tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-342230212024-03-12T23:54:25.043-07:00alternate readingsC. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comBlogger251125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-66601136784731631312015-04-21T13:57:00.002-07:002015-04-21T14:00:07.283-07:00apocalyptic genre and historicity: Matt. 27:51b-53<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: underline;">Matt. 27:51b</span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px;"> ... καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν, </span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: underline;">52</span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px;"> καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, </span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: underline;">53</span><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 10px;"> καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Matt. 27:51b NRSV … The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
“Many evangelical scholars interpret the celestial phenomena in Acts 2 and Matthew 24 as apocalyptic symbols with no corresponding literal events involving those celestial bodies. I became persuaded that the raised saints in Matthew 27 belonged to the same genre.”<br />
<span style="font-size: 11px;">— </span><span style="font-size: 12px;">Michael Licona, Roundtable [2012:74].</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
“STR: Dr. Licona, is it not better to understand the description in Matt. 27:52-53 simply as a historical description of what happened at the moment of Jesus’ death?”</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
“Licona: Not necessarily. The “better” way to understand Matthew’s description of the raised saints is the way Matthew intended for them to be understood. If they are an apocalyptic symbol or poetic device, interpreting them in a literal-historical sense, that is, to “historicize” them, could lead one to misinterpret what Matthew was actually saying.” — Roundtable [2012:75].</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
J. J. Collins [Collins 1997:110-112] considers resurrection a major component within the apocalyptic world view. It isn’t anything remotely like “special affects” or “atmosphere” added to lend a numinous mood to the narrative. Rather, the resurrection of the dead is a significant thematic element within the content of apocalypticism. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Several members of the Roundtable [2012] pointed out that the reference made to eyewitnesses in Jerusalem makes it perfectly plain that Matthew intends to anchor the resurrection of the saints in space and time. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
[1] “A Roundtable Discussion with Michael Licona on The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Danny Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Michael Kruger, Michael Licona, and Charles Quarles)” in Southeastern Theological Review 3.1 (2012), 71-98.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
[2] The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010).</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
[3] Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls) by John J. Collins, 1997.</div>
C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-4330918799075234892012-04-01T15:57:00.000-07:002012-04-01T18:36:01.572-07:00sacrifice, slaughter and feasting - a scenario for σφάζω, αὐτοσφᾰγήςWhile working on Ajax’s final speech I paused to ponder John Tipton’s recent translation: “let their families feed on them” John Tipton (Ajax lines 841-842 page 58, Flood Editions 2008). There is no verb for eating in the text. Here is the context from Jebb’s translation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[835] And I call for help to the eternal maidens who eternally attend to all sufferings among mortals, the dread, far-striding Erinyes, asking them to learn how my miserable life is destroyed by the Atreidae. [840] And may they seize those wicked men with most wicked destruction, just as they see me [fall slain by my own hand, so slain by their own kin may they perish at the hand of their best-loved offspring]. Come, you swift and punishing Erinyes, devour all the assembled army and spare nothing! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
καλῶ δ᾽ ἀρωγοὺς τὰς ἀεί τε παρθένους <br />
ἀεί θ᾽ ὁρώσας πάντα τἀν βροτοῖς πάθη, <br />
σεμνὰς Ἐρινῦς τανύποδας, μαθεῖν ἐμὲ <br />
πρὸς τῶν Ἀτρειδῶν ὡς διόλλυμαι τάλας, <br />
καί σφας κακοὺς κάκιστα καὶ πανωλέθρους <br />
ξυναρπάσειαν, ὥσπερ εἰσορῶσ᾽ ἐμὲ <br />
αὐτοσφαγῆ πίπτοντα, τὼς αὐτοσφαγεῖς <br />
πρὸς τῶν φιλίστων ἐκγόνων ὀλοίατο. <br />
ἴτ᾽, ὦ ταχεῖαι ποίνιμοί τ᾽ Ἐρινύες, <br />
γεύεσθε, μὴ φείδεσθε πανδήμου στρατοῦ:</blockquote>
<br />
The lines which have given pause to scholars are presented in Jebb between brackets which indicate that some scholars consider them not an original part of the play.<br />
<br />
Ajax 841-842<br />
[fall slain by my own hand, so slain by their own kin may they perish at the hand of their best-loved offspring] <br />
<br />
αὐτοσφαγῆ πίπτοντα, τὼς αὐτοσφαγεῖς <br />
πρὸς τῶν φιλίστων ἐκγόνων ὀλοίατο.<br />
<br />
The word αὐτοσφαγῆ and αὐτοσφαγεῖς is rare, the standard classical lexicon has the following entry:<br />
<br />
LSJ — αὐτο-σφᾰγής [autosphages], ές, slain by oneself or by kinsmen, both in S.Aj.841 (prob. spurious), cf. E.Ph.1316.<br />
<br />
The word looks like a semantically transparent compound from the verb form σφάζω sphazo “slaughter” and αὐτο a reflexive pronoun “self.” A similar construction ἔσφαξεν ἑαυτόν “killed himself” is found in Thuc. 2.92.3:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[3] ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Λευκαδίας νεώς, ἣ περὶ τὴν ὁλκάδα κατέδυ, Τιμοκράτης ὁ Λακεδαιμόνιος πλέων, ὡς ἡ ναῦς διεφθείρετο, ἔσφαξεν ἑαυτόν, καὶ ἐξέπεσεν ἐς τὸν Ναυπακτίων λιμένα.<br />
<br />
[3] On board the Leucadian which went down off the merchantman, was the Lacedaemonian Timocrates, who killed himself when the ship was sunk, and was cast up in the harbor of Naupactus. — Richard Crawley?</blockquote>
The word σφάζω sphazo “slaughter” is used of killing with a knife. In sacrifice it involved slashing the throat of the victim and letting the blood pour out into a bowl. In Homer the verb σφάζω sphazo is used in contexts where eating the animals was a part of the scenario. In Homer’s Iliad Book 1:459 a scene is depicted where the animals are sacrificed and then the meat is roasted and eaten. The act of eating and drinking is a part of the scenario. Other places in Homer (Od. 1:92, 9:46, 23:305) the slaughter σφάζω sphazo of livestock is mentioned and the consumption, feasting on the meat with wine is assumed without any explicit mention of eating. In these contexts the slaughter σφάζω sphazo of livestock invokes the feasting scenario, there is no need to specifically spell out that eating took place. <br />
<br />
But this alone doesn’t explain John Tipton’s “let their families feed on them” Ajax lines 841-842. Tipton’s rendering is a clear allusion to the foundational myth: the curse on the house of Atreus who fed the children of Thyestes to him in a stew. So Tipton is playing on the feasting scenario invoked by the word σφάζω sphazo when livestock are involved and also conjuring up a reference to the well known (to the ancient audience) mythological framework for Ajax, Electra and others. <br />
<br />
Assuming we retain and translate the dubious text, one might find fault with Tipton’s move on the grounds that σφάζω sphazo when it is used for killing humans does not invoke an eating scenario. Generally speaking the Greeks didn’t eat the people they slaughtered. So when Ajax uses the term αὐτοσφᾰγής autosphages for suicide and the killing of the Atreidae it would not invoke an eating scenario. <br />
<br />
In later greek σφάζω sphazo is found in a warfare scenario, New Testament Revelation 6:4:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Rev. 6:4 And out came another horse, bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another; and he was given a great sword. RSV<br />
<br />
Rev. 6:4 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἄλλος ἵππος πυρρός, καὶ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἐδόθη αὐτῷ λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἵνα ἀλλήλους σφάξουσιν καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ μάχαιρα μεγάλη. </blockquote>
<br />C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-17141182288768918432012-03-04T14:49:00.000-08:002012-03-06T22:56:53.462-08:00Jude 5, Ιησους and the incarnationThere is an old saying passed down from the early years of "modern textual criticism" and recently reiterated by a popular apologist[1] "Even the most unwarranted of [textual] variants do not adversely affect essential Christian doctrine." This mantra is never absent from the discourse among those who feel strongly compelled to shore up confidence in the essential reliability of the New Testament text. In popular apologetic discourse we rarely see significant evidence put forth to support this claim. In place of evidence some famous scholar from the past (e.g. B. B. Warfield) is cited and that settles it. After hearing this repeated for forty years it is tempting to wonder if changes in the intellectual landscape over the last several decades might have altered the way we look at this question. In this post we will look at one textual variant in Jude 5 which may have theological implications and consider if theology might have had a part in producing the textual variations. <br />
<br />
The text of Jude 5 is uncertain, with multiple overlapping variation units. I would like to focus on just one of these: [ὁ] κύριος/Ἰησοῦς/θεός. The evidence is complicated but as early as Karl Lachmann (d.1850) there have been modern textual critics who prefer [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς to [ὁ] κύριος. Decades after Lachmann, Henry Alford having a lot more evidence to work with than than Lachmann (Tischendorf's 8th edition) read Ἰησοῦς. For the third edition of UBSGNT, the committee was split. B. Metzger and A. Wickgren in favor of Ἰησοῦς. In the current scene, Michael Holmes SBLGNT, Robert Gundry (annotated NT, 2010), Philip Comfort, Klaus Watchel, Philipp Bartholomä, ESV, NET, Editio Critica Maior, all favor Ἰησοῦς. A very fine up to date post on the textual evidence can be found <a href="http://diglotting.com/2012/02/23/who-saved-the-people-out-of-egypt-%CE%B9%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-or-%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82/" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jude 5<br />
[ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας <br />
[the] Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt<br />
Ιησους λαον εκ γης Αιγυπτου σωσας<br />
Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt </blockquote>
Ἰησοῦς is a difficult reading. So difficult that a number of textual scholars rule it out as impossible. The difficulty is christological in nature. The scholars who find it unacceptable assume that the referent of Ἰησοῦς must be Jesus the man, rather than the eternal Son/Word. The Apostle Paul[2] asserts that ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός "the Rock was Christ" but not ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς "the Rock was Jesus" and there in is the major christological obstacle, affirmation of Jesus the man as per-existent. <br />
<br />
Simon Gathercole[3] suggests that the referent of Ἰησοῦς (with or without article) in Jude 5 could be to the [total] person of Jesus Christ who is included in the "divine identity" [4]. Gathercole suggests that the readings κύριος/θεός in Jude 5 might be unorthodox corruption introduced by scribes who didn't support the full deity and pre-existence of Christ. On the other hand, the use of Ἰησοῦς alone with Jesus of Nazareth as a referent in a context which is historically prior to the birth of Jesus is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Placing Jesus of Nazareth in an old testament context sounds strange to modern NT scholars[5]. There is some evidence that Origen supported Ἰησοῦς in Jude 5. A marginal note in miniscule <a href="http://diglotting.com/2012/02/23/who-saved-the-people-out-of-egypt-%CE%B9%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-or-%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82/" target="_blank">ms. 1739</a> attributes the reading to Origen (c.185–c.254). The other patristic evidence for Ἰησοῦς includes the Vulgate, Coptic (Sa, Bo), Ethiopic, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Jerome (d. 420), Didymus (d. 395). I have yet to find a patristic discussion of the christological significance of Ἰησοῦς in Jude 5. Someone who knows of such a reference might post a comment. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[1] Hank Hanegraaff (Has God Spoken, 2011, p. 50)<br />
<br />
[2]1Cor. 10:4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.
