Two or More Witnesses

(Matthew 18:16) . . .But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

The context is obviously a legal one, but I think this is a good rule of thumb to go by. Everybody wants to believe that what they believe is true. I'm not talking about theology and interpretation, but about the historicity of one's beliefs. Christians, all Christians, have many suppositions that they carry along with their beliefs. For instance, the major one being inspiration and inerrancy. The Bible doesn't claim any of these for itself in the modern sense. 

True, there are statements such as Matthew 5:17-18 and 2 Timothy 3:16. However, none of these prove the Christian supposition. Paul, for instance, says that "all Scripture is inspired" and beneficial. In context, he is clearly referring to the 22 (24) books in the Old Testament, but because of different counting we have 39. So at best, Paul believed these 39 books to be inspired. He's certainly not talking about the 27 which would later compose the New Testament canon. But even with these 39 "inspired" books, Paul says that they only see things "hazily," that is, not in its full splendor. Thus, even for an "inspired" book, it is still, in some sense, insufficient.

Moreover, I will argue, that there are different sorts of "inspiration." For instance, if the Apocalypse of John is inspired, then this is a revelation from God. Still, other books such as Ephesians (if or if not we accept as genuine Pauline) would be "inspired" in a different sense. This epistle wouldn't be a revelation from God as the Apocalypse would be. This epistle can be considered to be influenced or simply approved by God. Thus, in this sense, it is "inspired." 

So inspiration is a tricky and complex subject. However, if we get away from this supposition of inspiration, what parts of the Bible and of other extra-biblical literature can we verify as historical? How much of the Gospels can we say with a fair amount of certainty actually happened?  

This is actually a fairly complex issue. It is complex because we are dealing with "sources" not really documents. The general scholarly consensus holds to the theory of "Q." That is to say, that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q" as a source. Where Matthew and Luke have unique material not found in "Q" or in Mark, then they used sources named "M" and "L." 

And in Historical Jesus studies, you have to have at least 2 independently attested events for it to have probably happened. If it appears in 3 or more, it almost certainly happened. 

So for instance: An event occurring in Mark, Matthew and Luke wouldn't equal 3 sources. It would only be 1 source since Matthew and Luke copied Mark. However, if this same event occurred in John, then you do have 2 sources (Mark & John). 

The methodology, in my opinion, is good. That is, events occurring in 2 or more witnesses should be given the most priority and we should probably base our beliefs on that which is most certain. 

However, I do disagree with the two source theory. I don't think "Q" existed nor do I think Matthew and Luke used Mark. Of course, I am now disagreeing with about 99% of scholarship. But I think there is good evidence for the independence of Matthew and Luke from Mark. I think oral tradition, eyewitness testimony, chreias, and a few other methods explain the similarities and differences in the Gospels. There is no need for the assumption of literary dependence, that is, literary dependence that assumes Matthew and Luke used Mark. I think it is plausible they did use similar sources, but not each other.

I will get into all this at a future date, but I will, in my next entry, get into a few accounts that I think are nearly 100% certain they happened. 

Bible-Translation.net

Over at http://bible-translation.net/, the Bible discussion group will be studying D. C. Parker's  An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. So for those that want to join, right now would be a good time. You can either purchase the book or join the Yahoo Discussion Group and get the PDF version for free. 


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bible-Translation/

Anyone who wants to join, can.

A problem that one may encounter, however, is that this is book number 7. So it may be at first difficult to know what certain terms mean and get down the basics.

Here's the book list: http://bible-translation.net/book_list_bible_translation_discussion

Scriptural Issue with Socinianism

(John 6:60-62) . . .Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble YOU? What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

The phrase "ascending to where he was before" suggests that he personally existed "before" he "became flesh." (John 1:14) How else can this be interpreted? 

Both Physical and Spiritual

Is it possible that Christ was indeed raised physically from the grave but that in his ascension he dematerialized and became non-fleshly? In this case, Jesus' statement in Luke about not being a spirit is true. We have no need to try to explain that away. And Paul's statement of Christ being a "spirit" is also true. We have no reason to not take Paul's words at face value. Both statements would be true with respect to the time at which they were said. Believers, then, would have the same sort of body Christ had during the 40 days while he was on earth (Acts 1:3) when they "inherit the earth." (Matt 5:5)

Revisiting John 20:24-25

But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

While it appears clear that Thomas was expecting to see Jesus bodily, there are other things that are less clear. Proponents of a bodily resurrection believe that Jesus' body is now "glorified" and "immortal." But my question is, if Jesus' body was "glorified" and "immortalized" why was it still damaged when he appeared to Thomas? Given Paul's agricultural analogy in 1 Corinthians 15 of the seed and that which is sown, isn't that which is sown different from that which comes out? 

