tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-215978902024-03-18T03:03:15.787+00:00Thoughts of Francis TurretinReformed ApologeticsTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger3172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-74904944756654368052024-03-16T21:24:00.001+00:002024-03-16T21:24:09.632+00:00Jerome on Galatians 4:4-5<p><i>St. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians</i>, Fathers of the Church Series, transl. Andrew Cain, (pp. 156-157), at Galatians 4:4-5</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>4-4-5. But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman and put under the Law to redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the full rights of [adopted] sons.</p><p>Take note that he did not say “made through a woman”— phrasing opted for by Marcion and other heresies which pretend that the flesh of Christ was imaginary—but “made of a woman,” in order to support the belief that Christ was born of a woman and not through her. As for his calling the holy and blessed mother of the Lord a woman instead of a virgin, this same thing is written both in the Gospel according to Matthew, where she is referred to as the wife of Joseph, and [in the Gospel according to John, where] the Lord himself <b><u>scolds</u></b> her as a woman. It was not necessary always to use the term “virgin,” as if being circumspect and cautious, for the word “woman” denotes gender more than it does union with a man, and the Greek γυνή can be translated as either “wife” or “woman.”</p></blockquote><p>Latin from Migne, Patrologia Latinae, Tomus XXVI (of Jerome, vol. 7), col. 572 A-B: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>(Vers. 4) <i>At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege: ut eos qui sub Lege erant, redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus.</i> </p><p>Diligenter attendite quod non dixerit, <i>factum per mulierem</i>, quod Marcion et cæteræ hæreses volunt, quæ putativam Christi carnem simulant: sed <i>ex muliere</i>, ut non per illam, sed ex illa natus esse credatur. Quod autem sanctam et beatam Matrem Domini, mulierem, non Virginem nominavit, hoc idem et in Evangelio κατά Ματθαίον scriptum est: quando uxor appellatur Joseph (<i>Luc</i>. II), et ab ipso Domino <b><u>quasi</u></b> mulier <b><u>increpatur</u></b> (<i>Joan</i>. II). Non enim necesse erat semper quasi caute et timide Virginem dicere, cum mulier sexum magis significet quam copulam viri: et secundum intelligentiam Græcitatis, γυνή tam uxor, quam mulier valeat interpretari.</p></blockquote><p>Alternative translation:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Diligently pay attention to the fact that he did not say, 'made through a woman,' as Marcion and the other heresies want, which feign the assumed flesh of Christ: but 'from a woman,' so that it is believed not through her, but from her he was born. That he called the holy and blessed Mother of the Lord, a woman, not a Virgin, the same is also written in the Gospel according to Matthew: when she is called the wife of Joseph, and by the Lord himself <b><u>is almost reproached</u></b> as a woman. For it was not necessary always to say Virgin as if cautiously and timidly, since woman more signifies sex than the union with a man: and according to the understanding of Greek, γυνή can be interpreted both as wife and as woman.</p></blockquote><p>I've highlighted the place where Jerome acknowledges that Jesus use of woman in John 2 was, to put it gently, not positive. Jerome's focus in his response was not to suggest that "woman" here points to Mary as some new Eve, but rather to focus on the true humanity of Christ and to reject a flawed argument against Mary's virginity on the ground that she is called here, "woman," which presumably was used by the Latins to refer to a female who was married (or at least had engaged in copulation).</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-820713186569339352024-03-12T21:01:00.000+00:002024-03-12T21:01:07.203+00:00Will Kinney's Space Argument<p>Will Kinney sometimes argues that one of the signs that the King James is the perfect word is that a portion of it was read in space by the Apollo 8 astronauts. In a recent debate he stated:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"... reasons why the King James Bible is God's inerrant book and there are many reasons not just Blind Faith but there are a lot of reasons historical things that God has done with it in history it's the only Bible read from from outer space that'll never happen again they'll go up and read out of the Bible not going to happen not in today's society" </p></blockquote><p>(<a href="https://youtu.be/L3n62tfKt2o?t=9292">source</a>)</p><div><br /></div><div>I'm sure Will means well, but may be unaware of the fact that during the Apollo 11 mission, the Vatican had the following placed on the Moon:</div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7cxX7joQLUa_J8l294-kigAkpZsDbXFXhrc_f7O7FIBhdPCjUFNB3kxhfQFu0ez4BTlT5v3M0dHYXloUlut17qARRM1kdVrGIyFbCNLhH8u5DdXjGL2dGh9sipAIhgqynSSftjXnQEzbgKDZ-qX8cWoi5Qd0soPtYFF7UUK3us7k-LGtLjxPcrw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="339" data-original-width="498" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7cxX7joQLUa_J8l294-kigAkpZsDbXFXhrc_f7O7FIBhdPCjUFNB3kxhfQFu0ez4BTlT5v3M0dHYXloUlut17qARRM1kdVrGIyFbCNLhH8u5DdXjGL2dGh9sipAIhgqynSSftjXnQEzbgKDZ-qX8cWoi5Qd0soPtYFF7UUK3us7k-LGtLjxPcrw=w400-h272" width="400" /></a></div><br /> And at the same time, Israel had the following placed on the Moon:<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjI_YdBsalUm8iHlyIonDjcNkQARPnk5wT9YFl3L8pWFne55UEmNQVpBHVEyeo5k4_6y70lZ-OPU_-pQssAtMlVz4p3-JhWiUN1JuY0B98hrVCSOI_xBHBo_FkCC8dvE0w62O-G_kRQzVsk1xX5DtEFm5plt7nIXEy1DOK25jt6fuHwEx0U64ztmg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="116" data-original-width="489" height="95" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjI_YdBsalUm8iHlyIonDjcNkQARPnk5wT9YFl3L8pWFne55UEmNQVpBHVEyeo5k4_6y70lZ-OPU_-pQssAtMlVz4p3-JhWiUN1JuY0B98hrVCSOI_xBHBo_FkCC8dvE0w62O-G_kRQzVsk1xX5DtEFm5plt7nIXEy1DOK25jt6fuHwEx0U64ztmg=w400-h95" width="400" /></a></div>(<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190903191836/https://www.history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/goodwill/Apollo_11_material.pdf">source of the above clips</a>)<br /><br />In 1996, the Torah was read in Hebrew in Space (<a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/space-torah-when-the-creation-story-flew-back-into-the-firmament/">link to source with photo</a>). Likewise, in 2003, Ilan Ramon brought a miniatured version of scriptures with him to space (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190524224655/http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/the-surprising-history-of-prayer-in-space/">link to source</a>) during the final mission of the <i>Columbia</i>. <div><br /></div><div>It's a terrible, terrible argument that Will offers. Love the brother, but avoid the argument.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-51340396449956065122024-03-08T21:02:00.002+00:002024-03-08T21:02:21.029+00:00Synagogue as the Model of the Apostolic Church<p><b><u>Synagogue Rule in First Century Palestine</u></b><br /></p><p>The Greek word, συναγωγή (sunagogi aka synagogue), comes from the idea of gathering. Although the King James translators aimed to avoid using the cognate word for Christian assemblies, the Greek word is used of Christian assemblies in James 2:2 (For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;).</p><p>Furthermore, we see that the early Christians continued to meet in synagogues during the time of the Sauline persecution:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:</p><p>Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.</p></blockquote><p><b><u>"Synagogue-Ruler"</u></b></p><p>The documentation on synagogue leadership during second temple Judaism is more limited than one might like. There is, however, one role that stands out among others, the ἀρχισυνάγωγος (archisunagogos), usually translated in the KJV as "ruler of the synagogue." The translation is defensible from the evident etymology from ἄρχων ("archon" or a similar word denoting source or primacy) and συναγωγή (sunagogi aka synagogue).</p><p>This "ruler of the synagogue" role is described using the term archisunagogos in five passages (two of which are synoptic):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Mark 5:21-23&35-39 </p><p>21 And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea. 22 And, behold, there cometh one of the <u>rulers of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυναγώγων), Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, 23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: [I pray thee], come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. [24-34 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 35 While he yet spake, there came from the <u>ruler of the synagogue's</u> (ἀρχισυναγώγου) [house certain] which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the <u>ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυναγώγῳ), Be not afraid, only believe. 37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. 38 And he cometh to the house of the <u>ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυναγώγου), and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. 39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.</p></blockquote><p>A small but important point is this: the phrase in English is a bit ambiguous as it seems to imply that "the synagogue" (singular) has "rulers" (plural). Even if that's true, the Greek doesn't imply it. The Greek is just saying that one of the <i>archisunagogos</i> came to Jesus. Perhaps a more clear wording would be "one of the synagogue rulers cometh ..." or the like. </p><p>There is no similar issue in the synoptic account in Luke:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 8:40-50 </p><p>40 And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people [gladly] received him: for they were all waiting for him. 41 And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a <u>ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς): and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: 42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. [43-48 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 49 While he yet spake, there cometh one from the <u>ruler of the synagogue's</u> (ἀρχισυναγώγου) [house], saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master. 50 But when Jesus heard [it], he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.</p></blockquote><p>Luke also contains another reference, in a very different context, to this synagogue ruler position:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 13:10-17 </p><p>10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up [herself]. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called [her to him], and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid [his] hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the <u>ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυνάγωγος) answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.</p></blockquote><p>Notice carefully that this synagogue rulership role was consistent with Jesus teaching there, although this leader seems to have considered it appropriate to correct Jesus' work as a healer.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 13:13-15 </p><p>13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the <u>synagogue</u> (συναγωγὴν) on the sabbath day, and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the <u>rulers of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυνάγωγοι) sent unto them, saying, [Ye] men [and] brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.</p></blockquote><p>Notice that in this case there are multiple synagogue-rulers of one synagogue. The next passage in Acts suggests the same kind of arrangement in another city:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 18:7-17 </p><p>7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain [man's] house, named Justus, [one] that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the <u>synagogue</u> (συναγωγῇ). 8 And Crispus, the <u>chief ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυνάγωγος), believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. 12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 Saying, This [fellow] persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. 14 And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: 15 But if it be a question of words and names, and [of] your law, look ye [to it]; for I will be no judge of such [matters]. 16 And he drave them from the judgment seat. 17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the <u>chief ruler of the synagogue</u> (ἀρχισυνάγωγον), and beat [him] before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.</p></blockquote><p>Notice that both Crispus and Sosthenes have the same title, presumably in the same Corinthians synagogue. This, admittedly, is less clear than Acts 13, but seems to suggest the same arrangement, particularly when read after Acts 13.</p><p><b><u>"Ruler"</u></b></p><p>Returning to the account of Jairus, recorded in Mark 5 and Luke 8, Matthew also has an account. In Matthew, however, Jairus is just referred to as a "ruler" (ἄρχων) without the "synagogue" qualification:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Matthew 9:18-24 </p><p>18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχων), and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. 19 And Jesus arose, and followed him, and [so did] his disciples. [20-22 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 23 And when Jesus came into the ruler's (ἄρχοντος) house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, 24 He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.</p></blockquote><p>Of course, not all New Testament uses of ἄρχων (archon) are necessarily shorthand for one of the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι (archisunagogoi). For example, Βεελζεβοὺλ (Beelzeboul aka Beelzebub) is described as being the ἄρχων (archon) of the demons (Matthew 12:24 & Luke 11:15, cf. Matthew 9:34 & Mark 3:22 where he is referenced but not named). Presumably this is the same ἄρχων (archon) of the world mentioned in John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11. Likewise, this may be the same ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος (prince of the power of the air) that is mentioned in Ephesians 2:2. There is also reference to the leaders of the heathen, which I discuss below.</p><p>Focusing on the references within the Jewish word, there is reference to an ἄρχων (archon) as a judicial figure (Luke 12:58), where it seems to be a synonym for κριτής (kritis meaning judge). </p><p>There are also several other uses of individual Israelites referred to as an ἄρχων (archon): </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 14:1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the <span style="text-decoration-line: underline;">chief</span> (ἀρχόντων) Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.</p><p>Luke 18:18 And a certain <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχων) asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?</p><p>John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχων) of the Jews:</p><p>Acts 7:27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχοντα) and a <u>judge</u> (δικαστὴν) over us?</p><p>Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχοντα) and a <u>judge</u> (δικαστὴν)? the same did God send to be a <u>ruler</u> (ἄρχοντα) and a <u>deliverer</u> (λυτρωτὴν) by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.</p><p>Acts 23:1-5 </p><p>1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the <u>council</u> (συνεδρίῳ), said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. 2 And the <u>high priest</u> (ἀρχιερεὺς) Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] whited wall: for <u>sittest thou</u> (κάθῃ) to <u>judge </u>(κρίνων) me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? 4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's <u>high priest</u> (ἀρχιερέα)? 5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the <u>high priest</u> (ἀρχιερεύς): for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the <u>ruler</u> (Ἄρχοντα) of thy people.</p></blockquote><p>The main takeaway from this study is that "ruler" itself was not necessarily a synonym for the ruler of the synagogue, but could broadly encompass any kind of authority figure. It is interesting that Paul seems to recognize that Ananias is part of the Sanhedrin but did not consider him a "ruler" until he was informed that he was an arch-priest. </p><p>The plural references are likewise somewhat inconsistent:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the <u>chief priests</u> (ἀρχιερεῖς) and the <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντας) and the <u>people</u> (λαὸν),</p><p>Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες) also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.</p><p>Luke 24:20 And how the <u>chief priests</u> (ἀρχιερεῖς) and our <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες) delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.</p><p>John 7:26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the <u>rulers </u>(ἄρχοντες) know indeed that this is the very Christ?</p><p>John 7:48 Have any of the <u>rulers </u>(ἀρχόντων) or of the Pharisees believed on him?</p><p>John 12:42 Nevertheless among the <u>chief rulers</u> (ἀρχόντων) also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be <u>put out of the synagogue</u> (ἀποσυνάγωγοι):</p><p>Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες). </p><p>Acts 4:1-8 </p><p>1 And as they spake unto the <u>people</u> (λαὸν), the <u>priests</u> (ἱερεῖς), and the <u>captain of the temple</u> (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put [them] in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. 4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. 5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντας), and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους), and <u>scribes</u> (γραμματεῖς), 6 And Annas the <u>high priest</u> (ἀρχιερεὺς), and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the <u>high priest</u> (ἀρχιερατικοῦ), were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye <u>rulers</u> (Ἄρχοντες) of the <u>people</u> (λαοῦ), and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβύτεροι) of Israel,</p><p>Acts 4:26 The <u>kings</u> (βασιλεῖς) of the earth stood up, and the <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες) were gathered together against the <u>Lord</u> (Κυρίου), and against his <u>Christ</u> (Χριστοῦ).</p><p>Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες), because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.</p></blockquote><p>One observation comes from John 12:42, where people are identified as rulers but nevertheless are worried about being de-synagogued, a concept discussed further below. This implies that the leadership they exercised was not monarchical but either democratic (through consent of the people) or more likely synodal/presbyterian (as Jesus was popular among the people, but less so among the elite).</p><p>Another observation is that in some places there seems to be a line drawn between the archpriests and rulers and a second line between those two groups and the people. </p><p>A further observation is the fact that Peter seems to use "rulers of the people" and "elders" in parallel. It's hard to be dogmatic about whether he's using them distinctively or a rhetorical piling on.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>As promised above, there are some references that are not necessarily to Israelites. For example, there is a reference to rulers in Acts 14:5, which seems to be contextually ambiguous as to whether it means the specifically Jewish rulers or the rulers of Iconium. There are some further references to the heathen rulers with the same word (with some additional discussion in the comparison to Christianity section farther below): </p><p>Acts 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντας), </p><p>Romans 13:3 For <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντες) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:</p></blockquote><p>There is also a case where presumably both Heathen and Israelites were intended:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Corinthians 2:6-8 </p><p>6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the <u>princes</u> (ἀρχόντων) of this <u>world</u> (αἰῶνος), that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes (ἀρχόντων) of this world (αἰῶνος) knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.</p></blockquote><p>I interpret this as saying that the wisdom of God was hidden from the Great Sanhedrin as well as Herod and Pontius Pilate, perhaps also intending to include Beelzebub among their number.</p><p><u><b>"De-Synagogued"</b></u></p><p>The term, ἀποσυνάγωγος (aposunagogos), which means to be expelled from the synagogue, is used thrice in John:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews <u>had agreed</u> (συνετέθειντο) already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be <u>put out of the synagogue</u> (ἀποσυνάγωγος). </p><p>John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be <u>put out of the synagogue</u> (ἀποσυνάγωγοι): </p><p>John 16:2 They shall put you <u>out of the synagogues</u> (ἀποσυναγώγους): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.</p></blockquote><p>This expulsion from the synagogue was a negative consequence that even ordinary people like the blind man's parents (in John 9:22) were worried about. It was something that the rulers themselves feared (John 12:42). It was serious to the point that it was mentioned in the same breath with martyrdom (John 16:2). To the focus of this study, though, what is notable is that it seems to have been an exercise of authority by agreement, not monarchy.</p><p><b><u>"Captain of the Temple" </u></b></p><p>Luke (in Luke and Acts) uses the term στρατηγός (strategos), which is a technical term for general or governor. For example, without "of the temple," the term is used for the colonial leaders of Philippi:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Act 16:19-40 </p><p>19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew [them] into the marketplace unto the <u>rulers</u> (ἄρχοντας), 20 And brought them to the <u>magistrates</u> (στρατηγοῖς), saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the <u>magistrates</u> (στρατηγοὶ) rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat [them]. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast [them] into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. [25-34 Philippian jailor conversion] 35 And when it was day, the <u>magistrates</u> (στρατηγοὶ) sent the <u>serjeants</u> (ῥαβδούχους), saying, Let those men go. 36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The <u>magistrates</u> (στρατηγοὶ) have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast [us] into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. 