity of its own nature, and then it must have been of itself eternal; or in the will of some other being, and then that other being must, at least in the order of nature and causality, have existed before it" (Samuel Clarke).

Naturalists might argue that things in the cosmos have a cause, but were not designed. Yes, that's possible logically but how probable is it that all things in the cosmos and the cosmos itself were not designed? Again, it's logically possible that Biltmore House was not made by intelligent designers or that it did not have human builders, but how likely is it?

Beards (A Reflection Written Some Years Ago, But Now Edited Somewhat)

I personally have nothing against beards, depending on how they're groomed, etc. So I once undertook research on this question and concluded that "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not" (1 Cor 10:23 KJV).Secondly, there are even some secular companies that do not allow their employees to have beards. When I used to clean at one local business (doing janitorial work), I noticed that the company would not allow employees to have beards. If a driver came to work unshaven, he would be given a razor before he could deliver parcels. That was back in the early 2000s: the company apparently later eased restrictions on beards.

Thirdly in this matter of beards, consider the example of Joseph: "Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh" (Gen 41:14 Geneva Study Bible).

Pharaoh immediately sent for Joseph. As quickly as possible he was fetched from the prison; and after shaving the hair of his head and beard, and changing his clothes, as the customs of Egypt required (see Hengst. Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 30), he went in to the king (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament).

Joseph shaved although there was nothing inherently wrong with his beard: he adapted to the customs of Egypt that did not conflict with God's laws. It's interesting to think about how Paul handled the issue of wearing a beard; he was a Jew (a Benjaminite) and Roman citizen who lived in a Hellenistic milieu as a follower of Christ. Hence, Paul wrote that he became all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). At the end of the day, we know that ancient Israelite men were commanded not to destroy "the edges" of their beard (Leviticus 19:27). Hence, Jesus likely had a beard and Paul probably would have worn one as a Jew. Whether someone chooses to wear or not wear a beard today is a matter of choice like many other areas of life in Christianity. As Paul wrote about eating meat once sacrificed to idols, "If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?" (1 Corinthians 10:30)

See the surrounding context of 1 Corinthians 10:30. 

How the First English Bible Originated (Vos on Wycliffe)

"He [John Wycliffe] also engaged in Bible translation, and it was largely through his influence that the first English version was produced. Though he personally translated or supervised translation of parts of the Bible, his version was not completed until after his death, by Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey. Without doubt, its widespread use had an influence on the development of the English language" (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, page 78).

Some Reasons Not to Celebrate Christmas

1. Jesus was not born on December 25 and his DOB is not made known by his early disciples. See https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/christ-is-born

2. Christmas propagates a number of untruths (falsehoods) like Santa Claus, a man who travels around the world in one night leaving gifts for all the good children as he rides a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Furthermore, Santa supposedly plummets own the chimney to deliver toys, if you have one. See Ephesians 4:25; John 4:23-24.

Is it always wrong to tell a story or fable to one's child? No it is not, but the Santa Claus myth is told as though it were truly happening and it might be told for years before a child begins to see the falsity of it or is capable of knowing it's false. There is nothing wrong with telling a story but it's better told when both parties understand that the story should not be taken at face value or thought to be true.

3. The promotion of commercialism. The term "commercialism" here refers to "emphasis on the maximizing of profit" (Oxford Languages).We need commerce in this world, in some form or fashion, but we don't need commercialism in this sense of the word. Is there anything with a business making a profit? No there is not: if a merchant does not run a profitable business, then he/she will not have a business for long. Yet when it comes to Christmas, people are often forced by guilt to buy things they cannot afford and go into needless and painful debt, thereby becoming slaves to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). 

4. Jesus never commanded his disciples to observe his birthday: such a command is not to be found in the Bible at all (compare John 14:15).  

5. Early Jews and Christians did not celebrate birthdays--the day of death was considered better than the day of one's birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
 
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/02/birthdays-and-circumcision-again.html

6. Christmas usually promotes greed and covetousness. The norm is that children mostly focus on what they can get, and so do adults. Poor people tend to feel bad when they can't get their child that much-coveted gift which all the kids want while uber-rich couples buy each other brand new matching trucks valued at $60,000 bucks apiece or more. Of course, there is nothing wrong with buying gifts for a loved one and we should not be jealous of others, but I find commercials that tout this idea of purchasing each other highly expensive gifts for the holidays (the birth of Jesus at that!) to be rather perverse. With all of the problems and suffering taking place in the world, those who have the means to help others are encouraged to buy expensive vehicles on the Lord's supposed birthday? Makes a lot of sense to me.

Latin and the Allative Case

Maybe some of you already know about the "allative case," but I only learned this term within the past year. According to the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, "Allative case is a case that expresses motion to or toward the referent of the noun it marks."