Psalm 100:2-3

From the Message Bible:

Bring a gift of laughter, sing yourselves into his presence. Know this: GOD is God, and God, GOD.

What a horrible and silly translation. "GOD is God, and God, GOD"

This is what happens when the Divine Name, Jehovah (YeHoWaH), is removed from its proper place. 

How Do We Define Greek Words?

I had this archived and thought I would share it here on my blog:

QUOTE

Because we have so much Classical and Koine Greek literature, we have enough occurrences of the common Greek words to see them used in context, and from those many contexts see what they mean.

However, rare words are a little more difficult. If a word doesn’t occur that much, how can we determine what it means?

Part of the answer here is context. If you read a rare word that does not occur with enough frequency to give us a clear understanding of its range of meanings, we have to see if context is sufficiently clear to define the word.

In Classical Greek, scholars use the word’s etymology — the meaning of its parts. Words are made up of morphemes, which are the smallest unit of meaning in a word. For example, in English the suffix “ism” has a specific meaning that separates “baptize” from “baptism.” The same is true in Greek. The problem comes in Koine Greek, because words had sufficiently evolved so that the word’s etymology no longer has any necessary bearing on the meaning of the word, regardless of how many times you have heard a speaker use etymology to illustrate the word. See Don Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies.

But even with all this information, there are some words that defy precise definition. The most famous is in the Lord’s Prayer: “give us this day our επιουσιον bread” (Matt 6:11). Jesus uses an unbelievably strange word that does not occur anywhere else in all Greek literature except for discussions of the Lord’s Prayer. Why he did this, I do not know; I want to ask him that some day. But guesses at the definition include “daily,” “the coming day,” and “for existence” (see footnote on the NET Bible), the later explaining the NLT’s translation, “Give us today the food we need.” END OF QUOTE

It appears to be:

• Usage in other Greek literature
• Context
• And, in some cases, etymology

Thomas' Expectations & Paul's Unique Statements

John 20:24-25 from New World Translation:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

The apostle Thomas, as a good (but faith-lacking) Jew, expected a bodily resurrection from which he expected to see the "print of the nails" "in [Jesus'] hands" and be able to "stick [his] finger into" Jesus' side. Thomas probably expected the corpse of the dead to be raised from his reading of Isaiah 26:19:

“Your dead ones will live. A corpse of mine—they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully, YOU residents in the dust! For your dew is as the dew of mallows, and the earth itself will let even those impotent in death drop [in birth].

Since Thomas probably knew that it was the "corpse" that would "rise up," he expected to see Jesus' body raised. Whether his expectations were right or wrong is another matter that I won't get into. However, many have pointed out, and Witnesses are not alone in this, that Jesus could have materialized a body so that Thomas would "stop being unbelieving but become believing." (John 20:27) But even here, Jesus would have ran the risk of unintentionally leading Thomas to a conclusion that was, well, wrong. 

2 Corinthians 12:1-3 from New World Translation:

I have to boast. It is not beneficial; but I shall pass on to supernatural visions and revelations of [the] Lord. I know a man in union with Christ who, fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught away as such to the third heaven. Yes, I know such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, God knows— 

Paul, speaking of himself in the third person, says that he was "caught away as such to the third heaven." The remarkable aspect of this, for our purposes, is the statement of "whether in the body I do not know." This statement implies, even suggests, that it was not at all beyond Jewish understanding for a man, that is, for a human to be "in the body" and be "caught away" to the "third heaven." In other words, a man in heaven was not an unthinkable idea; though it certainly is a difficult one. So if Jesus was raised bodily, which I am neither arguing for nor arguing against, it is not at all unthinkable to Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:44 from New World Translation:

It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. [NWT Footnote with respect to "physical": Or, “soulical.” Gr., psy‧khi‧kon′; Lat., a‧ni‧ma′le.]