I
Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from
the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. <br />
<br />
[3] Gathercole, Simon. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.<br />
<br />
[4] The inclusion of Jesus Christ in the "divine identity" of is a theme developed in several works by Richard Bauckham. <br />
<br />
[5] Even more strange is the unique reading o θεος χριστος in papyrus P72.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-80462212750478011352012-02-22T14:29:00.000-08:002012-02-22T15:41:50.568-08:00Expansion of the Divine Name in Old Greek Isaiah<a href="http://alternate-readings.blogspot.com/2012/02/luke-418-spirit-of-lord-is-upon-me.html" target="_blank">Yesterday</a> we looked at the simplification of divine name אדני יהוה “Lord HaShem” in Isaiah 61:1 MT to κύριος “Lord” in Isaiah LXX which which is the form we see in Jesus reading of Isaiah in Luke 4:18. I noted that the LXX/Luke 4:18 reading appears to be supported by the Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa-a. But after looking at a lot of evidence, I was skeptical about attributing this to a difference in the Hebrew manuscript (vorlage) used by the translator(s) of Isaiah. Today I followed up by looking at places where Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) reads יהוה “HaShem” alone but Isaiah LXX expands the divine name to read κύριος ὁ θεὸς [1] “The Lord God.” I checked the notes in E. Tov’s MT/LXX to see if any of these readings were supported by Great Isaiah Scroll 1QIsa-a. The results were negative. Not a single one of them was supported by the 1QIsa-a. <br />
<br />
I found an old critical text, translation and commentary on Isaiah LXX [2] available on the web. Looking through the notes and introduction I found only one reference to this variation, where R. Ottley simply stated that Isaiah LXX added ὁ θεὸς. In the introduction R. Ottley made a general reference to naming variations which he considered too common and too self-evident to warrant special mention: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
LXX. often present proper names in different forms from the Hebrew, and with wide variations among the MSS. These differences are passed by without comment, unless required for some special reason, e.g. where it seems probable that a different name altogether from the Hebrew is intended. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
— R. Ottley Vol. 2 Page 136. </blockquote>
<br />
The lack of support in 1QIsa-a for the LXX expansion of יהוה “HaShem” in the Masoretic Text to κύριος ὁ θεὸς “The Lord God” increases my previous skepticism about a different Hebrew vorlage being responsible for differences in divine names. It seems more likely that the variations in the divine names are nothing more the peculiar habits of the translator. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1] Is. 26:12, Is. 28:13, Is. 38:22, Is. 41:17, Is. 41:21, Is. 42:6, Is. 42:8, Is. 42:13, Is. 42:21, Is. 43:1, Is. 43:10, Is. 43:12, Is. 43:14, Is. 43:15, Is. 44:2, Is. 45:1, Is. 45:3, Is. 45:5, Is. 45:6, Is. 45:7, Is. 45:11, Is. 52:12, Is. 57:21. <br />
<br />
[2] <a href="http://ia600402.us.archive.org/32/items/IsaiahAccordingToTheSeptuagint/ottley_isaiah.according.to.the.lxx-vols.12.pdf" target="_blank">Ottley, Richard R. The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus). 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1904–1906.</a> Note: This .pdf is almost 60meg. <br />
<br />
Full title from title page:<br />
<br />
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, (CODEX ALEXANDRINUS), TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY, I. INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION, WITH A PARALLEL VERSION, FROM THE HEBREW, LONDON :, C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse, ACCORDING TO THE, S E P T U A G I N T, R. R. O T T L E Y , M.A., Ave Maria Lane, 1904.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-62131132689592910322012-02-21T14:45:00.001-08:002012-02-21T15:01:37.208-08:00Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ...”<br />
Luke 4:18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ ...<br />
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ...”<br />
Isaiah 61:1a MT רוח אדני יהוה עלי<br />
“The Spirit of the Lord HaShem is upon me” <br />
<br />
When Jesus stands up to read in synagogue in his home town of Nazareth, his opening words (Luke 4:18a) from Isaiah 61:1 do not match the reading found in the Masoretic Text (MT). Jesus’ opening words match the Greek (LXX) version of Isaiah. In Isaiah we see a pattern, where the MT reads אדני יהוה “Lord HaShem” the LXX reads κύριος (alone) with one exception Isa. 25:8 which reads ὁ θεὸς (alone). Elsewhere in the Greek versions of the hebrew prophets we find אדני יהוה translated with two words, e.g. Jeremiah 4:10 δέσποτα κύριε “Master HaShem” or κύριος κύριος in Jeremiah 44:26(51:26 LXX) but also κύριος (alone) in Jer. 7:20. Isaiah LXX is more consistent than Jeremiah. <br />
<br />
Isaiah 61:1a MT רוח אדני יהוה עלי<br />
“The Spirit of the Lord HaShem is upon me” <br />
Isaiah 61:1a 1QIsa-a רוח יהוה עלי<br />
“The Spirit of the HaShem is upon me ...”<br />
<br />
In Isaiah 61:1, the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) supports the Greek version of Isaiah in regard to the omission of אדני “Lord” from אדני יהוה “Lord HaShem.” In other words, where the LXX reads κυρίου (alone) 1QIsa-a reads יהוה (alone). A close look at the sources[1] indicates that 1QIsa-a only supports Isaiah LXX in about seven out of seventeen readings[2]. This qualified support from 1QIsa-a for Isaiah LXX is complicated by a number of factors. The most obvious factor is the pattern in Isaiah LXX of never using a double formula like we find in Jeremiah δέσποτα κύριε “Master HaShem” or κύριος κύριος. In other divine name patterns e.g. Is. 7:11 יהוה אלהיך “HaShem your God” Isaiah LXX uses κυρίου θεοῦ σου “HaShem your God.” A massive study of the translation habits demonstrated in Isaiah LXX[3] would be required before one could say anything substantive about habits. However, speculating on what I have observed, I would guess that there is more going on with Isaiah LXX reading κύριος (alone) for אדני יהוה than simply a different hebrew manuscript. <br />
<br />
[1] I compiled these from three sources, a <a href="http://moellerhaus.com/Qhebtranscript/qhebtranscrip.htm" target="_blank">transcription of 1QIsa-a</a>, photo <a href="http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah" target="_blank">images of 1QIsa-a</a> and E. Tov’s MT/LXX The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible which includes notes about readings in 1QIsa-a. This was a difficult project, the transcription and images are indexed primarily by column numbers, locating a chapter and verse takes a little time particularly with images. The style of Hebrew script used by the scribe of 1QIsa-a takes some getting used two. I wanted to cross check the notes in E. Tov’s MT/LXX since my experience with critical texts has taught me that looking at the raw data is much more enlightening than reading an apparatus. <br />
<br />
[2] 1QIsa-a reads יהוה “HaShem” (alone) in support of the LXX in Isa. 28:16(?), 28:22, 30:15, 49:22, 52:4, 61:1, 65:13. 1QIsa-a reads אדני יהוה “Lord HaShem” where the LXX reads κυρίου (alone) in Isa. 10:24, 22:5, 40:10, 48:16, 50:4,7,9, 56:8, 61:11, 65:15. The question mark after 28:16(?) doubtful a doubtful reading where there appears in the image of 1QIsa-a a word above the line but the transcription and E. Tov’s note indicate support for the LXX reading . <br />
<br />
[3] Almost certainly this “massive study” has been done. C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-14638251889895627932012-02-19T00:22:00.000-08:002012-02-19T13:29:19.716-08:00Genealogy of Mary? — the syntax of Luke 3:23b <br />
One occasionally hears a argument that the syntax of Luke 3:23b lends support to a claim that Luke’s genealogy traces Mary’s lineage and not Joseph’s. On the general question of Genealogy of Christ in Matthew and Luke see the article in the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm" target="_blank">Catholic Encyclopedia</a>. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Luke 3:23 Και αυτος ⸀ην Ιησους ⸂αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα⸃, ων ⸂υιος, ως ενομιζετο⸃, Ιωσηφ του Ηλι 24 του Μαθθατ του Λευι του Μελχι του Ιανναι του Ιωσηφ —SBLGNT <br />
<br />
Luke 3:23 και αυτος ην ο ιησους ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι 24 του ματθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιαννα του ιωσηφ — Byz Textform Robinson-Pierpont<br />
<br />
Luke 3:23 και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλει 24 του μαθθαθ του λευει του μελχει του ιανναι του ιωσηφ — Tischendorf</blockquote>
<br />
I spent more than two days looking through mountains of secondary literature to find a serious discussion of the syntax, particularly the lack of an article with Joseph. What I found was some apologetics websites claiming that the syntax lent support to the Genealogy of Mary hypothesis but no real analysis of the syntax other than the lack of an article before Joseph. The Greek text exegetical commentaries very rarely suggest that the lack an article supports anything what so ever. I found one note by Matthew B. Riddle the American Editor of H. A. W. Meyers Exegetical Handbook on Luke. Riddle disagreed with both Meyer and Henry Alford (!!) by supporting the Genealogy of Mary hypothesis. Riddle’s mentions both the lack of the article before Joseph and also the word order found in the Alexandrian text (SBLGNT, UBS3/4 NA27, Tisch., Westcott-Hort): <br />
<br />
... ων ⸂υιος, ως ενομιζετο⸃, Ιωσηφ του Ηλι — Alex. Text<br />
... ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι — Byz Text <br />
<br />
Riddle claimed that Alexandrian syntax makes it appear as if Joseph is bracketed out of the genealogy, which supposedly leads to the implication that this is a genealogy of Mary. Beyond that, there is no real substantive argumentation about the syntax. No real case is made. On the other hand, the other Greek exegetical commentators don’t really make a case against this hypothesis either, the just reject it out of hand. <br />
<br />
The standard reference grammars are not much better. They talk about the article with proper names and some of them cite Luke 3:23 but none of them see it as evidence for any particular view of the genealogy problem. J.H. Moulton in his Prolegomena (v1 Moulton-Turner pps. 83, 263 bottom) talks about Classical, Koine and New Testament patterns of articles with proper names but leaves the impression that the presence or absence of the article is really not well understood (c.a. 1902). The other grammars include H. W. Smyth, #1142.a, BDF 162.2, A. T. Robertson page 761. These are all old-school grammars, reflecting the way Greek syntax was handled from the Reformation up through the early 20th century. <br />
