1 Corinthians 15:41 (Knowledge of Celestial Bodies in Antiquity)

Greek: ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων, ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ. (WH)

Rogers and Rogers:
ESV: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

NWT 2013: "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory."

NET: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory."

David Garland (BECNT): Mentioning the stars might be intended to bring to mind the glorious state of those resurrected from the dead, who are likened to astral bodies (Dan. 12:2–3; Matt. 13:43; Wis. 3:7; 2 Bar. 51:10; so D. Martin 1995: 118–20).[8] Paul’s point is that the resurrection body is not a reanimated corpse but something of a completely different order that is appropriate to celestial existence. Since the Corinthians recognize that heavenly bodies differ from earthly bodies, they should not expect the resurrected body to be a recycled earthly body. 

EGF: The discussion by Anthony Thiselton in his 1 Corinthians commentary merits reading: both he and Garland present some refined points about 1 Cor. 15:41, but hardly anyone I've read says much about Greek astronomy when commenting on the expression, "star differs from star in glory." I sometimes wonder how much Paul knew about ancient Greek astronomy and figures like Aristarchus, Hipparchus or Ptolemy. The work of classifying stars by magnitude was already underway in antiquity: that is one reason why I find Hipparchus to be such a compelling figure.

The works I consulted also point out that 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 likely draws upon Genesis 1. Moreover, notice the syntactical order in verse 41, how Paul goes from sun to moon to stars, and the repeated occurrence of the adjective "one/one sort" or "another."

A.T. Robertson: "The telescope has added more force to Paul's argument."

Isaiah 65:25--The Serpent's Food Will Be Dust (Commentators)

John N. Oswalt (NICOT): The one element here that is not present in 11:6-9 is the snake [will eat]2055 dust for its bread. Some commentators (e.g., Westermann, Whybray) believe that it has been intentionally added because this passage is speaking about the new creation. That is, it is an allusion to Gen. 3. All the sources of weeping that have been detailed in vv. 20-25 are ultimately the result of the snake’s interference in Eden. There God announced that the snake would crawl in the dust forever, and that although he would bite the heel of Eve’s child, that child would crush the snake’s head (Gen. 3:15). Here the snake is finally condemned not only to crawl in the dust but to eat only dust forevermore. When that happens, the curse will be truly broken, and as the Lord says, there will be none to hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. May God grant it.

Jewish Study Bible (JPS): The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, And the lion shall eat straw like the ox, And the serpent's food shall be earth. In all My sacred mount Nothing evil or vile shall be done-said the LORD

Keil-Delitzsch: We have frequently observed within chapters 40-66 (last of all at Isaiah 65:12, cf., Isaiah 66:4), how the prophet repeats entire passages from the earlier portion of his prophecies almost word for word. Here he repeats Isaiah 11:6-9 with a compendious abridgment. Isaiah 65:25 refers to the animals just as it does there. But whilst this custom of self-repetition favours the unity of authorship, כּאחד for יחדּו equals unâ, which only occurs elsewhere in Ezra and Ecclesiastes (answering to the Chaldee כּחדה), might be adduced as evidence of the opposite. The only thing that is new in the picture as here reproduced, is what is said of the serpent. This will no longer watch for human life, but will content itself with the food assigned it in Genesis 3:14. It still continues to wriggle in the dust, but without doing injury to man. The words affirm nothing more than this, although Stier's method of exposition gets more out, or rather puts more in. The assertion of those who regard the prophet speaking here as one later than Isaiah, viz., that Isaiah 65:25 is only attached quite loosely to what precedes, is unjust and untrue. The description of the new age closes here, as in chapter 11, with the peace of the world of nature, which stands throughout chapters 40-66 in the closest reciprocal relation to man, just as it did in chapters 1-39.

NET Bible: A wolf and a lamb will graze together;^[a] a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,^[b] and a snake’s food will be dirt.^[c] They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,”^[d] says the Lord.

Note c in NET Bible: Isaiah 65:25 sn Some see an allusion to Gen 3:14 (note “you will eat dirt”). The point would be that even in this new era the snake (often taken as a symbol of Satan) remains under God’s curse. However, it is unlikely that such an allusion exists. Even if there is an echo of Gen 3:14, the primary allusion is to 11:8, where snakes are pictured as no longer dangerous. They will no longer attack other living creatures, but will be content to crawl along the ground. (The statement “you will eat dirt” in Gen 3:14 means “you will crawl on the ground.” In the same way the statement “dirt will be its food” in Isa 65:25 means “it will crawl on the ground.”)

