Jesus Christ, Creation & Chaos: Genesis 1:1-2 Septuagint (LXX)

In regard to the question of preexisting matter (Chaos), it is somewhat difficult to nail down a solid reading of John 1:3, Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1:3, 1Cor 8:6 without understanding the cultural framework of the authors, in particular what presuppositions did the authors bring with them about scope of God’s creative activity. Did they share with their idolatrous neighbors the notion of a preexisting Chaos, either a formless mass of  unorganized matter,  often personified as a mythological anti-creation Chaos monster, or did they understand verse two of Genesis as a description of  a stage in the process of God’s creative activity, where tohu vav bohu was a result of an initial creative act of God? There are thousands of pages of secondary literature devoted to this question. I don’t intend to review all the arguments.

To help understand the cultural and religious framework of the New Testament authors we might ask: “What was the prevailing understanding of the Genesis 1:2 at time when the Septuagint(LXX) was used as scripture?” In other words, the Septuagint may serve as is a primary source, a witness to the exegetical tradition of Judaism current in the Hellenistic period.

Gen. 1:1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν  2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος  3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς

Looking at the discourse structure in Gen 1:1-3 LXX, John Wevers[1] suggests that δὲ in v.2 marks a switch in the subject from ὁ θεὸς to ἡ γῆ. Stephen Levinsohn[2] states “information introduced by δὲ … represents a new step or development in the story … this information builds on what has proceeded it.” Assuming[3] that Levinsohn’s comments can be applied to ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν … in  Gen 1:2, this suggests that verse two follows verse one in a linear sequence but there other possibilities. The particle δὲ can also be used in a switch either to or from background material[4].  G. Wenhem[6] cites the Gen. LXX as an early witness to the traditional reading of Gen 1:1-3 wherein the relationship between the statements is sequential; “V[erse]1 is a main clause describing the first act of creation, V[erses] 2 and 3 describe subsequent phases in God’s creative activity.”

[1]John Wevers,  Notes on Greek Text of Genesis, p. 1.
[2] Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd Ed. SIL, 2000, p76

[3] Levinsohn’s treatment of discourse particles including καὶ and δὲ is long, nuanced and complex. It would not serve our purpose to get embroiled in the details of his discussion so I abbreviated one statement at risk of distorting his views. The question of the discourse function of δὲ needs to be investigated for each author and text. Levinsohn has demonstrated that Acts and Luke do not use δὲ in exactly the same manner and the John’s Gospel has yet a different pattern. Never the less, then notion of “development” seems to be somewhat general, transcending the boundaries of genre and author. However, one should proceed with due caution when applying principles from discourse grammar.

[4] S. Levinsohn, Discourse Features p72.

[5] for the four major readings see either Victor P. Hamilton Genesis NICOT v1 or Gordon J. Wenham  Genesis WBC v1.

[6] Gordon J. Wenham  Genesis WBC v1, p.13, see also p.11

κόσμος (kosmos) in Johannine writings part 2

John has a compact vocabulary. He doesn’t impress us with his great erudition like Luke or the author of Hebrews. On the other hand John gets a lot of mileage out of his words. He is a poet, a weaver of words and meanings, his discourse has a haunting quality that makes it highly memorable and a pleasure to read. In the first epistle 1John 2:15-17 we see κόσμος kosmos used six times; John uses a lot of repetition. In this passage κόσμος kosmos is not something good and for that reason it must refer to something different than Jn 1:10b καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. In 1John 2:16 John states that everything which characterizes this κόσμος is not from The  Father ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς. Therefore it cannot be a creation of the Word Jn 1:10b. The use of kosmos in 1Jn 2:15-17 should help us understand what is going in Jn 1:9-10. This subtle shift in the meaning of a repeated word is a characterist of John’s style.

John 1:9 Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.  10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

1John 2:15 Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ·  16 ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν.  17 καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ, ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

κόσμος (kosmos) in Johannine writings

 John 1:3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

John 1:9 Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.  10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

Ronald post this as part of an extended comment 

Likewise, there is an indication of the same limitation of the scope of panta in John 1:3. John 1:10 speaks of the world (kosmos)that Logos came into as the world that was made through the Logos. That world did not recognize Jesus. It is this same "world" that Jesus spoke of as recorded in John 17:5. Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19 refer to the beginning of the world (kosmos); this world is described in John 1:10 as the world into which the Word came, but which world did not recognize the Word in their midst. Thus, it is speaking of the world of mankind, not the entire material universe, nor of the angels. This is the "world" that the Word came into, and that did not recognize him. (John 1:10) Thus, it can be seen that the NT writers in connection with "the beginning" of creation understood that this beginning was in reference to things upon the planet earth, not to the entire universe itself.