38 And the <u>serjeants</u> (ῥαβδοῦχοι) told these words unto the <u>magistrates</u> (στρατηγοῖς): and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. 39 And they came and besought them, and brought [them] out, and desired [them] to depart out of the city. 40 And they went out of the prison, and entered into [the house of] Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.</p></blockquote><p>In this context, the strategois (governors/magistrates) seem to be a more specific designation for the archontas (rulers).</p><p>In the other three passages, the references are to the captain(s) of the temple:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Luke 22:4&52 And he went his way, and communed with the <u>chief priests</u> (ἀρχιερεῦσιν) and <u>captains</u> (στρατηγοῖς), how he might betray him unto them. ... Then Jesus said unto the <u>chief priests</u> (ἀρχιερεῖς), and <u>captains of the temple</u> (στρατηγοὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους), which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 4:1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the <u>captain of the temple</u> (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the Sadducees, came upon them,</p><p>[Act 5:24-26 KJV] 24 Now when the high priest and the <u>captain of the temple</u> (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ) and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the <u>captain</u> (στρατηγὸς) with the <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέταις), and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.</p></blockquote><p>From the context, it seems that the "captain of the temple" is essentially a leader of physical security for the temple. The "officers" seem to represent a subordinate role. </p><p><b><u>"Officer"</u></b></p><p>The word ὑπηρέτης (huperetes), often translated as "officer," is portrayed as being a subordinate official in a variety of passages. This makes sense from the etymology of "under" and "to row." </p><p>In the majority of the passages, it refers to a subordinate military-type person (the terms "thugs," "henchmen," or "goons" would be too pejorative, while "police officer" would be too formal and limited):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the <u>officer</u>, (ὑπηρέτῃ) and thou be cast into prison.</p><p>Matthew 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the <u>servants</u> (ὑπηρετῶν), to see the end.</p><p>Mark 14:54&65 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the <u>servants</u> (ὑπηρετῶν ), and warmed himself at the fire. ... And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the <u>servants</u> (ὑπηρέται) did strike him with the palms of their hands.</p><p>John 7:32&45-46 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέτας ) to take him. ... 45 Then came the <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) answered, Never man spake like this man.</p><p>John 18:3, 12, 18, 22, and 36 </p><p>3 Judas then, having received a band [of men] and <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέτας) from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. ... 12 Then the band and the captain and <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, ... 18 And the <u>servants</u> (δοῦλοι) and <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. ... 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρετῶν) which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? ... 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my <u>servants</u> (ὑπηρέται) fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.</p><p>John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him.</p><p>Act 5:22&26 But when the <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέται) came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, ... Then went the captain with the <u>officers</u> (ὑπηρέταις), and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.</p></blockquote><p>As you can see from this summary, the "officers" were the one who, when push came to shove, were expected to do the pushing and shoving. They were of a sufficiently low social class to be associating with the slaves in John 18:18. Moreover, they were the ones entrusted with moving convicts from the judge to the jail, presumably at the judge's order.</p><p>Within the context of the synagogue, however, there was a different connotation or use of the word. This sense is translated by the KJV translators as "minister," though presumably something like "assistant" might capture the sense well. This use (unlike the preceding ones) seems to have spilled across into Christianity.</p><p>We can see this in five passages, one of which is from the Jewish synagogue:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and <u>ministers</u> (ὑπηρέται) of the word;</p><p>Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the <u>minister</u> (ὑπηρέτῃ), and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.</p><div>Acts 13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to [their] <u>minister</u> (ὑπηρέτην).</div><p>Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a <u>minister</u> (ὑπηρέτην) and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;</p><p>1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the <u>ministers</u> (ὑπηρέτας) of Christ, and <u>stewards</u> (οἰκονόμους) of the mysteries of God.</p></blockquote><p>Like the role of deacon (servant), the role of "minister" is akin to that of a steward. It's not a position of absolutely no authority or importance, in fact in the case of the minister in Luke 4:20, he seems to have been entrusted with the physical care of the Isaiah scroll.</p><p><b><u>"Scribes"</u></b></p><p>There are so many references to one or more scribe (γραμματεύς grammateus) in the New Testament, that it would be hard to discuss them all in detail. The role was one associated with wisdom, erudition, and study. For example, Paul says:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the <u>wise</u> (σοφός)? where is the scribe (γραμματεύς)? where is the <u>disputer</u> (συζητητὴς) of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?</p></blockquote><p>That, however, is the lone use of the word after Acts 23. </p><p><u><b>"Elders"</b></u></p><p>The role of elder (πρεσβύτερος presbuteros) is referenced numerous times with reference to the Jewish order. The "tradition of the elders" (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3&5) and "For by it the elders obtained a good report" (Hebrews 11:2) seem to be exceptional uses of meaning something like "men of old times." Likewise, "elder son" in Luke 15:25 just means older son and "old men" in Acts 2:17 is just to distinguish from young men (probably the same is intended by Peter at 1 Peter 5:5 and 1 Timothy 5:1-2). (I omit the otherwise exceptional usage at John 8:9 as not original.) </p><p>In the Jewish system, the elders are consistently mentioned alongside the archpriests and/or scribes (Matthew 16:21, 21:23, 26:3,47,57,59, 27:1,3,12,&20, 28:11-12, Mark 8:31, 11:27, 14:43&53, 15:1, Luke 9:22, 20:1, 22:52, Acts 4:5,8&23, 6:12, Acts 23:14, 24:1, 25:15). Perhaps the lone exception to this principle is Luke 7:3, where a centurion sends to the "elders of the Jews" a request to heal his dying servant. The elders then asked Jesus to fulfil this request because the centurion loved Israel and had built a synagogue for them. </p><p>In Acts, we see a transition to references to Christian elders, now usually alongside Apostles and always in the plural:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 11:30 Which also they did, and sent it to the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.</p><p>Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.</p><p>Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23 </p><p>2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) about this question. ... 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and <u>elders</u>,(πρεσβυτέρων) and they declared all things that God had done with them. ... 6 And the apostles and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβύτεροι) came together for to consider of this matter. ... 22 Then pleased it the apostles and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέροις), with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβύτεροι) and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:</p><p>Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρων) which were at Jerusalem.</p><p>Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) of the church.</p><p>Acts 21:18 And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβύτεροι) were present.</p></blockquote><p>This pattern is consistent with Paul's James' and Peter's epistles:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Timothy 5:17, 19 Let the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβύτεροι) that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. ... Against an elder (πρεσβυτέρου) receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.</p><p>Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) in every city, as I had appointed thee:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the <u>elders</u> (πρεσβυτέρους) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:</p><p>1 Peter 5:1 The <u>elders</u> (Πρεσβυτέρους) which are among you I exhort, who am <u>also an elder</u> (συμπρεσβύτερος), and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:</p></blockquote><p>Notice that the one time Paul refers to an elder in the singular it is in the context of charging him. Likewise, Peter refers to himself as a co-elder. John likewise appears to refer to himself either as an elder:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>2 John 1:1 The <u>elder</u> (ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ) unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;</p><p>3 John 1:1 The elder (ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ) unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.</p></blockquote><p>Finally, there are the twenty-four elders referred to (usually collectively) at Revelation 4:4,10, 5:5,6,8,11&14, 7:11,13&16, 14:3, and 19:4.</p><p><br /></p><p><b><u>"Chief-Seats"</u></b></p><p>The New Testament also references the concept of a "chief seat" (πρωτοκαθεδρία) four times (three are synoptic parallel accounts). All four references are to chief-seats (plural). All four references are negative.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Matthew 23:1-12 </p><p>1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in <u>Moses'</u> (Μωϋσέως) <u>seat</u> (καθέδρας): 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the <u>chief seats</u> (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the <u>synagogues</u> (συναγωγαῖς), 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.</p></blockquote><p>The other synoptic accounts are terser:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Mark 12:38-40 </p><p>38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and [love] salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the <u>chief seats</u> (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the <u>synagogues</u> (συναγωγαῖς), and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.</p></blockquote><p>Luke is quite similar:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 20:45-47 </p><p>45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the <u>highest seats </u>(πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the <u>synagogues </u>(συναγωγαῖς), and the chief rooms at feasts; 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.</p></blockquote><p>Luke has one further mention of the chief-seats:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Luke 11:42-44 </p><p>42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the <u>uppermost seats</u> (πρωτοκαθεδρίαν) in the <u>synagogues </u>(συναγωγαῖς), and greetings in the markets. 44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over [them] are not aware [of them].</p></blockquote><div><br /></div><div><b><u>By Contrast, First Century Christianity</u></b></div><p>Within the Christian community, ἄρχων (archon) is used only of Christ:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince (ἄρχων) of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,</p></blockquote><p>Jesus disparaged Christian leadership from being archon-ic with comments like those found in Matthew 20:24-28.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Matthew 20:24-28</p><p>24 And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes (ἄρχοντες) of the Gentiles <u>exercise dominion over</u> (κατακυριεύουσιν) them, and they that are great <u>exercise authority upon</u> (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great (μέγας) among you, let him be your minister (διάκονος); 27 And whosoever will be chief (πρῶτος) among you, let him be your servant (δοῦλος): 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.</p></blockquote><p>There is a slightly different wording, with the same general sense, in Mark:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Mark 10:41-45 </p><p>41 And when the ten heard [it], they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted (δοκοῦντες) to rule over (ἄρχειν) the Gentiles exercise lordship over (κατακυριεύουσιν) them; and their great ones (μεγάλοι) exercise authority upon (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great (μέγας) among you, shall be your minister (διάκονος): 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest (πρῶτος), shall be servant (δοῦλος) of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.</p></blockquote><p>Peter himself reiterates the Lord's point in describing the presbyters who "bishop" the flock of God:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Peter 5:1-4 </p><p>1 The elders (Πρεσβυτέρους) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (συμπρεσβύτερος), and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof] (ἐπισκοποῦντες), not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over (κατακυριεύοντες) [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.</p></blockquote><p>Likewise, Paul only uses ἄρχω (archo) to refer to Christ's rule:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over (ἄρχειν) the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.</p></blockquote><p>Instead, Peter and Paul use terms like "minister" (see above) and "steward" (οἰκονόμος oikonomos). The primary authoritative title after Apostle in the New Testament is "elder," which is used interchangeably with bishop (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/03/bishops-in-bible.html">see my previous post</a>). </p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-58793824272839791252024-03-07T16:15:00.006+00:002024-03-07T16:41:25.263+00:00The 1881/94 Scrivener Textus Receptus is not the King James in Greek<p>While Scrivener was aiming to provide the Greek upon which the KJV was based, he did not always do so accurately. The most frequently cited example is Ephesians 6:24 where Scrivener omits the terminal Amen, presumably because the 1611 KJV omitted this word, although the Oxford/Blaney 1769 edition and the so-called Pure Cambridge Edition (1909) both include it. On this point Scrivener's TR agrees with the NA28 and the 1611 against contemporary KJVs. </p><p>There are other places where it is unclear whether the King James translators may have followed a different text. The reason for this lack of clarity is that the King James is not a woodenly literal translation and because the process of translation is sometimes ambiguous. </p><p>Revelation 15:4 provides two examples: (1) contemporary King James editions have "thou" and "art" in italics and (2) the English word, "holy," could refer to at least two different Greek words. Scrivener provides no Greek work for "thou art" and provides only one of the at least two different Greek words for "holy." On this point, Scrivener seems to have assumed that the KJ translators followed Beza's printed text.</p><p>The Complutensian polyglot was, however, also available to the KJ translators. The CP inserts εἶ (thou art) and has a different (from Scrivener's choice) Greek synonym for holy. </p><p>In the second case, it's unclear whether the King James translators would have even cared about this variant. However, if one assumes that in the case of "thou art," they followed the CP, then it might make sense to assume that they secretly had in mind the CP synonym for holy rather than the Bezaean synonym for holy.</p><p>Ultimately, this attempt to perfectly divine the precise Greek behind the King James Version is an impossible task. Scrivener did a good but imperfect job of it. On the other hand, the KJ translators were not given the task of producing a Greek text, and - as far as we know - they did not do so. Because of Archbishop Bancroft's rules for the translators, we cannot know which spelling of place/person names was "right" in the minds of the KJ translators because they were told to stick with traditional spellings.</p><p>Because the KJ translators did not woodenly follow Greek word order, we cannot read their minds to see if they thought the original Greek order was one way or another.</p><p>Because Greek article usage is significantly different from English article usage, we cannot always be sure about which articles the KJ translators read in the Greek.</p><p>Because the KJ translators sometimes translated with a dynamic equivalence instead of a formal equivalence, we cannot always determine which of several variants they were following.</p><p>This is not an exhaustive list of issues.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23244320992433806152024-03-05T16:52:00.001+00:002024-03-05T21:15:38.461+00:00Standing for Truth Debates - Index Page<p>Upcoming (updated March 5, 2024):</p><p>[proposed - date not set] Debate | Dan Chapa vs. TurretinFan | Free Will and God's Foreknowledge</p><p>2024/04/08: Immaculate Conception Debate TurretinFan and CJ Cox vs. William Albrecht and Elijah Yassi</p><p>2024/03/11: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3n62tfKt2o">Bible Translation Debate</a> | King James Only? || Will Kinney vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2024/03/08: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TfwN9e0OsM">DEBATE Was the Apostolic Church Monoepiscopal?</a> TurretinFan vs. Craig Truglia</p><p><br /></p><p>Completed 2024:</p><p>2024/03/02: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjX0Qkm8ziw">Soteriology Double Header Night (DEBATE TWO)</a> | 1 John - TurretinFan vs. Charles Jennings</p><p>2024/02/19: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/n5cUMaaP9ZM?si=-urNpmB5lbjLuvvs">The Great 2 Peter 2:1 Debate</a> | Pastor Anthony Aquino vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2024/01/06: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizG9yQEWqs">Is Limited Atonement Biblical?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Joshua Pettit</p><p><br /></p><p>Completed 2023:</p><p>2023/12/09: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I9y7SGBC-8">What is the Relationship Between Faith and Works?</a> || Chris Morrison vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2023/11/04: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8BAJIT7lc">The Great Faith Alone Debate</a> | TurretinFan vs. Seraphim Hamilton</p><p>2023/10/28: Debate on Original Sin: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifdO4SxYt4w">Romans 5</a> - TurretinFan vs. Layman Bible Lounge</p><p>2023/08/25: 2V2 DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiU1Ls7ZCk">The Assumption of Mary</a> || William Albrecht & Sam Shamoun VS. TurretinFan & Dan Chapa</p><p>2023/07/31: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boCFTqel15Q">Does Regeneration Precede Faith?</a> || TurretinFan vs. Kevin's Biblical Discussions</p><p>2023/05/12: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIS6mkk9_o">The Veneration of Religious Icons</a> - TurretinFan vs. Craig Truglia</p><p>2023/05/20: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zya3_bWQ278">Soteriology Showdown</a> | 2V2 DEBATE - TurretinFan & Dan Chapa Vs. Charles Jennings & Eli Haitov</p><p>2023/04/11: King James Error Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRDnxj_WbPU">Is "Easter" the Wrong Translation?</a> || TurretinFan vs. Nick Sayers</p><p>2023/03/10: King James Error Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khKwsQYyMak">Is "Unicorn" the Wrong Translation?</a> || Nick Sayers vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2023/02/08: CALVINISM DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeGlkQTnx0">Is Limited Atonement Biblical?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Pastor Anthony Aquino</p><p>2023/02/06: Soteriology Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf93maalV-M">Free Grace Theology vs. Lordship Salvation</a> - Eli Haitov vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2023/01/02: King James Only Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpjY0g1SCLM">Is the KJB Free From All Errors?</a> - Nick Sayers vs. TurretinFan</p><div><br /></div><p>Completed 2022:</p><p>2022/12/19: Limited Atonement Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-s41C6pm-I">What is the True Meaning of 1 Timothy 4:10?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Dan Chapa</p><p>2022/12/10: Salvation Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ykWabolwC8">Do all Christians Persevere/Endure?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Charles Jennings</p><p>2022/10/29: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QM0NUju90">Does John 6 Teach the Calvinist Doctrine of Effectual Calling?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Kelly Powers</p><p>2022/09/27: The Hell debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvjC11FEQn8">Does Scripture Teach Eternal Conscious Torment?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Praise IAM</p><p>2022/08/31: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUb5UEExV-s">Annihilation vs Eternal Torment</a> - C. Jay Cox vs. TurretinFan</p><p>2022/07/06: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae34zrpnXbY">The King James Only Controversy</a> || Will Kinney vs TurretinFan</p><p>2022/06/11: Soteriology Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_rnnLq0nw">Do All Christians Persevere to the End?</a> || Francis Turretin vs. Joshua Gibbs</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>My Friend Dan's Episodes on the same channel:</p><p>2023/12/04: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxy9ugpGCU">Is Only Initial Justification Required to be Saved?</a> - Praise I AM vs. Dan Chapa</p><p>2023/08/25: 2V2 DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiU1Ls7ZCk">The Assumption of Mary</a> || William Albrecht & Sam Shamoun VS. TurretinFan & Dan Chapa</p><p>2023/07/10: DISCUSSION | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzURai6nlKM">Limited Atonement</a> - Matt Slick vs. Dan Chapa</p><p>2023/05/20: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zya3_bWQ278">Soteriology Showdown</a> | 2V2 DEBATE - TurretinFan & Dan Chapa Vs. Charles Jennings & Eli Haitov</p><p>2023/04/27: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lc9uyep7S8">Is Total Depravity Biblical?</a> - Dan Chapa vs. Warren McGrew</p><p>2023/03/22: Soteriology Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhLc2_mALm4">What is the best exegesis of James 2?