John Goldingay (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series): Verse 25 identifies this vision with that in 11:6–9. It also adds the somber line based on Genesis 3:14, but dust will be the serpent’s food. This surprising comment implies that, for all the vision of new creation, the factors that led to the original human act of uncreation have not been re- moved. It seems odd that there was present in God’s good creation a creature who encouraged humanity to do other than God said. In parallel, it seems odd that this creature should also be present in the renewed Jerusalem. Perhaps the implication is that such life is no more designed to be challenge-free than life in Eden was. But here, more clearly than in Genesis 3:14–15, the description concludes with a promise that the serpent’s action will not spoil things (v. 25b). When we set the passage in a broader biblical context, that reference to the serpent also draws our attention to the fact that long, full, ordinary earthly life is designed to be continued as, or succeeded by, or transformed into, eternal life.

Makarios: "Happy" or "Blessed"? (Matthew 5:3 As A Test Case)

How should the Greek word μακάριος be translate in Matthew 5:3? Should it be rendered "happy" or "blessed"?

Latin Vulgate: beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum

Weymouth NT: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for to them belongs the Kingdom of the Heavens."

Young's LT: "Happy the poor in spirit -- because theirs is the reign of the heavens."

Moffatt's NT: "Blessed are those who feel poor in spirit! the Realm of heaven is theirs."

David Bentley Hart NT: “How blissful the destitute, abject in spirit, for theirs is the
Kingdom of the heavens;"

Bentley Hart Footnote: μακάριος (makarios): “blessed,” “happy,” “fortunate,” “prosperous,” but originally with a connotation of divine or heavenly bliss.

David Turner (BECNT): The word “beatitude” is related to the Latin beatus, which means “blessed.” To be blessed (μακάριος, makarios) is to receive God’s approval, favor, endorsement, congratulations. To be “blessed” is to be so much more than “happy,” since the word “happiness” conveys only a subjective, shallow notion of serendipity, not the conviction of being a recipient of God’s grace. God initiates blessing by graciously condescending to save people. They respond to God’s initiative by blessing God with praise and obedient living. Their present experience of God’s reign in Jesus motivates them to live in light of its future intensification (6:10). The pattern of the Beatitudes is to highlight the character of the blessed person and then to explain the promise of God to such a person.

Louw-Nida defines μακάριος as  “pertaining to being happy, with the implication of enjoying favorable circumstances—‘happy.’”

BDAG: μακάριος, ία, ιον (Pind., Pla., X.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Philo, Joseph.) blessed, fortunate, happy, usu. in the sense privileged recipient of divine favor.

μακάριος occurs around 50x in the GNT.

LXX Occurences: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G3107&t=LXX&ot=LXX&word=%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%E1%BD%B1%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82

See Psalm 41:1; 128:1 (LXX); 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 2:11-14.

Arche in the Septuagint (A Link)

See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G746&t=LXX&ot=LXX&word=%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%87%E1%BF%87

Should Christians Practice Tithing (Modified Talk)

One appealing quality of Jehovah is his generosity, and generosity is a quality that God loves in his worshipers. 2 Corinthians 9:7 exclaims that God loves a cheerful giver, but some church members may feel compelled to give beyond their means. Some churches teach that God requires a set amount of money for contributions: this practice is known as tithing, which means giving 10 percent of one's money as a contribution or offering. Does God require a set amount for a contribution? Exactly how much should we donate?

When Jehovah dealt with the nation of Israel, he clearly instructed them about how much they should give to sustain the tabernacle and later, the temple. According to Leviticus 27:30, "every tenth part of the land" belonged to Jehovah. Since Israel was an agricultural nation, much of their tithing consisted of produce from the land. In return, Jehovah promised he would make the nation ‘overflow with prosperity.’​ See Malachi 3:10.

In other instances, God's servants could give little or plenty, depending on their circumstances. For example, when King David planned to build a temple for Jehovah, his subjects donated “gold worth five thousand talents.” That amount today would be equivalent to almost 5 billion dollars. On the other hand, in Luke 21:1-4, Jesus told about a widow, who contributed 2 coins of little value: her donation was only 1/64 of a day's wages. Yet Jesus praised this woman's generosity.

