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