</a> || Dan Chapa vs. Eli Haitov</p><p>2023/02/25: DEBATE | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrStdArnkTU">Warning Passages of Hebrews</a> - Charles Jennings (Free Grace) vs. Dan Chapa (Lordship)</p><p>2022/12/19: Limited Atonement Debate | <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-s41C6pm-I">What is the True Meaning of 1 Timothy 4:10?</a> - TurretinFan vs. Dan Chapa</p><div><br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-53766286960905305262024-03-03T22:29:00.002+00:002024-03-04T00:12:28.002+00:00Bishops in the Bible<p>While it may not sound much like it, the English word "bishop" comes from Late Latin <i>episcopus</i>, from Greek <i>episkopos</i>, presumably via the Old Saxon <i>biscop</i> rather than via the French <i>évêque</i>, both of which ultimately trace back to the same Greek root. (<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop#etymonline_v_11190">source</a>)</p><p>In the New Testament, we see "ἐπισκοπή" (episkope), which is translated as the office of bishop (or bishopric), but is also translated as "visitation" in the sense of an inspection (Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12). This word is related to the middle voice verb, ἐπισκέπτομαι (episkeptomai), which means to visit (often with the connotation of doing so to provide relief). Thus, when Jesus says "I was sick, and ye visited me," this verb is used (Matthew 25:36) and James uses the same verb to describe pure religion as being "to visit the fatherless and widows" (James 1:27). The verb seems to be derived from ἐπί (epi - meaning "upon") and σκοπός (skopos - "look/observe/watch"). There is a similar construction of "oversee" in English. Peter also uses the related verb ἐπισκοπέω (episkopeo) to describe a similar action (1 Peter 5:2)</p><p>The noun, ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos), is used both of Jesus himself (1 Peter 2:25) and of the human leaders of the churches in the New Testament. In the following, we consider all the relevant uses in the New Testament of each of these three words. I will use "bishop," even though that has come to have a "high church" connotation in the 21st century.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Acts 20:17-31</p><p>17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the <b><u>elders of the church</u></b>. 18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, 19 Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: 20 [And] how I kept back nothing that was profitable [unto you], but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, 21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: 23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. 24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men]. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all <b><u>the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God</u></b>, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.</p></blockquote><p>The word translated "overseers" is our noun (ἐπισκόπους). It appears just once in this passage, but provides us with several observations.</p><p>First we see that already in Acts 20, Ephesus had multiple bishops, as ἐπισκόπους is plural. Thus, a polyepiscopal model is present already in Ephesus.</p><p>Second, these bishops are described in term of having a shepherding role, as they are portrayed in a shepherd-sheep metaphor with respect to the other members of the church. </p><p>Third, Luke uses bishops interchangeably with presbyters (πρεσβυτέρους) translated as "elders" here. Notice as well that "of the church (ἐκκλησίας)" in verse 17 is singular. </p><p>Fourth, while the shepherd metaphor and the word itself suggests a service role, the abuse of men referred to as "wolves," suggests a teaching role ("to draw away disciples (μαθητὰς) after them"). Disciples are typically associated with a teacher (διδάσκαλος). </p><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Philippians 1:1&4:22 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: ... All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.</p></blockquote><p>Paul's letter to the Philippians provides a few other details to flesh out our understanding of bishops. There may be some ambiguity as to whether Paul and Timothy mean that they themselves are with bishops and deacons or whether those at Philippi have bishops and deacons with them. I think the latter is intended. </p><p>First, this passage suggests that Philippi (or Rome if the former view is taken) has more than one bishop.</p><p>Second, this passage suggests that bishops and deacons are distinct roles in the church, with "saints" being the general designation for the church members.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Timothy 3:1-7</p><p>1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire <b><u>the office of a bishop</u></b>, he desireth a good work. 2 A <b><u>bishop</u></b> then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.</p></blockquote><p>This passage includes both the "office of a bishop" (ἐπισκοπῆς) and the word "bishop" itself (ἐπίσκοπον). The passage lays out the requirements of a bishop. These requirements include an aptitude for teaching (διδακτικόν) as well as for hospitality (φιλόξενον). They also include the need to rule (προστῆναι) well domestically so he will be prepared to care (ἐπιμελήσεται) for God's church. The verb for taking care of the church here is the same verb used of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:34 and the host he pays in the following verse. Likewise, this discussion of the qualifications of a bishop are immediately followed (1 Timothy 3:8-13) by a discussion of the qualifications of a deacon.</p><p>Notice that the qualifications, as written, seem to assume (or perhaps even require) that bishops will be married men with experience raising children.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Titus 1:5-9 </p><p>5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a <b><u>bishop</u></b> must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.</p></blockquote><p>Once again, "bishop" is used interchangeably with presbyter, and once again every city (singular) has elders (plural). The qualifications are similar to those from 1 Timothy including a proclivity for hospitality and assumed experience as husband and father.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.</p></blockquote><div>While this reference by Peter is to Christ as the Shepherd and Bishop, it nevertheless reinforces the idea that the role of Bishop is one that is pastoral.</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>1 Peter 5:1-4 </div><div>1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, <b><u>taking the oversight</u></b> [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.</div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>This final example uses a verb (ἐπισκοποῦντες) to describe an action of the presbyters. Peter acknowledges the leadership role of elders, but exhorts the elders to lead by moral example and keeping in mind that they are under the chief shepherd, namely Christ.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-1115346793457153872024-02-19T23:10:00.001+00:002024-02-20T00:49:49.469+00:00 The Master who Bought Them in 2 Peter 2:1<p>The Apostle Peter, writing 2 Peter 2:1, used the interesting phrase, "the Master who bought them," to refer to false teachers. Translated in the KJV by, "the Lord that bought them," this verse has occasionally been brought out as a proof text against the Biblical doctrine of Limited atonement.</p><p>The Greek word, ἀγοράζω (agorazo), finds its entry in Strong's Concordance as G59. The word refers to buying in the sense of a commercial transaction. It's plainly derived from ἀγορά (agora), which means market.</p><p>Most of the New Testament uses are simply the plain commercial sense of buying something, such as food. There are also some uses in which the buying is part of a parable. In these cases, the usual sense of the Greek word is the literal meaning, though perhaps more is intended by the parable itself. Likewise, nearly all the Old Testament Septuagint uses are in the sense of plain commercial transaction, such as Joseph's buying (and selling) of corn/food. </p><p><b><u>1. Two Illuminating Background Uses</u></b></p><p>One of the most interesting uses of <i>agorazo</i> is found in Isaiah 55:1 where there is an example of "buying" without money:</p><p></p><ul><li>Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.</li></ul><p>This is an unusual or exceptional use of the term, because normally buying is conveying possession of something from the seller to the buyer in exchange for the purchase price. However, in this case, there is no price, and yet it is still oddly described as buying.</p><p>The other interesting use of <i>agorazo</i> is found in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 Corinthians 7:30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, G59 as though they possessed not;</li></ul><p></p><p>What's particularly interesting about Paul's usage is that through pairs of opposites, Paul is giving us a little further insight into the meaning of the word. Specifically, Paul writes:</p><p>καὶ οἱ κλαίοντες (and who are weeping)</p><p><span> </span>ὡς μὴ κλαίοντες (as not weeping)</p><p>καὶ οἱ χαίροντες (and who are rejoicing)</p><p><span> </span>ὡς μὴ χαίροντες (as not rejoicing)</p><p>καὶ οἱ ἀγοράζοντες (and who are buying)</p><p><span> </span>ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες (as not possessing)</p><p>From Isaiah 55:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:30, it can be seen that the central feature of the verb <i>agorazo </i>is the transfer of possession. In Isaiah 55, even without a price, it is still "buying." How so? Because there is still a transfer of possession. In 1 Corinthians 7:30 the negation of possession (of the thing being bought) is a negation of the buying. Thus, while both the transfer of payment to the seller and transfer of possession of the purchased thing are components of the commercial transaction, it is the absence of transfer of possession that prevents something from being considered "bought."</p><p>In modern-day English, we can sometimes be a bit flexible in our usage, such that we speak of "buying," when we merely mean "paying." I was unable to find any uses in this more flexible English sense in New Testament or Septuagint Greek (nor did such a meaning show up in the example of the Lexicons).</p><p>Thus, it is best to understand <i>agorazo </i>as being a word that is more specific than "obtain" in that it also expresses the way in which the thing "<i>agorazo</i>'ed" was obtained.</p><p><b><u>2. Redemption in Revelation Uses</u></b></p><div>In Revelation, there are three uses (in two passages) that appear to be soteriological and are translated with "redemption" language in the KJV. </div><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast <b><u>redeemed</u></b> G59 us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;</li><li>Revelation 14:3-4 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were <b><u>redeemed</u></b> G59 from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">redeemed</b> G59 from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.</li></ul><p></p><p>In this context, the buying is of people (the purchased item) by Jesus (the purchaser) by his blood (the price). There is no seller in the discussion. The purchasing is exclusivistic: "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" and "from the earth" and "from among men." There is every indication that these people are presently possessed by the purchaser.</p><p><b><u>3. Buying in Paul</u></b></p><p>Paul uses <i>agorazo </i>twice more (in addition to the illuminating usage above). In both cases, the purchased items are people.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought G59 with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.</li><li>1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought G59 with a price; be not ye the servants of men.</li></ul><p></p><p>It's worthwhile considering each in context.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Corinthians 6:18-20</p><p>Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For <b><u>ye are bought</u></b> with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.</p></blockquote><p>In this case, Paul's argument is that fornication is a sin against one's own body, and that this body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. It's no longer our own. Why? Because we have been bought by God. The argument made by Paul here depends on the possession having transferred. Indeed Paul is explicit: your body and your spirit are "God's" (τοῦ Θεοῦ).</p><p>1 Corinthians 6:20 is the last verse of the chapter. The next usage comes shortly after in the next chapter, on a slightly different issue:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Corinthians 7:20-24</p><p>Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. <b><u>Ye are bought</u></b> with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.</p></blockquote><p>In this passage that is so controversial these days, Paul reminds people that the ownership that matters for believers is being the Lord's (κυρίου) or Christ's (Χριστοῦ). This is linked by Paul to the time of calling. Thus, the possession of these people is already conveyed to Christ our Lord. The price is not explained here, though a price is mentioned.</p><p><b><u>4. Agorazo in 2 Peter 2:1</u></b></p><p>This bring us to what is arguably the most surprising and unusual usage of the word in the New Testament.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought G59 them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.</p></blockquote><p><b><u>4A. Bought (Aorist Active Participle) in the Past</u></b></p><p>The main take-away from the above discussion is that whatever "bought" them here refers to, it is a transfer of possession. In this case, the transfer of possession is described as a completed past action. The specific form, ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), is an aorist active participle, similar to the past participle "bought" in English. Given that agorazo is a result verb, we could convey this connotation of the verb by translating it as "obtained for a price."</p><p>The people obtained here are the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι (pseudodidaskaloi), "false teachers." But who obtained these people? </p><p><b><u>4B. Obtained by the Lord or Someone Else?</u></b></p><p><b><u>4B-1. <i>Despotes</i> Semantic Range</u></b></p><p>The KJV capitalizes "Lord," but of course the original Greek did not make any capitalization distinctions, and δεσπότης (despotes) is not the usual word translated as "Lord" in the New Testament. </p><p>Peter uses <i>despostes</i> to refer to masters (i.e. slave owners) </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters (τοῖς δεσπόταις) with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.</li></ul><p></p><p>This same sense is also used by Paul:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 Timothy 6:1-2 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own <b><u>masters</u></b> worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing <b><u>masters</u></b>, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.</li><li>Titus 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own <b><u>masters</u></b>, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;</li></ul><p></p><p>Similarly, the Septuagint uses the word this way in Proverbs 17:2, 22:7, and 30:10. </p><p>However, while it is less frequent than κύριος (kyrios), <i>despotes</i> is sometimes use of the Lord. This is sometimes in a more or less explicit Master/Slave metaphor:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Luke 2:29 <b><u>Lord</u></b>, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: </li><li>Acts 4:24-25 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, <b><u>Lord</u></b>, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?</li><li>2Ti 2:21&24 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the <b><u>master's</u></b> use, and prepared unto every good work. ... And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, </li><li>Jude 1-4 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">Lord</b> God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.</li><li>Revelation 6:10-11 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, <b><u>O Lord</u></b>, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.</li></ul><p></p><p>There is also similar usage in Septuagint Joshua 5:14. The term is sometimes used of the Lord without any other contextual clue of the Master/Servant relation between the Lord and the person, such as Septuagint Genesis 15:2&8 or Isaiah 1:24 (there are other examples as well).</p><p>An interesting use is Septuagint Proverbs 36:25 (partly corresponding to Masoretic Proverbs 29:25) in which the seventy provide a parallel between kyrios and despotes, which suggests a semantic similarity between the words: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>φοβηθέντες καὶ αἰσχυνθέντες ἀνθρώπους ὑπεσκελίσθησαν (Fearing and being ashamed, they were tripped up by men,)</li><ul><li>ὁ δὲ πεποιθὼς <b><u>ἐπὶ κύριον</u></b> εὐφρανθήσεται (but the one having trusted <b><u>in the Lord</u></b> will be made joyful)</li></ul><li>ἀσέβεια ἀνδρὶ δίδωσιν σφάλμα (ungodliness gives a man stumbling,)</li><ul><li>ὃς δὲ πέποιθεν <b><u>ἐπὶ τῷ δεσπότῃ</u></b> σωθήσεται (but he who has trusted <b><u>in the Master</u></b> will be saved)</li></ul></ul><p></p><p>Thus, it would be a mistake to say that this word <i>despotes </i>cannot refer to God, simply because it is not <i>kyrios</i>.</p><p><b><u>4B-1. <i>Despotes</i> Applicability to the "Bought" Metaphor</u></b></p><p>In the first century, human beings were bought into (and out of) slavery. While we may be disturbed by this practice, as noted above the Holy Spirit and the Septuagint translators were comfortable with portraying God as our Master and us as his Servants.</p><p>Within this metaphor, it makes sense for the <i>Despostes</i> to be the purchaser of his servants. Indeed, the text explicitly says τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην (ton agorasanta autous despoten) "the (bought them) master". So, there is not doubt that the master (<i>despostes</i>) is the one who obtained them.</p><p><b><u>4B-2. <i>Despotes</i> in Jude</u></b></p><p>There is a lot of similarity between Jude and 2 Peter 2. In fact, the similarity has led to an enormous amount of speculation about which was written first and whether one draws from another, or whether both draw from some previously circulating tract against false teachers.</p><p>In this case, Jude 1-4 states:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Jude 1-4 Jude, the <b><u>servant</u></b> of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only <b><u>Lord</u></b> God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.</p></blockquote><p>The first question is whether Jude 4 and 2 Peter 2:1 are talking about the same people (i.e. are Peter's "false teachers" the same as Jude's "ungodly" men?) or two different groups. The second question is whether these two verses are talking about denying the same master or a different master (i.e. is Peter referring to the same <i>despostes </i>as Jude?). The third question is whether they are denying in the same sense (i.e. there can be different senses and ways of denying a master).</p><p style="text-align: left;">The easiest aspect of this to resolve is that Jude is referring to Jesus Christ as the <i>despostes</i>. This is clear from Jude calling himself "servant" of his physical brother Jesus, as well as from the Granville-Sharpe construction units "<i>Despostes</i> God" with "<i>Kyrios</i> Jesus Christ," as referring to the same person.</p><div>The similarities between 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4 are these:</div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p>2 Peter 2:1 Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς <b><u>δεσπότην</u></b> <b><u>ἀρνούμενοι</u></b> ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν</p><p>Jude 4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον <b><u>δεσπότην</u></b> Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν <b><u>ἀρνούμενοι</u></b></p></blockquote><p>In other words, the two same Greek words are "denying the master." In itself that's a slender straw on which to hang the idea that these are talking about the same group. Moreover, there are other reasons to distinguish the groups:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>2 Peter speaks of <b><u>future</u></b> false teachers, and the ungodly men of Jude have <b><u>already</u></b> crept in unawares.</li><li>Jude's men are murmurers and complainers who have men's persons in admiration because of advantage, which seem to describe underlings. By contrast, Peter's false teachers seem to have a leadership position.</li></ol><p></p><p>Of course, we cannot rule out that Jude and Peter are writing about the same group at different stages of the process. Moreover, there are similarities.</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Most significant to our discussion they both deny a <i>despostes</i>.</li><li>They both are on the sly ("privily shall bring in ..." and "crept in unawares")</li><li>They both speak "great swelling" words.</li><li>They are both lascivious.</li></ol><p></p><p>If we understand Jude to be speaking of the same group and in the same way as Peter, the answer is that the people were bought by the Lord Jesus Christ. However, even if Jude and Peter are talking about different groups, that does not automatically tell us that Master in question is not Jesus in 2 Peter 2:1.</p><p><b><u>4B-3. <i>Despotes</i> / <i>Douli </i>in 2 Peter 2</u></b></p><p>We have seen that Master (<i>despotes</i>) is often connected with a Master/Servant metaphor (or even a literal master/servant relationship), and Master/Servant relationship is the most natural explanation for ἀγοράσαντα (agoransanta) "bought" in the context.</p><p>Whose servants are the false teachers? It is easy to interpret them as servants of Christ, at least outwardly, as they are false teachers who are secretly introducing error "among you" as the false prophets did "among the people." Moreover, as mentioned above, sometimes Christ is called Master and the Master/Servant metaphor is applied to him. So, one option is that these men are servants of Christ. </p><p>On the other hand, the text is explicit:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are <b><u>the servants of corruption</u></b>: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same <b><u>is he brought in bondage</u></b>.</p></blockquote><p>These false teachers are the servants (δοῦλοι douloi) of corruption (φθορᾶς phthoras). Peter had earlier in this same chapter connected these false teachers to this corruption:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">destroyed</b> (φθοράν phthoran), speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own <b><u>corruption</u></b> (φθορᾷ phthora); </p></blockquote><p>Moreover, this state of corruption is what believers are promised that they will escape:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the <b><u>corruption</u></b> (φθορᾶς phthoras) that is in the world through lust.