What about Christians? Are we required to give a set amount today for contributions? While giving is a great source of joy for Christians, since we're not under the Mosaic Law, God's people are no longer obligated to tithe or give 10 percent contributions. If we turn to 2 Corinthians 9:7, we'll see why a set amount is no longer required.

[After reading verse]

Paul pointed out that a Christian should give what he's resolved in his heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver. This is why Jehovah's Witnesses offer voluntary contributions to support the worldwide preaching work. While some Witnesses might get help defraying their expenses or to assist with their ministry, most of us work to supply our needs in order to avoid becoming a burden to others. By doing these things, we imitate Jehovah, our generous heavenly Father (Acts 20:35; Ephesians 5:1; James 1:17).

"The Abused Aorist" (Journal Article Link)

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263206?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents for this classical article:

John 14:10--Union Between God and Christ?

Greek (WH): οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ· ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

According to this verse, Jesus could do powerful works because he was "in the Father" and the Father was in him.

NWT 2013: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."

It is hard to explain the significance of ἐν when it comes to Johannine and Pauline writings. Is a form of mysticism suggested by such language? Even believers are said to be "in Christ" or receive the peace of God "in Christ Jesus." See Philippians 4:6-7.

Frederic Louis Godet offers one perspective on 14:10. I quote his remarks in full:

Jesus indicates to Philip two signs by which he ought to have recognized and may even at this moment recognize in Him the true appearance of God. He does not say that the Father and Himself are one and the same person. He constantly prays to the Father, saying: Thou. But it is a union by which they live the one in the other (comp. Gess), and this relation has as its background the life of the Logos. The words Believest thou not? show Philip that his prayer must be regarded as inconsistent with his faith.

There are in the union of Jesus with the Father two aspects: I in the Father: Jesus emptying Himself in order to transfer Himself to God; and the Father in me: God communicating to Jesus all His wealth of strength and wisdom. On one side, Jesus making a void in Himself; on the other, God filling this void.

After this, Jesus characterizes each of the two sides of this relation by that one of the manifestations of His life which is most fitted to bring it to light: the first by His words; the second, by His works. Not one of His words that He derives from Himself and does not receive from God! Not one of His works that is not wrought through Him by God Himself! Of His own wisdom, nothing! By the strength of God, everything. The negative clause is better suited to wisdom; the active form, to power. The following verse explains why the words are placed here before the works: comp. the reverse order in John 8:28, where Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. The first sign of the community of life and action between Jesus and God, for prepared hearts, is His teachings; for those less disposed, it is His works. We may hesitate between the readings λαλῶ and λέγω, in the first clause. In the second, the term λαλῶ, in any case, is perfectly suitable. Jesus is only the organ of the Father: God speaks; Jesus announces.

See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gsc/john-14.html

Buist Fanning and Revelation 22:3

Greek: καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται, καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,

On page 555 of his Revelation commentary, Buist Fanning understands the referent of the singular datival pronoun αὐτῷ to be God: he points to Revelation 7:15 as support for this view. Fanning's position makes more sense to me than those who want to posit the two persons/one pronoun view. Fanning still thinks that Christ is God and worthy of worship based on Revelation 5:9-14, but he maintains that the singular pronoun in 22:3 refers to God rather than Christ.

Similarly, David Aune writes that the singular pronoun in Revelation may refer to a) God; b) Christ;
c) less likely, to both God and Christ.

Compare Revelation 3:21.

A Grand Old Place Within A Tiny Space (I.e., The Brain and Its Wondrous Capabilities)

One definition for "wondrous" is "Inspiring a feeling of wonder or delight; marvelous."

See https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wondrous

The Greek tragedian Sophocles waxed eloquent about the wondrous nature of humanity in the tragic play, Antigone:

"And speech, and wind-swift thought, and all the moods that mould a state, hath he [i.e., man] taught himself; and how to flee the arrows of the frost, when 'tis hard lodging under the clear sky, and the arrows of the rushing rain; yea, he hath resource for all; without resource he meets nothing that must come: only against Death shall he call for aid in vain; but from baffling maladies he hath devised escapes" (lines 332-340).

King David likewise spoke of humanity's wondrous nature, but he lauded Jehovah God while articulating human wonder: "I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well." (Psalm 139:14 NRSV).