I think we disagree on the scope of πάντα in Jn 1:3. I demonstrated that πάντα is not always used with a universal scope, but I am confident that John intended πάντα to have a universal scope in Jn 1:3. The alternate reading of Jn 1:3b where ὃ γέγονεν is read as a relative clause attached to the end of verse three does not require a limited scope for πάντα. It can be read that way, H. A. W. Meyer suggests it, but it isn't required. I consider it sort of torturous logic to read it that way but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
 
 κόσμος (kosmos) does not have the same referent or meaning everywhere it is used in John's Gospel and Epistles. When John says that Word came into the World it has one meaning but when the World rejects the Word it has a slightly different meaning, and when the Word makes the World it has yet another meaning. World is the best we can do in English, but it is not very precise. κόσμος is both a physical and a metaphysical reality.

I would agree that the creation of the κόσμος (kosmos) may not be identical in scope to πάντα in Jn 1:3. However, based on Louw & Nida[1]  it is possible for κόσμος (kosmos) and πάντα to coreferential.

A Universe, Creation (1.1–1.4)

1.1 κόσμοςa, ου m: the universe as an ordered structure — ‘cosmos, universe.’ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ‘God who made the universe and everything in it’ Ac 17:24. In many languages there is no specific term for the universe. The closest equivalent may simply be ‘all that exists.’ In other instances one may use a phrase such as ‘the world and all that is above it’ or ‘the sky and the earth.’ The concept of the totality of the universe may be expressed in some languages only as ‘everything that is on the earth and in the sky.’ 

There are several  semantic domains for κόσμος relevant to John's writing, I list them somewhat abbreviated since this is copyrighted material.

9.23 κόσμοςd, ου m:   people associated with a world system and estranged from God  

1.39 γῆa, γῆς f; οἰκουμένη, ης f; κόσμος, ου m: the surface of the earth as the dwelling place of mankind, in contrast with the heavens above and the world below

41.38 κόσμοςc, ου m; αἰώνc, ῶνος m: the system of practices and standards associated with secular society

[1] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Editors
Copyright © 1988, 1989 by the United Bible Societies, New York, NY 10023
Second Edition.  Used by permission.

Landkarten zur Bible, prepared by Karl Elliger, revised by Siegfried Mittmann. Designed by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart and Kartographisches Institut Helmut Fuchs Leonberg. Copyright ©1963, 1978, 1990 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

What did Jesus Christ Create part 5 — Colossians 1:15-17 L. W. Hurtado and J. D. G. Dunn

Colossians 1:15-17 L. W. Hurtado and J. D. G. Dunn

Col. 1:15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,  16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·  17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,

Does Colossians depict Jesus Christ as the creator of the all things?  It might seem to ordinary people that  anyone who can read a translation of the epistle should without much difficulty conclude that the “hymn to Christ” in Colossians 1:15-20 affirms that Jesus Christ was the agent in the creation of all things. Some New Testament scholars do not agree. James D. G. Dunn, in his commentary on Colossians and in other publications, does not think this language makes the Jesus of the Gospels the agent of creation. Dunn’s position on this is too complex to explain in this post. Broadly speaking, Jesus Christ is viewed somewhat like Wisdom in Second Temple Judaism, which Dunn understands as a metaphor for God’s agency in the physical cosmos, a means of avoiding talk about God that would compromise his transcendence over the physical creation. The details and nuances are many fold, so this should not be taken as a synopsis of  Dunn’s position — From his commentary (Colossians & Philemon NIGTC, Eerdmans 1996, p91) “What does such language mean when applied to the Messiah Jesus? Not, presumably, that the Christ known to his followers during his ministry in Palestine was as such God’s agent in creation; in the first century no less in the twentieth that would be to read imaginative metaphor in a pedantically literal way.”

Larry W. Hurtado[1]  does not agree, he states “… the passage lyrically proclaims Christ as the unique divine agent of creation and redemption.”   Is Hurtado being being “pedantically literal”? I think not. More on this later.