If we understand "physical body" to mean a "soulical body" or an "animal body," then this appears to be paralleled to 1 Corinthians 15:50 where "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." This would mean that "physical body"="flesh and blood." Paul does not leave us clueless with respect to what "flesh and blood" means:

(1 Corinthians 15:50) However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 

The above verse is color-coded in corresponding or parallel thoughts. That is, "flesh and blood"="corruption" and "God's kingdom"="incorruption." If this is correct, then, the "soulical" or "physical" body is "corruption." Being consistent and following the same train-of-thought, it would follow that "spiritual body" is "incorruption."  This would appear, once more, to be speaking of functionality as opposed to ontology. 

However, perhaps just as equally, the opposite of all the above could be argued. "Flesh and blood" means physical humans and thus a "physical body." And a "spiritual body" would be in contrast to a "physical body"; that is, it would be non-physical. Once more, this would probably be the most literal meaning of the text.

One difficulty with the latter view, however, is that the same Greek word for "spiritual" is used elsewhere in Paul and does not denote non-physicality. 

1 Corinthians 2:13

These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by [the] spirit, as we combine spiritual [matters] with spiritual [words].

Many other versions instead of having "spiritual [words]" have "spiritual people." The reason for this is that the last "spiritual" is an adjective which implies a noun. The New World Translation understood "spiritual" to be modifying something other than humans. Both are legitimate. However, even here "spiritual [matters]" does not necessarily imply non-physicality and "spiritual people" doesn't mean that they are not human.

1 Corinthians 3:1

And so, brothers, I was not able to speak to YOU as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to babes in Christ. . .

Here, "spiritual men" does not mean that these "men" are not human or physical but Paul is describing the status of being "spiritual" opposed to being "fleshly." 

A conclusion that we could draw, then, is that "spiritual body" does not necessitate non-physicality based on the use of "spiritual" elsewhere in Paul; though, of course, it can mean non-physicality as well!

The reason there are so many different beliefs across all denominations, as BeDuhn said in the interview, is because of ambiguities in the text. We are not first century Jews nor first century Gentiles and therefore cannot know with 100% certainty what Paul meant. We can't ask him personally, "Hey, Paul, what did you mean by 'spiritual body'?" The best we can do, if we assume the Scriptures are harmonious, is try to harmonize all the relevant passages and see what makes the best sense in light of its first century Jewish and Graeco-Roman context.

Jesus' Body

Luke 24:36-39 from the New World Translation:

While they were speaking of these things he himself stood in their midst [[and said to them: “May YOU have peace.”]] But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld a spirit. So he said to them: “Why are YOU troubled, and why is it doubts come up in YOUR hearts? See my hands and my feet that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have.”

Witnesses have traditionally understood this passage to mean Jesus was demonstrating to his disciples that they were not beholding a vision or apparition, since humans cannot see spirits. (see Reasoning from the Scriptures, [New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989], pp. 334-335.) While this may be true, I think it does not answer the question of why Jesus implied he had “flesh and bones.” On this point, Witnesses have traditionally understood that Jesus had materialized a body—much like angels had (apparently) done so in ancient times.

However, Jesus’ statement of “see my hands and my feet that it is I myself, feel me and see” implies at the very least that his body was very real; indeed, tangible even. If Jesus was in fact raised a spirit, could he truly have said “see…that it is I myself”? In a sense yes and in another, no. If he was raised a spirit, and that was actually Jesus and not a vision or demon, then it was obviously him. Thus he could say “it is I myself.” In another sense, though, it was not him if it was a spirit since his disciples hadn’t known him as such. He was no longer the Jewish born man to be Messiah.

1 Corinthians 15:45 from New World Translation:

It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit…

If we understand that Jesus materialized a body in Luke 24 and was indeed raised as a spirit, then it would appear that 1 Corinthians 15:45 lends support to that understanding. But even here there are questions. Is Paul referring to the substance of the resurrected Jesus? It appears that Paul is contrasting Adam as “a living soul” with Jesus as “a life-giving spirit.” The question, then, would appear to be whether Paul is comparing substance, that is, ontology or whether he is comparing function. I think both positions have some validity to them.

