Find article here.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The above lessons show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the”) as Colwell’s Rule suggests or to some nebulous ‘qualitative’ meaning as some other trinitarian scholars insist.
Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in Lesson D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.
John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.” - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.”
“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree one (or more) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is certainly not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.
John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber” (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber” [Colwell]. And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.”
The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.
To Be Continued
………………………………
F.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church” (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.” (The History of Christianity, p. 107, a Lion Book, 1990). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.
In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God” - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2.
Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well-understood by translators of the time.
This language did have the indefinite article (“a” in English), and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:
W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance, Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, etc.).
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.
Thursday, 5 December 2013
John1:1 in depth VI
Find article here.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church” (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.” (The History of Christianity, p. 107, a Lion Book, 1990). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.
In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God” - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2.
Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well-understood by translators of the time.
This language did have the indefinite article (“a” in English), and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:
W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance, Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, etc.).
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church” (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.” (The History of Christianity, p. 107, a Lion Book, 1990). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.
In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God” - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2.
Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well-understood by translators of the time.
This language did have the indefinite article (“a” in English), and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:
W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance, Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, etc.).
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.
John1:1 in depth VII
Find article here.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):The Word (ho Logos)
A few trinitarians actually attempt to “prove” that John 1:1c should be translated as “and the Word [Logos] was God” rather than “and the Word [Logos] was a god” by appealing to one of the strictly pagan concepts of “The Logos”!
But, as we will see, what it all boils down to (and many of the most authoritative trinitarian sources agree) is this: either the Gospel of John (written around 90 A.D.) truly reflects John’s Jewish background and the teaching of Jesus and the first century Christians (the “primitive” Church) or it reflects popular pagan Greek philosophies of the time and is, therefore, “a work of imagination, a theological romance of a type not unparalleled in [pagan Greek] literature.” If it were the latter, of course, it wouldn’t matter what Jn 1:1c says anyway, since it would certainly not be the inspired word of God. If it is the former, all the best evidence (as a number of trinitarian authorities themselves admit) proves John is basing his Logos [‘Word’] concept on that of the Jewish teaching of Philo.
Philo (who lived about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic [Greek-speaking] Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using theos (θεος) without the definite article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ho theos ὁ θεος) when referring to God. Since John obviously based most of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we would also expect him to use theos without the article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.
Philo also:
“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)
And,
“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεος [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
In fact, Philo even said that
“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.” [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.
“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (theos) [literally, ‘a god’], but never ‘God’ (ho theos) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....” - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a highly-respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.
And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been very troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’!
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):The Word (ho Logos)
A few trinitarians actually attempt to “prove” that John 1:1c should be translated as “and the Word [Logos] was God” rather than “and the Word [Logos] was a god” by appealing to one of the strictly pagan concepts of “The Logos”!
But, as we will see, what it all boils down to (and many of the most authoritative trinitarian sources agree) is this: either the Gospel of John (written around 90 A.D.) truly reflects John’s Jewish background and the teaching of Jesus and the first century Christians (the “primitive” Church) or it reflects popular pagan Greek philosophies of the time and is, therefore, “a work of imagination, a theological romance of a type not unparalleled in [pagan Greek] literature.” If it were the latter, of course, it wouldn’t matter what Jn 1:1c says anyway, since it would certainly not be the inspired word of God. If it is the former, all the best evidence (as a number of trinitarian authorities themselves admit) proves John is basing his Logos [‘Word’] concept on that of the Jewish teaching of Philo.
Philo (who lived about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic [Greek-speaking] Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using theos (θεος) without the definite article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ho theos ὁ θεος) when referring to God. Since John obviously based most of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we would also expect him to use theos without the article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.
Philo also:
“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)
And,
“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεος [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
In fact, Philo even said that
“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.” [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.
“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (theos) [literally, ‘a god’], but never ‘God’ (ho theos) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....” - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a highly-respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.
And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been very troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’!