<br />
Fast forward to the third millennium, Richard A. Hoyle [2] has written what I would call the NT Greek monograph of the decade. He specifically deals with the lack of the article before Joseph in Luke 3:23b. R. Hoyle’s claims that any discourse old or hearer old personal name without the article is marked as salient. This fits into his general theory about salience marking and anarthrous nouns. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In Luke’s genealogy, 3:23–38, only two names occur without the article, Jesus and Joseph (3:23). These are marked as salient, since they have no article even though both are Discourse-old (3:21, 1:27). Here Jesus and Joseph are salient at PARAGRAPH level, i.e. throughout the whole genealogy, strongly suggesting that this is Joseph’s lineage being listed.</blockquote>
<br />
This is paragraph is a small portion of the best treatment I have read so far on the Ancient Greek article. The whole monograph is available for <a href="http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/50670_Hoyle_ScenariosDiscourseTranslation.pdf" target="_blank">downloading</a> from SIL. I would not expect any light to come on by simply reading the above paragraph out of context. Hoyle's framework will be new to a lot of greek students. It takes some time and several readings to get comfortable with his overall approach to analysis. The good news is R. Hoyle is far more understandable than some of the other authors writing on these topics. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1]H. A. W. Meyer Handbook Mark-Luke, page 303 note by Matthew B. Riddle, DD, Professor of New Testament Greek Exegesis in Hartford Theological Seminary (ca. 1884). <br />
<br />
[2]<a href="http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/50670_Hoyle_ScenariosDiscourseTranslation.pdf" target="_blank">Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008</a>, page 157.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-55255101819464800022012-02-17T21:21:00.000-08:002012-02-17T21:23:08.511-08:00"a steaming cup of coffee"I was too tired after dinner to read anything challenging so i picked up a ancient paperback of a best seller that has been hanging around in the family for over fifty years and decided to read it again. I wasn't more the ten pages into it when I ran into the expression "a steaming cup of coffee" which I have seen numerous times in stories published in the last decade. Why is "a steaming cup of coffee" a standard prop in English fiction that has survived for half a century or more. I seem to recall that Hemingway had better way of saying it. He could make you experience the steam, the taste and the aroma without telling you about it. The secret of good writing is what you leave out. C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-86940637404581780852012-02-16T12:00:00.000-08:002012-02-16T13:15:45.495-08:00Benedict XVI on Secular Biblical StudiesThe following paragraphs are taken from an APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION VERBUM DOMINI[1] by Benedict XVI. This citation is taken directly from page 35 "<i>The danger of dualism and a secularized hermeneutic</i>" which can be found on the Vatican website under the heading" <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_Interpretation_Of_Sacred_Scripture__In_The_Church" target="_blank">The Interpretation Of Sacred Scripture In The Church</a>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>The danger of dualism and a secularized hermeneutic</b></i><br />
<br />
In this regard we should mention the serious risk nowadays of a dualistic approach to sacred Scripture. To distinguish two levels of approach to the Bible does not in any way mean to separate or oppose them, nor simply to juxtapose them. They exist only in reciprocity. Unfortunately, a sterile separation sometimes creates a barrier between exegesis and theology, and this “occurs even at the highest academic levels”.[109] Here I would mention the most troubling consequences, which are to be avoided.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• First and foremost, if the work of exegesis is restricted to the first level alone, Scripture ends up being a text belonging only to the past: “One can draw moral consequences from it, one can learn history, but the Book as such speaks only of the past, and exegesis is no longer truly theological, but becomes pure historiography, history of literature”.[110] Clearly, such a reductive approach can never make it possible to comprehend the event of God’s revelation through his word, which is handed down to us in the living Tradition and in Scripture. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• The lack of a hermeneutic of faith with regard to Scripture entails more than a simple absence; in its place there inevitably enters another hermeneutic, a positivistic and secularized hermeneutic ultimately based on the conviction that the Divine does not intervene in human history. According to this hermeneutic, whenever a divine element seems present, it has to be explained in some other way, reducing everything to the human element. This leads to interpretations that deny the historicity of the divine elements.[111] </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Such a position can only prove harmful to the life of the Church, casting doubt over fundamental mysteries of Christianity and their historicity – as, for example, the institution of the Eucharist and the resurrection of Christ. A philosophical hermeneutic is thus imposed, one which denies the possibility that the Divine can enter and be present within history. The adoption of this hermeneutic within theological studies inevitably introduces a sharp dichotomy between an exegesis limited solely to the first level and a theology tending towards a spiritualization of the meaning of the Scriptures, one which would fail to respect the historical character of revelation.</blockquote>
All this is also bound to have a negative impact on the spiritual life and on pastoral activity; “as a consequence of the absence of the second methodological level, a profound gulf is opened up between scientific exegesis and lectio divina. This can give rise to a lack of clarity in the preparation of homilies”.[112] It must also be said that this dichotomy can create confusion and a lack of stability in the intellectual formation of candidates for ecclesial ministries.[113] In a word, “where exegesis is not theology, Scripture cannot be the soul of theology, and conversely, where theology is not essentially the interpretation of the Church’s Scripture, such a theology no longer has a foundation”.[114] Hence we need to take a more careful look at the indications provided by the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum in this regard.<br />
<br />
:end of citation <br />
<br />
Pope Benedict XVI has delivered a wise word to those persons of faith and members of the Church of Jesus Christ who would make it their calling to do biblical studies and participate in the secular academic domain where a hermeneutic of skepticism dominates the field of biblical studies. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html" target="_blank">POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION VERBUM DOMINI, OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI, ON THE WORD OF GOD IN THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH</a>C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-7295416234168284482012-02-13T14:53:00.001-08:002012-02-13T14:53:22.004-08:00Son of God syntaxRE: υἱοῦ θεοῦ Son of God syntax, H. W. Smyth's Greek Grammer, page 314, #1301 Smyth explains how the genitive is used for relations between persons. <br /><br />θύγατερ Διός daughter of Zeus<br /><br />Sophocles Trag., Oedipus tyrannus <br />Line 158<br /><br />ἀμφὶ σοὶ ἁζόμενος τί μοι ἢ νέον<br />ἢ περιτελλομέναις ὥραις πάλιν<br />ἐξανύσεις χρέος·<br />εἰπέ μοι, ὦ χρυσέας τέκνον Ἐλπίδος,<br />ἄμβροτε Φάμα. <br />Πρῶτά σε κεκλόμενος, θύγατερ Διός, {Ant. 1.}<br />ἄμβροτ' Ἀθάνα,<br />γαιάοχόν τ' ἀδελφεὰν<br />Ἄρτεμιν, ἃ κυκλόεντ' ἀγορᾶς θρόνον<br />εὐκλέα θάσσει,<br />καὶ Φοῖβον ἑκαβόλον, ἰώ, <br /><br />παῖς Διός child of Zeus<br /><br />Sophocles Trag., Trachiniae <br />Line 513<br /><br />Ὁ μὲν ἦν ποταμοῦ σθένος, ὑψίκερω τετραόρου {Ant.}<br />φάσμα ταύρου,<br />Ἀχελῷος ἀπ' Οἰνιαδᾶν, ὁ δὲ Βακχίας ἄπο <br />ἦλθε παλίντονα Θήβας<br />τόξα καὶ λόγχας ῥόπαλόν τε τινάσσων,<br />παῖς Διός· οἳ τότ' ἀολλεῖς<br />ἴσαν ἐς μέσον ἱέμενοι λεχέων·<br />μόνα δ' εὔλεκτρος ἐν μέσῳ Κύπρις<br />ῥαβδονόμει ξυνοῦσα. <br /><br /><br />Διὸς Ἄρτεμις Artemis, daughter of Zeus<br /><br />Sophocles Trag., Ajax <br />Line 172<br /><br />Ἦ ῥά σε Ταυροπόλα Διὸς Ἄρτεμις – {Str.}<br />ὦ μεγάλα φάτις, ὦ<br />μᾶτερ αἰσχύνας ἐμᾶς – <br />ὥρμασε πανδάμους ἐπὶ βοῦς ἀγελαίας,<br />ἤ πού τινος νίκας ἀκάρπωτον χάριν,<br />ἤ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρωνC. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-55706998954071680862012-02-12T18:41:00.000-08:002012-02-12T18:57:57.933-08:00υἱοῦ θεοῦ “Son of God” in Romans 1:4There has been a week long discussion of <a href="http://betterbibles.com/2012/01/30/translation-of-divine-familial-terms/" target="_blank">translating “Son of God” for Islamic cultures</a> on the Better Bibles Blog . I have extracted some comments of mine in regard to υἱοῦ θεοῦ “Son of God” in Romans 1:4. Since this was part of conversation, there will be some lack of cohesion. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Rom. 1:1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος
εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, 2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν
γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ
κατὰ σάρκα, 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης
ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, <br />
<br />
ESV
Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set
apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his
prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended
from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of
God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection
from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, </blockquote>
<br />
The phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is rendered “Son of God” in a dozen of the most commonly cited English versions. But what is the relationship [syntax] between υἱοῦ and θεοῦ? Is θεοῦ in apposition or is it a genitive with a head noun? The English translations support the latter but there isn’t an English equivalent for the former. Assuming we read υἱοῦ θεοῦ as a genitive with a head noun -- in a recent book (2009) addressing the current iteration of the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate, Porter & Pitts[1] argue that the meaning of the head noun, in a noun +genitive construction is restricted but not changed by the genitive. In other words, the meaning of πίστις can be determined independent of the genitive, i.e., the decision to read πίστις as faith or faithfulness is independent of the genitive construction. I am not convinced by Porter & Pitts’ argument. <br />
<br />
In Romans 1:4 I would argue that the meaning of υἱοῦ is substantially altered by collocation with θεοῦ and any attempt to do lexical semantic analysis of υἱοῦ without consideration of its collocation with θεοῦ would wrong headed. It is quite possible that I am missing the point with Porter & Pitts. The article is classic Porter, maximal obfuscation. Porter & Pitts[1] page 47 "... the lexis of the head term should be disambiguated before asking how the genitive modifies the head term." In their article, πίστις should be disambiguated independent of Χριστοῦ. I don't buy that. Χριστοῦ is indispensable for the disambiguation of Πíστiς. <br />
<br />
<br />
In regard to υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Rom 1:4, υἱοῦ has a semantic range in Hellenistic Greek, but when collocated with θεοῦ in light of the NT & LXX use of θεοῦ, the semantic range shrinks. We could say that θεοῦ places semantic constraints on υἱοῦ, restricts its meaning but it also disambiguates. But we would never attempt to determine the lexical contribution of υἱοῦ independent of θεοῦ, that just doesn't make sense.<br />
I haven't found any exegete of Rom. 1:4 suggesting we read θεοῦ in apposition to υἱοῦ, "Son, who is God." Apposition seems improbable in light of περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in Rom. 1:3. I had in the back of my mind Murray J. Harris[1] who reads μονογενὴς θεὸς apposition in John 1:18. <br />
<br />
There are several other reasons for NOT reading θεοῦ in apposition to υἱοῦ in Rom. 1:4. The genitive case is commonly used for paternity for example οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου "the sons of Zebedee." <br />
<br />
John 21:2 ἦσαν ὁμοῦ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος καὶ Ναθαναὴλ ὁ ἀπὸ Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ ἄλλοι ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο. <br />
<br />
John 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathana-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. <br />
<br />
Paul uses similar language elsewhere,<br />
<br />
Rom. 8:14 ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν. <br />
Rom. 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. <br />
<br />
Rom. 8:19 ἡ γὰρ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται. <br />
Rom. 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;<br />
<br />
Rom. 9:26 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος.<br />
Rom. 9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” <br />
<br />
2Cor. 1:19 ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ γὰρ υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν δι᾿ ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς, δι᾿ ἐμοῦ καὶ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ Τιμοθέου, οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ καὶ οὒ ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν. <br />
2Cor. 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes.<br />
<br />
Gal. 2:20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. <br />
Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me<br />
<br />
Gal. 3:26 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· <br />
Gal. 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. <br />
<br />
Eph. 4:13 μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, <br />
Eph. 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; <br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is curious that no one seems to have even made the attempt to read θεοῦ in apposition to υἱοῦ in Rom. 1:4. I could not find anyone, perhaps someone else can cite a scholar ancient or recent that suggests this reading. <br />
<br />
I did a search of TLG for υἱὸς θεοῦ in various permutations. Outside of Philo and LXX, it is rare. One reason we don't see lots of examples of υἱὸς/υἱοῦ/... [τοῦ] θεοῦ in pagan literature; in polytheistic frameworks designating divine paternity would normally use the proper name or an epitaph for the deity. I did find υἱοὶ θεῶν in Pindar.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pindarus Lyr., Pythia (0033: 002) “Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, pt. 1, 5th edn.”, Ed. Maehler, H. (post B. Snell) Leipzig: Teubner, 1971. Ode 11, line 62<br />
⸏εὐώνυμον κτεάνων κρατίσταν χάριν πορών· ἅ τε τὸν Ἰφικλείδαν διαφέρει Ἰόλαον ὑμνητὸν ἐόντα, καὶ Κάστορος βίαν, σέ τε, ἄναξ Πολύδευκες, υἱοὶ θεῶν, τὸ μὲν παρ’ ἆμαρ ἕδˈραισι Θεράπνας, τὸ δ’ οἰκέοντας ἔνδον Ὀλύμπου. Αʹ Αἰτ σε, φιλάγˈλαε, καλλίστα βροτεᾶν πολίων, Φερσεφόνας ἕδος, ἅ τ’ ὄχθαις ἔπι μηλοβότου ναίεις Ἀκράγαντος ἐΰδˈματον κολώναν, ὦ ἄνα,<br />
<br />
Scholia In Pindarum, Scholia in Pindarum (scholia vetera) (5034: 001) “Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols.”, Ed. Drachmann, A.B. Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1903; 2:1910; 3:1927, Repr. 1:1969; 2:1967; 3:1966. Ode P 11, scholion 91, line 4<br />
EGQ τὴν ἐν τοῖς κτήμασι κρατι- στεύουσαν εὐφημίαν· ταύτην γὰρ λέγει χάριν. 92E BDEGQ ἥτις εὐδοξία ἔνδοξον ὄντα καὶ τὸν Ἰφικλέους παῖδα Ἰόλαον πανταχοῦ διάγει καὶ ἐπί- σημον ποιεῖ, καὶ τὸν Κάστορα καὶ σὲ, ὦ δέσποτα Πολύδευ- κες, υἱοὶ θεῶν, καὶ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ διάγει ἡ εὐφημία, ποτὲ μὲν παρ’ ἡμέραν ἐν ταῖς Λακωνικαῖς ὄντας καθέδραις, ποτὲ δὲ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Διὸς οἰκοῦντας. (fin. sch. E) DEGQ πανταχοῦ διάγει καὶ ἐπίσημον ποιεῖ καὶ διαστέλλει. 91E BDGQ τὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου παραφράζει τὸ (λ 302)· </blockquote>
<br />
I have neglected the most obvious reason for NOT reading θεοῦ in apposition to υἱοῦ in Rom. 1:4. Paul is setting up a contrast between κατὰ σάρκα “according to the flesh” and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης “according to the Spirit of holiness” and also between messianic sonship ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ “descended from David” and metaphysical sonship υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει “the Son of God in power” … that is the general idea, James Dunn wrote an article on this in 1973[3] which is at times hard to understand since Dunn’s christology is a little strange from my perspective. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1] Porter, S.E., and A.W. Pitts 2009 ‘Πíστiς with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discussion’, in Bird and Sprinkle (eds.) 2009: 33-53<br />
<br />
[2]Murray J. Harris, "Jesus as God", Baker Book House, 1992 <br />
<br />
[3]James DG Dunn, “Jesus-Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1: 3-4,” JTS 24 (1973)C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-57723803954026222222012-02-03T12:57:00.000-08:002012-02-04T22:15:51.726-08:00Son of God, Begotten of God & Islamic readingsIf I were an Islamic apologist seeking support for the notion that Christianity teaches a pagan form of divine paternity I might start out with Psalm 2:7. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: <br />
He said to me, “You are my son, <br />
today I have begotten you.<br />
<br />
διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου <br />
Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, <br />
ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·</blockquote>
<blockquote>
אספרה אל חק יהוה <br />
אמר אלי בני אתה אני <br />
היום ילדתיך</blockquote>
J. A. Fitzmyer in his discussion of 4q246, the Aramaic “son of god” fragment, refers to ילדתיך "begotten" in Psa 2:7 as a “graphic expression” and goes on to state “Commentators are usually hesitant to assert that this implies a physical divine sonship for the king, such as might be the connotation of similar expressions in the ancient myths of the eastern Mediterranean world.”[1] <br />
<br />
From there moving to the New Testament, I might focus on one particular reading of μονογενὴς, i.e., “only begotten” in the Johannine Prolog. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. <br />
<br />
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth<br />
<br />
John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. <br />
<br />
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.</blockquote>
Anyone who reads the NIV or RSV will know that μονογενὴς is not translated <i>only begotten</i>. Tyndale translated it <i>only begotten </i>and hundreds of years later we still see it in ASV, NKJV and NASB (ca. 1969) with footnote noting alternate translation. The second and third editions of the late F. Danker's lexicon[2] , TDNT[3] and EDNT[4] demonstrate that the jury is still out on how to best render μονογενὴς and <i>only begotten </i>is still one of the contenders. <br />
<br />
The word μονογενής, in reference to an only child, is found with τέκνον and πατρί already in Aeschylus.<br />
<br />
μονογενὲς τέκνον πατρί<br />
Aeschylus Line 898<br />
<br />
This citation from Aeschylus Line 898 μονογενὲς τέκνον πατρί is found in a speech by Agamemnon’s treacherous wife who is laying on the irony, nothing should be taken at face value. Obviously Agamemnon is not an only child of his father. A century ago, Herbert W. Smyth, the great classical Greek grammarian translated the passage:<br />
<br />
“But now, having born all this, my heart freed from its anxiety, I would hail my husband here as the watchdog of the fold, the savior forestay of the ship, firm-based pillar of the lofty roof, only-begotten son of a father, or land glimpsed by common earth the foot, my King, that has trampled upon Ilium.”<br />
<br />
Note that “only-begotten son of a father” is still with us. Smyth obviously hadn’t read B.F. Westcott's commentary on John (1881), which points out that only-begotten is a not the best translation. Keep in mind, we are simulating apologetic argumentation by an Islam foe of Christianity. Assuming that only-begotten is a mistranslation, it should be noted that mistranslations are very common in apologetics. The reading used by an apologist is the one which supports his argument.<br />