Jesus Christ, Creation and Chaos -- part 4

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.  2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.  3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν  4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

Now picking up where we left off:

Martin Hengel [1] on Jn 1:3b states “The next clause ‘and without the Word nothing came into being’ excludes any kind of dualism in principle — as, for example, found in Zoroastrianism or the widespread Greek idea of the chaos of uncreated matter.” Henry Alford in his Greek NT notes makes the same claim.

H. A. W. Meyer (1884) appears to disagree with Henry Alford, M. Hengel and many others. “This negative reference does not exclude … the doctrine of a ὕλη[1] having an extra-temporal existence (Philo, l.c.) because ἐγένετο and γέγονεν describe that which exists only since the creation, as having come into existence, and therefore ὕλη would not be included in the conception. John neither holds of opposes the idea of the ὕλη; the antithesis has no polemical design — not even of an anti-gnostic kind …”

While Meyer’s comments from the late 1800s are aimed at Greek cosmology they seem to cast some light on the question of John’s framework. The notion of Gnostic interference with early Christian theology has a long history in biblical studies. Meyer sweeps it aside as irrelevant and states that John’s assertions in Jn 1:3b do not address the question of an ὕλη, leaving it an open question. While an ὕλη is not the same as Chaos in Gen 1:2, it shares one key semantic feature; the notion of preexisting material. The Chaos of Gen 1:2 is culturally situated within the Ancient Near East (ANE) with a long history of combat myths between anti-creation monsters and the hero gods who defeat them. 

[1]   ὕλη [ῡ], ἡ, Lat. sylva , a wood, forest, woodland,  Hom., Hdt., etc.; τὰ δένδρα καὶ ὕλη fruit-trees and forest trees,  Thuc.: copse, brushwood,  opp. to timber-trees, Xen.
    II. wood cut down, firewood, fuel,  Hom., etc.
    III. like Lat. materia, stuff of which a thing is made, the raw material, wood, timber,  Od., Hdt.
        2. in Philosophy, matter,  Arist.
        3. subject matter,  Id.

Liddell & Scott An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
founded upon The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon.  Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1889.

Jesus Christ, Creation and Chaos -- part 3

This is part three of What did Jesus Christ Create?

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.  2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.  3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν  4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

Bruce Metzger in his commentary on the Text of the GNT (1971) disagrees with the majority of the committee for UBSGNT3. He claims that punctuation in the early manuscripts reflects the exegetical tradition in the early church not what was found in the exemplars since the really early manuscripts rarely if ever had any punctuation at all. There were numerous and diverse “heretics” in the early centuries making use of John’s prologue and punctuation in Jn1:3b-4 may have been altered in response to the current dispute. For all of these reasons it seems best to begin exegesis without any assumptions about the how Jn 1:3b-4 is punctuated.

Martin Hengel [1] on Jn 1:3b states “The next clause ‘and without the Word nothing came into being’ excludes any kind of dualism in principle — as, for example, found in Zoroastrianism or the widespread Greek idea of the chaos of uncreated matter.” Henry Alford in his Greek NT notes makes the same claim.

It seem to me that this reading of Jn1:3b-4 assumes that creation ex nihilo was a fixed feature of Second Temple Judaism. In other words, the argument is widely circular. There are many OT scholars now claiming that Gen 1:2 refers to uncreated Chaos. But is that how a first century disciple of Jesus would have read Genesis? What were dealing with is questions about the cultural and religious framework of the author. If the author did not consider the Chaos of Gen 1:2 a part of creation then it would not cause a problem in Jn1:3b-4 because it would be excluded from the referent of πάντα … ὃ γέγονεν following Metzger’s reading of the text. 




[1] Martin Hengel (1926-2009) “The Prologue of the Gospel of John as the Gateway to Christological Truth” page 273 in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology – Edited by Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser.

What did Jesus Christ* create? part two

"First, John's Gospel starts with the affirmation that God through the Word created everything that is not divine (1:3)." Miroslav Volf [1]

Well, if that is what John's gospel affirms then the preexisting chaos in Genesis 1:2 must be either "divine" or created by the Word. Let's take another look at the text. 