Watchtower society's commentary on Matthew's Gospel
The inspired account of the life of Jesus Christ written, doubtless in Palestine, by the onetime tax collector Matthew, or Levi. It is the first book in the Christian Greek Scriptures and has since ancient times been viewed as the first Gospel written. Matthew’s account commences with the human ancestry of Jesus, followed by his birth, and concludes with Christ’s postresurrection commissioning of his followers to go and “make disciples of people of all the nations.” (Mt 28:19, 20) Hence, it covers the time between Jesus’ birth in 2 B.C.E. and his meeting with his disciples just before his ascension in 33 C.E.
Time of Writing. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.
Originally Written in Hebrew. External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.
It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.
Information Unique to Matthew’s Gospel. An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of the material contained therein is not found in the other three Gospels. Unique is Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-16), which takes an approach different from that set out by Luke (Lu 3:23-38). A comparison of the two indicates that Matthew gave the legal genealogy through Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph, while Luke apparently gave Jesus’ natural genealogy. Other incidents mentioned only in Matthew’s account are: Joseph’s reaction to Mary’s pregnancy, the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream (Mt 1:18-25), the visit of the astrologers, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the young boys in Bethlehem and its districts (chap 2), and the dream of Pilate’s wife regarding Jesus (27:19).
At least ten parables, or illustrations, found in Matthew’s account are not mentioned in the other Gospels. These include four in chapter 13, those of the weeds in the field, the hidden treasure, the “one pearl of high value,” and the dragnet. Others are the illustrations of the unmerciful slave (Mt 18:23-35), the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16), the marriage of the king’s son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30).
At times Matthew provides supplementary details. Although material from the Sermon on the Mount also appears in Luke’s account (Lu 6:17-49), Matthew’s Gospel is far more extensive in this respect. (Mt 5:1–7:29) Whereas Mark, Luke, and John mention the miraculous feeding of about 5,000 men, Matthew adds “besides women and young children.” (Mt 14:21; Mr 6:44; Lu 9:14; Joh 6:10) Matthew mentions two demon-possessed men encountered by Jesus in the country of the Gadarenes, while Mark and Luke refer to only one. (Mt 8:28; Mr 5:2; Lu 8:27) Matthew also tells of two blind men being healed on an occasion, whereas Mark and Luke mention only one. (Mt 20:29, 30; Mr 10:46, 47; Lu 18:35, 38) Of course, all the writers were correct in that at least one person was involved in each incident. But Matthew was often more explicit as to number. This perhaps is to be attributed to his former occupation as a tax collector.
Matthew’s Use of the Hebrew Scriptures. It has been estimated that Matthew’s Gospel contains about a hundred references to the Hebrew Scriptures. About 40 of these are actual quotations of passages. These include Christ’s own quotations from and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, among which are the following: a man’s enemies to be persons of his own household (Mt 10:35, 36; Mic 7:6); John the Baptizer identified as the “Elijah” to come (Mt 11:13, 14; 17:11-13; Mal 4:5); Jesus’ and Jonah’s experiences compared (Mt 12:40; Jon 1:17); commandment on honoring parents (Mt 15:4; Ex 20:12; 21:17); rendering lip service to God (Mt 15:8, 9; Isa 29:13); need for two or three witnesses (Mt 18:16; De 19:15); statements on marriage (Mt 19:4-6; Ge 1:27; 2:24); various commandments (Mt 5:21, 27, 38; 19:18, 19; Ex 20:12-16; 21:24; Le 19:18; 24:20; De 19:21); the temple made into “a cave of robbers” (Mt 21:13; Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11); rejection of Jesus, “the stone” that became “the chief cornerstone” (Mt 21:42; Ps 118:22, 23); foes of David’s Lord put under his feet (Mt 22:44; Ps 110:1); disgusting thing in the holy place (Mt 24:15; Da 9:27); Jesus’ disciples scattered (Mt 26:31; Zec 13:7); Christ apparently forsaken by God (Mt 27:46; Ps 22:1). There are also Jesus’ statements used in resisting Satan’s temptations.—Mt 4:4, 7, 10; De 8:3; 6:16, 13.