There appears to be a contrast to Adam’s function and Jesus’. Adam “became a living soul.” That is, he was given life. However, Christ didn’t becoming a living soul but “a life-giving spirit.” So there appears to be a contrast between the receiver of life and the giver of life. In this sense, then, Jesus would be a “spirit” in regards to his function not ontology. This view appears to be supported by other statements in the Bible. Consider Luke 1:35:

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

The point here is simple: “holy spirit” is synonymous in this context with the “power of the Most High.” That is, “spirit”=”power.” If we bring this view  of "spirit" into 1 Corinthians 15:45, then Jesus the “life-giving spirit” would mean Jesus is the “life-giving power [i.e., a source of life].” Jesus would be the one who dispenses life. We all know the saying of John where Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6) 1 Corinthians, then, would simply be reiterating what Jesus had said in John (or what John had Jesus saying in light of Paul). This is not to say, though, that Jesus is the ultimate source of life—But, he would be a source of life. The ultimate source of life would be Jehovah, of course; the one who allows Jesus to have life and the one who allows Jesus to be a source of life. (John 6:57)

On the other hand, the opposite view can be advanced. It could be that Paul is saying Adam became a soul, that is, a physical human being. While Jesus instead became a non-physical “spirit.” This would be the most literal reading of the words, I feel. 


Whether one view is more correct than the other is another matter. 

Romans 8:11

NWT:If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in YOU, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make YOUR mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in YOU.

Darby:But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you.


ESV:If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.


ISV:And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, then the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive by his Spirit who lives in you.


I am curious to get  your guys' perspective on this passage as it relates to the "also" and its implications, as well to the making of "mortal bodies alive." 

BeDuhn

Just finished the text-interview with Professor BeDuhn. You can read the interview here: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/interview-with-jason-beduhn/

2006 NWT

Many have noticed (and if you hadn't, now you will) that the 2006 edition of the NWT removed the brackets from its translation. The reason why is  as follows (from a letter dated October 14, 2010):

Originally. brackets were included to indicate when an English term could not be linked directly to a corresponding word in the original Hebrew or Greek text, and it was decided that supplementary words had to be included to make the meaning clear in English. However, using supplementary words is a normal procedure when translating text from one language to another because often there is no exact equivalent for some words or expressions. To overcome this problem, translators sometimes need to use two or more words to convey the sense of the original-language word or to make the sentence construction clear in English. Or they may have to add a word to convey an implicit idea that the original-language reader would have understood, even though no specific word appeared in the text. Thus, the added word(s) are necessary because the English text would be incomplete or incorrect without them. Of course, in doing so, translators should not add or remove any information nor distort the meaning when transferring the message from the original language to the target language.

It seems that in the past, some English readers had the impression that the bracketed words indicated where the translators added information, when in fact the words are necessary for good and accurate translation. Therefore, since all the words in brackets are needed to complete the thought exactly as was expressed in the original languages so that the English reader would understand what the original-language reader understood, it was decided to remove brackets from the 2006 printing. (It has always been our standard procedure that when the New World Translation is quoted in our literature. the brackets are never reproduced.) Please note, however, that double brackets have been retained to suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text. - See Luke 23:34 and the Reference Bible footnote.

Most other English Bible translations add words more freely than the New World Translation but do not include brackets to indicate which words had been added in their translations. Readers who desire an understanding of the exact correspondence of the terms found in the English New World Translation with the original-language terms can consult the footnotes in the Reference Bible, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or compare the New World Translation with a Hebrew interlinear Bible.

Philo as Originator of Immortal Soul

Phaedrus, 250c:

That was the ultimate vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in the thing we are carrying around now, which we call a body, locked in it like an oyster in its shell.

Cratylus, 400c:

Thus some people say that the body (sōma) is the tomb (sēma) of the soul, on the grounds that it is entombed in its present life, while others say that it is correctly called ‘a sign’ (sēma) because the soul signifies whatever it wants to signify by means of the body. I think it is most likely the followers of Orpheus who gave the body its name, with the idea that the soul is being punished for something, and that the body is an enclosure or prison in which the soul is securely kept (sōzetai) –as the name ‘sōma’ itself suggests–until the penalty is paid; for, on this view, not even a single letter or the word needs to be changed.

 Gorgias, 293a:

and we really, it may be, are dead; in fact I once heard sages say that we are now dead, and the body is our tomb, and the part of the soul in which we have desires is liable to be over-persuaded and to vacillate to and fro, and so some smart fellow, a Sicilian, I daresay, or Italian, made a fable in which—by a play of words—he named this part, as being so impressionable and persuadable, a jar, and the thoughtless he called uninitiate:

Note also the definition Plato gives to death, which many Christian groups nowadays have adopted:

Phaedo, 64c:

Let us then,” said he, “speak with one another, paying no further attention to them. Do we think there is such a thing as death?” “Certainly,” replied Simmias. “We believe, do we not, that death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that the state of being dead is the state in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself and the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself? Is death anything other than this?” “No, it is this,” said he. “Now, my friend, see if you agree with me; 

[NOTE: Title may be somewhat misleading given that other philosophers like Pindar and Pythagoras had already  alluded to an immortal soul. But it was Philo who popularized and who brought it into its classic expression that we know now.]