Concerning the Hebrew terminology rendered "Wonderful" above, Gesenius has the following:

to be wonderful, Psalms 118:23, 139:14. Pl. f. as a substantive נִפְלָאוֹת things done wonderfully, miracles of God, both in creating and sustaining the world, Psalms 9:2, 26:7 40:6 and in affording aid to his people, Exodus 34:10; Joshua 3:5. It also takes adjectives, as, נִפְלָאוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת Psalms 136:4. Adv. נִפְלָאוֹת wonderfully, Job 37:5. Daniel 8:24. (Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon)

Th. Booij offers these remarks on Psalm 139:14:

The participle niplaim ("wonderful") nicely links up with nipleti, being related to it formally and semantically. That YHWH's works are wonderful is demonstrated in the speaker himself. It is a notion that thoroughly pervades him: "my soul knows right well."

Out of all the things that make humanity "wondrous/wonderful," one thing is the human brain. From the activity of our dendrites and synapses to our capacity for language and memory, the brain is one reason that we can laud the work of God's creative hand: the brain has been compared to a universe within our heads. For example:

"The human brain boasts an estimated 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, each of which may connect to up to 10,000 other neurons (although not all do). If you could count all those contacts, one per second, you'd need just over 31 trillion years to finish the job."

See https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2018/12/12/computer-memory-a-scientific-team-builds-a-virtual-model-of-a-key-brain-region/

Another article states:

"Your brain has the capacity to retain 4.7 billion books, scientists have discovered, or ten times the number originally thought. On average, one synapse can hold roughly 4.7 bits of information, which means that the human brain can hold one petabyte (1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes)."

Hence, our brain is a grand old place located within a tiny space.

Sources for Further Reading:

Th. Booij, "Psalm CXXXIX: Text, Syntax, Meaning," Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): 1-19.

Collins, C. John, "Psalm 139:14 - 'Fearfully and Wonderfully Made?' " Presbyterion, 1999.

John 1:1 (Kenneth Wuest's "Expanded Translation")

"In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity." (Wuest)

One of the NIV translators, Ralph Earle, affirms this reading of John 1:1:

"The Logos is not equivalent to 'God'; there is also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. But he is fully divine. We could translate this clause either literally--'God was the Word'--or as, 'The Word was deity.' It is an emphatic declaration of the deity of the Logos, who in verse 14 is identified with Jesus."

See Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 81.

This post is simply informational, not designed to refute Wuest or Earle, et al.

My Impressions Concerning Bart Ehrman's Eschatology

 I listened to Bart Ehrman's presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYl24xibc2I

There is not much new in the video and most who read books about Christian eschatology probably won't find many new disclosures either. On the other hand, I've never agreed with Ehrman more than I have when it comes to his views of hell, and how ancient Jews and Christians viewed hell and heaven. Yet there are obviously points of disagreement too.

If I understand him correctly, Ehrman states that the belief in ascending to heaven at death was not an early Christian view; rather, we can find the immortal soul doctrine in Plato and early Greek writers like Homer (see Odyssey 11).

Ehrman claims that the ancient Hebrews did not have a concept of life after death. While this assertion is commonly set forth in the scholarly literature, it's by no means certain that the Hebrew Bible posits this view. Granted, Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 reports that the dead are conscious of nothing and there is no activity in Sheol: no wisdom nor devising nor knowledge. But does this mean the idea of a resurrection was a much later idea in Judaism, and that it did not exist during patriarchal times or whenever Israel had kings?

Admittedly, much work needs to be done on this question, yet there may be indications that Abraham believed in the bodily resurrection. That is how the writer of Hebrews understands him (Hebrews 11:19). What made the writer of Hebrews proclaim that Abraham expected to receive Isaac back from the dead? Of course, we also know about the promise given in Daniel 12:1-2 and Job 14:13-14. Bart also likely knows that a variety of beliefs on the body and soul existed in ancient times. For example, some 1st century Jews did believe in an immortal soul.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but not Greek? Bart needs to read more. See the first volume of John's Meier's Marginal Jew series: Meier argues that Jesus could have been trilingual.

I think Ehrman is spot on when he mentions the wicked will not be tormented forever, but simply destroyed.