Interesting, too, is Matthew’s inspired application of Hebrew Scripture prophecies to Jesus, proving him to be the promised Messiah. This aspect would have been of particular concern to the Jews, for whom the account seems to have been originally intended. The prophecies include: Jesus’ being born of a virgin (Mt 1:23; Isa 7:14); his birth in Bethlehem (Mt 2:6; Mic 5:2); his being called out of Egypt (Mt 2:15; Ho 11:1); the lamentation over the death of slaughtered children (Mt 2:16-18; Jer 31:15); John the Baptizer’s preparing the way before Jesus (Mt 3:1-3; Isa 40:3); Jesus’ ministry bringing light (Mt 4:13-16; Isa 9:1, 2); his carrying of illnesses (Mt 8:14-17; Isa 53:4); his use of illustrations (Mt 13:34, 35; Ps 78:2); Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on the colt of an ass (Mt 21:4, 5; Zec 9:9); the betrayal of Christ for 30 pieces of silver (Mt 26:14, 15; Zec 11:12).
An Accurate, Beneficial Record. Matthew, being a close associate of Christ during Jesus’ later years of life on earth and thus an eyewitness of his ministry, could understandably record a moving and meaningful Gospel. This we possess in the former tax collector’s record of the life of Jesus Christ. He was enabled by God’s spirit to recall in detail what Jesus said and did on earth. (Joh 14:26) Hence, Matthew accurately portrayed Jesus of Nazareth as the beloved Son of God having divine approval, as the one who came “to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many,” and as the foretold Messianic King who was to arrive in glory. (Mt 20:28; 3:17; 25:31) When on earth, Jesus pointed to his works and could truthfully say: “The poor are having the good news declared to them.” (11:5) And today multitudes, both natural Jews and non-Jews, greatly benefit from such Kingdom good news as recorded in Matthew’s Gospel.—Mt 4:23, ftn.
[Box on page 353]
HIGHLIGHTS OF MATTHEW
The apostle Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life; written primarily with the Jews in mind, this Gospel demonstrates that Jesus is the foretold Messianic King
The first Gospel written, it was likely composed initially in Hebrew about eight years after the death and resurrection of Christ
Details of Jesus’ life fulfill Messianic prophecies
Baby boys are slaughtered; he is called out of Egypt (2:14-18)
He grows up in Nazareth; John the Baptizer prepares the way for him (2:23–3:3)
He proves to be a light in Galilee (4:13-16)
He performs many miraculous healings (8:16, 17)
He gladly helps the lowly ones (12:10-21)
Judas betrays him for 30 silver pieces, which money is later used to buy a potter’s field (26:14, 15, 48, 49; 27:3-10)
His disciples are scattered (26:31)
Jesus is in the tomb for parts of three days (12:39, 40)
Jesus proclaims the good news of God’s Kingdom
After John’s arrest, Jesus proclaims: “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near” (4:12-23)
He visits all the cities and villages of Galilee to preach the good news of the Kingdom (9:35)
He instructs his 12 disciples and sends them out to preach about the Kingdom (10:1–11:1)
He reveals truths about the Kingdom, telling the parables of the sower, the wheat and weeds, the mustard grain, the leaven, treasure hidden in a field, a pearl of high value, a dragnet, workers in a vineyard, two sons, wicked cultivators, and a marriage feast for a king’s son (13:3-50; 20:1-16; 21:28-41; 22:1-14)
He answers his disciples’ question about the sign of his presence, including in his answer a forecast of global preaching of the Kingdom good news (24:3–25:46)
Jesus exposes the hypocrisy of the religious leaders
He lays bare their utter disregard for justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23:23, 24; 9:11-13)
Jesus gives fine counsel to his followers
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shows why his disciples would be truly happy; he warns against wrath and urges them to make peace with one another and to love even their enemies; he tells of the danger of adulterous thoughts; he counsels against hypocrisy, teaches how to pray, warns against materialism, and advises seeking first God’s Kingdom and His righteousness; he cautions his hearers not to be overcritical, tells them to pray constantly, and urges them to realize that the road to life is narrow and that they should produce fine fruits (5:1–7:27)
He states the Christian standard for marriage and divorce (19:3-9)
The death and resurrection of God’s Son
On Passover night, Jesus institutes the Memorial of his coming death (26:26-30)
Betrayed and arrested, he is judged worthy of death by the Sanhedrin (26:46-66)
Jesus is buried; he is resurrected and appears to his followers; he commissions them to go and make disciples of people of all nations (27:57–28:20)
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
A line in the sand? V
1Corinthians5:12,13NKJV"For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside?Do you not judge those who are inside?But God Judges those who are outside.."