DEBATE: Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I will offer some comments on the debate in my next blog entry.

Luke 13:10-17

(Luke 13:10-17) Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And, look! a woman with a spirit of weakness for eighteen years, and she was bent double and was unable to raise herself up at all. When he saw her, Jesus addressed her and said to her: “Woman, you are released from your weakness.” And he laid his hands on her; and instantly she straightened up, and began to glorify God. But in response the presiding officer of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus did the cure on the sabbath, began to say to the crowd: “There are six days on which work ought to be done; on them, therefore, come and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.” However, the Lord answered him and said: “Hypocrites, does not each one of YOU on the sabbath untie his bull or his ass from the stall and lead it away to give it drink? Was it not due, then, for this woman who is a daughter of Abraham, and whom Satan held bound, look! eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?” Well, when he said these things, all his opposers began to feel shame; but all the crowd began to rejoice at all the glorious things done by him.

The Christian Scriptures are filled with many gems that are often overlooked or neglected due to the fact that we work with translations. As the saying usually goes, "something is always lost in translation." This saying proves to true here.

When Jesus tells the woman that she is "released from" her "weakness," the Greek word that Luke uses for Jesus' saying is ἀπολέλυσαι, which can mean "set free," "released," untied in the sense of being "released" and so on. (See BDAG for more definitions) This action of Jesus lead the Jews to claim that he broke the Sabbath. How does Jesus respond? 

He responds by calling them "hypocrites"! On what basis does Jesus call them that? Jesus continues by saying that "each one of" them 'unties' their "bull" or "ass from the stall and lead[s] it away to give it [a] drink." What is Jesus' point? 

The point is this: Jesus did a work by untying the woman from demons. The Jews also did work by untying their "bull" or "ass from the stall" to lead it to a drink of water on the Sabbath. This was Jesus' way of saying 'you do work on the Sabbath, too, who are you to criticize me'? Note, too, that the Jews don't challenge Jesus, at least according to Luke; instead, they walked away and "began to feel shame" because Jesus exposed their 'hypocrisy.' While Jesus untied people from demons, the Jews untied their animals--which both acts amounted to work on the Sabbath. The Jews were quick to call out Jesus but weren't quick to call out themselves; they were truly "hypocrites."

Rant

Don't you hate it when you're reading a work and the author directs you to another publication only to find out that the publication is an article in scholarly journal that you have to pay anywhere from 5 to 20 dollars to read? I know I do.

The Watchtower Society publishes over 2 dozen articles monthly free of charge (see their main journal the Watchtower and its companion Awake!). Both in print and electronically. Whether you disagree or agree with their positions is another matter. However, no one can deny that it is remarkable that while other institutions/organizations publish articles/journals as well (not to mention, for a price), the Society does it free of charge.

I was researching the burial customs as presented in the Hebrew Scriptures and in archaeological findings for an upcoming blog entry, but only to find out that the article I need is worth $9 just to read (in electronic format, not in print). Not happening! It's not even like it's a full book, it's simply an article.

Anyhow, if anyone is even semi-interested in the topic see Insight in the Scriptures Volume 1, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), page 377, "Burials, Burial Places" for a brief overview. See also Dr. Craig Evans in "Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus."

'The Name that is Above Every Name'

Philippians 2:9 reads,

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name (English Standard Version)

Concerning "the name" that Jesus was "bestowed" or given him by God, some have speculated that it is "Jehovah" (by which I mean, the Tetragrammaton) or even "Jesus." (see minute 6:59 of this video) Others have suggested that the name given him are those of Isaiah 9:6. Yet others have suggested that the "name" given him is "Lord." (see Anthony L. Ash, The College Press NIV Commentary: Philippians, Colossians & Philemon [Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1994])

But given that the context of the passage is in regards Christ's exaltation, could it be that the "name" given him is not a name in the sense of 'a language unit by which a person or thing is known'? Could "name," then, be in reference to a position or office that is newly given to Jesus from which he is now "above every" position or office (with the exception of Jehovah's, of course)? 


The Greek word used here is  ὄνομα, which, of course, can be simply a reference to a "name," that is, to "a language unit by which a person or thing is known." However, according to the BDAG (The authoritative lexicon of the Greek New Testament), ὄνομα can also mean "the classification under which one belongs, noted by a name or category, title, category, recognition accorded a person on the basis of performance, name in terms of office held, office." 