 

                                                    1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Sinaiticus

Latest Acquisitions (January 2021)

 

Word Study On φιλόστοργος

φιλόστοργος appears once in the GNT (Romans 12:10) and occurs at 4 Maccabees 15:13 (LXX). William Mounce provides the definition, "tenderly affectionate." In the Testament of Abraham, Jehovah describes his patriarchal "friend" this way: φιλόξενος καὶ φιλόστοργος ἕως τέλους τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ·

See https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/text/TAbr

Xenophon, Cyropedia 1.3.2: Ὡς δὲ ἀφίκετο τάχιστα καὶ ἔγνω ὁ Κῦρος τὸν Ἀστυάγην τῆς μητρὸς πατέρα ὄντα, εὐθὺς οἷα δὴ παῖς φύσει φιλόστοργος ὢν ἠσπάζετό τε αὐτὸν ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις πάλαι συντεθραμμένος καὶ πάλαι φιλῶν ἀσπάζοιτο, καὶ ὁρῶν δὴ αὐτὸν κεκοσμημένον καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑπογραφῇ καὶ χρώματος ἐντρίψει καὶ κόμαις προσθέτοις, ἃ δὴ νόμιμα ἦν ἐν Μήδοις

4 Maccabees 15:13: ὦ φύσις ἱερὰ καὶ φίλτρα γονέων καὶ γένεσι φιλόστοργε καὶ τροφεία καὶ μητέρων ἀδάμαστα πάθη

Josephus, AJ 7.250-252: φύσει γὰρ ὢν φιλόστοργος πρὸς ἐκεῖνον μᾶλλον συμπαθῶς εἶχεν.

BDAG: φιλόστοργος, ον (X.+; inscr.; PMich. 148 II, 9 [I AD]; 4 Macc 15:13; Philo; Jos., Ant. 7, 252al.) loving dearly τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι devoted to one another in brotherly love Ro 12:10.—CSpicq, Φιλόστοργος: RB 62, ’55, 497-510. M-M.*

Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, page 1246: φιλόστοργος,-ος,-ον+ A 0-0-0-0-1=1
4 Mc 15,13 loving dearly, yearning
Cf. SPICQ 1978a, 944-948; →NIDNTT

Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, page 345: The adjective φιλόστοργος, which is used only here in the NT, means first tenderness toward family and friends (Sanday and Headlam; H. W. Schmidt). Extended in the koine to the political and religious sphere, it then denotes respectful and sacrificial conduct (Spicq, "Φιλόστοργος," 507ff.).

See LSJ: https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82

1 Timothy 3:16 Again: Come On Now!

Despite all of the evidence against rendering 1 Timothy 3:16 as the KJV does, some Trinitarians still want to insist that the verse should be translated "God was manifest in the flesh"; however, there is so much evidence to controvert this translation that it's tiresome to tread the same ground. But here we go:

Ben Witherington (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians): "In all likelihood we have here a quotation or paraphrase begun abruptly from a Christian hymn or creedal statement.²⁶⁸ It is not perfectly clear how it should be divided up into verses (three sets of two? six different lines?).²⁶⁹ It has assonance as well as a certain rhythm, and each of the six verbs is in the aorist passive voice with the same final ending (-thē), all but once followed by an en phrase, and it is introduced by hos (not ho or theos, which are later textual modifications arising perhaps from a misunderstanding that the subject of these clauses is the abstract concept 'the mystery of faith').²⁷⁰ The subject matter here is the career of Christ."

William Mounce (Word Biblical Commentary): ὅς, “who,” has the best attestation, being read by * A* C* F G 33 365 442 2127 sy hmg pal got aethpp and some church fathers (Orlat Epiph Jerome Theodore Eutherius [according to Theodoret] Cyr Liberatus), and refers to Jesus. It is a typical way to introduce a hymn (cf. Phil 2: 6 and Col 1: 15), and it is not necessary to locate an antecedent in the text. The neuter ὅ, “which,” in the Western text probably arose as an attempted correction of the ὅς, making μυστήριον, “mystery,” the subject of the hymn. It therefore supports ὅς as the original reading. It is read by D* and almost all of the Latin tradition. θεός, which makes God the subject of the hymn, is read by the Byzantine text and correctors (c Ac C2 D2 Ψ). In majuscule script, ὅς is OC, and the abbreviation for θεός is , so one could be mistaken for the other. More likely, ὅς was changed to θεός in an attempt to glorify Christ as God. It is almost inconceivable that a scribe would change θεός to a pronoun. The pronoun is also more difficult because there is no antecedent.