What's in a name? II
Find article here
"Proceeding on
this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds:
`Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament
into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios
occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew
representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the
N.T. into all languages if the title [personal name] Jehovah had
been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The
Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, whenever the
expression "the angel of the Lord" occurs, we know that the word "Lord"
represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression "the word
of the Lord" would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were
followed; so also in the case of the title "the Lord of Hosts." Wherever, on
the contrary, the expression "My Lord" or "Our Lord" occurs, we should know that
the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni
would have to be used.' (Synonyms of the Old
Testament, 1897, p. 43.) It is on such a basis that translations of the
Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name of Jehovah have
proceeded." - p. 10, Vol. 2,
Insight .
So recent discoveries have tended to verify (not disprove) the earlier
conclusion of scholars who believed both "Testaments" are equally
inspired and, therefore, must both use the personal name of God.
"Recent
discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first
hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are
significant for NT [New Testament] studies in that they form a literary analogy
with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the
divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine
name, [YHWH] (and possibly abbreviations of it [Yah, IAO]), was
originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT [Old
Testament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with
[kurios, `Lord']. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view,
created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the
relationship between the `Lord God' and the `Lord Christ' which is reflected in
the MS tradition of the NT text itself." - George Howard, University of Georgia,
writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.
96, 1977, p. 63.
Another piece of evidence concerning the use of the Divine Name by the inspired
Christian writers may be found in the ancient Jewish writings of the Talmud:
Some have
criticized [the restoration of the divine name to the NT in the New
World Translation] as unwarranted. However, there seems to be
support for the New World Translation in an unlikely
source: the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part
of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains
an immense body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section,
there is a discussion as to whether it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from
a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage appears: `It was stated in
the text: The blank spaces [gilyohnim] and the Books of the Minim, we may
not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the
Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said:
May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine
Names if they came to my hand.' - translated by Dr. H. Freedman.
Who were the
minim? The word means `sectarians' and could refer to the Sadducees or
the Samaritans. But according to Dr. Freedman, in this passage it most likely
refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gilyohnim,
translated `blank spaces' according to Dr. Freedman? There are two possible
meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls.
Or - in an ironic application of the word - they could be the writings of the
minim, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank
scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as
`Gospels.'[[6]] In harmony with
this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion
reads: `The books of Minim are like blank spaces [gilyohnim].'
Accordingly, in
the book Who Was a Jew? by Lawrence H. Schiffman, the
above-quoted portion of the Talmud
is translated as follows: `We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the
Gospels and the books of the minim ("heretics"). Rather,
they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata.
Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their
Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May
I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them
along with their Tetragrammata.' Dr. Schiffman goes
on to argue [like Dr. Freedman above] that the minim here are Jewish
Christians.
Is this portion of
the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is
strong evidence that the Christians did include God's name, the Tetragrammaton,
in their Gospels and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud
is discussing Jewish Christians here. There is scholastic support for
such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support. The
section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving
Gamaliel and a Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are
alluded to. - pp. 30-31, The Watchtower, November 1, 1993.