If ὄνομα is used in the sense of "office," which is the position I am taking, then, in my opinion, this would best fit the context of exaltation that Philippians 2 seems to be about. If someone is exalted, it logically follows that that one was exalted to a position and not to a name in the sense of "a language unit by which a person or thing is known." In regards to my position, what would the "name" given Jesus be?

Josephus in Jewish Wars 4.164 writes:

yet do I, who am clothed with the vestments of the high priesthood, and am called by that most venerable name [of high priest], still live, and am but too fond of living, and cannot endure to undergo a death which would be the glory of my old age; and if I were the only person concerned, and, as it were, in a desert, I would give up my life, and that alone for God’s sake;

According to Josephus, the "most venerable [or, "honorable"] name" is that of the high priest. In a Jewish mileu it would appear that "high priest" was thought of as a ὄνομα in the sense of "office." Jesus' new "name," then, would be that of the "high priest." Clearly, this fits well within a context of exaltation such as we have in Philippians 2. Also, this is certainly a new office "given" him or "bestowed" (ESV) him. Further, is it not true that when we pray to God we spiritually 'bend our knees' to Jesus as Lord in prayer as high priest to the glory of God the Father? For these and other reasons I think "high priest" certainly has a good chance of being the "name" in Philippians 2.

What do you guys think?

Matthew 28:19

Is Matthew 28:19 a later interpolation?

The phrase in question is, of course: 


βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,
Rendered literally: Baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit.


In my looking up Comfort and Metzger, they don't mention this verse at all. Generally this indicates that there're no variant readings, and as far as I know, there aren't any. The only variants that I have seen are in the quotations and citations by the early Church fathers and historians, specifically, Eusebius. 


Eusebius makes use of Matthew 28:19 29 times and uses many forms of it:

Form 1:  "Go ye and make disciples of all nations" (7 times) 
Form 2:  "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name" (17 times) 
Form 3:  The traditional form (5 times) [see the source here]


The most used form by Eusebius would be the form most frequently found in the book of Acts and in the epistles of Paul, namely, "in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines [or, "in my name"].

However, these are not reasons, that is, good enough reasons to reject Matthew 28:19 as original. Both Vaticanus (4th century) and Sinaiticus (4th Century), which are some of our best manuscripts, contain the traditional form. While it is true that there is about a 250+ year gap between these manuscripts and Matthew's original composition, it wouldn't be wise to speculate that this was added during this time, in my opinion. This is because it would open the door for a myriad of other verses to be regarded as interpolations on the sole basis of their being a gap between original composition and available manuscript(s).

In my opinion, best evidence leads us to conclude this verse is original. The only way this would change is if a newly discovered older manuscript is found that does not have this verse. While it is true that some commentaries and Bible dictionaries have questioned the authenticity of this verse, I think they do it on faulty grounds.

Luke 22:43-44

(Luke 22:43-44) Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. But getting into an agony he continued praying more earnestly; and his sweat became as drops of blood falling to the ground.

According to Comfort's Textual Commentary, "the manuscript evidence for this textual variant is decidedly in favor of the exclusion of 22:43-44."  Some of the manuscripts that omit these Lukan passages include "P69vid, P75, Sinaiticus1, A, B, N, T, W, etc. (see Comfort)

Further, the NET Bible footnote states:

Several important Greek mss (Ì⁷⁵ א¹ A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack 22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Matt 26:39 by Ë¹³. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א*^,2 D L Θ Ψ 0171 Ë¹ Ï lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of mss mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe’s assessment of the verses as inauthentic. At the same time, these verses generally fit Luke’s style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these words here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets. For an important discussion of this problem, see B. D. Ehrman and M. A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44,” CBQ 45 (1983): 401-16.

Given all the above evidence, we should view these passages as interpolations and not original. Luke didn't pen these verses. Though it should be noted that many regard these passages as "historically true," that is, that it did actually happen but that Luke for some reasons didn't include it in his Gospel. I wouldn't accept that uncritically, however.

(see also the New World Translation with References' footnote on Luke 22:44)

We Can't Know Jesus Rose from the Dead

Did Adam have a navel?

This is an interesting question, I think, which was proposed by one of the readers of this blog. My answer, which is of course, my own personal reflection, would be that he did not. To have a navel or belly button, would imply that one was born from a woman. Adam wasn't so therefore the implications are that he didn't have one.