<br />
Another early use of μονογενὲς is found in Herodotus Book 7.221 <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Herodotus 7.221 <br />
Ὁ δὲ ἀποπεμπόμενος αὐτὸς μὲν οὐκ ἀπέλιπε, τὸν δὲ παῖδα συστρατευόμενον, ἐόντα οἱ μουνογενέα, ἀπέπεμψε.<br />
<br />
He however when he was bidden to go would not himself depart, but sent away his son who was with him in the army, besides whom he had no other child. G. C. Macaulay, [1890].</blockquote>
The word μονογενὲς is frequently found in a context where fatherhood or parents and children are part of the cognitive frame. The often repeated certain results of modern greek-lexicography, found in bible translation handbooks and the J. P. Louw & E. A. Nida Semantic Domain Dictionary of the NT, where μονογενὲς is defined: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
58.52 pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class — ‘unique, only. </blockquote>
The problem with this definition is that ignores the cognitive frame of family relationships. The samples given in the same entry demonstrate what is lacking in the definition.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
58.52 τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ‘he gave his only Son’ Jn 3:16; τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός ‘God sent his only Son’ 1Jn 4:9; τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος ‘he who had received the promises presented his only son’ or ‘… was ready to offer his only son’ He 11:17. Abraham, of course, did have another son, Ishmael, and later sons by Keturah, but Isaac was a unique son in that he was a son born as the result of certain promises made by God. Accordingly, he could be called a μονογενής son, since he was the only one of his kind. </blockquote>
<br />
There is significant disagreement among NT scholars on the precise meaning of μονογενὲς. The ancient hand me down Vulgate-Tyndale-KJV-ASV-NASB tradition of "only begotten" isn't dead by any means. Claims of consensus are always premature, you take long hard look at the secondary literature and you will find real diversity. Our hypothetical Islamic apologist will find cracks large enough for driving in a wedge which is all one needs to build an argument. <br />
<br />
There is no lack of material in the Christian canon for an Islamic apologist who is set on proving the that christianity teaches a pagan form of divine paternity. All these texts are read by orthodox christians in light of the doctrine of the trinity worked out in detail after the canon was complete. If the question is simply one about the language used in an <i>isolated text</i> like Psalm 2:7 or John1:18 then the Islamic apologist will be difficult to refute. <br />
<br />
[1]Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, 2000, page 66.<br />
<br />
[2] BAGD 1979, p. 527. BDAG 2000, p. 658.<br />
<br />
[3] TDNT, IV, 737-741.<br />
<br />
[4] EDNT, v.2, 439-440.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-80339484453345236252012-02-01T13:30:00.001-08:002012-02-01T14:14:01.150-08:00The Son of God, Peter, Nathaniel and the DemonThe biblical expression "Son of God" has been a point of contention among bible translators who work among Islamic peoples for a long time. In the last twelve years this discussion has wandered into Christology and NT lexical semantics[1]. One point of controversy: Is “Son of God” in reference to Jesus a messianic title? A different question: Are “Son of God” and Messiah/Christ synonyms? In this post we will examine texts where “Son of God” is used in reference to Jesus by Peter, Nathaniel and demons.<br />
<br />
Peter’s confession:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt. 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”<br />
Mark 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”<br />
Luke 9:20 And he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” </blockquote>
<br />
In Matthew 16:16, do we have two affirmations or a single affirmation repeated? Mark and Luke appear to support the notion that Peter was affirming Jesus as the Messiah. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” </blockquote>
Should we read this as an equivalent to Peter’s confession in Matt. 16:16? Is Nathaniel making one or two affirmations about Jesus? <br />
<br />
All three accounts of the Gerasene demoniac use “Son of God” language.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt. 8:29 “What have you to do with us, O Son of God?” <br />
Mk 5:7 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?”<br />
Lk. 8:28 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” </blockquote>
<br />
The other demonic affirmations use a messianic title “Holy One of God”<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mark 1:24 “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” <br />
Luke 4:34 “Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” </blockquote>
Are all the demons affirming the same notion, that Jesus is the Messiah? My natural inclination is to read trinitarian dogmatic definitions developed in the fourth century back into “Son of God” title. In other words, to understand this expression as equivalent to God the Son, the second person of the trinity. I don’t think the NT uses “Son of God” as a technical term. On the other hand, I think that calling “Son of God” merely a messianic title and nothing more is also an error. The evidence from Peter’s confession suggests that there was significant semantic overlap between “Son of God” and Christ. But that alone does not entail a restriction on the meaning of “Son of God.” When the gospels were written the title Christ had probably absorbed all the implications of divine sonship. In other words, the semantic significance of the Messiah had expanded to include all implications of “Son of God.” <br />
<br />
[1] most of these articles are available as .pdf files on the web. <br />
<br />
Abernathy, D. (2010). Translating “Son of God” in Missionary Bible Tranalstion: A Critique of “Muslim-idiom Biblie Translations’: Claims and facts.” St. Francis Magazine, 6(1).<br />
<br />
Abernathy, D. (2010). JESUS IS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010).<br />
<br />
Horrell, J. S. (2010). Cautions Regarding “Son of God” in Muslim-idiom Translations of the Bible: Seeking Sensible Balance. St. Francis Magazine, 6(638-676.<br />
<br />
Brown, R., Penny, J., & Gray, L. (2009). Muslim-idiom Bible Translations: Claims and Facts. St. Francis Magazine, 5(6), 87-105.<br />
<br />
Brown, Rick. 2000. The ‘Son of God’: Understanding the messianic titles<br />
of Jesus. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 17(1):<br />
41–52.<br />
<br />
Brown, Rick. 2005a. Explaining the biblical term ‘Son(s) of God’ in Muslim<br />
contexts. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 22(3):<br />
91–96.<br />
<br />
Brown, Rick. 2005b. Translating the biblical term ‘Son(s) of God’ in Muslim<br />
contexts. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 22(4):<br />
135–145.<br />
<br />
Brown, Rick. 2004. Son of Man, Son of God, Word of God, Christ: An<br />
exegesis of major titles of Jesus, with suggestions for translation<br />
and explanatory notes. Unpublished monograph.<br />
<br />
Brown, Rick. 2001. Presenting the deity of Christ from the Bible. International<br />
Journal of Frontier Missions. 19(1): 20-27.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-46797170357850367542012-01-16T14:39:00.000-08:002012-01-17T13:05:20.067-08:00Matt. 8:28 ἰσχύειν with an in infinitiveMatthew's version of the Gerasene Demoniac pericope is quite different from either Mark or Luke. This is just a technical note, the exegesis will come later. <br />
<br />
Matt. 8:28 Καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἐξερχόμενοι, χαλεποὶ λίαν, ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης.<br />
<br />
BDAG, F. Danker 3rdEd under ἰσχύω says this verb can take an infinitive which we see above ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν. What Danker doesn’t talk about and none of the NT greek grammars talk about is ἰσχύειν (an infinitive) taking another infinitive. My previous experience with NT grammars suggests that if A.T. Robertson doesn’t mention it, nor N. Turner, BDF, M. Zerwick and numerous lesser lights (R.Young, S.Porter, Moule, to name a few), if some syntax pattern goes without comment then it probably isn’t unusual. <br />
<br />
The following is evidence from Diodorus Siculus and Philo of ἰσχύω as an infinitive which joins statically with another infinitive. <br />
<br />
Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica 10.30.1.1-5<br />
<br />
Ὅτι τοῦ Μιλτιάδου υἱὸς ὁ Κίμων, τελευτήσαντος<br />
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ δημοσίᾳ φυλακῇ διὰ τὸ μὴ<br />
ἰσχῦσαι ἐκτῖσαι τὸ ὄφλημα, ἵνα λάβῃ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ<br />
πατρὸς εἰς ταφήν, ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν παρέ-<br />
δωκε καὶ διεδέξατο τὸ ὄφλημα. <br />
<br />
30
Cimon, the son of Miltiades, when his father had died in the state
prison because he was unable to pay in full the fine, in order that he
might receive his father's body for burial, delivered himself up to
prison and assumed the debt.<br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriarum libri Book 2, section 82, line 2<br />
<br />
ἀλλὰ φέρε τινὰ ἰσχῦσαι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι τέτοκεν ἡ ἀρετὴ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν Ἰσαάκ, καὶ εὐθὺς συγχαρητικὸν ὕμνον ὑμνήσει. <br />
<br />
(82)
... But suppose that any were able to hear that virtue has brought
forth happiness, namely, Isaac, immediately he will sing a
congratulatory hymn.<br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., De posteritate Caini Section 72, line 2<br />
<br />
τὰ γὰρ ἡδονῆς ὁλκοῦ δελέατα αὐστηρῷ τόνῳ καθελεῖν ἰσχῦσαι τὸν ἐφ' ἑκουσίοις ἔχει κατορθώμασιν ἔπαινον. <br />
<br />
(72)
for to be able, by a vigorous exertion, to destroy the baits of
attractive pleasure, properly receives that praise which belongs to good
actions, done with a deliberate purpose.<br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., De fuga et inventione Section 14, line 2<br />
<br />
ὁρῶν
δ' ὅτι πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ νόμιμον ἐπιστασίαν κεκώφωται, δρασμὸν εἰκότως
βουλεύεται· δέδιε γάρ, μὴ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἰσχῦσαι ὀνῆσαι ἔτι καὶ ζημιωθῇ. <br />
<br />
(14)
But seeing that he is dumb with respect to learning and to all
desirable and legitimate authority, he very naturally thinks of flight.