Why would "Christian" copyists later remove the Hebrew name of God from
their Greek manuscripts of the OT and NT?
The very first Christians (including those who wrote most, if not all, of the
NT) used the Hebrew Scriptures. (Even for those few who might have used the
Septuagint, the Name of God was still found in Hebrew letters in its
manuscripts of that time in Judea.)
"In this period [first
century AD] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members ....
professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew
Scriptures, and took Messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the
ethics of Judaism for granted" - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity,
W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985.
However, at some point (probably around the time of the Jewish Revolt of 135
A.D.) the Gentile Christians took
over. The Scriptures came to be Greek rather than Hebrew, and an actual
anti-Jewish sentiment began to predominate. The Septuagint was now being
used exclusively, but the anti-Jewish Gentile "Christian" copyists actually
removed God's name whenever they saw the "despicable" Hebrew letters of
the Divine Name (the Tetragrammaton [YHWH, Jehovah] and its shortened form
[YH, Jah]) that were
still being used in the original Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint. They
usually replaced the name with "Lord" or "God" in the copies they
made.
... the church
was by this time [around the middle of the 2nd century AD] a
predominantly Gentile body. According to Christian writers in the
second and third centuries, relations between Christians and Jews apparently
became increasingly hostile. [p. 103]
"After the Jewish
revolts against Rome (AD 66-74, AD 132-135) most Christians
dissociated themselves from the Jews. The Jewish Christians' refusal to support
the revolts caused them to be regarded as national enemies.
From this time few Jews were converted to Christianity.
"Increasingly Christians came to regard Jews as deliberate haters of the good. When the church became recognized by Constantine, legal discrimination against Jews increased and they were gradually deprived of all rights." [p. 594, The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.]
"Increasingly Christians came to regard Jews as deliberate haters of the good. When the church became recognized by Constantine, legal discrimination against Jews increased and they were gradually deprived of all rights." [p. 594, The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.]
* * * * *
It was the
generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final
rupture between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome
[132-135 A.D.], when the Christians were unable to accept bar
Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was of the other
world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything
Jewish. The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity
became strangers to each other .... A wall of misunderstanding and
hate was erected by the narrow zealotries of the two faiths. [pp. 152,
153, Jews, God and History, Max I. Dimont, A Signet Book, 1962.]
* * * * *
"[Bar Kochba] ...
tortured and killed the Christians who refused to aid him against the
Roman army." [p. 42, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M.
Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.]
"Another Christian
apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the
insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny
and curse Jesus the Messiah." [Ibid.]
"After the war [some
time after 135 A.D.] the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of
Gentiles."[Ibid.][7]
We can see one clear example of the very unChristian hatred for the Jews
and everything Jewish (including the "Jewish" name of God, Jehovah) by the
2nd century Gentile "Christians" by examining their treatment of an
extremely important custom. Jesus had commanded them to keep an
observance memorial of his death like he had done with his disciples at the
"Last Supper" on the Passover. The first Christians, then, observed the
Memorial of Christ's death every Nisan 14th evening on the
Passover (which most often did not fall on a
Saturday or Sunday) by eating the Memorial Bread and drinking
the Memorial wine. At some point this observance, commanded by Jesus,
was greatly altered. It came to be observed at sunrise, only on a Sunday
morning, and deliberately scheduled never to be at the time of the "hated"
Jewish Passover. (It also later came to be called "Easter" in the northern
lands of Christendom - see the HOLIDAYS study.)
When did this change come about? Well, we know that at the infamous Nicene
Council (325 A.D.) a date was officially assigned
(and enforced) "throughout the world" that was intentionally always different
from the date of the Jewish Passover. Why? So "that none should hereafter
follow the blindness of the Jews" - p. 859, Encyclopedia
Britannica, Vol. 7, 14th ed.