William Mounce. Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Location 11632-11643). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Bruce Metzger (Textual Commentary, page 641): 

NET Bible: The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א A C D Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vg) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition).

"Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, praedicatum est gentibus, creditum est in mundo, assumptum est in gloria" (Vulgate).

Notice the use of the Latin "quod" in the Vulgate.

Gordon D. Fee reports: "This reading ["God"] came to predominate in the Greek church (never in the West, since the translation into Latin happened before the variant arose)."

See Fee's NIB Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Page 95.

NA28 Greek Text: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·

       ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,

ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

Anthony Thiselton Remarks on 1 Corinthians 8:5 (Page 632)

The “weak” at Corinth still perceive these [gods] as real powers, or at least as genuine sources of corruption, pollution, or compromise, and Paul insists that “the strong” take account of this. Indeed, in 10:14-22 he seems to endorse the view of the weak that sharing in a cultic meal devoted to an idol is tantamount to a return to idolatry involving “sacrifice to demonic powers” and “co-partnership with demonic forces” (10:20). Thus Barrett, Fee, NIV, and JB place “gods” and  “lords” in quotation marks within the clause. Paul states that certainly existentially, but probably also in terms of actual ontological structural forces of evil, there are genuine powers that still shape certain people’s lives, although they are certainly not “gods” (for there is no God but one), and no “lords” in any rightful sense.120

1 Timothy 6:9-10 (Analysis)

1 Timothy 6:9-10 (Greek): οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα καὶ ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς, αἵτινες βυθίζουσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν· ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία, ἧς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς.

NET: "Those who long to be rich, however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains."

ESV:  But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

HCSB: "But those who want to be rich fall into temptation, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains."

οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν-δὲ is probably adversative ("but") and βουλόμενοι is a present participle MP that Paul uses substantivally. Dillon T. Thornton submits that πλουτεῖν (an infinitive) specifies the desire of Pauls opponents. The referents of 1 Timothy 6:9-10 are contrated with the counsel/spirit of 1 Tim. 6:6-8.

βουλόμενοι might also signify the aim or intent to acquire something, and πλουτεῖν might be an infinitive of purpose. This would affect the thrust of Paul's counsel and to whom it is addressed.

For ἐμπίπτουσιν and βυθίζουσι, cf. 1 Tim. 3:6-7.

Regarding the word φιλαργυρία in the LXX, see 4 Macc. 1:26:

κατὰ μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀλαζονεία, καὶ φιλαργυρία καὶ φιλοδοξία καὶ φιλονικία, ἀπιστία καὶ βασκανία

Cf. 4 Macc. 2:15: καὶ τῶν βιαιοτέρων δὲ παθῶν κρατεῖν ὁ λογισμὸς φαίνεται φιλαρχίας καὶ κενοδοξίας καὶ ἀλαζονείας καὶ μεγαλαυχίας καὶ βασκανίας

A number of commentators take ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία to be a notable proverb, and the saying also has roots in Jewish writings.

Linda Belleville (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary): “Root” comes first in Greek for emphasis. It denotes the origin or source of evil deeds. The Greek emphasizes “each and every kind of” evil. “Evil” has an article, thereby making the abstract noun concrete. It is “evil acts” or “wrong choices,” rather than evil as an idea or force that is in view. The love of money is, lit., “the love of silver.” Next to gold, silver was the most highly valued metal in the ancient world.

I would add that the "love of money" is a form of greed, and it had already led some first-century Christians astray from the faith.

Sources: Dillon T. Thornton, Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun, 2016.

Nathan Nzyoka Joshua, Benefaction and Patronage in Leadership: A Socio-Historical Exegesis of the Pastoral Epistles. Carlisle: Langham Publishing, 2018.

See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/25750745?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Acts 28:30-31 (How Should It Be Translated?)

Greek: Ἐνέμεινεν δὲ διετίαν ὅλην ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι, καὶ ἀπεδέχετο πάντας τοὺς εἰσπορευομένους πρὸς αὐτόν, κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας ἀκωλύτως.

NET Bible: Paul^[a] lived^[b] there two whole years in his own rented quarters^[c] and welcomed^[d] all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God^[e] and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ^[f] with complete boldness^[g] and without restriction.^[h]

^ESV: He lived there two whole years at his own expense,^[a] and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.