John 1:
1  Εν αρχῃ ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. 2  ουτος ην εν αρχῃ προς τον θεον. 3  παντα δι αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν. ο γεγονεν 4  εν αυτῳ ζωη ην, και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων·

John 1:
1  εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2  ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον 3  παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν 4  εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

Note the alternate punctuation at the end of verse three. When we remove the full stop after εν before ο γεγονεν we open up another possible reading of the text. The constituent ο γεγονεν could be read as a relative clause limiting the scope of the previous statement. In other words, not one thing came into existence without the Word of those things that came into existence (awkward, yes). If John understood the chaos of Gen. 1:2 as uncreated, then it would not fall into the category of "things that came into existence" since it already existed. This is a little far fetched and M. Volf doesn't read it that way. The punctuation found in UBSGNT3, NA27, SBLGNT,  puts a full stop after EN and makes EN part of the next statement. This somewhat reduces the plausibility of this alternate reading. It does not eliminate it entirely but it makes it less plausible. 

I am inclined at this point to accept M. Volf's statement but the discussion isn't over yet. Tommorrow we will look at Martin Hengel's reading of the text from an article in the same book.



[1] Miroslav Volf, Johannine Dualism and Contemporary Pluralism, page 23 The Gospel of John and Christian theology - Richard Bauckham, Carl Mosser eds.

*I realize that the title of this series might cause problems for some people, ο λογος was the agent in creation. But it was the man Jesus Christ that spoke the words in Jn 8:58: ειπεν ⸀αυτοις Ιησους· Αμην αμην λεγω υμιν, πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.

What did Jesus Christ* create? part one

What did Jesus Christ create?

There is an ancient and ongoing controversy over the meaning of Genesis 1:1-2 MT (Masoretic Text) which I intend to avoid. My question is how the authors of the NT understand the object of  Jesus Christ’s creative agency in John 1:3, Col 1:15-17, Heb 1:3 and so forth. In this first post I will address some bad arguments. One should not jump to conclusions about my views in this early stage while we are sorting out the good from the bad. Starting with John’s prologue:

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.  2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.  3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν  4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

I have heard numerous times people argue that PANTA or PAS is always universal in scope. Anyone who has read a little Greek should know that this isn't true. PANTA/PAS may or may not be universal in scope. Quite often it functions like the English word "all" in statements like "we all went to the game". Here is one example which is typical enough; the disciples of John The Baptist are concerned because all (PANTES) are going to Jesus. This use of "all" cannot be universal in scope.

John 3:25 Ἐγένετο οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετὰ Ἰουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμοῦ.  26 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.

While PANTA is not always universal in scope, John's statement in 1:3 is emphatically universal. He states it first in a positive form πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο and the repeats it in a negative from καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. This is mostly a feature of his rhetorical method but it also serves as evidence that John didn't consider PANTA alone adequate to express what he hand in mind.


*I realize that the title of this series might cause problems for some people, ο λογος was the agent in creation. But it was the man Jesus Christ that spoke the words in Jn 8:58: ειπεν ⸀αυτοις Ιησους· Αμην αμην λεγω υμιν, πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.

Monotheism, human creativity and the Imago Dei

A couple of days ago I was listening to a podcast by a literary scholar Holly Ordway, Ph.D and noted how she mentioned human “creativity” as an aspect of the Imago Dei. There is nothing unusual about this. It has the status of conventional wisdom in contemporary christian culture.  What I am about say is not a critique of Holly Ordway, Ph.D.

I would like to start out with a quote from a paper by Richard Bauckham 

The one God of Second Temple Jewish belief was identifiable [as] … the only Creator of all things and that he is the sole sovereign Ruler of all things. Such identifications of YHWH are extremely common in Second Temple Jewish literature.4 They were the simplest and clearest way of answering the question: What distinguishes YHWH, the only true God, from all other reality? In what does his uniqueness consist? These characteristics make a clear and absolute distinction between the true God and all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which most Jews in most synagogues in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects. (Thus so-called intermediary figures either belong to the unique identity of God or else were created by and remain subject to the one God, as his worshippers and servants, however exalted.)

From  Paul's Christology of Divine Identity, Richard Bauckham, page 3.

So what is the problem with  human “creativity” as an aspect of the Imago Dei?  The absolute distinction between the One Creator and all creation seems to weigh against the notion that humans are in some sense “like God” because they “create”. What humans do is make things out of other things.