For he is afraid that in addition to not being able to derive any
advantage, he may even be injured. <br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., De confusione linguarum Section 120, line 3<br />
<br />
πάντες
γὰρ οἱ φαυλότατοι λαμβάνουσιν ἐννοίας περὶ τοῦ μὴ λήσειν τὸ θεῖον
ἀδικοῦντες μηδὲ τὸ δίκην ὑφέξειν εἰσάπαν ἰσχῦσαι διακρούσασθαι· ἐπεὶ
πόθεν ἴσασιν, ὅτι σκεδασθήσονται;<br />
<br />
(120) For all the
most wicked of men adopt ideas that they can never escape the knowledge
of the deity when doing wrong, and that they shall never be able to ward
off altogether the day of retribution. <br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate<br />
Section 112, line 3 <br />
<br />
ὁ
δὲ αὐτὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φρέατος ἐξάρχει, οὐκέτι μόνον ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῶν
παθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ τὸ κάλλιστον κτημάτων, σοφίαν, ἀνανταγώνιστον
ἰσχῦσαι λαβεῖν, ἣν ἀπεικάζει φρέατι· βαθεῖα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐπιπόλαιος,
γλυκὺ ἀναδιδοῦσα νᾶμα καλοκἀγαθίας διψώσαις ψυχαῖς, ἀναγκαιότατον ὁμοῦ
καὶ ἥδιστον ποτόν· <br />
<br />
(112) And the same prophet begins a
song to the well, not only for the destruction of the passions, but
also because he has had strength given to him to acquire the most
valuable of all possessions, namely incomparable wisdom, which he
compares to a well; for it is deep, and not superficial, giving forth a
sweet stream to souls who thirst for goodness and virtue, a drink at
once most necessary and most sweet.<br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., De plantatione Section 8 line 3 <br />
<br />
τὰς
δυσωπίας οὖν εἴ τις ἀποδιδράσκειν βούλοιτο τὰς ἐν τοῖς διαπορηθεῖσι,
λεγέτω μετὰ παρρησίας, ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν ὕλαις κραταιὸν οὕτως, ὡς τὸν
κόσμον ἀχθοφορεῖν ἰσχῦσαι, λόγος δὲ ὁ ἀίδιος θεοῦ τοῦ αἰωνίου τὸ
ὀχυρώτατον καὶ βεβαιότατον ἔρεισμα τῶν ὅλων ἐστίν.<br />
<br />
(8)
If therefore any one wishes to escape from the difficulties of this
question which present themselves in the different doubts thus raised,
let him speak freely and say that there is nothing in any material of
such power as to be able to support this weight of the world. But it is
the eternal law of the everlasting God which is the most supporting and
firm foundation of the universe.<br />
<br />
Philo Judaeus Phil., Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Section 143 <br />
<br />
ἔοικεν
οὖν ὁ θεὸς μόνος ἀκρι- βοδίκαιος εἶναι καὶ μέσα μόνος δύνασθαι διαιρεῖν
τά τε σώματα καὶ πράγματα, ὡς μηδὲν τῶν τμημάτων μηδ' ἀκαρεῖ καὶ ἀμερεῖ
τινι πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον γενέσθαι, τῆς δ' ἀνωτάτω καὶ ἄκρας ἰσότητος
μεταλαχεῖν ἰσχῦσαι. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ ἴσον μίαν εἶχεν ἰδέαν, ἱκανῶς ἂν τὰ
λεχθέντα εἴρητο, πλειόνων δ' οὐσῶν οὐκ ἀποκνητέον τὰ ἁρμόττοντα
προσθεῖναι. <br />
<br />
God alone therefore seems to be exactly
just, and to be the only being able to divide in the middle bodies and
things, in such a manner that none of the divisions shall be greater or
less than the other by the smallest and most indivisible portion, and he
alone is able to attain to sublime and perfect equality.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-16185053292722842012012-01-15T14:20:00.000-08:002012-01-15T14:58:17.664-08:00Gerasene Demoniac & Christology<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Luke 8:28 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech you, do not torment me.” RSV<br />
<br />
Luke 8:32 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him to let them enter these. So he gave them leave. RSV<br />
<br />
Luke 8:38 The man from whom the demons had gone begged that he might be with him; but he sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV<br />
<br />
Luke 8:38 ἐδεῖτο δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐξεληλύθει τὰ δαιμόνια εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ· ἀπέλυσεν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγων· 39 ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου καὶ διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καθ᾿ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.</blockquote>
<br />
In the pericope of the Gerasene Demoniac, the manner in which Jesus is addressed by Legion “Son of the Most High God?” has obvious christological significance and the exchange between Jesus and Leigon demonstrates Jesus’ authority over unclean spirits when Legion begs permission permission to go into the heard of swine. The theological significance is somewhat less obvious at the end of the story where Jesus tells the man, now free of demons, to go home and tell his story to his people. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Luke 8:39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV</blockquote>
<br />
The literal rendering of the RSV preserves both the ambiguity and parallelism of the original. Focusing our attention on the end of Luke’s version we see a formal pattern repeated: <br />
<br />
<br />
... how much God has done for you<br />
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν σοι ὁ θεός R-P[1]<br />
... ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός NA27 <br />
... how much Jesus had done for him<br />
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς NA27 & R-P[1]<br />
<br />
The parallelism is disrupted a little bit in the reading adopted by the NA27 σοι ἐποίησεν “for you has done” instead of ἐποίησεν σοι “has done for you” Byzantine Textform[1]. This word orderer variation is somewhat less important than the position of ὁ θεός “God” the subject which is clause final and in-focus in both NA27 and R-P[1]. Placing the subject-agent ὁ θεός “God” at the end of the clause signifies that ὁ θεός “God” is the most salient information. Obviously the RSV converts this into standard English syntax but preserves the parallel structure. What is lost in the English rendering is the in-focus salience marking of ὁ θεός “God” which isn’t easy to accomplish in natural sounding English. Now we should take careful note that in the second statement Jesus the subject-agent is also found in clause final position and here both NA27 and R-P[1] have identical word order. This marks Jesus as the most salient information. To sum up, the subject-agent is marked for salience in both clauses, telling us that it is important that God did this and that Jesus did this. <br />
<br />
<br />
<u>christological significance</u><br />
<br />
What is not at all obvious is the intended christological significance of this exchange between Jesus and the man released from demonic domination. Jesus tells the man to go home and give a report to his people what God had done for him but the man goes home and tells everyone he can find what Jesus did for him. There is ambiguity here. Did the man disobey Jesus? Does the author of the gospel intend for us dwell on the difference between what Jesus said and what the man said? Jesus tells the man to declare what God did for him. However, Jesus is the speaker-agent in the verbal exchange with Legion. What are the christological implications? The Gerasene man tells it the way he experienced it which is not the way Jesus framed it for him. <br />
<br />
My first inclination is to read this in light of Jesus repeated statements in John’s gospel[2] about being sent by “The Father” to speak for Him and do mighty works as the Father’s agent. On this reading, Jesus would be telling the Gerasene man that God was ultimately responsible for his deliverance and that he should give God the credit when telling his story. <br />
<br />
On further reflection I am wondering if there might be something more here. The original text marks as salient the discrepancy between Jesus words and the words used by the Gerasene man. The question of who delivered the Gerasene man from demonic control is highlighted. The fact of his deliverance is not as important as who delivered him. What if we suggest that Jesus is claiming not only to speak and work on behalf of God but also speak and work as God himself. I can hear in my mind multiple objections that would raised against that sort of reading of Luke. Never the less, I find it worth contemplating. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1] The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont <br />
Chilton 2005 <br />
<br />
[2] I do not habitually keep Jesus from one gospel separated in my mind from the Jesus of another Gospel.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-58447053129760649412012-01-02T23:54:00.000-08:002012-01-03T09:10:14.922-08:00adnominal genitive and semantic inference.<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The adnominal genitive merely predicates that there is a meaningful relation between the (pro)noun in the genitive and the head nominal. It is up to the addressee to infer the nature of that relation in the context of the utterance. When New Testament writers want to increase the level of explication, they may choose and indeed do choose more specific morphosyntactic devices. Compare the more explicit tēn ek theou dikaiōsunēn,“the righteousness from God” in Philippians 3:9a containing the source preposition ek with the more implicit adnominal genitive in Romans1:17, dikaiōsunē theou, “righteousness of God.”[1]</blockquote>
In the opening words of the Apocalypse of St. John, "the revelation of Jesus Christ" apokalupsis Ihsou Christou, John left the relationship between the head noun apokalupsis and genitives Ihsou Christou underdetermined (unspecified). As it stands the genitive tells us that there is some meaningful relationship between the head noun and the nouns in genitive case. That is the total extent of what is in the "code." In linguistic terminology that is the explicature (what is explicit in the text). The implicitures (what is implied, but derived by inference) are multiple. In other words, had John wanted to narrow down the explicit meaning he would have used a preposition with Jesus Christ, indicating that Jesus was the source, subject, agent, object, ... of the revelation. But John didn't do that so it is reasonable to conclude that he didn't intend to restrict the meaning to any one of these options. <br />
<br />
I suspect there might be some greek readers who think that apokalupsis Ihsou Christou in Rev 1:1 is an obvious example of the subjective genitive. Certainly there are plenty of commentators who read it that way, D. Aune (Rev. WBC, v1 p.6) translates it "This is a revelation from Jesus Christ ..." which makes Jesus the source but in the notes he calls it a subjective genitive. A. J. Hort breaks from the heard, but few follow him. It isn't important IMO whether we follow Hort or the rest of them. <br />