</p></blockquote><p>Notice that this corruption is something from which we who trust in Christ escape (ἀποφυγόντες apophugontes "having escaped"). </p><p>Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, which Peter elsewhere in this letter alludes to (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16 and Romans 2:4) speaks of the same concept of the bondage of corruption:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from <b><u>the bondage of corruption</u></b> (τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς tis douleias tis phthoras) into the glorious liberty of the children of God.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Moreover, the gospel tells us that no one can serve two masters:</p><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.</li><li>Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.</li></ul></div></div><p>So, it seems inconsistent to say that these men are the servants of Christ or that he is their Lord who bought them.</p><p><b><u>5. Alternative Explanations</u></b></p><p>Given the above, what are the remaining explanations:</p><p><b><u>5A. The Master who bought them is Sin/Corruption/Satan</u></b></p>If this is the case, the biggest challenge is that the price element of buying has no clear correspondence, although the text does mention "the wages of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:15). The usual way that people are said to be taken by sin is by a snare or the like, which the wages would seem to work as in this instance. Nevertheless, the master/slave relationship is there in Scripture, and is not only found in 2 Peter (as mentioned above) but also in Romans, which Peter was familiar with:<br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Romans 6:15-19</p><p>What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that <b><u>ye were the servants of sin</u></b>, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. <b><u>Being then made free from sin</u></b>, ye became <b><u>the servants of righteousness</u></b>. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members <b><u>servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity</u></b>; even so now yield your members <b><u>servants to righteousness unto holiness</u></b>.</p></blockquote><p>Granted there is no "price" that sin pays. Nevertheless, if the key aspect of buying is the transfer of possession, then that is certainly present.</p><p>Under this explanation, "denying the master that bought them," fits well with the preceding and following context in which these false teachers are pretending to be part of us.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"there shall be false teachers <b><u>among you</u></b>, who <b><u>privily</u></b> shall <b><u>bring in</u></b> damnable heresies" (vs. 1)</li><li>"many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom <b><u>the way of truth</u></b> shall be evil spoken of" (vs. 2)</li><li>"Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves <b><u>with their own deceivings</u></b> while they feast <b><u>with you</u></b>;" (vs. 13)</li><li>"<b><u>they allure</u></b> through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, <b><u>those that were clean escaped from them who live in error</u></b>." (vs. 18)</li></ul><p></p><p>You may recall that Peter denied being a disciple of Christ. In an opposite way, these people affirm being disciples of Christ, while they are actually servants of corruption. This is one relative strength of this position, because these people are repeatedly described as deceptive and what </p><p><b><u>5B. Peter refers to Christ as their Master, although He is not</u></b></p><p>The biggest challenge to this view is that while Peter attaches "pseudo" to their status as teachers, he does not similarly add an explicit disqualification to their being bought by Christ. In other words, the question is whether Peter can reasonably describe these false teachers in terms of their profession (as distinct from the reality), and expect the reader to understand this from the context of them being "among you" and being false teachers, with reference to their "feigned words" (vs. 3) and "their own deceivings" (vs. 13) who are "beguiling unstable souls" (vs. 14). These same folks also "speak great swelling [words] of vanity" (vs. 18) and deliver the opposite of what they promise (vs. 19).</p><p>There are at least two sub-divisions of this option:</p><p><b><u>5B-1. Peter refers to them Ironically/Charitably According to their Profession</u></b></p><p>In other words, Peter means that they say that the Lord bought them, yet they deny him. After all, if they are denying being the servants of sin, the denial is straightforward. However, if they deny as Peter did, how can they be among us, etc.?</p><p>The solution here may be that the denial is not so much verbal as ethical. Peter's triple denial is an example of a verbal denial. The denial of touching Jesus by the woman with an issue of blood was a verbal denial. John the Baptist's denial of being the Christ was a truthful verbal denial. Likewise the denial of Jesus as the Christ described in 1 John 2:22 is a verbal denial.</p><p>Nevertheless, ethical denial is also possible. For example:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath <b><u>denied</u></b> the faith, and is worse than an infidel.</p><p>2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">denying</b> the power thereof: from such turn away.</p><p>Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they <b><u>deny</u></b> him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.</p></blockquote><p>This kind of denial, particularly that of 2 Timothy 3:5 is particular applicable here. Recall that passage:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>2 Timothy 3:1-9</p><p>This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.</p></blockquote><p>Notice that these men identified by Paul have some similarities with those described by Peter, including the characteristic of being covetous and of deceiving people, and leading them into fornication, and the comparison of them to the opponents of Moses. Especially notice how Paul speaks of a future situation as does Peter.</p><p>These have a "form of godliness," but Paul does not have to say "pseudo-godliness" for to understand that their form of godliness is not true godliness.</p><p>Likewise, although the "way of truth" is evil spoken of because of the false teachers, Peter does not have to explicitly state that the way of these false teachers is not actually the way of truth, but is instead a distortion of it.</p><p>In each of these cases Peter and Paul are speaking as to the profession of the people, not as to whether their profession is true.</p><p><b><u>5B-2. Peter speaks of them only as to their previous moral reformation</u></b></p><p>At the end of the chapter, Peter provides a warning regarding these false teachers:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>2 Peter 2:18-22</p><p>For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.</p></blockquote><p>Notice that the biographic arc of these people is that they had been in the pollutions of the world, they had escaped them, and then become entangled again. Peter says that for such people, they are worse for having been temporarily reformed. </p><p>Considering that Peter says that their last state is worse than their initial state, this seems to rule out any kind of a "Free Grace Theology" style conversion followed by a relapse. It also seems to rule out a temporary backsliding of an elect person for the same reason.</p><p>They had an ephemeral knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but they were not saved by Him. In this way, there may even be some parallel to the discussion of Jude, which describes the people of Israel thus:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Jude 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.</p></blockquote><p>There was a kind of ephemeral salvation from Egypt, followed by destruction in the wilderness, of the entire generation from 20 years old and up, except for Joshua and Caleb. </p><p>While the Septuagint may not speak of Christ as having "purchased" the people from Egypt using this identical Greek word, he is described as having brought them out of Egypt, and there is a kind of redemption associated with that. </p><p>Moreover, the KJV has:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Exodus 15:16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.</li><li>Psalm 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.</li></ul><p></p><p>This purchase of the people of Israel, particularly in light of Jude's reference to the salvation from Egypt and Peter's reference to the people who were entangled by Balaam in the wilderness, provides a model from a kind of purchase or salvation that is not unto eternal life.</p><p><b><u>6. Additional "Purchased" Thoughts</u></b></p><p>An additional buying word that is connected with Christ and his people is the word περιποιέω ("peripoieo"). This can mean something like to "get for oneself" or to "reserve for oneself" or the like.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which <b><u>he hath purchased</u></b> (περιεποιήσατο periepoiesato to "to make to remain for oneself") with his own blood.</li><li>Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of <b><u>the purchased possession</u></b> (τῆς περιποιήσεως is peripoieseos), unto the praise of his glory.</li></ul><p></p><p>This concept of being purchased is nearly balanced in its relevance to the preceding discussion. On the one hand, the church is uniquely said to be purchased with Christ's blood. Thus, anyone who is a member of the church can be characterized as being purchased with his blood in the sense of being obtained for Christ himself or reserved for Christ himself. That strong sense is what is in mind in Ephesians. On the other hand, there are those in the church that do not belong there, because they are not "of us" as described in 1 John. Thus, the visible church is a mixed multitude, and people who are in the church may be described using the language appropriate to the church, when speaking as to the outward appearance or their profession</p><p>Perhaps, then, the false teachers can be described as "bought" or "purchased" in that they are part of the visible church. </p><p><b><u>7. The "<i>Kai</i>" Connection</u></b></p><p>The phrase "denying the Master that bought them" is introduced with the copulative <i>kai</i>. This word is translated as "even" in many translations, and that sense makes sense. Thus, whatever explanation we give for "denying the Master that bought them," it should be linked with what comes before namely "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies."</p><p>This works well if they are concealing their allegiance to corruption, although it also works well if they are denying the Lord as master by serving corruption.</p><p> </p><p>Appendix </p><p>Plain NT uses: </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Matthew 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy G59 themselves victuals.</li><li>Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought G59 in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,</li><li>Matthew 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought G59 with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.</li><li>Mark 6:36 Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy G59 themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.</li><li>Mark 6:37 He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy G59 two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?</li><li>Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought G59 in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;</li><li>Mark 15:46 And he bought G59 fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.</li><li>Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought G59 sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.</li><li>Luke 9:13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy G59 meat for all this people.</li><li>Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, G59 they sold, they planted, they builded;</li><li>Luke 19:45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; G59</li><li>Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy G59 one.</li><li>John 4:8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy G59 meat.)</li><li>John 6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy G59 bread, that these may eat?</li><li>Jhn 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy G59 those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.</li></ul><div>Plain NT uses within parables:</div><div><p></p><ul><li>Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth G59 that field.</li><li>Matthew 13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought G59 it.</li><li>Matthew 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy G59 for yourselves.</li><li>Matthew 25:10 And while they went to buy, G59 the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.</li><li>Luke 14:18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought G59 a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.</li><li>Luke 14:19 And another said, I have bought G59 five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.</li></ul><p></p><p>Septuagint uses surrounding Joseph and the market for corn/food during his time under the Pharoah:</p><p></p><ul><li>Genesis 41:57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.</li><li>Genesis 42:5 And the sons of Israel came to buy corn among those that came: for the famine was in the land of Canaan.</li><li>Genesis 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.</li><li>Genesis 43:4 If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down and buy thee food:</li><li>Genesis 43:22 And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.</li><li>Genesis 44:25 And our father said, Go again, and buy us a little food.</li><li>Genesis 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.</li></ul><p></p><p>Various references to other commercial purchases in the Septuagint:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Deuteronomy 2:6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.</li><li>1 Chronicles 21:24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.</li><li>2 Chronicles 1:16 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.</li><li>2 Chronicles 34:11 Even to the artificers and builders gave they it, to buy hewn stone, and timber for couplings, and to floor the houses which the kings of Judah had destroyed.</li><li>Nehemiah 10:31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.</li><li>Isaiah 24:2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.</li><li>Jeremiah 37:12 Then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people. (Septuagint has "to buy from there [land] in the midst of the people.")</li></ul><div>Revelation uses in (at least in the literal sense) an ordinary sense:</div></div><div><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy G59 of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.</li><li>Revelation 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth G59 their merchandise any more:</li><li>Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy G59 or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.</li></ul><p></p></div><div><br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10707327848496867932024-02-14T17:34:00.002+00:002024-02-14T17:34:22.009+00:00Compatibilism / Determinism<p>In response to my <a href="https://twitter.com/TurretinFan/status/1757778655143465219">post</a>:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">When someone doesn't get you (or more specifically doesn't understand compatibilism), Valentine's Day Edition:</p></blockquote><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi0iFu6dAwCAMOKRdrpUtuC_YxxTtLUsbM6Gms6JpRHd8npmu1WFqc259AhWQlrDxDOvzqOFu4go3nNPLffYc_TqXcyzIEOTCadUbissN-JJZUMUUwvZEQsKhAZ-QMKlksntq8M8ac56PfEGpma5_LCT38dxfFlC-ecdW9SoypE5FQ4rgGwXTktdQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="252" data-original-width="590" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi0iFu6dAwCAMOKRdrpUtuC_YxxTtLUsbM6Gms6JpRHd8npmu1WFqc259AhWQlrDxDOvzqOFu4go3nNPLffYc_TqXcyzIEOTCadUbissN-JJZUMUUwvZEQsKhAZ-QMKlksntq8M8ac56PfEGpma5_LCT38dxfFlC-ecdW9SoypE5FQ4rgGwXTktdQ" width="320" /></a></div><br />@aspin3 going by "All for His Glory" <a href="https://twitter.com/aspin3/status/1757800922816692259">responded</a>:<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p>Francis, as a compatiblist, what is ONE. Just ONE thing that a full theistic determinist would believe God decreed/determined that you would not agree with? Just one.</p></div><div><p>What you mean really is an illusion of choice and illusion of free not free to do other than God decreed/determined and no other alternative options available except that which God decreed/dtermined.</p></div></blockquote><div><p>I respond:</p><p>As I said, Sot101 doesn't understand compatibilism. I assume this is why aspin3 is asking this question this way. <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/">Compatibilism</a> is not a different level of determinism. One could be a compatibilist who rejects determinism, and likewise one could be a determinist who rejects compatibilism. Compatibilism is holding to thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Sometimes the compatibility is expressed in terms of the compatibility of determinism and moral responsibility. I'll focus on the "free will" definition.</p><p>Considering the two different categories of "Determinist" in contrast to "Libertarian" and considering the question of Compatibilism in contrast to Incompatibilism, there are potentially four different positions among theists (I'm excluding atheists from this discussion).</p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p>1. Determinists who affirm Compatibilism</p></div><div><p>Determinists who affirm compatibilism say that God has determined human choices, and God's decree ultimately establishes the human choices that are free as free. (There could also be non-free human choices, but free human choices are free human choices because God decreed that they would be.)</p></div><div><p>2. Determinists who affirm Incompatibilism</p></div><div><p>Determinists who affirm incompatibilism say that God has determined human choices, therefore human freedom is, at most, just an illusion.</p></div><div><p>3. Libertarians who affirm Compatibilism</p></div><div><p>God has not determined human choices, but if God had done so, they would still really be human choices. </p></div><div><p>4. Libertarians who affirm Incompatibilism</p></div><div><p>God has not determined human choices, because if God had determined them, they wouldn't really be human choices.</p></div></blockquote><div><p>Nearly all Provisionists (if not all) fall in camp 4, whereas nearly all Calvinists fall in camp 1 and certainly Westminster Confession of Faith Calvinists are in camp 1. There are probably some folks who fall into the category of Calvinist (broadly defined) who are in camp 2, but it is not the position of the "leading" Calvinists of the last 500 years. I don't know of anyone who holds to camp 3, though presumably someone could.</p><p>Now, to the question posed:</p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><p style="text-align: left;">"what is ONE. Just ONE thing that a full theistic determinist would believe God decreed/determined that you would not agree with? Just one."</p></div></blockquote><div><p>The difference between incompatibilist determinists and compatibilist determinists is not that we (compatibilists) believe God decreed different things. The difference is that we think God's decree <b><u>established</u></b> human freedom, rather than <b><u>preventing</u></b> human freedom. </p><p>And to the argument offered:</p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><p style="text-align: left;">What you mean really is an illusion of choice and illusion of free not free to do other than God decreed/determined and no other alternative options available except that which God decreed/dtermined.</p></div></blockquote><div><p>Claiming that free will is merely an illusion is an <u style="font-weight: bold;">incompatibilist</u> position. There might be some Calvinistic folks who hold that, but as mentioned above, it's not the usual position and it's certainly not the Confessional position.</p><p>Compatibilists say that there is a real sense in which people are free to do other than God decreed/determined, but that they inevitably will do what God has decreed/determined. For example, I have the ability to write a different blog post, but I freely wrote this blog post, just as God decreed I would freely do.</p><p>Likewise, compatibilists acknowledge that "other alternative options are available," but they simply insist that free humans will go with the option that God has decreed in advance they will freely select.</p><p>-TurretinFan</p></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-563571912702809562024-02-05T00:17:00.000+00:002024-02-05T00:17:41.972+00:00KJV Improvement - Satyrs<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjQz3QG-zFlbTnyjq5QdHY6DAEVE6SWK9GzR6xq-bzelfWV8pABGsn2roq555zKXlv_gR4Hnpo9n1xuB71rcLsBo6vn0IbkkvFhUE-WyBo2F3nWEsJB46BY7Rs0LwhTm6KtT2nH-fqZaAo4A1CHKcKqlqDobOi9MwlzwOdui7XOowkJKkNgkatEMQ" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-original-height="1401" data-original-width="388" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjQz3QG-zFlbTnyjq5QdHY6DAEVE6SWK9GzR6xq-bzelfWV8pABGsn2roq555zKXlv_gR4Hnpo9n1xuB71rcLsBo6vn0IbkkvFhUE-WyBo2F3nWEsJB46BY7Rs0LwhTm6KtT2nH-fqZaAo4A1CHKcKqlqDobOi9MwlzwOdui7XOowkJKkNgkatEMQ=w176-h640" width="176" /></a></div> Satyrs in the Bible? (<a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271834/page/n129/mode/2up">source of image at right</a>)<p></p><p>Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, <b><u>and satyrs</u> </b>(וּשְׂעִירִים) shall dance there.</p><p>Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the <b><u>satyr</u></b> (וְשָׂעִיר) shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.</p><p>D.A. Waite, Jr.'s "4,114 Definitions from the Defined King James Bible," provides the following definition for satyr:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">in mythology: a minor woodland deity (companion of Bacchus) depicted as having the pointed ears, legs, and short horns of a goat, the head and body of a man, and a fondness for unrestrained revelry and lechery.</p></blockquote><p> By contrast, Philip P. Kapusta's "A King James Dictionary," defines Satyr as "He-goat."<br /></p><p>BibleHub and BlueLetterBible offer, as one option, "satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)."</p><p>Will Kinney (responding to John Ankerburg) has written (<a href="https://kjv-asia.com/authorized-version-defence-satyrs-dragons-and-unicorns/">link to source</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>SATYRS</p><p>The word translated as satyr is the Hebrew word sa’ir #8163. It has several meanings, including “hairy” – “Esau my brother is a HAIRY man” Genesis 27:11; “goat” – “lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT” Leviticus 4:24; “devils” – “they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS” Leviticus 17:7; “satyrs” – “and SATYRS shall dance there” Isaiah 13:21, and “rough” – “the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia” Daniel 8:21.