One of my artist friends from my youth Kathy Hastings takes digital photographs and after post processing and printing, mounts them on boards and seals them with wax. Kathy is a fine artist, with considerable talent, trained at one of the top schools of design on the west coast, graduated with honors. I have nothing but respect and admiration for her skill and talent. I would have no objection to claiming that Kathy is a “creative” person and that this is a part of  what God the Creator indented in His design for humanity.

On the other hand, “neo” paganism is now with us in the western world. Over the last half century various ancient pagan ideologies have become mainstream in what used to be called Christendom. Peter Johns of Westminster Seminary has written several popular treatments of this issue. One of the central features shared among many of these diverse ancient world views is a notion that the human and the divine are not separated in any absolute sense. Peter Jones refers to this as monism. When I hear contemporary Christians talking about how human “creativity” is a way in which humans are “like God” and part of the Imago Dei. I often have second thoughts about  their theological framework. 

Richard Bauckham in the article quoted above takes great pains to show how Jesus Christ as the agent of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17) did not threaten the strick Monotheism of the early Christians because Christ was included in the Divine Identity. In contemporary western culture there is a wide spread tendencey to inculde all humanity, or in some cases humnaity and animals, or in other cases all things visiable and invisiable in the Divine Identity.  That is not compatible with historical Chirsitan monotheism.

Bart Ehrman has been on the war path for two decades to convince the unlearned that early christianity was not monolithically monotheistic and that various forms of gnosticism were legitimate alternative forms of the faith.  I don’t have the time or the  resources to take on Bart Ehrman, but if you do a search on Larry W. Hurtado and Richard Bauckham you will find plenty of  heavy duty scholarship which undermines Bart Ehrman’s project.

Only Savior μόνος σωτὴρ

Only Savior μόνος σωτὴρ

In Sophocles Electra Line 1354 we find the expression ὦ μόνος σωτὴρ wherein Electra is addressing Paidagogus, the former tutor of Orestes. It sounds vaguely biblical. The only colocation of μόνος and σωτὴρ in the GNT is found in Jude v25.

“Sophocles, vol. 2”, Ed. Dain, A., Mazon, P.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1958, Repr. 1968 (1st edn. rev.).
Line 1354

{ΟΡ.} Οὗ τὸ Φωκέων πέδον
ὑπεξεπέμφθην σῇ προμηθίᾳ χεροῖν.
{ΗΛ.} Ἦ κεῖνος οὗτος ὅν ποτ' ἐκ πολλῶν ἐγὼ
μόνον προσεῦρον πιστὸν ἐν πατρὸς φόνῳ;
{ΟΡ.} Ὅδ' ἐστί· μή μ' ἔλεγχε πλείοσιν λόγοις.
{ΗΛ.} Ὦ φίλτατον φῶς, ὦ μόνος σωτὴρ δόμων
Ἀγαμέμνονος, πῶς ἦλθες; ἦ σὺ κεῖνος εἶ
ὃς τόνδε κἄμ' ἔσωσας ἐκ πολλῶν πόνων;
Ὦ φίλταται μὲν χεῖρες, ἥδιστον δ' ἔχων
ποδῶν ὑπηρέτημα, πῶς οὕτω πάλαι

Jude 24 Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, 25 μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

A search of TLG  shows many occurrences after the New Testament. Here is a sample from Eusebius in reference to Christ.

Eusebius Scr. Eccl., Theol., Praeparatio evangelica
Book 4, chapter 21, section 2

διὸ καὶ ἐνδίκως θεομάχοι τινὲς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς λεχθεῖεν, τὸν πάντα λυμηνάμενοι βίον, ὧν ἐξ αἰῶνος οὐδεὶς ἢ μόνος ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ κύριος ἡμῶν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις τὴν φυγὴν προεξένησεν, εὐαγγελιζόμενος ὁμοῦ πάντας Ἕλληνάς τε καὶ βαρβάρους θεραπείαν τῆς πατρικῆς νόσου καὶ τῆς πικρᾶς καὶ παλαιοτάτης δουλείας ἐλευθερίαν·

The samples before the New Testament era are more interesting, mostly from Philo but also a couple before Philo.