<br />
The problem is the compelling urge (an artifact of bad grammars and instruction) to nail down the semantic significance with either/or style analysis, where the essence of the adnominal genitive is semantic open-endedness (see N. Turner Syntax, pp. 210-211 and M. Zerwick pp. 13-14). Overly specific translation "a revelation from Jesus Christ" dramatically alters the meaning by placing undo stress on the "source" aspect of the genitive. G. Beale (Rev. NIGTC p. 184) gets it right, John intentionally left the meaning of apokalupsis Ihsou Christou open-ended. <br />
<br />
<br />
[1] Biblical Scholars, Translators and Bible Translations, Lourens de Vries, S&I 2, no. 2 (2008): 141-159 <br />
<br />C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-44863959115409577992011-11-30T08:45:00.001-08:002011-11-30T10:03:18.189-08:00Jesus goes to feast of Tabernacles John 7:1-10 <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
John 7:1 RSV After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him. 2 Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. 4 For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his brothers did not believe in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 So saying, he remained in Galilee. <br />
<br />
John 7:10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in secret.</blockquote>
<br />
Jesus statement in verse eight “I am not going up to this feast ...” ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην caused difficulties for at least one early scribe who replaced the negative particle οὐκ “I am not going up to this feast” with οὔπω “I am not yet going up to this feast.” The reading οὔπω is found in several early manuscripts (p66, p75, B). The theological motivation for this variant is fairly obvious, to remove the appearance that Jesus lied to his brothers. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, a close reading of the pericope removes the difficulty. Jesus’ brothers were not just asking him to go up to the feast in Jerusalem. The main thrust of their request was that Jesus should go up publicly: “... show yourself to the world.” The scenario that Jesus’ brothers envision includes a demonstration of Jesus’ works before his disciples and the rest of world. Jesus rejects this entire scenario with a simple statement “I am not going up to this feast.” Going up to the feast secretly is not the scenario suggested by Jesus’ Brothers. [1] <br />
<br />
[1] see Robert Horton Gundry, <i>Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation, p. 388</i>. C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-5790779318795781742011-11-21T13:45:00.001-08:002011-11-21T13:52:57.017-08:00Anastasia’s reading of John 5:1-18In the <a href="http://alternate-readings.blogspot.com/2011/11/anastasia-and-lost-tribe-of-koine.html">last post</a> Anastasia the head librarian from the lost tribe of Koine speaking Greeks ran into difficulty making sense of John 5:1-18 the story of <i>the healing at pool</i>. She didn’t understand why why the invalids were found gathered around the pool. The response to Jesus’ question “Do you want to be healed?” appears unrelated to the question and Jesus responds as if the man had given a simple affirmative reply. Anastasia’s inability to make the story coherent can be attributed to ignorance of the healing scenario, a cultural artifact which is implicit in the story. The healing scenario is provided by a textual variant/gloss fond in some NT manuscripts: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.” —NRSV [note] </blockquote>
This variant/gloss provides the key to the healing scenario and makes story coherent. It also illustrates that the meaning of the story is not entirely in the text as code. The healing scenario associated with the pool called Bethesda is a part of the shared cultural assumptions among first century palestinian Jews from Jerusalem. <br />
<br />
Anastasia notes that once the man is healed the story takes an abrupt turn and becomes a dispute over the Sabbath. She has been reading the Gospel of John for a month now and has been able to construct a tentative framework for this dispute between Jesus and those who want to kill him. Never the less, the importance of the Sabbath to the leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem is still something mysterious. The prohibition against certain activities on a certain day doesn’t seem to follow any pattern. No matter what a person does on this day it seems to be prohibited. Once again the Sabbath observance scenario is only partially discoverable from the the text [code] of John’s Gospel. Sabbath observance is a part of the shared cultural assumptions among first century palestinian Jews. <br />
<span id="goog_1783198790"></span><span id="goog_1783198791"></span><a href="http://beta.blogger.com/"></a>C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-83897218120071365682011-11-19T12:50:00.001-08:002011-11-19T12:54:47.288-08:00Anastasia and the lost tribe of Koine speaking Greeks (fiction)In the final years of twentieth century a culturally isolated tribe of Greek speaking people were discovered who spoke a perfectly preserved form of first century AD Koine Greek but had never heard of Judaism or Christianity. This lost tribe was highly literate, having preserved most of ancient greek literature in a huge library. A New Testament linguist Russell Booth interviewed the head librarian Anastasia and determined that she had a mastery of the syntax and lexicon of first century AD Koine Greek far beyond any living scholar in the “modern” world. Dr. Booth gave Anastasia a copy of the Gospel of John from the greek new testament and she agreed to read it and be tested for comprehension. <br />
<br />
A month later Anastasia participated in a session with Dr. Booth and a panel of New Testament scholars to ask her questions about the Gospel of John. Anastasia was asked to retell the story of <i>the healing at the pool</i> (John 5:1-18) with comments. Anastasia identified Jesus as a mantis (seer, prophet, diviner) and magos (magician, wise man) who had supernatural powers of healing and who performed food miracles. In her exposition of <i>the healing at the pool</i> she identified several disturbances in the text where story seemed to her incoherent. There was no explanation why the invalids were found gather around the pool. When Jesus asked a man if he wants to be healed the man tells him he wants to bathe and has no servant to help him into the pool when the water is disturbed and it appears that only one person is allowed to bathe in the pool at a given time. Jesus appears to ignore the request to bathe, doesn’t offer to help him into the pool but tells him to get up and carry something. The man complies and this becomes the center of a dispute with some group who say it is against accepted custom to carry this thing on a certain day. The disputants are exceedingly prone to violence and want to have Jesus killed for violation of their customs and claiming to be the son of a deity. Anastasia finds the story incoherent, like the fragments of several stories randomly glued together.<br />
<br />
As a highly literate native speaker of the language Anastasia has a mastery of “the code” but she comes away from the text confounded by the story. Apparently the meaning of the story isn’t in the text. If it were, she would be able to comprehend it. <br />
C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-12335772038063629622011-11-16T14:36:00.001-08:002011-11-16T19:05:45.479-08:00unholy marriage between the code model and propositional revelationOne of the artifacts of the fundamentalist modernist controversy of the twentieth century is found in ARTICLE VI of <i>The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics</i>[1]<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>We affirm</b> that the Bible expresses God's truth in propositional statements, and we declare that Biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts.</blockquote>
The meaning based translation model pioneered by Eugene A. Nida was associated with a very early version of Noam Chomsky’s treatment of syntax structures (late 1950s). Stay with me here, this is important. Micheal W. Palmer, a biblical linguist told me in a public discussion (late 1990s) that Nida had adopted some ideas from Chomsky but essentially his notion of semantic deep_structure was Nida’s own “spin” on semantic theory. What takes place in Nida’s model is the source language text (e.g., Greek NT) is reduced to propositional statements (deep_structure) in some modern language (e.g., English), which are intended to capture the “meaning” of the original. These propositions are then “transformed” in to the target language (e.g., Swahili) not necessarily as propositions but in some form suitable for representing the genre of the original text. <br />
<br />
The key issue here is that “meaning” is considered to be a property of the source text “code” which can be extracted and reduced to propositional statements. This theory of meaning has been demonstrated to be inadequate over the last thirty years.[2] <br />
<br />
David J. Weber borrows a metaphor from Edward de Bono:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... Edward de Bono likened the mind to a contoured surface composed of something like gelatin. Thoughts are like warm marbles. When placed on the surface, they roll according to the contours of the surface. As they go, they melt the surface slightly, leaving a trace of their course. This metaphor captures some important aspects of the human mind and the brain on which it is implemented. <br />
<br />
Context is like the contoured surface of set gelatin. An utterance is like a warm marble. Its explicature is like the place where the marble is set down on the surface, the starting point of the path it takes. ... The interpretation is like the endpoint of that path. ... The impression an utterance makes on a mind is the path the marble takes. This is not the starting point (explicature). It is not the ending point (interpretation). It is the path left by the warm marble moving from the explicature to the interpretation as influenced by the contoured surface (context).[3] </blockquote>
Reducing the "meaning" to a propositional statement disregards the path of the marble and the trace left by the marble. It flattens out the notion of meaning treating it like a discreet object. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
We have been led to think of “meanings” much like fixed objects out in some Platonic space, out there with integers and other things, discrete objects that we can manipulate symbolically, ones we can grasp and stuff into a text. [4]</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