</p><p>The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there.”</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Isaiah 34:14 “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Not only does the King James Bible use the word satyr in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions. The Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.</p><p>The Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.</p><p>The satyrs are mentioned four times in the Greek Septuagint version. In Isaiah 13:22; 34:11 and 34:14 we read: “satyrs shall dwell in it…devils shall dance there and satyrs dwell there…and devils shall meet with satyrs…there shall satyrs rest.”</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Revised Standard Version 1952</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Leviticus 17:7 “So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for SATYRS, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations.”</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Not only does the RSV translate this word as Satyrs in Leviticus 17:7, but so also do the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Chronicles 11:15 “and he appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the SATYRS, and for the calves which he had made.”</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there SATYRS will dance.”</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>What about a modern “evangelical” version? Well, surprise! Let’s take a look at the New American Standard Version 1972-1995 Update.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">2 Chronicles 11:15 “He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the SATYRS and for the calves which he had made.”</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Smith’s Bible Dictionary: Satyr: Isaiah 13:21; 34:14. The Hebrew word signifies “hairy” or “rough,” and is frequently applied to “he-goats.” In the passages cited it probably refers to demons of woods and desert places. Comp. Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15.</p><p>Even among the various other modern versions there is little agreement on how to translate this term. What we see in the various versions is a wide variety of translations that include the following: “shaggy creatures (Rotherham), goats, goat-demons (NRSV), goad idols (ESV), demoniacs, hairy ones (Darby), demons (New English Bible 1970), wild goats, and evil spirits (Bible in Basic English 1970).</p><p>...</p><p>So, regarding the correctness of the translation of SATYR, Mr. Ankerberg can think what he wants, but there are a lot of Bible scholars who differ with his opinion. Again, the Bible versions that sometimes translate this Hebrew word as SATYR include both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Geneva Bible, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Webster’s 1833, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the NASB – New American Standard 1995 Update version. ...</p></blockquote><p>The word in question does come from a root meaning "hairy." (this is from HALOT) </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnkxuhTnUBuZP9v_yk-1vvZgI7owZeNNZFnT6iQrQLnsPqEqTNp7TYZ7UTcAN2H2nwEvcjP0sxgyzQXeCh2esoewG1rYaFHbVley_hMoIIo1TvoIA0Zu-FXI-239Z6V41siUUZS-E3PvtKl8J8gUD2LQQWJ1z6DmowwgvoChvOYShJ11kh6zjpXA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="250" data-original-width="1156" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnkxuhTnUBuZP9v_yk-1vvZgI7owZeNNZFnT6iQrQLnsPqEqTNp7TYZ7UTcAN2H2nwEvcjP0sxgyzQXeCh2esoewG1rYaFHbVley_hMoIIo1TvoIA0Zu-FXI-239Z6V41siUUZS-E3PvtKl8J8gUD2LQQWJ1z6DmowwgvoChvOYShJ11kh6zjpXA=w640-h138" width="640" /></a></div>As a noun, it refers to a goat (same source):<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi3gdqFU3JhFh6PnueNsAwd2MTpJc9okIT9seEak23h7--M7GzebiIfDjK89x03JoGybzNXEPY01vDHHkIrwGxm207lGEd5frs90GOpYN5EBrPefGWcwaaW-YA6BpXCCIVAvRz4mvgOmTN6Zaz0RjhO9nFimU1oFt1g498fuHUY0BhjpKDlpOgJ4Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="625" data-original-width="1173" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi3gdqFU3JhFh6PnueNsAwd2MTpJc9okIT9seEak23h7--M7GzebiIfDjK89x03JoGybzNXEPY01vDHHkIrwGxm207lGEd5frs90GOpYN5EBrPefGWcwaaW-YA6BpXCCIVAvRz4mvgOmTN6Zaz0RjhO9nFimU1oFt1g498fuHUY0BhjpKDlpOgJ4Q=w640-h342" width="640" /></a></div>It is true that it has sometimes had a demonic interpretation (same source):<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7s7EmO1qz1i8hPghSIwCz-E3vNZlrNceFoSNCvVxP9ymEMssTYkb7CWCV81nMJ1T-l2yezPdXMsqeNGiJ51_SMpes2X20tgB8H9rOZfj9UTEqiteQZhjTdCEirAah7RIu_H8md9sQ1NZmzSU5gyrav3b1msKj7Wc1yZtWRsphNPKuQRTtqoPUBQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="670" data-original-width="1174" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7s7EmO1qz1i8hPghSIwCz-E3vNZlrNceFoSNCvVxP9ymEMssTYkb7CWCV81nMJ1T-l2yezPdXMsqeNGiJ51_SMpes2X20tgB8H9rOZfj9UTEqiteQZhjTdCEirAah7RIu_H8md9sQ1NZmzSU5gyrav3b1msKj7Wc1yZtWRsphNPKuQRTtqoPUBQ=w640-h366" width="640" /></a></div><div>Gesenius has:</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhptMeTRrwou5BxjIwg5xbHZfzQxzqFQSF8hkQEP-leAabrJ7g__42KnzyGEMElCDep3sLWAMZmwYmHEu1mp2_vevgTr34DViCclLTt3pk5zvfgS4aRMsKYvYwxVY_Hx0nQjKXZJzR1YDhGNbL9zGNlucv7yfA8Wmo9WYZt8l9lPwC-Hil_A2BrkQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="450" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhptMeTRrwou5BxjIwg5xbHZfzQxzqFQSF8hkQEP-leAabrJ7g__42KnzyGEMElCDep3sLWAMZmwYmHEu1mp2_vevgTr34DViCclLTt3pk5zvfgS4aRMsKYvYwxVY_Hx0nQjKXZJzR1YDhGNbL9zGNlucv7yfA8Wmo9WYZt8l9lPwC-Hil_A2BrkQ" width="278" /></a></div><br />Here are the main problems with Will's response/argument:</div><p></p><p>1) While I appreciate that Will knows what word the King James translators were trying to translate, nevertheless his usage information obscures the distribution of the semantic range, even taking the KJV as a guide (<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8163/kjv/wlc/0-1/">source</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The KJV translates Strong's H8163 in the following manner: kid (28x), goat (24x), devil (2x), satyr (2x), hairy (2x), rough (1x).</p></blockquote><p>Notice that of the 59 uses, three are adjectival ("hairy/rough"), and of the 56 that are nouns, 52 are some form of goat. That leaves the two places where the word is mistranslated as "satyr" (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14) and the two places where the word is mistranslated as "devils" (Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto <b><u>devils</u></b>, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.</p><p>2 Chronicles 11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the <b><u>devils</u></b>, and for the calves which he had made.</p></blockquote><p>We can discuss the correct reading of those passages another time. Nevertheless, for now we turn to the two "satyr" passages.</p><p>2) Will's claim about what the satyr "seems to be" is mostly wishful thinking. Will claims:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.</p></blockquote><p>Let's actually examine the Satyr passages in context.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>1) <b><u>Isaiah 13:17-22</u></b></p><p>Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. </p></blockquote><p>This is the true (and already fulfilled) prophecy of the Medes' destruction of Babylon. While I would argue that there are number of mistranslations in this passage (such as "wild beasts of the islands," which should be "hyenas" and "dragons," which should be "jackals"), still even with the mistranslations, it is already abundantly apparent from the context that the word mistranslated as "satyrs" is one of the litany of wild animals. </p><p>There is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon. The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context. There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon. </p><p>Let's look at the next verse in context:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>2) <b>Isaiah 34:1-17</b> (the entire chapter)</p><p>Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.</p></blockquote><p>Once again, there are multiple mistranslations in the passage, such as "unicorns" for "Reems" (i.e. wild oxen), "dragons" for jackals, and "wild beasts of the island" for hyenas. Nevertheless, once again from the context we can see that the so-called "satyr" is amongst a list of wild animals that will inhabit the wasteland in the aftermath of the destruction.</p><p>Contrary to Will, there is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon. The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context. There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon. </p><p>What justification can be there be for throwing in the name of a mythical animal from Roman mythology? The Hebrew word שָׂעִיר (śāʿîr) does sound a bit like "satyr," particularly with an accent prone toward T-glottalization (i.e. replacing a central "T" sound with a glottal stop). </p><p>This seems to be a false cognate.</p><p>Will points out that some other translations have agreed that the word in Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14 should be satyr(s), in one of two ways: some translations used "satyr" in those places (e.g. KJ21, BRG, GNV, JUB, AKJV, NABRE, RSV, and RSVCE) and some translations have used "satyr" either in other places generally or in other places that the same Hebrew word is used. </p><p>The Jewish Bible uses "<a href="https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15944">satyrs</a>" at Isaiah 13:21 and "<a href="https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15965">satyr</a>" at Isaiah 34:14 despite correcting other mistranslations. Why? The reason is that there is Jewish tradition that these animals are, in fact, demons (see Rashi's commentary at the links). </p><p>Moreover, the Etymology of "satyr" is an interesting reading (<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/satyr#etymonline_v_22776">link to source</a>).<br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p>satyr (n.)</p><p>late 14c., satire, "one of a type of woodland deities part human or animal; demigod or spirit of the air or woods, companion of Bacchus," from Old French satire and directly from Latin satyrus, from Greek satyros, a word of unknown origin. "The etymology of [satyros] is unknown. A number of hypotheses have been proposed, but none of them makes sense ..." [Beekes].</p><p>In pre-Roman Greek art, a man-like being with the tail and ears of a horse; the conception of a being part man part goat is due to Roman sculptors, who seem to have assimilated them to the fauns of native mythology. In some English bibles the word is used curiously to translate Hebrew se'irim, a type of hairy monster superstitiously believed to inhabit deserts.</p><p>In Middle English the word could mean also a kind of ape supposed to live in Africa or Arabia (late 14c.), after a use of Greek satyros, and the name was later applied by zoologists to the orangutan (1690s). From 1781 as "very lecherous or lascivious person." Related: Satyress.</p></blockquote><p>Perhaps more interesting than this is commentary by a Christian scholar who inherited the King James translation and was also familiar with Jewish tradition. </p><p>John Gill explains (<a href="https://www.biblecomments.org/c/5/john-gills-exposition-of-the-entire-bible/isaiah/13/21">Commentary on Isaiah 13:21</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>and satyrs shall dance there</b>; a sort of monstrous creatures with the ancients, painted half men and half goats; the upper part of them like men, except the horns on their heads, and the lower parts like goats, and all over hairy; and the word here used signifies hairy; and is used for goats, and sometimes for devils, either because they have appeared in this form, as Kimchi says, to them that believe them; or because they, by their appearance, inject such horror in men, as cause their hair to stand upright: hence the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, interpret it of devils here; and so the Septuagint version, and those that follow it, the Syriac and Arabic, render it, "and demons shall dance there": with this agrees the account of mystical Babylon, Revelation 18:2.</p></blockquote><p>John Gill again (<a href="https://www.biblecomments.org/c/5/john-gills-exposition-of-the-entire-bible/isaiah/34/14">Commentary on Isaiah 34:14</a>)</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>and the satyr shall cry to his fellow</b>; or the "hairy" one [FN r]; from which word the goat has its name; and these creatures are described by the ancients as half goats and half men; of which Isaiah 13:21. The Targum renders it demons; and with this well agrees the account of Babylon or Rome as fallen, that it shall be the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, Revelation 18:2:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">[FN r: שעיר "pilosus", a שער "capillus."] </p></blockquote><p>Gill's comments here acknowledge the indebtedness to Jewish tradition. Gill makes an interesting comparison to Revelation 18:2 (a place where this is an interesting textual issue that we've talked about elsewhere), which mentions fallen Babylon as having become the habitation of devils and foul spirits. This is, perhaps, the strongest argument one could mount for a demonic interpretation of Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14. On the other hand, if this argument is accepted, then it at least equally dictates in favor of translating Lilith (a night demon in Jewish tradition) in place of "screech owl" in Isa 34:14. Gill again:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>By the name "Lilith", it appears to be a night bird, which flies and is heard in the night. The Jews call a she demon by this name, which, they say [FN s], has a human face, and has wings, and destroys children as soon as born; and therefore the Jews, especially in Germany, write upon the four corners of the bed of a new mother, Adam, Eve, out Lilith [FN t]; the same with the Lamia of the Romans; and so the Vulgate Latin here renders it.</p><p>[FN s: <span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: roboto, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 24. 2.]</span></p><p><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87); font-family: roboto, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">[FN t: Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. col. 1140.]</span></p></blockquote><p>But, of course, the woes of "mystical Babylon" to which Gill appeals may be paralleled by the actual animals that inhabited actual Babylon, without appeal to a secondary meaning.</p><p>One assumes that the King James translators were likely influenced by Calvin's commentaries.</p><p>Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 13 (<a href="https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom13/calcom13.xx.i.html">source</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>It will not be amiss to explain what follows about Satyrs or Pans, who are called by the French, according to the various dialects of the provinces, sometimes Luittons, sometimes Follets, and sometimes Loups-garouz. As Satan deludes men by various tricks, so he gives to them various names. It is certain that ציים (tziim) is often used in Scripture for devils; and it is derived from ציה, (tziyah,) which means dryness, or, a desert, as איים (iyim) is derived from אים, (ayam,) which means to terrify. The Devil performs strange tricks by means of Fauns and Satyrs, and on that account their names are given to him.</p><p>The design of the Prophet is to show that the solitude will be so great, that not only will the place be deserted by men, but even the devils will there deceive by their tricks; for the devils avail themselves of the tendency of solitary places to produce terror. As enemies and robbers, by sallying forth from concealed lurking-places, frighten men the more, so devils take advantage of the night and the darkness, and of places distant from the view of men, that they may be able to excite greater terror in those who are naturally timorous.</p></blockquote><p>Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 34 (<a href="https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom15/calcom15.iii.i.html">source</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>14. And the wild beasts shall meet with the satyrs. These animals are thought by some commentators to mean fauns, by others screechowls or goblins, and by others satyrs; and it is not fully agreed what is the exact meaning of the Hebrew words; but it would serve no good purpose to give ourselves much uneasiness about them, for it is quite enough if we understand the meaning and design of the Prophet. He draws a picture of frightful desolation, as if he had said that Idumea shall be destroyed so as to be without inhabitants, and instead of men it shall be inhabited by frightful beasts. This reward is most justly reaped by the ambition of those who built costly palaces to be, as we have already said, monuments of their name and reputation. Yet this is also a punishment threatened against the cruelty of a wicked nation, which was eagerly bent on the oppression of neighbours and brethren.</p><p>Though we cannot absolutely determine whether the Prophet means witches, or goblins, or satyrs and fauns, yet it is universally agreed that these words denote animals which have the shape of men. We see also what various delusions are practiced by Satan, what phantoms and hideous monsters are seen, and what sounds and noises are heard. But of these we have already spoken under the thirteenth chapter. </p></blockquote><p>Thankfully, the universal agreement about the meaning of the words, thankfully, has long since lapsed, if it ever was universal. </p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-74765611281871591972024-01-28T05:24:00.001+00:002024-01-29T18:04:25.682+00:00Responding to "KJV Today" regarding Revelation 16:5<p>The anonymous author of the KJV Today is not, I assume, any of the other authors I've already responded to when it comes to Revelation 16:5. This author has an article on Revelation 16:5 (<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165">link to article</a>). The article was titled "Beza and Revelation 16:5." I have tried to preserve the substance of the article, but I have changed the format, added some section numbering for convenient reference, removed formatting.</p><p>In some ways, the KJV Today article seems to be a clearinghouse for a lot of the material I've already addressed in Nick's book (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzqpwWjc_hvIuU97INIR-7kOvVBMNmWre">see this 20+ video series</a>), as well as other material I've addressed from other authors, such as <a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/dr-edward-f-hills-on-bezas-conjectural.html">Edward G. Hills</a>, <a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/responding-to-thomas-hollands.html">Thomas Holland</a>, and <a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/responding-to-jeffrey-khoo-regarding.html">Jeffrey Khoo</a>. I will refer to the author of the KJV Today article as "KTA," short for KJV Today Author.</p><p>I. Response to "Introduction"</p><p>Under the topic, "Introduction," KTA provides six sub-sections, which I've designated, respectively, as 1.1 through 1.6. I'll respond to each in turn.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.1 Revelation 16:5 in the KJV</h4><p>"Which wert and art, and evermore shalt be!" - This epic line from the famous hymn by Reginald Heber (1783-1826) comes from Revelation 16:5 in the KJV. Revelation 16:5 in the KJV says:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>This KJV reading is based on Theodore Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus. Critics, however, raise issue with the reading "and shalt be" (και ο εσομενος) because it does not appear in any existing manuscript. Existing manuscripts read "holy one" (και οσιος), "that holy one" (ο οσιος) or "and holy one" (και οσιος). For example, Revelation 16:5 in the Nestle-Aland 26 based NASB Update reads:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things;"</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Since there is no existing manuscript with Beza's reading, critics dismiss Beza's reading as an unwarranted conjectural emendation. However, an in-depth study of the issue will reveal enough evidence to validate Beza's conjectural emendation.</p></blockquote><p>Reginald Heber's hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy," is actually based on Revelation 4:6-11. We can see this from the language "Holy Holy Holy" drawn from Revelation 4:8, from the ordering of the past tense "wert" before the present tense "art," which is distinctive of 4:8, from the "casting down their golden crowns," which is from 4:10, from the "glassy sea" which is from 4:6, from "all thy works" based on 4:11 and from "evermore shall be" from 4:10. I would be tempted to see "only Thou art holy" as an allusion to Revelation 16:5 (which calls Jesus "O Holy One"), but most likely it is simply drawn from 4:8, or perhaps illuminated by Revelation 15:4, which states "Thou only art holy." The latter passage also makes reference to the glassy sea at 15:2 and makes more specific reference to angels at 15:6 as well as mentioning the creation as God's works at 15:3 and describing all nations as coming to worship him at 15:4. It also gives a sense of darkness at 15:8, which similarly connects to the Old Testament text on which Revelation 4:8 is based, namely Isaiah 6:3-4. So, sadly, KTA is off on a wrong foot from the start.</p><p>The KJV translators certainly did translate Revelation 16:5, which in their Greek text had "και ο εσομενος" with "and shalt be." That, however, is not a strictly literal translation of the Greek. A strictly literal reading would be "and the Will-Being One" or "the one who is to be." The KJV translation is, however, a fairly literal translation of Beza's Latin, "et qui eris," ("and [thou] who shalt be"). It probably makes sense to see the KJV translators as following not only Beza's textual decision here, but also his translational methodological decision as well.</p><p>Regarding, "Existing manuscripts read "holy one" (και οσιος), "that holy one" (ο οσιος) or "and holy one" (και οσιος)," KTA seems to have some mistaken understanding, which we can clarify. The Greek manuscripts have (among other readings): </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>ο οσιος ("O Holy One") (this is the correct and most frequent reading)</li><li>και οσιος ("and Holy")</li><li>και ο οσιος ("and the Holy" or "and O Holy One")</li></ul><p></p><p>The third reading seems to include an extraneous article, which caught Beza's attention as a grammarian. Unfortunately, his correction to the Greek text was wrong. He did not consider the possibility that Jesus was being called "O Holy One" here.</p><p>I note that KTA calls it a conjectural emendation, in agreement with Hills and Holland. I think KTA is basically correct about this, although I do not think that Beza realized it was a conjecture when he incorporated it into his text. More about that below.