Alexis Comic., Fragmenta (0402: 001)
“Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 2”, Ed. Kock, T.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1884.
Fragment 56

τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις ἐστὶν ἐψηφισμένον,
ὥς φασι, χαλκῆν Καλλιμέδοντος εἰκόνα
στῆσαι Παναθηναίοισιν ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν,
ἔχουσαν ὀπτὸν κάραβον ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ,
ὡς αὐτὸν ὄντ' αὐτοῖσι τῆς τέχνης μόνον
σωτῆρα, τοὺς ἄλλους δὲ πάντας ζημίαν.
περιστερὰς
ἔνδον τρέφω τῶν Σικελικῶν τούτων πάνυ
κομψάς.
τῆς φιλοτησίας ἐγὼ
μεστὰς προπίνω γ' ἴσον ἴσῳ κεκραμένας.

Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica (lib. 1–20) (0060: 001)
“Diodori bibliotheca historica, 5 vols., 3rd edn.”, Ed. Vogel, F., Fischer, K.T. (post I. Bekker & L. Dindorf)
Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1888; 2:1890; 3:1893; 4–5:1906, Repr. 1964.
Book 16, chapter 20, section 6

ὁ δὲ Δίων ἀκολούθως τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἐπιεικῶς τοὺς μὲν ἐχθροὺς ἅπαντας ἀπέλυσε τῶν ἐγκλημάτων καὶ τὸ πλῆθος παραμυθησάμενος εἰς κοινὴν ἤγαγεν ὁμόνοιαν. οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι πανδήμοις ἐπαίνοις καὶ ἀποδοχαῖς μεγάλαις ἐτίμων τὸν εὐεργέτην ὡς μόνον σωτῆρα γεγονότα τῆς πατρίδος. καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὴν Σικελίαν ἐν τούτοις ἦν.


Philo Judaeus Phil., De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (0018: 004)
“Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1”, Ed. Cohn, L.
Berlin: Reimer, 1896, Repr. 1962.
Section 71

ἀλλ' ὅταν γε τῶν ἀνθρωπείων μηδὲν ἀρκῇ, πάντα δὲ εὑρίσκηται καὶ τὰ παιώνια βλαβερά, τηνικαῦτα ἐξ ἀμηχανίας πολλῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ὠφέλειαν ἀπογνόντες, ἄκοντες οἱ δείλαιοι καταφεύγουσιν ὀψὲ καὶ μόλις ἐπὶ τὸν μόνον σωτῆρα θεόν· ὁ δ' ἅτε εἰδὼς τὰ ἐν ἀνάγκαις ἄκυρα οὐκ ἐπὶ πάντων χρῆται τῷ νόμῳ, ἀλλ' ἐφ' ὧν καλὸν καὶ συμφέρον χρῆσθαι. πᾶς οὖν λογισμὸς κτήματα ἑαυτοῦ τὰ πάντα ἡγούμενος καὶ ἑαυτὸν προτιμῶν θεοῦ – τὸ γὰρ “μεθ' ἡμέρας θύειν” τοιοῦτον ὑποβάλλει νοῦν – ἔνοχος ὢν ἀσεβείας ἴστω γραφῇ.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De confusione linguarum (0018: 013)
“Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 2”, Ed. Wendland, P.
Berlin: Reimer, 1897, Repr. 1962.
Section 93

τίς δ' οὐκ ἂν τῶν εὖ φρονούντων τὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων ἰδὼν ἔργα καὶ τὰς ὑπερβαλλούσας σπουδάς, αἷς ἢ πρὸς ἀργυρισμὸν ἢ δόξαν ἢ τὴν ἐν ἡδοναῖς ἀπόλαυσιν εἰώθασι χρῆσθαι, σφόδρα κατηφήσαι καὶ πρὸς τὸν μόνον σωτῆρα θεὸν ἐκβοήσαι, ἵνα τὰ | μὲν ἐπικουφίσῃ, λύτρα δὲ καὶ σῶστρα καταθεὶς τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς ἐλευθερίαν αὐτὴν ἐξέληται; τίς οὖν ἐλευθερία βεβαιοτάτη; τίς; ἡ τοῦ μόνου θεραπεία σοφοῦ, καθάπερ μαρτυροῦσιν οἱ χρησμοί, ἐν οἷς εἴρηται “ἐξαπόστειλον τὸν λαόν, ἵνα με θεραπεύῃ” (Exod. 8, 1). ἴδιον δὲ τῶν τὸ ὂν θεραπευόντων οἰνοχόων μὲν ἢ σιτοποιῶν ἢ μαγείρων ἔργα ἢ ὅσα ἄλλα γεώδη μήτε διαπλάττειν