NWT 2013: So he remained there for an entire two years in his own rented house, and he would kindly receive all those who came to him, preaching the Kingdom of God to them and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with the greatest freeness of speech, without hindrance.

Latin Vulgate: mansit autem biennio toto in suo conducto et suscipiebat omnes qui ingrediebantur ad eum praedicans regnum Dei et docens quae sunt de Domino Iesu Christo cum omni fiducia sine prohibitione

Craig Keener suggests that the Apostle Paul lived in an apartment:

"Perhaps Paul had a third-story or higher apartment to control the cost,150 but if his friends also stayed with him and they had any means of income, he may have had better accommodations closer to the ground floor. Because Paul already had friends in Rome, they could have located the accommodations for him or perhaps even allowed him (and his guard) to stay with them for a portion of rent" (Acts Commentary, Volume 4: Page 715 of the electronic edition).

Darrell Bock (Baker Exegetical Commentary): "The book of Acts ends on a note of triumph. It is a final summary like the closing of earlier units (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20). Paul, even though imprisoned, lives at his own expense and receives any who would visit him. The aorist verb ἐνέμεινεν (enemeinen, he remained,  lived) is a constative aorist, viewing the two years as a summarized and completed whole (BDF §332.1). Mealand (1990) discusses the reference to μισθώματι (misthōmati, rent, expense) here; its force is much debated. On the one hand, the term is an NT hapax, and its etymology suggests something earned, not a reference to a locale. The preposition ἐν (en), however, can suggest a locale, as does the verb ἐμμένω (emmenō,  dwell). The debate yields two possible meanings: Paul stays where he does  either 'at his own expense' (i.e., with his own payment) or 'in his own rented quarters' (so NET; key inscriptions: SIG 1024, 1200; P.Mich. 9.563.19).  The implication is that Paul has his own quarters, which means that he likely pays for it or, if not, his support by Christians does, as a letter such as Philippians might suggest. The verse points to a locale, but one for which  expenses are paid rather than a prison cell."

F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts: "For two years, then, Paul stayed in Rome. The conditions of his custody did not permit him to go anywhere he wished, but anyone who wished might come and see him, as the leaders of the Jewish community had  done.⁷² He lived, says Luke, 'on his own earnings' or 'at his own expense';⁷³ this means that the place where he stayed would indeed have been 'his own hired house' (as KJV has it) or at least his own hired apartment (possibly three floors up in a tenement building).⁷⁴ Perhaps he was able to carry on his 'tent-making,' although this would have been awkward if he was continually chained by the wrist to a soldier."

So-Called Gods or Real Gods? Michael Heiser and 1 Corinthians 8:5

Greek: καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί

1 Corinthians 8:5 (ESV): "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—"

NASB: "For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,"

NWT 2013: For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”

NET Bible: If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),

Should the translations above be faulted for referring to gods as "so-called"? Michael Heiser thinks such renderings are wrong. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyPrO3KuPao&list=WL&index=41

As with all matters of translation or biblical interpretation, the views are many and diverse. However, I want to present some observations that suggest Heiser could be wrong or he might need to attenuate his remarks:

1) καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ could be understood in a hypothetical sense. William Mounce translates "For even if . . ." like NASB does. Zerwick and Grosvenor supply two possible renderings, "for granted that, for although"

The point is that Paul's words might be concessive rather than stating a point about reality (i.e., the way things actually are pertaining to gods and lords).

2) Another issue is how we should understand λεγόμενοι θεοὶ. In the dissertation, "The Shema in John’s Gospel Against its Backgrounds in Second Temple Judaism," Lori A.R. Baron writes:

"In 1 Cor 8:5-6, Paul qualifies the first slogan which denies the existence of idols to say that there are many 'so-called' (λεγόμενοι) gods and lords; Paul does not deny that these powers exist in the world, only that they are not gods 'for us' (ἡμῖν; cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21)"

See page 237.

In my opinion, we should not conflate demons with "gods" per se. Granted, the demons are elohim/theoi (they belong to this category/class), but was Paul thinking about demons in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6? It's possible, but his use of "gods" and lords" suggest that he was thinking about gods/lords represented by idols. For instance, Zeus or Artemis: these gods do not have any extramental existence. They are so-called deities (soi-disant powers), but the Father is God "for us" just as Christ is Lord for true Christians.