[1]<i>The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics</i> Copyright 1978, ICBI.<br />
<br />
[2] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2<br />
<br />
[3] ibid, p63<br />
<br />
[4] ibid, p64C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-48353216384335796882011-11-15T12:32:00.001-08:002011-11-15T12:32:52.474-08:00authorial intent and multivocalityIn the second half of the 20th century authorial intent was championed among conservative evangelical scholars as the anchor for biblical hermeneutics. Appeals to authorial intent were made to shore up the interpretation of scripture against the tide of subjectivity that had swept over secular literary criticism where “the death of the author” and the “autonomous text” had produced all sorts of new “readings” of works both within and outside of literary canon. <br /><br />The notion of authorial intent does not rule out multivocality. The teaching of Jesus in the gospels is riddled with semantically underdetermined texts. Multivocality is built in and regular misinterpretations by the disciples illustrate this. Jesus occasionally corrects the disciples when the are completely off but he does not nail down the correct understanding resulting in a fixed, unyielding, cross cultural, context independent, universal for all time and every place reading of his words. In other words multivocality remains after the disciples are corrected: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
John 4:31 Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.” RSV</blockquote>
Jesus hasn’t really cleared up the issue of why he doesn’t need to eat. His answer directs the attention of the disciples away from topic of eating physical food to a more important topic but it still leaves very many questions unanswered. The expression “do the will of him who sent me” is semantically underdetermined and yet it reflects the intent of the author.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-42837126944223268712011-11-15T10:52:00.001-08:002011-11-15T19:26:14.796-08:00every translation an interpretationI currently reading a recent book by a sociologist[1] who is bemoaning the fact that there is no consensus on what the bible means among those who claim to take the bible seriously. The author claims this effectively undermines their doctrine of scripture. <br />
<br />
In all this discussion there wasn’t much said about bible translation. If we start with the view[2] that the inspiration of scripture was a divine providential process by which the very words written by the human author became “God’s Words” then nothing short of the original words are God’s Word[3]. Any other words used to represent the original constitute an interpretation of God’s Word. So in the English speaking world we have a rather large number of published interpretations currently in circulation. <br />
<br />
Since the vast majority of people who take the bible seriously read it in translation, the authority they attach to the "original writings" is significantly reduced when reading a version in their own language. Confidence in the “original writings” does not translate into confidence in a translation. What constitutes a good translation is one of the most controversial topics in the bible believing subculture. <br />
<br />
[1]Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible. <br />
<br />
[2]This is the core issue in bible believing subculture which Christian Smith is deconstructing. <br />
<br />
[3] We will just set aside the issue of textual criticism.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-18901705961605143952011-11-14T10:58:00.001-08:002011-11-14T11:00:26.125-08:00The Code Model (CM) & the healing at BethesdaThe Code Model (CM) & the healing at Bethesda<br /><br />I was reading the greek text of John 5 and came across a useful illustration how meaning is “radically underdetermined” in speech. <br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
John 5:2 NRSV Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes. 3 In these lay many invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5 One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” 9 At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.</blockquote>
<br />If we read this passage and proceed on the assumption that meaning is contained or determined by the syntax and lexicon what happens in verse seven? At the end of verse six Jesus asks a simple question “Do you want to be made well?” The man’s reply is long winded and appears to be totally irrelevant. It looks like it was dropped into the text from some other discourse. Jesus appears to ignore it. Semantic analysis based on syntax and lexicon leaves us nowhere. <br /><br />After the text of John was removed by time and distance from the original cultural setting the problem in verse seven became intolerable for some scribes and a gloss was inserted between verse three and five which read:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.” NRSV notes </blockquote>
<br />This is a glaring example of meaning being “radically underdetermined” in a text or speech. The code including syntax and lexicon underdetermines the meaning. What this example doesn’t illustrate is that meaning is always underdetermined. Even the most simple and apparently lucid statement is dependent on an inferential process providing “context” from the cultural framework. The code does not contain or determine the meaning.[1] <br /><br />[1] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2 (2005), p. 39.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-40291030259777552672011-11-13T13:09:00.001-08:002011-11-13T13:44:50.113-08:00ARTICLE VII THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS<br />
Compare ARTICLE VII from <i>The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics</i> to a statement from <i>A Tale of Two Translation Theories, </i>David J. Weber:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>ARTICLE VII</b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>We affirm</b> that the meaning expressed in each Biblical text is single, definite and fixed.<br />
<b>We deny</b> that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.[1]</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Texts do not contain meanings; meanings are in the minds of communicators. Texts do not determine meanings; along with context they guide interpretation. Interpretation is not like opening a tin and removing sardines.[2] </blockquote>
It appears we have a problem here. The Chicago Statement is constructed on a foundation which includes "the code model of communication"(CM). The issue of communication models never comes up in the statement on Hermeneutics. At the time of writing CM was not controversial. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="column">
[1]The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Copyright 1978, ICBI. </div>
<div class="column">
<br /></div>
<div class="column">
[2] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2 (2005) p.39.</div>C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-35274762121200322772011-11-08T08:05:00.000-08:002011-11-08T08:12:18.230-08:00discontinuous syntax in AjaxThe following are some examples of discontinuous syntax in Ajax.<br />
<br />
Sophocles Ajax 793-794 Eng. Trans. R.C. Jebb Perseus/Tufts.<br />
<br />
οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πρᾶξιν, Αἴαντος δ᾽ ὅτι, <br />
θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν, οὐ θαρσῶ πέρι.<br />
<br />
I have no clue of your condition, but know only that, if Ajax is away, I have little hope for him.<br />
<br />
Hyperbaton or discontinuous syntax is evident in the distance between Αἴαντος … πέρι. The conditional construction θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν, οὐ θαρσῶ is bounded by the proper noun Αἴαντος and the postpositive πέρι. In other words: “I don’t know about your situation [οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πρᾶξιν] … concerning Ajax [ Αἴαντος … πέρι] if he is out and about [θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν], I have no confidence [οὐ θαρσῶ]. <br />
<br />
When an element from a phrase/clause is broken off and placed within another phrase/clause which results in yet another discontinuity within the second phrase/clause, this is called interlaced hyperbaton. <br />
<br />
Sophocles, Ajax 804<br />
οἲ 'γώ, φίλοι, πρόστητ᾽ ἀναγκαίας τύχης, <br />
καὶ σπεύσαθ᾽, οἱ μὲν Τεῦκρον ἐν τάχει μολεῖν <br />
οἱ δ᾽ ἑσπέρους ἀγκῶνας, οἱ δ᾽ ἀντηλίους <br />
ζητεῖτ᾽ ἰόντες τἀνδρὸς ἔξοδον κακήν. <br />
<br />
Ah, me! My friends, protect me from the doom threatened by fate! <br />
Hurry, some of you, to speed Teucer's coming; <br />
let others go to the westward bays, and others to the eastward, <br />
and there seek the man's disastrous path.<br />
<br />
οἱ δ᾽ ἑσπέρους ἀγκῶνας, οἱ δ᾽ ἀντηλίους … ἰόντες <br />
let others go to the westward bays, and others to the eastward<br />
<br />
ζητεῖτ᾽ ... τἀνδρὸς ἔξοδον κακήν<br />
seek the man's disastrous path<br />
<br />
The tail end of the participle clause ἀντηλίους … ἰόντες is interlaced with the beginning of the main (finite verb) clause ζητεῖτ᾽ ... τἀνδρὸς.<br />
<br />
For more examples with commentary, read<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/46/Markovic.pdf">Hyperbaton in theGreek Literary SentenceDaniel Markovic, Nov. 2005 </a> <br />
<br />C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-20767494720295192712011-10-23T12:44:00.000-07:002011-10-23T12:46:15.969-07:00syntax in first draftsI post plenty of syntax errors on my blog, I call it "first draft syndrome" and I don't always get back to correct them. This morning I found a professional journalist making a simple revision error where a sentence was recast in a new form but not all the adjustments were cleaned up. This is a common problem with first drafts. How many errors do you see in the following sentence? <br />
<br />
"Ohio Gov. John Kasich said on Friday that he would is advocating for a moratorium on exotic animal auctions. "<br />
<br />
article Posted by DANNY GRONER of The Huffington Post: 10/23/11 01:58 PM ET ": What's the Lesson From the Ohio Exotic Animals Incident? <br />
<br />
As an exercise in conjectural emendation, we might change "he would is advocating for a moratorium" to read "he is advocating for a moratorium" or "he would advocate a moratorium." The transitive verb "advocate" with the prepositional phrase "for a moratorium" sounds awkward to me. However, a moment ago Google found 66,100 examples of "he is advocating for a" but only one other example of "he is advocating for a moratorium."C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.com0