Philo Judaeus Phil., De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (0018: 004)
“Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1”, Ed. Cohn, L.
Berlin: Reimer, 1896, Repr. 1962.
Section 71
πάντα δὲ εὑρίσκηται καὶ τὰ παιώνια βλαβερά, τηνικαῦτα ἐξ ἀμηχανίας πολλῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ὠφέλειαν ἀπογνόντες, ἄκοντες οἱ δείλαιοι καταφεύγουσιν ὀψὲ καὶ μόλις ἐπὶ τὸν μόνον σωτῆρα θεόν· ὁ δ' ἅτε εἰδὼς τὰ ἐν ἀνάγκαις ἄκυρα οὐκ ἐπὶ πάντων χρῆται τῷ νόμῳ, ἀλλ' ἐφ' ὧν καλὸν καὶ συμφέρον χρῆσθαι.

I will have more to say about these later. Once again, the light is fading, need to wrap this up.

A pattern of reference to Apollo in Attic Tragedy? part 3

Sophocles Electra 1376 -1383
{ΗΛ.} Ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε,
ἐμοῦ τε πρὸς τούτοισιν, ἥ σε πολλὰ δὴ
ἀφ' ὧν ἔχοιμι λιπαρεῖ προὔστην χερί.
Νῦν δ', ὦ Λύκει' Ἄπολλον, ἐξ οἵων ἔχω
αἰτῶ, προπίτνω, λίσσομαι, γενοῦ πρόφρων
ἡμῖν ἀρωγὸς τῶνδε τῶν βουλευμάτων,
καὶ δεῖξον ἀνθρώποισι τἀπιτίμια
τῆς δυσσεβείας οἷα δωροῦνται θεοί.

Wherein Electra submits a request to Apollo. Why is there a comma after Ἄπολλον and why do the translators (Jebb, Grene, Carson, Pound-Fleming) read ἵλεως as an adverb with κλύε rather than an adjective with Ἄπολλον?

Looking beyond the pattern in Attic Tragedy, where Ἄναξ Ἄπολλον is generally not followed by an adjective modifying the head noun Ἄπολλον, what evidence do we find within the immediate context that would suggest reading ἵλεως adverbially with κλύε? If we look in the second half of Electra’s plea to Apollo, αἰτῶ, προπίτνω, λίσσομαι, γενοῦ πρόφρων ἡμῖν … it appears that being gracious or favorable disposed towards the suppliants is a part of the request γενοῦ πρόφρων ἡμῖν. The flow of thought moves from the first four lines which open with a general request ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε ἐμοῦ τε πρὸς τούτοισιν supported with a defense of Electra’s right to submit the plea based on her acts of devotion ἥ σε πολλὰ δὴ ἀφ' ὧν ἔχοιμι λιπαρεῖ προὔστην χερί. Then we move to a second more elaborate plea with a triad of finite verbs of petition αἰτῶ, προπίτνω, λίσσομαι, followed by an imperative request γενοῦ πρόφρων ἡμῖν. The imperative suggests to me at least, that being “gracious” is part of the content of the supplication both here and in the opening line ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε.

Once again, this a work in progress, must leave off the days are short and the light is fading.

Part Two - Patterns of Reference to Gods in Attic Tragedy

This is a continuation of yesterdays post.

Euripides Heraclidae 853-854
{Χο.} ὦ Ζεῦ τροπαῖε, νῦν ἐμοὶ δεινοῦ φόβου
ἐλεύθερον πάρεστιν ἦμαρ εἰσιδεῖν.

Here we see an adjective τροπαῖε following ὦ Ζεῦ. This pattern isn't all that common, never the less, it is a perfectly normal way of doing things. In this instance both head noun and the adjective are unambiguously vocative. That is not the case in the text we looked at yesterday where ἵλεως could be nominative, vocative or an adverbial.

Sophocles Electra 1376
{ΗΛ.} Ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε,
ἐμοῦ τε πρὸς τούτοισιν,

A pattern of reference to Apollo in Attic Tragedy?