Loren Stuckenbruck takes this approach to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:

"Paul's admission of the existence of these λεγόμενοι θεοί probably refers to function. Their existence holds 'to the extent that they are being worshipped'; so BETZ, Galatians, p. 215 and see n. 22."

See Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, page 108.

3) We must consider how writers sometimes use λεγόμενοι:

2 Thessalonians 2:4-ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός

Ephesians 2:11-"Therefore recall that you, formerly fleshly Gentiles, the so-called uncircumcision by the so-called circumcision, which is in the flesh, made by hands" (Translation by S.M. Baugh)

Baugh comments:

The expression “so-called” (for λεγόμενοὶ, legomenoi; here) is not necessarily pejorative; it can simply mean “who are called” (as the major versions here), “who are known as,” or “who are designated as.” For example, “Jesus, who is known as ‘Justus’ ” (Col 4:11; Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰοῦστος, Iēsous ho legomenos Ioustos; cf. Matt 1:16; 4:18; 10:2; John 11:16; 21:2). However, there are two places in Paul with this expression where “so-called” is found in some versions: “there may be so-called gods” (1 Cor 8:5; ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) and “every so-called god” (2 Thess 2:4; ESV, NASB, NRSV). In these cases Paul is distancing himself from labels other people use. That seems to be the case here in Eph 2:11, because Paul does not use derogatory labels for his audience; he calls them “saints” (e.g., 1:1; 5:3).

3) Speaking of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Craig Keener likewise observes:

"The particular knowledge to which the intellectually elite Christians here appeal is the claim that idols are really nothing (8:4). Whatever the status of their images,151 Paul is less convinced that the 'many gods' of Greeks and Romans (for statues in Corinth’s marketplace, see Pausanias 2.2.6, 8; 2.3.1) are
nothing (8:5); in fact, he follows common Jewish tradition in recognizing spiritual forces behind them (10:20). Paul does concede that these 'so-called gods' are nothing in the sense that Christians recognized that only one God was true (8:6)."

I agree that the many "gods" and lords" have spiritual forces behind them. Nevertheless, they are "nothing" by virtue of their non-existence in reality and insofar as they're false whereas God the Father is the only true God. Keener still refers to the deities as "so-called gods."

4) Galatians 4:8 seems to justify the translation of 1 Corinthians 8:5 as "so-called gods" or the translator could use quotation marks, "gods" and "lords."

The verse states: Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς·

See the discussion in A. Tim Span's Ph.D. dissertation,"The Divine Name in the New Testament: Tetragrammaton or Surrogate?" Pages 67-68.

How Do Scholars Understand ἀπάντησις These Days? (Part III)

Kiwoon Lee ("Identity and Moral Formation in Early Christian Communities," page 75, Ph.D. Dissertation):

The word ἀπάντησις (1 Thess 4:17) refers to the civic reception of a ruler’s triumphant entry into the capital of the Empire (i.e. Rome) (LSJ; Harrison 2011:60).
However, one must be careful in determining whether these terms had merely political connotations, since the literary context itself does not clarify whether Paul intended to react to or oppose the Roman emperor. For example, the term παρουσία also occurs in Jewish literature, indicating the coming or presence of God, the last day, and the messianic figure (NIDNTTE 3:647-657). Moreover, with regard to the usage of ἀπάντησις elsewhere in the New Testament, the term refers to “action of going out to meet an arrival” rather than having a specific political meaning (LSJ; cf. Matt 27:32; Acts 28:15). Nevertheless, while one should not easily conclude that Paul simply conveys political overtones in using these words, the city officials and citizens might have been aware that Paul used this term in his message about Christ’s coming. Oakes (2005:317) does not rule out the possibility that the politarchs and fellow-citizens in Thessalonica could have construed Paul’s message in a political sense. But he explains that “[i]t is probably given to them by the unexpectedly weighty apocalyptic of v. 16 [1 Thess 4:16] … [t]he two terms may become political translations of apocalyptic into a form understandable to a Greek audience: political hook on which the audience can hang the apocalyptic imagery.”

See also Dean Kenneth Spalding, "Escorting Paul and the Other Emissaries of Jesus in Acts: The Significance of the Motif of Escort, Seen through the Lens of a Late First- (Early Second-) Century Mediterranean Cultural Script for Hospitality Conventions," Ph.D. Dissertation.