</p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article:<br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.2 Beza's Conjectural Emendation</h4><p>Beza gave the following explanation for his conjectural emendation in the footnote to Revelation 16:5:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiuFkGDBLI-gL0YzAA8kd2tQVFIoQKT07PecMmciIkaLL1QseuQEpdHkB3w9GKzR4-ChYTAAetZzgMa6JdtQZTrkFaueMxze3q-oPJWQwMbyXVvXZubRRYNcKXpiGeGhzAGzMpNIb5V4kxFoAjEAV4ExQLvp-eAXLOmOnZqkACO-hrm9Et6ufEIIw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="1120" height="118" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiuFkGDBLI-gL0YzAA8kd2tQVFIoQKT07PecMmciIkaLL1QseuQEpdHkB3w9GKzR4-ChYTAAetZzgMa6JdtQZTrkFaueMxze3q-oPJWQwMbyXVvXZubRRYNcKXpiGeGhzAGzMpNIb5V4kxFoAjEAV4ExQLvp-eAXLOmOnZqkACO-hrm9Et6ufEIIw" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Click the image to enlarge the original Latin footnote</div><div style="text-align: left;"><u>English translation:</u></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"Et Qui eris, και ο εσομενος": The usual publication is "και ο οσιος," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "οσιος, Sanctus," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "και," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "δικαιος" and "οσιος." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "και ο εσομενος," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "ο εσομενος." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "ο ερχομενος" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear sitting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (Theodore Beza, Novum Sive Novum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Although Beza is silent, he could have been influenced in making his change based on a minority Latin textual variant. There are two Latin commentaries with readings of Revelation 16:5 which agree with Beza in referring to the future aspect of God.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>First, this is a poor and misleading translation of Beza's annotations at Revelation 16:5. The following is a better translation:</p><p></p><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></div><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: none; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;">5 And who [you] will be, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.</div></div></blockquote><p>Simply comparing the two translations, you can see that the differ in important respects.</p><p>Second, while KTA (or KTA's source) may have obtained the image/translation from a 1589 printing, this annotation was first published by Beza in 1582. I don't mention this as an error, so much as being an opportunity to be more precise. </p><p>Third, there is no reason at all to suppose that Beza was influenced by Beatus' commentary, because Beza himself does not mention that he was influenced by Beatus' commentary. Moreover, Beatus' commentary, while presenting a different Latin translation from the Vulgate, does not correspond to Beza's Greek, because it has two verb tenses and "holy" not three verb tenses. The Old Latin translation apparently used by Tyconius and from thence apparently copied by Beatus does use a future tense verb in translation. Beza also uses a future tense verb in translating from Greek to Latin. However, as mentioned above, Beza uses three verbs in his translation, whereas Beatus/Tyconius' translator used only two verbs, and maintained "holy." So, the agreement is quite limited. For someone with Beza's skill in languages, it would not have provided support for his substitution. </p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.3 Beautus: "Futurus Es"</h4><p>Beatus of Liebana, a Spanish theologian from the 8th century, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation titled, "Commentaria In Apocalypsin". A copy of it is available as a Google Book. The date of Beatus' readings may go as far back as 360 AD as Beautus relied on Tyconius' materials. The following is Beatus' excerpt of Revelation 16:5:</p></blockquote><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2SdEoZUr8GEqpkNw7NoFv4PQJNqcNrs5v7xTN6aLp6u2MsaVKdolfCykzR7Namg7oj3PAiqez6HclPys9BmNS5lNvSrDnxoj9DSzpbBAnCZqeI983mkZB514O6scqcMxt7qxgFlY5lW4vBhaAcWrmB55fqfFyediSyifRqGj81I2bOx6Im9bwiA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="578" data-original-width="1006" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2SdEoZUr8GEqpkNw7NoFv4PQJNqcNrs5v7xTN6aLp6u2MsaVKdolfCykzR7Namg7oj3PAiqez6HclPys9BmNS5lNvSrDnxoj9DSzpbBAnCZqeI983mkZB514O6scqcMxt7qxgFlY5lW4vBhaAcWrmB55fqfFyediSyifRqGj81I2bOx6Im9bwiA" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Beatus' text reads, "Justus es, qui fuisti, & futurus es Sanctus" (Just are you, which hast been and wilt be the Holy One). This reading is not exactly the same as Beza's, but as in Beza's reading the future aspect is included in the address to God.</p></blockquote><p>As mentioned above, this translation does not support Beza's substitution change to the Greek text. The best explanation for the odd Old Latin translation is that "has been and will be" is intended to convey the sense of ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος based on an understanding that this phrase is intended to convey God's quality of eternally being Holy. As such, it simply is another confirmation of the most frequent reading found in the extant Greek manuscripts.</p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.4 Haimo: "Es & Eris"</h4><p>Haimo Halberstadensis, a German bishop in the 9th century, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation, also titled, "Commentaria in Apocalypsin". A copy of it is available as a Google Book. The following is the commentary portion of Revelation 16:5:</p></blockquote><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhfkhcaAhCO_fMAmjYvulKScaed6wjT6luJpD_A3bLzGQc6hxmg1CCRcQX5Dlxt5fVi3EdYTxYwv2CL3dm0sQUCxxPZtN6Szx9C1_9FTJeMDb9WUskUFY5sVYx53FsCrkN8p9JFfYB6AkF7OQqsU7hcZxS9m6HokLzTAOHb28wVe8B3-FeAmg72xQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="922" height="78" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhfkhcaAhCO_fMAmjYvulKScaed6wjT6luJpD_A3bLzGQc6hxmg1CCRcQX5Dlxt5fVi3EdYTxYwv2CL3dm0sQUCxxPZtN6Szx9C1_9FTJeMDb9WUskUFY5sVYx53FsCrkN8p9JFfYB6AkF7OQqsU7hcZxS9m6HokLzTAOHb28wVe8B3-FeAmg72xQ" width="320" /></a><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>The text from "dicentem" to "eris" translated into English is:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"[Saying: Thou art just, who were holy.] In past times it is used here for three times, that is, for the past, present, and future. Who were holy, are and shall be just."</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>There are two interesting features of this commentary. First, the quotation from the biblical text, [dicentem: Justus es qui eras sanctus.] is not Beza's conjectured reading. However, it is neither the reading found in the existing manuscripts nor in the Vulgate. The reading, being translated, "You are just, who were holy" is missing the clause, "and who are" (Latin: "& qui es"). The Vulgate reads, "dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus". </p><p>Second, the commentary includes the sentence, "Who were holy, are and shall be just", using the verbs, "eras", "es" and "eris". The association of "justice" with the past, present and future only occurs at Beza's Revelation 16:5. The previous triadic declarations at 1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17 do not associate the formula with God's "justice". Haimo's commentary text carries the sense of Beza's Latin translation of his 1598 Greek Textus Receptus, which reads, "Justus es, Domine, Qui es, & Qui eras, & Qui eris". Beza chose "eris" as the translation of "εσομενος" (shalt be), which is also the Latin word in Haimo's commentary. Haimo used "eris" (shalt be) for the future rather than "venturus est" (is to come) despite the previous occurrences of the formula in Revelation 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8 in the Vulgate having "venturus est" as the future.</p><p>It appears as though the original commentary included the biblical text as conjectured by Beza, and whoever compiled the present edition of the commentary took the commentary section from the original commentary and took the biblical text from a faulty version of the Vulgate.</p></blockquote><p>First, the commentary on the Apocalypse is misattributed to Haimo of Halberstadt. It should, instead be attributed to Haimo of Auxerre, with a date of approximately A.D. 855 (<a href="https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/work_1944">see here</a>). For our purposes, that doesn't make much of a difference.</p><p>Second, it is important to have an accurate translation of the text of Haimo of Auxerre, aka Ps.-Haimo of Halberstadt. In the interest of providing the full context, I offer the entire discussion of Revelation 16:5.</p><p>PL 117, 1128D-1129C, has the following text for Ps.-Haimo of Halberstadt (<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Haymonis_Halberstatensis_Episcopi_opera/_PcUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1129&printsec=frontcover">link to source</a>):</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjl53kn37OzfbWTtFjF2hf659kBUYiSZg9n2YCydthQX53rh3ndOVIgGPkRAQ3sGdP-zNqz5yxILUmLsmWDF4qli1LBIA5WV8deHsZpnM9q4fPVsf3ysJgMpND-6QDG31CN_Qz4drke8yz0qf9neNdMtxNRrrIQaQS_lxs2zvwkJoemuP6GybeE1g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="91" data-original-width="397" height="87" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjl53kn37OzfbWTtFjF2hf659kBUYiSZg9n2YCydthQX53rh3ndOVIgGPkRAQ3sGdP-zNqz5yxILUmLsmWDF4qli1LBIA5WV8deHsZpnM9q4fPVsf3ysJgMpND-6QDG31CN_Qz4drke8yz0qf9neNdMtxNRrrIQaQS_lxs2zvwkJoemuP6GybeE1g=w384-h87" width="384" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhNrXja6fUKEGzqPZiLGvg-7P7yhgzLxw0n2oORHkPNDlF4Ob67aLqJ1pdjiN7YW4-_hyvHh1G_9lq5WN6Lh5q4Gj3DDeEuUYOajcMl-ZlWIPn75-0z0F-KYClE8p-wtL436MqgzACuxT0JiaInzenlQd-KP-5VL6PAJYmACFHZjapMnZLL_QQMhg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="468" data-original-width="403" height="457" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhNrXja6fUKEGzqPZiLGvg-7P7yhgzLxw0n2oORHkPNDlF4Ob67aLqJ1pdjiN7YW4-_hyvHh1G_9lq5WN6Lh5q4Gj3DDeEuUYOajcMl-ZlWIPn75-0z0F-KYClE8p-wtL436MqgzACuxT0JiaInzenlQd-KP-5VL6PAJYmACFHZjapMnZLL_QQMhg=w389-h457" width="389" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgBmIP2P0WiSU1KzXb2x_Zv1CNmYkvgvu_XpybrMTj41dr4sdcNQg2jdsIgu9HxXW_t_VHX8qUTyKZGlYVt-wVkJamBYXBqCPiFVlAIAzAzka78e2w44JxlUSCzglx69tda5qQ7csgqOwgQ-pWZRsK4zzIo1A-KJB56EVGKshUxJjObm6d6hZKW8A" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="427" data-original-width="400" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgBmIP2P0WiSU1KzXb2x_Zv1CNmYkvgvu_XpybrMTj41dr4sdcNQg2jdsIgu9HxXW_t_VHX8qUTyKZGlYVt-wVkJamBYXBqCPiFVlAIAzAzka78e2w44JxlUSCzglx69tda5qQ7csgqOwgQ-pWZRsK4zzIo1A-KJB56EVGKshUxJjObm6d6hZKW8A=w386-h412" width="386" /></a></div><br />Transcription:<br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>Et audivi angelum aquarum</i>. Id est, nuntium populorum, quia, sient in sequentibus legimus, aquæ multæ populi multi sunt. <i>Dicentem: Justus es qui eras sanctus</i>. Præteritum tempus positum est hic pro tribus temporibus, id est, pro præterito præsenti et futuro. Qui eras sanctus, justus es et eris. Quæ justitia in hoc manifestatur, cum subditur: <i>qui hæc</i>, inquit <i>judicasti quia sanguinem sanctorum et prophetarum effuderunt et sanguinem eis dedisti bibere.</i> Justum enim est apud te, ut quia sanguinem sanctorum tuorum effuderunt, ipsi sanguinem bibant. Hoc est vindictam effusi sanguinis sustineant, et in tui cognitionem minime perveniant hi qui, bona sibi annuntiantes, non solum non audierunt, verum etiam crudeliter peremerunt. Quod intelligendum est tam de Judæis quam de gentibus. Judæi enim fuderunt sanguinem sanctorum prophetarum sicut interfecerunt Ezechielem, et Isaiam secuerunt, Jeremiam lapidaverunt. Unde et Stephanus eis in contentione, quam cum illis habuit improperat, dicens: Quem prophetarum non sunt persecuti patres vestri? Et occiderunt eos qui prænuntiabant de adventu justi. Gentiles quoque similiter multum sanctorum martyrum sanguinem fuderunt, sicut Nero crucifixit Petrum, decollavit Paulum et multos alios. Hi omnes justo Dei judicio postea biberunt sanguinem, id est, vindictam sanguinis pertulerunt: vel in præsenti, sicut Judæi et ipse Nero, ut perderent et præsentem vitam et futuram: vel in inferno damnati, et perpetuis cruciatibus traditi. Unde Dominus in Evangelio dicit: Requiretur sanguis omnium sanctorum a generatione hac reproborum, qui effusus est super terram a sanguine Abel justi, usque ad sanguinem Zachariæ. Aliter: Sanguis sanctorum prophetarum intelligitur spiritualis sensus illorum. Qui igitur sanguinem prophetarum vel cæterorum sanctorum fuderit, id est, qui spiritualem illorum sensum in terrenum intellectum converterit, sanguinem bibet, id est, vindictam sanguinis sustinebit. Hoc est, quidquid vitale habere videtur, perdet, et in carnali sensu remanebit justo Dei judicio. <i>Digni enim sunt.</i> Dignum est enim, ut is qui spirituale vinum bibere noluit, corruptionibus vitiorum tanquam sanguinibus debrietur. </p></blockquote><p>The English translation of the above is this:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>And I heard the angel of the waters</i>. That is, the messenger of the peoples, because, as we read in the following, many waters are many peoples. <i>Saying: You are just, who were holy</i>. The past tense is placed here for three times, that is, for past, present, and future. Who were holy, you are just and will be. This justice is manifested when it is added: <i>for these</i>, he says, <i>you judged because they poured out the blood of the saints and prophets and you gave them blood to drink</i>. For it is just with you, that because they poured out the blood of your saints, they themselves drink blood. This means they suffer the vengeance of spilled blood, and those who, announcing good things to themselves, not only did not listen, but also cruelly destroyed, should not come into the knowledge of you. This is to be understood both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. For the Jews indeed poured out the blood of the holy prophets as they killed Ezekiel, and cut Isaiah, stoned Jeremiah. Hence, Stephen reproaches them in the contention he had with them, saying: Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One. The Gentiles also similarly poured out much blood of the holy martyrs, as Nero crucified Peter, beheaded Paul, and many others. All these later drank blood by the just judgment of God, that is, they suffered the vengeance of blood: either in the present, as the Jews and Nero himself, so as to lose both this life and the future: or condemned in hell, and handed over to perpetual torments. Hence the Lord in the Gospel says: The blood of all the saints will be required from this generation of the wicked, which was shed upon the earth from the blood of Abel the just, even to the blood of Zacharias. Alternatively: The blood of the holy prophets is understood as the spiritual sense of them. Therefore, whoever has shed the blood of the prophets or other saints, that is, whoever has converted their spiritual sense into an earthly understanding, will drink blood, that is, will suffer the vengeance of blood. That is, whatever seems to have life, will lose, and will remain in the carnal sense by the just judgment of God. For they are worthy. It is fitting, therefore, that he who did not want to drink spiritual wine, be sodden with the corruptions of vices as with bloods.</p></blockquote><p>The key portion is the phrase, "The past tense is placed here for three times, that is, for past, present, and future. Who were holy, you are just and will be." (corresponding to: "Præteritum tempus positum est hic pro tribus temporibus, id est, pro præterito præsenti et futuro. Qui eras sanctus, justus es et eris.")</p><p>I agree with KTA that this is not Beza's reading. In fact, this is even farther from Beza's reading than that of Beatus/Tyconius. Instead of two verbs and holy as in the Greek and in Beatus/Tyconius, Haimo/Ps.-Haimo has one verb and holy. </p><p>Haimo/Ps.-Haimo, however, explains that the single verb tense is placed here for past, present, and future. Thus, he offers a paraphrase: "Who were holy, you are and were just." </p><p>The bizarre claim that "It appears as though the original commentary included the biblical text as conjectured by Beza," is untenable. The commentary has the text interspersed. The text has the past tense and the commentary explicitly notes that there is just a single tense. Thus, the claim that "whoever compiled the present edition of the commentary took the commentary section from the original commentary and took the biblical text from a faulty version of the Vulgate," just makes no sense. There are commentaries (usually where the commentary is separated from the text) where the text is changed, such that the text and commentary do not align. This is not one of those cases.</p><p>Remainder of KTA's comments seem to be based on the inaccurate translation. Further comment would seem to be redundant.</p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.5 Greek Fathers' Usage of "Kαι Ο Εσομενος"</h4><p>There are at least two Greek fathers who used the phrase "ο... εσομενος" as a reference to a person of the Godhead. This is noteworthy because the Greek New Testament never uses the phrase "ο εσομενος" to refer to God outside of Revelation 16:5 as it appears in Beza. Christ in Revelation is elsewhere referred to as "ο ερχομενος (who is to come)" (Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17).</p><p>Clement of Alexandria (3rd century) referred to God as "ο εσομενος" in The Stromata, Book V, 6:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>"ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαού, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος."</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>"Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, “Who is and shall be.”" (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) referred to Christ as "ο εσομενος" in On the Baptism of Christ:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>"Κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος͵ εὐλογητὸς νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων͵ ἀμήν."</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>"And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen." (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>[Note: In a certain internet forum these facts have been called a "red herring" to the issue of whether "ο εσομενος" should be in Revelation 16:5. By definition a "red herring" is something that is not relevant to the issue and carries no probative value. If a hypothesis is made more likely by the existence of a fact than by the absence of the fact, that fact is not a red herring. The fact that Greek fathers used "ο εσομενος" is not a red herring because the fact suggests that the future participle of "ειμι", in reference to Christ, is not a novel invention of a sixteenth century Western European scholar. With proof of an ancient native Greek usage of "ο εσομενος", the hypothesis that John used the term is made more likely. The weight to place on this evidence is debatable, but it is a misnomer to call it a red herring.]</p></blockquote><p>I I appreciate that KTA sees such usage as "noteworthy." I think that the evidence is noteworthy for a different reason. I think it's noteworthy that Revelation 16:5 is never cited according to Beza's wording. In a previous post (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/11/beza-plato-and-shall-be-speculative.html">link to post</a>), I carefully scrutinized all the extant usage of ἐσόμενος is the literature indexed by the Thesaurus Linguae Gracae (as of 2023-11-10) up to 1582. I included the usage of Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Ps.(?) Olympiodorus the Deacon, Euthymius Protasecretis, John Climacus, and Manuel Chrysoloras, Unsurprisingly, the most that could be said for any of the usages was that they could be classified as a "possible allusion" if we assumed that Revelation 16:5 as written by Beza was known. They could equally be allusions to Revelation 1:4 or 1:8, or even to Plato.</p><p>While I agree that it's technically not a "red herring," the fact that Plato (and others) used the word itself provides the smallest feather's weight. </p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">1.6 Four Theories of How "Ο Εσομενος" Could Become Corrupt</h4><p>Many people are not satisfied with Beza's conjecture or the reasons thereof, or the notion that Latin commentators or Greek Fathers may have been familiar with Beza's reading. In the few literature available defending Beza's conjecture, there is usually no explanation as to how "ο εσομενος" could change to "ο οσιος". Without an adequate theory as to the mechanism of the corruption, it is difficult to defend the position that there is a corruption. This article proposes four theories to remedy this problem:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Theory 1: John wrote "ο εσομενος" in nomen sacrum form</li><li>Theory 2: Bad conditions gave rise to corruption</li><li>Theory 3: A scribe harmonized 16:5 with 11:17</li><li>Theory 4: A Hebraist imposed Hebraic style onto the text</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Before considering these theories, it is important to understand the textual history of the book of Revelation and of Revelation 16:5 in particular. There seems to be the misconception that the book of Revelation was just as well preserved as the other books of the Bible and that Revelation 16:5 in the existing manuscripts all have the same reading. When we understand the troubled textual history of the entire book and of 16:5 in particular, the four theories and the reliance on a conjectural emendation may appear to be more plausible.</p></blockquote><p>On this point, I must tip my hat to KTA. Most of the Pro-KJV material on this verse (excluding, of course, Nick Sayers) fails to address any mechanism to explain how - on the theory that εσομενος was original - that οσιος could come to be found in virtually all the manuscripts.</p><p>I also appreciate KTA's openness in the attempt to tear down the manuscript evidence for Revelation in order to make Beza's conjecture seem more probable.</p><p>This brings us to Section II.</p><p>II. Responding to "How a Conjecture may be Justified"</p><p>Under the topic of how a conjecture may be justified, KTA offers five main points, which I will address in turn.