We don't know exactly when this anti-Jewish reaction against the original
Christ-commanded Memorial actually began in earnest (a good guess, however,
would be 135 A.D. or shortly thereafter). But we do know that "By 180
A.D. the latter custom [`Easter'
celebrated on the non-Passover date and always on a Sunday]
prevailed generally" and that Pope Victor I (189-198 A.D.) "demanded uniformity and
threatened to excommunicate" the minority of churches which still hung onto the
original Jewish Passover date. - p. 190, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia
International, Grolier, 1966.
A
few churches still clung to the Apostolic custom for a while but were treated as
heretics by the newly "orthodox" majority.
"It is true that
from the middle of the second century onwards there is a strong reaction
towards standardization in both faith and order; diversities in dogmatic
formulation, in matters of liturgical practice (such as the observance of
Easter), and in the text of Scripture began to be
smoothed out.... it is painfully evident that those [Christians] who
celebrated Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover [Quartodecimans] were
not motivated by special friendliness towards Judaism [Chadwick then refers to a
strong anti-Jewish `Easter' sermon by Quartodeciman Bishop Melito (ca. A.D.
160-170)] .... but there can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were
right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and
Apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being
behind the times." - p. 85, The Early Church, Henry
Chadwick, Dorset Press, 1986 printing.
What's in a name? III
Find article here.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica states that the
"earliest
Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, during
the night of the first (paschal) full Moon of the first month of spring (Nisan
14-15). By the middle of the 2nd century, most
churches had transferred this celebration to the Sunday after the Jewish
feast."
From this time - "middle of the 2nd century" (180 A. D., at least) - until the
blasphemous Nicene Council (325 A. D.) "Hostility against Jews and
Jewish customs led to formal debates [about the date for "Easter"] in
councils of the Church." - How It Started, Garrison, p. 49, Abingdon
Press, 1972.
With the example of the extremely important "Easter/Passover" reaction of the
Gentile "Christians" in mind we should not be surprised that these same
Jewish-hating people changed the Hebrew name of the "Jewish" God during their
attempts to "smooth out" "the text of Scripture" during the same time period.
In fact it would be surprising if they hadn't.
Remember, these "Christians" were mostly Greek (or Latin) speaking Gentiles. It
was relatively easy for them to change all the instances of
Yahweh and
Yah to "Lord"
or "God" since those words clearly stood out from the rest of the Greek writing
in their Hebrew characters. But what if the hated name had been
incorporated into other words and then transliterated into Greek by the original
Septuagint translators? Would the name-removing Greek-speaking copyists
still recognize it? Apparently not.
We find that when the shortened form of the Divine Name (Jah) was left in
Hebrew characters by the original Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the
"Christian" copyists always changed it to "Lord." But when the original
Jewish translators had incorporated it with another word or words (as in proper
names, e.g., "Elijah" [which means "God is Jehovah"
- p. 674, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982] or
in the phrase "Praise ye Jehovah" [Hallelu JAH]) and
transliterated it into Greek characters, it became an acceptable "Greek"
word (although one whose meaning they didn't wholly understand) to the
"Christian" copyists, and they didn't change it (out of ignorance only). This
is very obvious in the "Hallelujah" Psalms where, for some reason, the original
Septuagint translators combined the two Hebrew words Hallelu
("Praise ye") and Jah ("Jehovah") and then put that new word into
GREEK characters (which still had the Hebrew pronunciation of
"Hallelujah").
When the 2nd century Jew-despising "Christian" copyists saw "Jah" in
Hebrew characters, they always removed it
entirely or changed it to "Lord" or "God" - e.g., Ex. 15:2; Ps. 68:4, 18; Is.
26:4. But when they saw the Greek characters of
"HalleluJAH" ( JAllhlouia) they always left it
unchanged:
All
uses of an independent (standing alone, not attached to other words or names)
"Jah" in the Hebrew Scriptures as translated by the modern
Greek Septuagint:
* - Ex. 15:2
* - Ex. 17:16
K - Ps. 68:4 (:5 Heb.)