"A navel is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby."- Wikipedia

My argument against Adam having one would be as follows:

1. Adam was never "born"
2. Adam was never "born" and thus never a baby or newborn.
3. Therefore, he couldn't have had a naval.

What do you guys think?

NIV Letter on the Divine Name

You can click image to enlarge it.

A Rabbi on Pluralism

Q: In Genesis 1:26, God said ..."let us make man on our image". Yet in Genesis 1:27, G-d is referred to as a singularity. However again in Gen.11:5 and 7, God is referred to in the singular and plural respectively. Again in Deut. 6:4 both singular and plural references to God are used in the this verse. How do modern day Rabbis view the word Elohim which appears over 500 times from Genesis to Malachi?


A: Elohim does not denote the notion of plurality of "Persons" as many Christian thinkers have advocated for centuries. English and Hebrew are two distinctive languages, and they do not operate by the same laws of syntax. It is characteristic of the Hebrew language to express' extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as anything in the abstract by the plural form.


Ibn Ezra observed that in other Semitic languages, an inferior speaks to his superior in the plural. Such a form of address is what is known as "plural of majesty.'"This custom still persists even in modern countries like Britain, where the royal "we" is still commonly used which originates from the Bible! The significance of the plural form in the Hebrew usage suggests a plentitude of power and majesty (a pluralis excellentice) or of intensification, i.e., the superlative "God of gods," "the absolute highest God," "quintessence of all divine powers." Therefore we must say that the plural form of Elohim connotes the plural of fullness; God is truly is in the fullest sense of the word, God Almighty.


Elohim' when used, also represents God as he relates to all the creatures of the world at large. Elohim describes God as the Creator and Providential Ruler in the affairs of humankind, and controlling every movement of nature in accordance with the laws He established in nature


Now, let us examine the second part of your question: What is the meaning of "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen.1:26)


For the past 2000 years, commentaries wondered: "Why does God speak in the plural (us/our)? Why did he not say, "Let me make man in my image? Who was God speaking to? There are many answers to consider:


(a) "Let us" may convey a plural of majesty (Saadia), i.e., the English royal "we" see notes on Gen. 1:10.


(b) Some see in this expression, the plural of self-deliberation. God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth," as He did with other creatures; instead, Man was brought into being with careful planning. (Abarbanel)


(c) Others see it as a plural of the fullness of attributes and powers. (Keil & Delitsch)
(d) Philo of Alexandria, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi were all of the view, God was speaking to His angelic host. By involving these beings in humankind's creation, God sought so to minimize any envy the angels might feel regarding humankind. Some modern scholars concur, for there are ample Biblical passages that would suggest that ancient Israelites were familiar with the notion that God took counsel with the heavenly host even though there is no clear-cut mention their creation in the early chapters of the Genesis creation narratives. Some of the ancient commentators see an allusion to the heavenly host"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" (Gen. 2:1).


(e) Ramban and Kimchi were of the opinion that God was soliciting creation itself to participate in giving a part of themselves in the creation of man. Some modern scholars concur


(f) Those who argue a Trinitarian view of the Deity, are as nearly all modern Christian scholars reject this old polemical interpretation. One of today's finest Christian scholars, Victor Hamilton bluntly said that Christians who wish to read in this verse the presence of Trinity are in effect, "reading more into the text than was originally the intention and understanding of the Biblical writers."


With regard to your last question concerning So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God he created them (Gen. 1:27) Kimchi and Rashi both note that the plural of majesty is never said with verbs or pronouns, but only with nouns. Nothing you cited from the Zohar would indicate the contrary.


Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel

'In Principio Erat Verbum': Sacred Texts in an Oral Culture

Ben Witherington wrote a helpful paper about intertexuality in oral culture and tradition. Read the paper here.

A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

In this article, Andy Woods argues and successfully in my opinion, that Revelation has future fulfillment and not a past one as Preterists and Partial Preterists believe and argue. For instance, preterists generally argue that Revelation's use of "quickly," "at hand," "soon," "near," and "about to" surely indicate that John believed that the things described would occur immediately. That is why most preterists and partial preterists believe the book of Revelation was written in the 60's describing the fall of Jerusalem. However, Woods rightfully points out that the words translated as "quickly," "at hand," and other similar words can have a qualitative meaning as opposed to a chronological one. "In other words, when the action comes, it will come suddenly or with great rapidity." (p. 5)

For those interested in eschatology and the book of Revelation in general, see the article here.