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">2.1 The Book of Revelation was Thoroughly Corrupted Very Early</h4><p>Conjectural emendations are justified if we know that the text we are dealing with has a history of extensive and early corruption. The book of Revelation is such a text. As a word of assurance, however, there is no need to doubt the integrity of the text of Revelation as we now have in the Textus Receptus. God has promised to preserve his word. Although the existing manuscripts are often in conflict with one another, we must remember that the existing manuscripts for the most part came to us through the High Churches of the Orthodox East and the Catholic West. There were, however, countless Christians throughout history who lived outside of these institutions. The evidence of corrupted manuscripts is very much a history of the textual transmission of the High Churches. We trust God that he has providentially preserved his word to us through other faithful Churches even while the High Churches were transmitting corrupt texts. We trust that God was able to preserve the true reading of Revelation 16:5 until the advent of the printing press during the Reformation.</p><p>Please read the article at the following link for a prerequisite to understanding the extent of corruptions in the Book of Revelation: Book of Revelation in the Textus Receptus</p></blockquote><p>I don't plan to respond in detail to the further-linked article, nor to all the articles to which that article links. In summary, KTA's linked article highlights some (but certainly not all) of the many places where the KJV departs from the majority of Greek manuscripts in Revelation. For KTA, this is evidence of "the extent of corruptions." That may be true, but it is evidence of the weakness of the KJV in Revelation rather than of the manuscripts themselves.</p><p>It should be noted that KTA's arguments end up undermining the Reformation position that God preserved the New Testament in the original Greek. For example, in one of the articles to which that further-linked article links, "Aren't some Textus Receptus readings based on weak Greek manuscript evidence?" KTA states: "Thus where there is no problem with grammar or syntax, it is absolutely illogical to give more weight to readings in Greek manuscripts just by the virtue of them being Greek manuscripts."</p><p>While people are certainly welcome to their own positions, and KTA does not seem to make a pretense of being part of the so-called "Confessional Bibliology" group, KTA's position is a contradiction of Beza's own views and the views of the Protestant Reformation more broadly. Greek priority was one of their rallying points against the Roman Catholic Church.</p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">2.2 The Curious Case of "Οσιος" at Revelation 15:4 in Papyrus 47</h4><p>The word "Holy One" at Revelation 16:5 in all existing manuscripts is "οσιος". This word occurs one other time in the book of Revelation at chapter 15 verse 4. At Revelation 15:4, the Textus Receptus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus all read, "...και δοξασ(η)(ει) το ονομα σου οτι μονος οσιος οτι...." (...and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for....). The earliest manuscript of Revelation 15:4, however, omits "οσιος". P47 reads, "και δοξισει το ονομα σου οτι μονος ε̣ι̣ οτι...." (...and glorify thy name? for only if: for....).</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyYxs-FNY3ipJzH_XHj2RTlJ8McZ2EXU3ef2RXDWM7yT_wOoXTOneecaY3F0pc16Iyawf26ZeCH0HFigeyiyiZKxrRbaB3FQvv1Xinrluelv3sIPGvaATcnmPn-rwbVNhTT60PULMp4auzHRFhhcvlLDvJO35BeOP4sA_owdWiiFO5n6R0Fv6Asg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="81" data-original-width="636" height="41" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyYxs-FNY3ipJzH_XHj2RTlJ8McZ2EXU3ef2RXDWM7yT_wOoXTOneecaY3F0pc16Iyawf26ZeCH0HFigeyiyiZKxrRbaB3FQvv1Xinrluelv3sIPGvaATcnmPn-rwbVNhTT60PULMp4auzHRFhhcvlLDvJO35BeOP4sA_owdWiiFO5n6R0Fv6Asg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>P47: "και δοξισει το ονομα σου οτι μονος ε̣ι̣ οτι...."[EN1]</p><p>This is another example of a corruption in the existing manuscripts of the book of Revelation, and a relevant one at that because it involves the word in dispute at Revelation 16:5. If there is evidence of a scribal error involving "οσιος" at Revelation 15:4, it seems reasonable to suspect a scribal error involving the same word just one chapter later at Revelation 16:5. If critics of Beza's emendation at Revelation 16:5 simply acquaint themselves with the types of errors in the manuscripts of Revelation, they would not be so quick to judge the notion that conjectural emendations might be necessary to restore original readings in a very corrupt body of manuscript evidence.</p><p>[EN1: Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible. London: Emery Walker Ltd., 1933, 1937.]</p></blockquote><p>I have no issues with KTA's image, but I provide my own, which might be slightly higher resolution:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYASBZRII9mY9rjOes-Mpp5MqTnFaCZUdtySyUhmVQ5FIJw2u6m9_6dm8EigYN1-6_ddRt0B-OpJZacSMbSSOR3a3o21k1IPuvVuIo_CejjftWgRZfybjG36jyxmW3uNz1wAIHCgcVhmGGNPKgq1oZVJU48gKUouW8bdM-WSOB-AKzIeotMDQrvA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="1135" height="47" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYASBZRII9mY9rjOes-Mpp5MqTnFaCZUdtySyUhmVQ5FIJw2u6m9_6dm8EigYN1-6_ddRt0B-OpJZacSMbSSOR3a3o21k1IPuvVuIo_CejjftWgRZfybjG36jyxmW3uNz1wAIHCgcVhmGGNPKgq1oZVJU48gKUouW8bdM-WSOB-AKzIeotMDQrvA" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace?docID=10047">source</a>)</div><br />The transcription of lines 10-11 of this sheet are as follows:<p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>10| τις σε ου μη φοβηθη κε και δοξισει το ονο</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>11| μα σου οτι μονος ε̣ι̣ οτι παντα τα εθνη η</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>INTF has transcribed nearly 100 Greek manuscripts of Revelation 15:4. Among those transcribed manuscripts, P115 and P47 are the oldest that include any part of the verse. P115, unfortunately, does not include this part of the verse. P47 (incorrectly) omits οσιος from Revelation 15:4. Other early manuscripts (e.g. 1, 2, and 4) have "... το ονομα σου οτι μονος οσιος ..." (thy name because [you] alone [are] holy). Many of the Greek manuscripts, particularly the later Greek manuscripts, substitute a different word for holy, αγιος (hagios) for οσιος (a phenomenon that we saw to a lesser extent at Revelation 16:5) . Around four other manuscripts positively read εἶ (thou art) before the "holy" and about 20 read manuscripts positively read εἶ (thou art) after the "holy," as opposed to implying it. Beza's Latin makes the "thou art" explicit. Scrivener's TR omits the εἶ (thou art), presumably reasoning that the King James translators were following Beza's Latin translation of Beza's Greek, rather than the minority of manuscripts that have an explicit εἶ (thou art), as Stephanus did not note the presence of εἶ (thou art), despite noting αγιος (hagios) for οσιος (hosios). On the other hand, the Complutensian Polyglot has the explicit εἶ (thou art) and follows αγιος (hagios) rather than οσιος (hosios).</p><p>The "Pure Cambridge Edition" of 1900 has italics for "thou art," consistent with Scrivener's TR. However, the KJV 1611 did not have italics here. Based on the Textus Receptus Bibles site, I believe that the Oxford KJV 1769 likewise italicizes "thou art", although I've been cautioned about relying too carefully on that site (<a href="https://textusreceptusbibles.com/KJV1769/66/15">TR Bibles</a>, <a href="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Revelation-Chapter-15/#4">KJB Online</a>, <a href="https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=KJV|reference=Rev.15">STEP Bible</a>). </p><p>The bottom line is that the KJV translators certainly could have known of the variant reading of an explicit εἶ (thou art) and could have followed that, or they simply could have been following Beza's Latin translation of the Greek. Even more simply, they could have been following Tyndale's original English translation in the form presented in the Bishop's Bible ("Who shall not feare thee O Lorde, and glorifie thy name? for thou only art holy: And all gentiles shal come and worship before thee, for thy iudgemetes are made manifest."). Indeed, it could be some combination of the above. It is an interesting question whether "TR only" types think that εἶ (thou art) is original.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipVcVQPuOvaI1nj0TsoDx8hqeynEsITdgWr1M7aCvXJADqBeKaeXGnoJL-J5dbC1YjSNdoWdXoYlC6I1XV2C3djk-hPgUQwhd9Ht4Eb8LJNYsqaFjM7k9af0AvDm06_XrwhSha-u3RAH0S_aBG-EuW6rUnVq8Jd6RqEK9mWVNg8sjAp34xdUVgKg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="124" data-original-width="784" height="51" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipVcVQPuOvaI1nj0TsoDx8hqeynEsITdgWr1M7aCvXJADqBeKaeXGnoJL-J5dbC1YjSNdoWdXoYlC6I1XV2C3djk-hPgUQwhd9Ht4Eb8LJNYsqaFjM7k9af0AvDm06_XrwhSha-u3RAH0S_aBG-EuW6rUnVq8Jd6RqEK9mWVNg8sjAp34xdUVgKg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2026239">Beza's 1598 Greek and Latin</a>)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj7QIogEdDIR6CLEDzQvxN2Bx_5GqOBXnrRMj4i2dHBLVG6DeQiFhq_mqK6h9R_yQFNJk6U4tjlf9oiMHPkSfF_nPB826wVXbQ_Kowetpxet0xMc72BGK2CPHKD019Mg9gpmT3CCMwXapj1k0pMVkmnH-gmQzEg8zppTXN0_2nhkspZMZLLy2fMbA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="91" data-original-width="862" height="34" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj7QIogEdDIR6CLEDzQvxN2Bx_5GqOBXnrRMj4i2dHBLVG6DeQiFhq_mqK6h9R_yQFNJk6U4tjlf9oiMHPkSfF_nPB826wVXbQ_Kowetpxet0xMc72BGK2CPHKD019Mg9gpmT3CCMwXapj1k0pMVkmnH-gmQzEg8zppTXN0_2nhkspZMZLLy2fMbA" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://archive.org/details/textus-receptus-stephanus-1550-original/page/n247/mode/1up">Stephanus' 1550 with critical note</a>)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjOdUHbWk-ZMCokhF4nad62k_aQrrYvqITmkz-6udBKDvAHjyP-BQ-LQr2Cc5V5cdX3dpG9LIcyG7-Gnsukqwf7Z_pjBwGi5VDU_qCyJDTkQXmqhHb-VHY99yglxxjGYL35xqjU5-E-9AwC7akFzDLM5mdrVQHpOTy7GSnV6ORsXcTiB34oo-KjOA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="1654" height="54" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjOdUHbWk-ZMCokhF4nad62k_aQrrYvqITmkz-6udBKDvAHjyP-BQ-LQr2Cc5V5cdX3dpG9LIcyG7-Gnsukqwf7Z_pjBwGi5VDU_qCyJDTkQXmqhHb-VHY99yglxxjGYL35xqjU5-E-9AwC7akFzDLM5mdrVQHpOTy7GSnV6ORsXcTiB34oo-KjOA" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="Complutensian Polyglot">source</a>)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiEOnamOvSHIt01sS_HetdXIGfNTKkeiSsM4m67MpaaKiqm6Ab4pO7pO9Y2TUrPK8-74TF9FPP9LIy2IUU7WSgNmzRJXcP8tF5rhRjN3lFXVd1DVQmGA4w6mvaXhIoVd5jaYq8HeapUX3BqMQw7Z8NPuMJotZLVf1-2y2yUzkC5nnjSSlAS03_iNw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="138" data-original-width="510" height="87" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiEOnamOvSHIt01sS_HetdXIGfNTKkeiSsM4m67MpaaKiqm6Ab4pO7pO9Y2TUrPK8-74TF9FPP9LIy2IUU7WSgNmzRJXcP8tF5rhRjN3lFXVd1DVQmGA4w6mvaXhIoVd5jaYq8HeapUX3BqMQw7Z8NPuMJotZLVf1-2y2yUzkC5nnjSSlAS03_iNw" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.bibleprotector.com/KJB-PCE-PLAIN.pdf">KJV, Pure Cambridge Edition, 1900</a>)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjug1DyVdt9D3P9LXpzNwKzChQ32kJLLjUQ6vdKgmAEPfirxvgwv0y6Wlozc-OdAAXeq2RzktNz_SO5r8jnuumLyAfyxqAK8V-Vj6sZQNwd9oft0v3wGv3VSWOYttTcztnswGKtwS0OnGaiJ3PPPJgQK6b60U1ztkGpMQ3DoTqqWzp0UQbh_IGCFg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="346" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjug1DyVdt9D3P9LXpzNwKzChQ32kJLLjUQ6vdKgmAEPfirxvgwv0y6Wlozc-OdAAXeq2RzktNz_SO5r8jnuumLyAfyxqAK8V-Vj6sZQNwd9oft0v3wGv3VSWOYttTcztnswGKtwS0OnGaiJ3PPPJgQK6b60U1ztkGpMQ3DoTqqWzp0UQbh_IGCFg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Reuelation_15_1611/">1611 KJV</a>)</div></div></div><br /></div>Returning to P47 and Revelation 15:4, I note that P47 does have the explicit εἶ (thou art), yet stands alone (at least in the manuscripts transcribed by INTF) in omitting some form of "holy" here. Hoskier likewise does not report any such variant as is found in P47 here (<a href="https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/404/mode/1up">link to Hoskier</a>).<p></p><p>Considering that P47 stands alone, it hardly seems fair to characterize this as a "corruption in the existing manuscripts" (i.e. plural manuscripts). Even if this can be justified because a corruption of one manuscript is somehow a corruption in the collection of manuscripts, KTA's next statement is a step farther in the wrong direction. KTA states: "If there is evidence of a scribal error involving "οσιος" at Revelation 15:4, it seems reasonable to suspect a scribal error involving the same word just one chapter later at Revelation 16:5." While it is certainly reasonable to look for and assess the possibility of scribal error, the bare fact that the same word in the previous chapter was subject to an omission in a single manuscript does not seem to be a reasonable basis for doubting the testimony of the overwhelming majority of manuscripts at Revelation 16:5, which has even less variation regarding the word "οσιος" than was found at Revelation 15:4.</p><p>Finally, while I appreciate KTA's assertion: "If critics of Beza's emendation at Revelation 16:5 simply acquaint themselves with the types of errors in the manuscripts of Revelation, they would not be so quick to judge the notion that conjectural emendations might be necessary to restore original readings in a very corrupt body of manuscript evidence." This is probably one of those bell-shaped curves. When you don't know about the variants, you don't see the need for conjecture. When you start to learn about variants, you see need for conjecture, but then when you become very familiar with variants, you no longer see the need for conjecture. That's probably an oversimplification of things. That said, many of the folks behind the NU text do not in principle oppose conjectures, yet there are very few conjectural emendations permitted in the text, even by those folks. My own reason for opposing conjectural emendations is based on a doctrine of preservation taught in Scripture, not based on my evaluation of the manuscripts.</p><p>Nevertheless, I think it is important to reiterate: the line of reasoning offered by KTA is available to those who deny providential preservation in the sense it was believed during the Protestant Reformation; it is much more difficult to square with the Reformation teachers (although some of them did seem to have room for conjectural emendation in rare cases). </p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">2.3 There is a Related Textual Problem in Revelation 11:17</h4><p>There is also a textual corruption at Revelation 11:17 that is related to Beza's emendation in Revelation 16:5. Please read the page, <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/should-and-art-to-come-be-in-revelation-1117">Should "and art to come" be in Revelation 11:17?</a>, for more information on this textual variant. Nestle-Aland 27 has "ευχαριστουμεν σοι κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ ο ων και ο ην" (we thank you Lord God Almighty, who is and who was). There is no "and who is to come". The Textus Receptus, however, has "ευχαριστουμεν σοι κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος" (We thank you Lord God Almighty, who is and who was and who is to come). Here we see a similar situation as in Beza's Revelation 16:5 in which the Textus Receptus includes the mention of God's future aspect. The Textus Receptus reading is supported by Tyconius (4th century), 1841 (9th/10th century), 051 (10th century), 1006 (11th century), etc. (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). The 1904 Patriarchal Text of the Greek Orthodox Church also has "και ο ερχομενος". The readings is also in the Clementine Vulgate: "Gratias agimus tibi, Domine Deus omnipotens, qui es, et qui eras, et qui venturus es".</p><p>This is a situation similar to Revelation 16:5 where the future aspect of God's existence is omitted in most manuscripts. Yet unlike Revelation 16:5, other Greek and Latin witnesses as well as Beza's Textus Receptus testify for the inclusion of the future aspect of God. If the future aspect of God should be the original reading of Revelation 11:17, there is manuscript evidence to support this. And if so, there is evidence that the mention of God's future aspect could be corrupted in the transmission of Revelation. This lends credence to the hypothesis that the mention of God's future aspect was likewise corrupted in Revelation 16:5.</p></blockquote><p>Oddly enough I can agree with the words, though presumably not the intent, of KTA's opening sentence. There is also a textual corruption in the TR/KJV at Revelation 11:17 and it is related to Beza's reasoning. Beza mistakenly thought that "και ο ερχομενος" was found in each of Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17. </p><p>The nearly 100 manuscripts transcribed by INTF show a strong majority of manuscripts lack "και ο ερχομενος" although an interesting minority has just "και". </p><p>Hoskier has similar notes:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiv1axs6MtzjAHklXyy8cAh-kdM8T4qbmM7bw1IIpomT7DIkhLVUdU8GU7kYbMzT1yAcsnhaQNdkbqvp2UrFXnSSfjZjyOkVd_c4QOp-n3Fbkc744GrNo6DoxlNb7CeJPykPq4HG7SQnj0A4keZY_ZXqRxvnFjuecXGLZ1xOh_WbEG1v6d59ca0Zg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="46" data-original-width="607" height="24" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiv1axs6MtzjAHklXyy8cAh-kdM8T4qbmM7bw1IIpomT7DIkhLVUdU8GU7kYbMzT1yAcsnhaQNdkbqvp2UrFXnSSfjZjyOkVd_c4QOp-n3Fbkc744GrNo6DoxlNb7CeJPykPq4HG7SQnj0A4keZY_ZXqRxvnFjuecXGLZ1xOh_WbEG1v6d59ca0Zg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgO8P46JAigjZGH6zbN1yijy0QVT8KBPLfBdJxwMtM-Qad6yhyuwBFm4ST853NRYLjDYyH7OtBT7yKZfNA2tACd-N0CqDYn2flj6yvuHsJ4O5oz3Zfo0fYhUNYeoc5vHIRGug_MkhEJzRyDE9OJzHbW5LiC5xqAYYd0g4xuOnj2DipouSgzNf21Lg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="223" data-original-width="613" height="116" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgO8P46JAigjZGH6zbN1yijy0QVT8KBPLfBdJxwMtM-Qad6yhyuwBFm4ST853NRYLjDYyH7OtBT7yKZfNA2tACd-N0CqDYn2flj6yvuHsJ4O5oz3Zfo0fYhUNYeoc5vHIRGug_MkhEJzRyDE9OJzHbW5LiC5xqAYYd0g4xuOnj2DipouSgzNf21Lg" width="320" /></a></div>(<a href="https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/305/mode/1up">Hoskier, pp. 305-06</a>)<br /></div><p>KTA's argument here relies on assuming that there was a loss of "και ο ερχομενος" rather than that there was an insertion of "και ο ερχομενος". The evidence points to the latter. The most natural source of such an insertion is a harmonization with phrases found in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8. It is hard to explain how "και ο ερχομενος" would be lost in some many lines of transmission, including very early ones.</p><p>Moreover, KTA does not discuss the manuscript evidence at Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8. In those places, there is no similar issue with "και ο ερχομενος". Likewise, there is no similar issue with "και ο ερχομενος" in Revelation 16:5, where the manuscripts are essentially unified in not including any such reading. This makes an early harmonization error (for example, a mis-correction by an early scribe) the best explanation for the minority of manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations at Revelation 11:17 that have the longer reading. </p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">2.4 Evidence of Corruption Justifies Conjectural Emendations</h4><p>In situations where the extent of corruption is so great that there is a likelihood that original readings may be lost in all existing manuscripts, judiciously applied conjectural emendations might be necessary in order to restore the original readings. The leading modern textual critic, Bruce Metzger, approved the use of a conjectural emendation as a valid method of textual criticism. He said: </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention." (The Text Of The New Testament at 182)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Bruce Metzger approved the method for “the removal of an anomaly” that is “foreign to the author's intention”. The conjectural emendation in Revelation 16:5 is justified because the majority reading in Revelation 16:5, “who is, and who was” followed by “that holy one,” is anomalous in not completing the declaration of God's past, present and future aspects, as is done in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17*. Beza replaced "ο οσιος (that holy one)" with "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)" to fix the anomaly. He said:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place?" (Theodore Beza, Novum Sive Novum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>The appropriateness of Beza's conjectural emendation should be assessed in the context that Revelation was corrupted early and extensively, and today there are only 4 existing manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 from before the 10th century (as will be shown below).</p></blockquote><p>1) We have already addressed the issue of the translation of Beza's annotations above. In this portion, the translation is less problematic than above, as can be seen from a comparison of the translations.</p><p>2) KTA is not following Metzger's guidelines for the use of conjectural emendation. The alleged "anomaly" is simply mentioning God's being in terms of past and present, but without reference to a future coming. Beza's solution to this perceived anomaly, however, is not to introduce "και ο ερχομενος" but to create a new anomaly by substituting "και ο εσομενος" for "και ο οσιος" in Stephanus/Erasmus' Greek text. While "ο οσιος" is the correct reading, it does not appear that Beza was aware of the existence, much less the frequency, of this reading.</p><p>Alongside this section, KTA asks: "Did you know? The guru modern textual criticism, Bruce Metzger, approved of conjectural emendations in principle." The short answer is that we do know. As discussed in my response to Thomas Holland (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/responding-to-thomas-hollands.html">link</a>), conjectural emendation is often used in the textual criticism of other books, particularly those that are weakly attested, such as those existing only in a single copy. That, plainly, is not the case with Revelation.</p><p>3) The idea that Revelation was corrupted early and extensively, such that it would require conjectural emendation to fix is not something that Metzger accepted, as is evidenced by his lack of acceptance of conjectural emendations into the main text. Instead, this overstatement of the degree of corruption appears to be motivated by a desire on KTA's part to excuse Erasmus and Beza for making unsupported changes to the text of Revelation. Whether so motivated or not, the argument lacks force. The alleged anomaly does not yield an "impossible or incomprehensible" reading. Moreover, rather than showing evidence of corruption, the manuscript evidence shows remarkable consistency. Furthermore, calling Jesus "the Holy One" is consistent with the author's intent and the context. </p><p>4) KTA makes a subtle but important shift. The phrase, "ο οσιος" is not problematic, so KTA does not focus on the actual reading. Instead, KTA tries to argue for the viability of Beza's conjecture. Considering whether the conjecture is a good fit to John's thought would only be relevant if we had a good reason to think that "ο οσιος" needed to be replaced.