Sophocles Electra 1376 -1383
{ΗΛ.} Ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε,
ἐμοῦ τε πρὸς τούτοισιν, ἥ σε πολλὰ δὴ
ἀφ' ὧν ἔχοιμι λιπαρεῖ προὔστην χερί.
Νῦν δ', ὦ Λύκει' Ἄπολλον, ἐξ οἵων ἔχω
αἰτῶ, προπίτνω, λίσσομαι, γενοῦ πρόφρων
ἡμῖν ἀρωγὸς τῶνδε τῶν βουλευμάτων,
καὶ δεῖξον ἀνθρώποισι τἀπιτίμια
τῆς δυσσεβείας οἷα δωροῦνται θεοί.

Wherein Electra submits a request to Apollo. First question, why is there a comma after Ἄπολλον and why do the translators (Jebb, Grene, Carson, Pound-Fleming) read ἵλεως as an adverb with κλύε rather than an adjective with Ἄπολλον? Concerning word order, the anarthrous adjective following the head noun is unremarkable. On the other hand, an adverb in clause initial position is equally unremarkable. While LSJ cites ἵλεως as an adjective used in reference to gods, I wonder if we find in Attic Tragedy a pattern of reference to Apollo which determines the reading of this line. I did a little work on this.

Here is an example of ἵλεως with the same verb κλύω in a request addressed to Apollo.

Sophocles Electra 665-668
Ταῦτ', ὦ Λύκει' Ἄπολλον, ἵλεως κλύων
δὸς πᾶσιν ἡμῖν ὥσπερ ἐξαιτούμεθα·
τὰ δ' ἄλλα πάντα καὶ σιωπώσης ἐμοῦ
ἐπαξιῶ σε δαίμον' ὄντ' ἐξειδέναι·
τοὺς ἐκ Διὸς γὰρ εἰκός ἐστι πάνθ' ὁρᾶν.

Here is an example of ἵλαος used in a request addressed to Φοῖβε Apollo.

Theognis Eleg., Elegiae (0002: 001)
“Theognis, 2nd edn.”, Ed. Young, D. (post E. Diehl)
Leipzig: Teubner, 1971.
Book 1, line 782

ἦρος ἐπερχομένου κλειτὰς πέμπωσ' ἑκατόμβας
τερπόμενοι κιθάρηι καὶ ἐρατῆι θαλίηι
παιάνων τε χοροῖσ' ἰαχῆισί τε σὸν περὶ βωμόν·
ἦ γὰρ ἔγωγε δέδοικ' ἀφραδίην ἐσορῶν
καὶ στάσιν Ἑλλήνων λαοφθόρον. ἀλλὰ σύ, Φοῖβε,
ἵλαος ἡμετέρην τήνδε φύλασσε πόλιν.

Here is an example from Soph. Electra where Φοῖβε is followed by an adjective προστατήριε but I could not find a pattern where Ἄναξ Ἄπολλον was followed by an adjective.

Sophocles, Electra 634-642

{ΚΛ.} Ἔπαιρε δὴ σὺ θύμαθ' ἡ παροῦσά μοι
πάγκαρπ', ἄνακτι τῷδ' ὅπως λυτηρίους
εὐχὰς ἀνάσχω δειμάτων ἃ νῦν ἔχω.
Κλύοις ἂν ἤδη Φοῖβε προστατήριε,
κεκρυμμένην μου βάξιν· οὐ γὰρ ἐν φίλοις
ὁ μῦθος, οὐδὲ πᾶν ἀναπτύξαι πρέπει
πρὸς φῶς, παρούσης τῆσδε πλησίας ἐμοί,
μὴ σὺν φθόνῳ τε καὶ πολυγλώσσῳ βοῇ
σπείρῃ ματαίαν βάξιν εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν·

In Aeschylus. we find numerous examples of ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, here is one which is followed by the familiar request to be given a hearing, although the wording is different.

Aeschylus Eumenides 198
{Χο.} ἄναξ Ἄπολλον, ἀντάκουσον ἐν μέρει.

This is a work in progress. But I will go ahead an post this since I might otherwise just forget about it and move on to something else.

silence

καιρὸς τοῦ σιγᾶν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ λαλεῖν -- Eccl. 3:7b