Also from lexico.com concerning "allative":

Mid 19th century; earliest use found in Quarterly Journal Education. From post-classical Latin allativus, designating the case expressing motion to or toward (1826 or earlier; earlier in sense ‘for bringing’) from classical Latin allāt-, past participial stem of afferre to bring to + -īvus.

It seems that Latin might not have the allative case or lost it over time, but the language possibly found ways to communicate similar ideas through merged cases. Early Greek apparently made use of the allative case, which is an extension of the locative case. I guess the difference is that motion towards an object is indicated by the case ending with the allative whereas the five-case system in Greek doesn't always do this explicitly. 

I also read section 427 in Allen and Greenough: it's provides some help. A & G give these examples inter alia for how Latin indicates motion to or toward an object:

bellī, mīlitiae, and domī; terrā marīque is another good one.

One Evidence for Divine Creation: A Drop of Water

Numerous Bible verses portray Jehovah (YHWH) as the Creator of "all things" (ta panta) and the maker of heaven and earth (Ecclesiastes 12:1; Revelation 4:11). Just as a house needs a builder, Hebrews 3:4 proclaims that all things (i.e., the cosmos) were made by God. There are various examples that could be given, but one for now is a drop of water:

According to Michael Padilla, there are 2 sextillion atoms of oxygen and twice the number of hydrogen atoms in a drop of water. We can represent 2 sextillion exponentially as 2 x 10^21. That is 2 times 10 to the 21st power. Amazing!

Looked at from another perspective, there are 1.67 sextillion molecules in a drop of water, which on average is 0.05 mL. Did this composition merely happen by chance? 

Revelation 10:6 (KJV): "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer."

Compare Ecclesiastes 3:11.

2 Timothy 3:1 ("difficult times"?)

Greek (SBLGNT): Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί·

(LEB): "But know this, that in the last days difficult times will come,"

The NWT uses "critical times," so why the difference?

BDAG Entry: χαλεπός, ή, όν ⟦chalepós⟧ (s. next entry; Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol, Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 1 βίος, 13, 422 νόσος; Just., D. 1, 5; Tat.; comp. χαλεπώτερα Just., A II, 2, 6) pert. to being troublesome, hard, difficult καιροὶ χ. hard times, times of stress 2 Ti 3:1. Of words that are hard to bear and penetrate deeply (Hes., Works 332; Dio Chrys. 49 [66], 19) Hv 1, 4, 2 (w. σκληρός). Of pers. (Od. 1, 198; Chion, Ep. 15, 1f; SIG 780, 31; EpArist 289; Jos., Ant. 15, 98) hard to deal with, violent, dangerous Mt 8:28. Of animals (Pla., Pol. 274b; Ps.-X., Cyneg. 10, 23; Dio Chrys. 5, 5) B 4:5 (comp.). In the sense bad, evil (Cebes 6, 2 of the πόμα of Ἀπάτη) τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας χ. ἐστι the deeds of the angel of wickedness are evil Hm 6, 2, 10.—Subst. τὰ χ. (that which is) evil (X., Mem. 2, 1, 23; POxy 1242, 36) MPol 11:1 (opp. τὰ δίκαια). ἀρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία everything that is acrimonious begins with love of money Pol 4:1 (cp. 1 Ti 6:10).—B. 651. DELG. M-M. Spicq.

Spicq observes: When applied to things, chalepos can mean simply “difficult, hard,”1but sometimes it also takes on the nuance of “regrettable” (2Macc 4:4), “grievous” (Wis 3:19), “severe” (Plutarch, De sera 4), and “cruel” (Wis 19:13; 4Macc 7:24). It is used fairly often for dangerous circumstances,2 which is precisely the case in 2Tim 3:1, which announces the onset of the last days: there will be kairoi chalepoi, dangerous or perilous times for the faith and the existence of the church, harmful for Christians, with a nuance of violence and aggressiveness3 that befits calamities.4

The whole entry is worth reading. 

William Mounce (WB Commentary on the Pastorals): 

Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί, “But take note of this, that in the last days there will be stressful times.” In an attempt to place Timothy and his conflict at Ephesus in historical perspective, Paul reminds Timothy that he is living in the last days. In vv 2– 5 Paul will describe in detail what χαλεποί, “stressful,” involves, and in vv 6–9 he will apply this description of “moral decadence” (Guthrie, 156) to Timothy’s opponents.

Mounce thinks 2 Timothy 3:1-5 delineates Timothy's current situation rather than the future: I tend to disagree. See his commentary for the grammatical arguments made in favor of a then present understanding. For a different analysis, see Raymond F. Collins. I &II Timothy and Titus in the NTL series. 

Anselm of Canterbury and the Preservation of God's Word

"And 'tis no small miracle how God has so long preserved and protected this book [the Bible]; for the devil and the world are sore foes to it" (Anselm of Canterbury)

See https://afterall.net/quotes/anselm-of-canterbury-on-scripture/

Compare Isaiah 40:8.