Luke 23:43

From Codex B

Third & Final Response

After citing the January, 1, 2011 Watchtower on page 14 where it states,

Still, someone may object, ‘But how could an all-wise God not have known?’ Granted, a facet of Jehovah’s great wisdom is his capability to know “from the beginning the finale.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) However, he does not have to use this capability, just as he does not always have to use his immense power to the full. Jehovah wisely uses his ability of foreknowledge selectively. He uses it when it makes sense to do so and fits the circumstances

Keith says,

“Now here’s my question. If Jehovah God can wisely use his foreknowledge selectively, regarding Adam & Eve, then isn’t it also possible that Jesus could wisely use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end?” 

This is the question Keith asks in his video starting at 2:00.

I feel I’ve already addressed this question but apparently others feel I’ve “missed the point.” In turn, I feel they have ‘missed my point.’ I’ll point out what I’ve pointed out before: In order for Jesus to “use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end,” you have assume he has this capability in the first place. In order to assume he has this capability in the first place, you have to assume he is God.


Because of these two assumptions that are contingent on one another, and because the question assumes those two assumptions in its phrasing, that is why I pointed out it was circular reasoning, i.e., the conclusion is read back into the phrasing of the question.

Let the readers make of it what they will.

"We Are Star Dust"

Debate includes Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig and others.

Response to Keith Part 2

My response will be in blue, Keith's in Red and my new reply in black.


Ivan: Then by Trinitarian standards, one person of the Godhead has knowledge that the other two members don't. How is that even remotely compatible with the notion of the creeds that affirm that all persons of the polypersonal God are "co-equal" and "all knowing"?

Further, one must assume Trinitarianism in order to even suggest the question that Jesus has selective foreknowledge, or at least assume two natures. It's circular reasoning.

Keith: Of course I am assuming the Trinity is true. It is the only way to counter arguments AGAINST the Trinity. Plus, you are missing the point. If Jehovah can use His foreknowledge selectively, then why can't the Son? If Jehovah can do that and still be considered all knowing, then that refutes the argument that Jesus cannot be Deity because He doesn't know certain future events.

Ivan:  You admit circle reasoning in your argument ("assuming the Trinity is true), I'm curious as to why that doesn't give you reason to pause and re-evaluate your argument?

Keith: Circular reasoning is assuming the conclusion within a premise. I have not done that. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies. My argument is a RESPONSE to a bad argument which I will sum up in my next post.

Ivan: Sure you have. You even said "of course, I am assuming the Trinity is true," thus your premise that Jesus even has the capability of selective foreknowledge is based on circular reasoning and assumptions.

In order to say Jesus used selective foreknowledge you have to assume he is God.

Keith: I think the best way to get you to see that I am not using circular reasoning is to get you to look at the argument from my perspective. The basic argument is- Only God knows all things. Jesus does not know all things, therefore Jesus is not God.

How would you answer the argument if it was directed at Jehovah?

Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God.

Try to answer that argument without assuming that Jehovah is God.

My Response: Is it not true that you assume Jesus has selective foreknowledge? Is it not also true that you assume he has this selective foreknowledge because he is God? I think you would answer in the affirmative to the 2 questions. If so, how is that not circular reasoning? You begin by assuming Jesus has this selective foreknowledge then proceed to ask if Jesus could use it. Of course he could use it if he were God. But we should not start with that assumption given that it assumes too much, that is, it assumes he's God from the outset without proof. 

You would have to prove that he is God first, then you can make your selective foreknowledge argument. 

"Petitio princippii [begging the question, aka, circular reasoning] is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assume without proof." - James Welton, A Manual of Logic, page 279.

Here's what's going on Keith: You "assume without proof" that Jesus has this capability of selective foreknowledge. 

My argument: Jesus can't use "selective foreknowledge" because he doesn't have that ability.

You asked how I would answer the question or argument "Only God knows all things. Jehovah does not know all things, therefore Jehovah is not God" and I'm suppose to answer that argument without assuming Jehovah is God. 

Firstly, the statement that "Jehovah does not know all things" is not necessarily accurate. If it were true that Jehovah does not know all things, this would only be due to his use of choosing not to know. If he choose not to know a specific event and thus did not know all things as a result of that voluntary choosing, then it still does not follow that he is not God. It does not follow because the question or statement does not take into account that he can choose not to know. 

In other words, the premise of the question doesn't even get off the ground.