* - Ps. 68:18 (:19)
K - Ps. 77:11 (:12)
K - Ps. 89:8 (:9)
K - Ps. 94:7
K - Ps. 94:12
K - Ps. 102:18 (:19)
H - Ps. 104:35
________________________
_/ H - Ps. 105:45 - Combined
\ H - Ps. 106:1 in Sept.___
H - Ps. 106:48
H - Ps. 111:1
H - Ps. 112:1
H - Ps. 113:1
H - Ps. 113:9
K - Ps. 115:17
K - Ps. 115:18a
H - Ps. 115:18b
H - Ps. 116:19
H - Ps. 117:2
K - Ps. 118:5a
* - Ps. 118:5b
K - Ps. 118:14
K - Ps. 118:17
K - Ps. 118:18
K - Ps. 118:19
K - Ps. 122:4
K - Ps. 130:3
H - Ps. 135:1
K - Ps. 135:3
K - Ps. 135:4
H - Ps. 135:21
H - Ps. 146:1
________________________
_ /H - Ps. 146:10 - Combined
\H - Ps. 147:1 in Sept.____
________________________
_/H - Ps. 147:20 - Combined
\H - Ps. 148:1 in Sept.____
________________________
_/H - Ps. 148:14 - Combined
\H - Ps. 149:1 in Sept.____
_______________________
_/H - Ps. 149:9 - Combined
\H - Ps. 150:1 in Sept.____
K - Ps. 150:6a
* - Ps. 150:6b
* - Ca. 8:6
K - Is. 12:2
Th Is. 26:4
Th - Is. 38:11
................................................
* - Reworded to eliminate use of Jah, “God,” and “Lord” in existing Sept. MSS.
K - Jah has been replaced with Kurios (‘Lord’) in extant Sept. MSS.
Th - Jah has been replaced with Theos (‘God’) in extant Sept. MSS.
H - Jah has been transliterated into Greek letters of HalleluJAH in Sept.
* - Ex. 15:2
* - Ex. 17:16
K - Ps. 68:4 (:5 Heb.)
* - Ps. 68:18 (:19)
K - Ps. 77:11 (:12)
K - Ps. 89:8 (:9)
K - Ps. 94:7
K - Ps. 94:12
K - Ps. 102:18 (:19)
H - Ps. 104:35
________________________
_/ H - Ps. 105:45 - Combined
\ H - Ps. 106:1 in Sept.___
H - Ps. 106:48
H - Ps. 111:1
H - Ps. 112:1
H - Ps. 113:1
H - Ps. 113:9
K - Ps. 115:17
K - Ps. 115:18a
H - Ps. 115:18b
H - Ps. 116:19
H - Ps. 117:2
K - Ps. 118:5a
* - Ps. 118:5b
K - Ps. 118:14
K - Ps. 118:17
K - Ps. 118:18
K - Ps. 118:19
K - Ps. 122:4
K - Ps. 130:3
H - Ps. 135:1
K - Ps. 135:3
K - Ps. 135:4
H - Ps. 135:21
H - Ps. 146:1
________________________
_ /H - Ps. 146:10 - Combined
\H - Ps. 147:1 in Sept.____
________________________
_/H - Ps. 147:20 - Combined
\H - Ps. 148:1 in Sept.____
________________________
_/H - Ps. 148:14 - Combined
\H - Ps. 149:1 in Sept.____
_______________________
_/H - Ps. 149:9 - Combined
\H - Ps. 150:1 in Sept.____
K - Ps. 150:6a
* - Ps. 150:6b
* - Ca. 8:6
K - Is. 12:2
Th Is. 26:4
Th - Is. 38:11
................................................
* - Reworded to eliminate use of Jah, “God,” and “Lord” in existing Sept. MSS.
K - Jah has been replaced with Kurios (‘Lord’) in extant Sept. MSS.
Th - Jah has been replaced with Theos (‘God’) in extant Sept. MSS.
H - Jah has been transliterated into Greek letters of HalleluJAH in Sept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)