</p><p>Incidentally, the mere absence of a "future aspect" is not a reason to change "ο οσιος". Even if one believes that Revelation 11:17 originally included "και ο εσομενος," one finds that the difference amongst the manuscripts is simple omission (or insertion) of the phrase, not substitution. So, if the theory is that the triplet of explanations of YHWY ("Jehovah") should be present, that in itself does not suggest the removal of "ο οσιος". Someone trying to justify Beza has a very uphill battle. The person must (1) establish that Revelation 11:17 should have "και ο εσομενος," contrary to the majority of the evidence; (2) establish that Revelation 16:5 would be improper without completing the "is and was" with some future concept; (3) establish that the more obvious way of completing that grouping was not found here originally; and (4) establish some reason for thinking that "και ο εσομενος" was in fact the way that the grouping was originally completed. </p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">2.5 Conformity With Both Hebrew and Greek Thought</h4><p>From a stylistic angle, the conjecture is justified on the basis that its phrasing conforms with both Hebrew and Greek thought. The formula in Beza's reading differs from the formula in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17* (having "shalt be" instead of "is to come"); but the phrase, "which art, and wast, and shalt be" is consistent with both Hebrew and Greek thought. As such, it is fitting for our Lord to use the phrase for the Hebrew and Greek audience of Revelation.</p><p>The Jerusalem Targum, written by Jewish Rabbis, refers to God as "<u>He who Am, and Was, and Will Be</u>" at Deuteronomy 32:39 (J.W. Etheridge, <i>The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch</i>. (1865), p. 669):</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"When the Word of the Lord shall reveal Himself to redeem His people, He will say to all the nations: Behold now, that I am He who Am, and Was, and Will Be, and there is no other God beside Me:" (J.W. Etheridge, <i>The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch.</i> (1865), p. 669).</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>On the Greek side of things, there is an ancient poem believed to be sung by Dodonian priestesses, which refers to Zeus as the one who was, and is, and shall be. The poem is recorded by Pausanias in Description of Greece:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"The Peleiades are said to have been born still earlier than Phemonoe, and to have been the first women to chant these verses:–</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"> Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be (Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται); O mighty Zeus.</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"> Earth sends up the harvest, therefore sing the praise of earth as Mother."</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">(Pausanias, Description of Greece (10.12.10), Translated by W. H. S. Jones)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>The New Testament often took Greek philosophical words and formulas and applied them in Christian contexts. For example, John took the philosophically loaded word "Logos" and gave it a Christian meaning (John 1:1). Likewise, "which art, and wast, and shalt be" may have been intended as an allusion to the Greek song to Zeus. In adopting this formula, God is claiming that he alone is the true eternal God.</p></blockquote><p>KTA's argument here could be strengthened by reference to Plato, as discussed above. That said, it is beside the point to inquire whether calling God the one who "shall be" or specifically "is, was, and shall be" is consistent with Hebrew and Greek thought. Considering that KTA is arguing that "και ο ερχομενος" indicates a "future aspect" of God, the three (or four, if you were persuaded that Revelation 11:17 included it) previous uses in Revelation would suffice to show that God having a "future aspect" of existence is also part of John's thought, not just Hebrew/Greek thought.</p><p>On the other hand, if "the coming one" is not enough, better than going to unbelieving Jewish interpreters and pagan Greeks, KTA could just go to the author of Hebrews:</p><p>Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.</p><p>III. Response to "The Textual History of Revelation 16:5"</p><div>In the third main section, KTA provided two main arguments, which I consider in turn. </div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">3.1 Only 4 Manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 Are From Before the 10th Century</h4><p>A look at the textual history of Revelation 16:5 will show that the evidence against Beza's reading is not as strong as one might think. Although all known existing Greek manuscripts do not have "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)," the body of evidence is relatively small and late, and even the existing evidence are not in full agreement with each other.Of all the ancient papyri that include the book of Revelation (P18, P24, P43, P47, P85, P98, P115), only P47 includes Revelation 16:5. Of all the ancient uncials (pre-10th century) that include Revelation (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, 0163, 0169, 0207, 0229, 0308), only Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi include Revelation 16:5. Vaticanus does not have the book of Revelation at all. Thus the only witnesses from before the 10th century which include Revelation 16:5 are P47, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi. Just 4 manuscripts in 10 centuries is not a lot of evidence. There is definitely room to suppose that a reading with "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)" existed in the early years of transmission, especially since Revelation in general was corrupted very early and an erroneous reading could have easily gained supremacy. Critics who say "There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and not one of them has Beza's reading" are misrepresenting the situation. Although there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts, only a fraction has Revelation 16:5, and just 4 from before the 10th century. Since manuscript evidence (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) is relatively scarce for Revelation 16:5 in comparison with other passages of scripture, the use of conjectural emendations is that much more justified for Revelation 16:5 than it normally would be for other passages.</p></blockquote><p>1) It is true that there are only a small number of pre-10th century Greek manuscripts of Revelation. However, it is not as though the 10th century and later manuscripts just fell down from heaven. They are echoes of older copies. Furthermore, the small handful of pre-10th century Greek manuscripts are fundamentally consistent with the later manuscripts, particularly on this issue. </p><p>2) Additionally, we have an abundance of supportive versional and patristic evidence for the text that is supported by the extant Greek manuscripts. While some of the versional evidence may be ambiguous or not fully supportive of the Greek majority text, it all favors the Greek majority text over Beza's alteration.</p><p>3) I agree that a critic who says, "There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and not one of them has Beza's reading" would be overstating the point. There are over 100 Greek manuscripts and not one of them has Beza's reading. I would likewise say that "Just 4 manuscripts in 10 centuries is not a lot of evidence," similarly overstates the case. First, from the first century to the 9th century is just 9 centuries. Second, the evidence during the first 9 centuries is not limited to the Greek manuscripts.</p><p>In a sidebar, KTA asks: "Did you know? Only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century. The 3 earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree." They agree in including οσιος and not including εσομενος or even ερχομενος. They disagree on other things, such as whether οσιος should have an article and whether or not οσιος should be connected to "righteous" with an "and".</p><p>The claim that "Revelation in general was corrupted very early" is an empty assertion, particularly when the main argument is about the alleged paucity of early evidence. It's an empty assertion because anyone with even a modicum of understanding of manuscript evidence knows that there are textual variants going back to the earliest manuscript copies not just in Revelation but in all books. It's also an empty assertion given that the level of variation in Revelation is only high when using the TR as a standard. The better explanation for that, however, is that Erasmus did not do as great work in Revelation as he did in other books, and that Beza's attempts to improve on Erasmus were not a uniform success.</p><p>The idea that we can use conjectural emendation because "manuscript evidence (whether Alexandrian or Byzantine) is relatively scarce for Revelation 16:5 in comparison with other passages of scripture" is not correct. The manuscript may be "relatively" less, but it is still quite abundant.</p><p>Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">3.2 Three Earliest Witnesses are Already Corrupt</h4><p>The use of conjectural emendations is further justified because the three earliest witnesses of Revelation 16:5 already reveal corruption in this portion. Compare the portion in P47 (250 AD), Sinaiticus (350 AD) and Alexandrinus (400 AD) below (all readings are transcribed below in the same lower-case script for comparison purposes): </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"ο ων και ος ην <b>και οσιος</b>" (P47)</li><li>"ο ων και ο ην <b>ο οσιος</b>" (Sinaiticus)</li><li>"ο ων και ο ην <b>οσιος</b>" (Alexandrinus)</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><u>Papyrus 47</u></p><p>(Image source: See footnote 1)</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEpdK3BOx8YAG4Mg6dWMAEQsDhhTsZOc-_N4AWcM5legE4pcc90yXvA3BcLNO0pdJp4uFQGhdJgp1RPxb9wXPjc6IIy0PG8C35PYnIc_NhJoJIFkwwScCLCti-Twt0YuFx3fST2Oma-b_jXYgGtr7O18Dz1eBV-j8sVt_uIMkiNwRPlVzEFBLmEA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="430" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEpdK3BOx8YAG4Mg6dWMAEQsDhhTsZOc-_N4AWcM5legE4pcc90yXvA3BcLNO0pdJp4uFQGhdJgp1RPxb9wXPjc6IIy0PG8C35PYnIc_NhJoJIFkwwScCLCti-Twt0YuFx3fST2Oma-b_jXYgGtr7O18Dz1eBV-j8sVt_uIMkiNwRPlVzEFBLmEA" width="266" /></a></div><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">P47: "...KAI OC HN KAI OCIOC (...and which wast and holy one)"</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Codex Sinaiticus</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">(Image source: See footnote 2)</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOyqtFlRTOvh-mzsWJ1hFX9QeJdy4oNf_c6KfXQzOCMIFlc-khcEOC_PzDxmq6Nm9zRO01d5DW02H9MByWPK0eCrZyXVf1C8SS7VBjpjofkdSZoRef-YrcrVlQyfSDEXK8ugHaOLRoEuI0_ZWBUAB7_qY_9AiNNa10ce_FDfvWkp_CMr5KwWKvNg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="546" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOyqtFlRTOvh-mzsWJ1hFX9QeJdy4oNf_c6KfXQzOCMIFlc-khcEOC_PzDxmq6Nm9zRO01d5DW02H9MByWPK0eCrZyXVf1C8SS7VBjpjofkdSZoRef-YrcrVlQyfSDEXK8ugHaOLRoEuI0_ZWBUAB7_qY_9AiNNa10ce_FDfvWkp_CMr5KwWKvNg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Sinaiticus: ""O ΩN KAI O HN O OCIOS (which art and which wast that holy one)"</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Codex Alexandrinus</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">(Image source: See footnote 3)</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnaE-2NxsOCsZFmZVNNNorAXe4cfqxVtg3im-x5AvQu9KtV0nzJWwOdxsgkbreZTyMloENy01ONm6XTma6CtcUQ5Tf95gIgSO21ZI5hDKs6JmDzZQ27yjS0fs5-CdMKjT3SpJjqvoPTH8OvjYXLFhk34EXuWj3yMQnDcC4vEJajaEdMre77TkDog" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="1024" height="109" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgnaE-2NxsOCsZFmZVNNNorAXe4cfqxVtg3im-x5AvQu9KtV0nzJWwOdxsgkbreZTyMloENy01ONm6XTma6CtcUQ5Tf95gIgSO21ZI5hDKs6JmDzZQ27yjS0fs5-CdMKjT3SpJjqvoPTH8OvjYXLFhk34EXuWj3yMQnDcC4vEJajaEdMre77TkDog" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Alexandrinus: "O ΩN KAI O HN OCIOS (which art and which wast holy one)"</p><p style="text-align: left;">The phrase gets shorter with the passage of time. The earliest reading from 250 AD says, "και οσιος" (P 47). Then by 350 AD scribes changed "και" to "ο" and the phrase became "ο οσιος" (Sinaiticus). Then by 400 AD scribes dropped the "ο" and the phrase became "οσιος" (Alexandrinus). Thereafter the Byzantine manuscripts vary between "οσιος" (as in Alexandrinus) and "ο οσιος" (Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Text 2005). Consider the gradual change of the text with the passage of time:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"και οσιος" (250 AD)</li><li>"ο οσιος" (350 AD)</li><li>"οσιος" (400 AD)</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">This variant is evidence that scribes either edited this phrase to tweak the grammar or were careless in copying this phrase. It is reasonable to doubt the integrity of the text in all existing manuscripts. The Greek texts of Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1550 have "ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος." These texts agree with P47 and other manuscripts such as 1006, 1841, 2053 and 2026 in having "και" before "οσιος" (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). Since P47 and other manuscripts have "και," Beza only replaced "οσιος" with "εσομενος.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Now that it has been established that the book of Revelation was corrupted early and extensively, and that the earliest manuscripts which do have Revelation 16:5 are corrupt, it is time to consider the four theories as to how "και ο εσομενος" (and shalt be) could have been the original reading.</p></blockquote><p>1) Dealing with the last first, it has not been "established" but merely asserted that "Revelation was corrupted early and extensively." The textual data shows otherwise. There are minor differences amongst the copies, but minor differences are not equivalent to "extensive corruption."</p><p>2) The assertion, "The phrase gets shorter with the passage of time," is an example of an attempt to fit the data to a linear assumption about the text. This assumption might seem like a reasonable fit at first glance. However, once we review the variants found in the later manuscripts, the idea of a linear progression goes out the window. Additionally, the evidence from versional and patristic citations does not support the linear progression theory. Moreover, the evidence of the text of other New Testament books shows us that a linear progression of the text is not an accurate model for the textual transmission. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while "ο οσιος" is fewer characters than "και οσιος," it is the same number of words, just one of the words is different. Furthermore, in the one different word, there are no overlapping letters. So, a model of linearly dropping words or characters is not a good fit, even to the data cited by KTA.</p><p>3) Recall that KTA previously mentioned "four" pre-10th century manuscripts. Why ignore the fourth in this analysis? In one way, it would be broadly supportive of KTA's comment, as the reading of Alexandrinus and of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus are the same, and from about the same time. That said, the linear model of textual transmission is not accurate.</p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p>IV. Response to "Theory 1: John wrote "Ο Εσομενος" in Nomen Sacrum Form"</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">In the fourth main section, KTA provided a two-part proposal for a first theory of how Beza's conjecture could be correct. This, and the remaining theories, are the meat of the argument. </div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">4.1 Nomina Sacra</h4><p>Nomina sacra (singular: nomen sacrum) are sacred names or titles of God which were often abbreviated in early manuscripts (Comfort, Philip W. and Barrett, David P. <i>The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts</i>. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House. (2001), pp.34-35). Examples include:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaE-qrGLFM-rIOgDxARJKQS03ZmEJ-j0TZWlaCnT1bBCaIItjzrLzQKcnbZ6a2IVZhYoQWadHpsBZlPynytO71GrXA9DDvKAXypPoSI9EgFQhu3XRiR09MeFXwftvqWYwuzlhJVBd5bRoOOTXzqD3Eej-scQUhE5YN4Z1kCw8WzGLJwV1l_ZgdHA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="78" data-original-width="202" height="124" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaE-qrGLFM-rIOgDxARJKQS03ZmEJ-j0TZWlaCnT1bBCaIItjzrLzQKcnbZ6a2IVZhYoQWadHpsBZlPynytO71GrXA9DDvKAXypPoSI9EgFQhu3XRiR09MeFXwftvqWYwuzlhJVBd5bRoOOTXzqD3Eej-scQUhE5YN4Z1kCw8WzGLJwV1l_ZgdHA" width="320" /></a></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">The common features of nomina sacra are (1) an abbreviation; and (2) a line above the name. It is surprising to see some of the words which scribes wrote as nomina sacra. Even remotely divine words such as "cross", "Israel", and "Jerusalem" were sometimes written as nomina sacra. In P75 at John 3:8, both the noun, "πνεῦμα" (wind) and the verb, "πνεῖ" (blows) are written as nomina sacra (<a href="http://thequaternion.blogspot.com/2011/02/p75-and-nomina-sacra.html">http://thequaternion.blogspot.com/2011/02/p75-and-nomina-sacra.html</a>). This peculiar nomen sacrum at John 3:8 was not carried over in future manuscripts. However, it goes to show that just about anything that is remotely divine qualified as a nomen sacrum.<p style="text-align: left;">Although some scholars believe that nomina sacra were invented by later scribes, there is a possibility that the original writers of the New Testament were the originators of some of the more common nomina sacra (Philip Comfort, <i>Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism</i>, (2005) p. 10). Perhaps the Apostle John himself wrote the words that refer to God in "κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος" (O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be) in an abbreviated nomina sacra form.</p><p style="text-align: left;">"Ων" (are), "ην" (was) and "εσομενος" (shall be) are conjugations of the verb "ειμι" (am), which is a suitable nomen sacrum. In Exodus 3:14, we read, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM" (KJV). God's most sacred name is the great "I AM". This verse in the Greek Septuagint is, "καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" (LXX). The following Orthodox art is an example of "ο ων" being used as Christ's divine name or title. Notice the nomina sacra for "Jesus" and "Christ" on each side of Christ's halo, which contains "ο ων" with the individual letters dispersed in three quadrants):</p><p style="text-align: left;">See the image at <a href="http://www.bethel-ucity.org/images/1025-5264a.jpg">http://www.bethel-ucity.org/images/1025-5264a.jpg</a> </p><p style="text-align: left;">[image not in the article, and not reproduced here]</p><p style="text-align: left;">(Image by Bethel Lutheran Church, University City, Missouri)</p><p style="text-align: left;">It is clear that at least "ο ων" in Revelation 16:5 is an indisputable nomen sacrum. The other forms of the verb in the phrase, "ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος" are also part of God's divine name. The Jerusalem Targum, written by Jewish Rabbis, refers to God as "He who Am, and Was, and Will Be" at Deuteronomy 32:39:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"When the Word of the Lord shall reveal Himself to redeem His people, He will say to all the nations: Behold now, that I am <u>He who Am, and Was, and Will Be</u>, and there is no other God beside Me:" (J.W. Etheridge, <i>The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch</i>. (1865), p. 669).</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa also referred to God as "ο εσομενος" (see above). If it were customary for Jews to refer to God as "He who Am, and Was, and Will Be", John may have written the entire line, "ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος" as a triadic string of nomina sacra. He may have written the line as:</p><p style="text-align: center;">ΟΩΝКАІΟΗΝКАІΟЄC</p><p style="text-align: left;">In nomen sacrum form, "ο εσομενος" might be abbreviated as OЄC. In context where the present participle and the imperfect are mentioned together in sequence, the mere two letters "ЄC" may suffice to indicate the future participle of "ειμι". In fact, in the Codex Sinaiticus it appears as though the place where "OOCIOC" now appears may have contained a three-lettered word. Sinaiticus has two full-sized Omicrons followed by "CIOC" all made to fit in the space of just one letter:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkXqNI5WygEpux7A5cL4n3LrrXfxJVM4gHljnTut9yUupsC1JLImv2MNfYcmtGqcC2rzRDdjrQ-hQUJmgAPvttGIlOjaNSYrrF_4jhdgq5xxqc7gThSFQ5JDXXfzcufjsekXlWjNF7zpAYsQ4pfEqbBZv9f9HXkzsoJRniw6LMqCFnEVatnR7Mww" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="71" data-original-width="180" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkXqNI5WygEpux7A5cL4n3LrrXfxJVM4gHljnTut9yUupsC1JLImv2MNfYcmtGqcC2rzRDdjrQ-hQUJmgAPvttGIlOjaNSYrrF_4jhdgq5xxqc7gThSFQ5JDXXfzcufjsekXlWjNF7zpAYsQ4pfEqbBZv9f9HXkzsoJRniw6LMqCFnEVatnR7Mww" width="320" /></a></div><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: center;">"O OCIOC" in Codex Sinaiticus</p><p style="text-align: left;">John may not have foreseen that the meaning of the abbreviation might be lost in future transmissions of the text. However, if the middle line in the rounded Epsilon of ΟЄC disappeared and the character became a Sigma, the word may have changed to ΟCC. A scribe who saw this may have thought ΟCC to be a nomen sacrum abbreviation of ΟCΙΟC (Holy One). Such a mistake is reasonable because ΟCΙΟC, meaning "Holy One", is also a suitable nomen sacrum. Furthermore, if "КАІOЄC" changed to "КАІOCIOC", there is a reasonable explanation as to why P47 says, "και οσιος" rather than "και ο οσιος".</p><p style="text-align: left;">A critic might point out that if the words "ΟΩΝКАІΟΗΝКАІΟЄC" were written in nomina sacra form, the words ought to have overlines just as we see in other nomina sacra. Yet, how would such overlines disappear from every manuscript? This problem could be overcome if we suppose that the nomina sacra form as we know today developed in two steps. Perhaps the original writers wrote nomina sacra in abbreviated form without any overlines. Then, later scribes may have invented the practice of adding overlines to make the nomina sacra more prominent. Perhaps the later scribes added overlines above words such as "Jesus" and "God" but did not think to add overlines above "OΩΝ" or "OЄC". As we have yet to fully understand the origin of the nomina sacra form, this is a possible hypothesis. Perhaps there were no overlines over "ΟΩΝКАІΟΗΝКАІΟЄC" to begin with.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p>1) I credit this section of the article with the inspiration that led to Nick Sayers' book. It is not the same argument Nick presented, but I believe it sparked some ideas that led to Nick's theory and ultimately to his book.</p><p>2) It is interesting to note that "ο ων" is used as a title of Jesus in Byzantine religious art (i.e. "icons"). As such icons are inappropriate, I reproduce only a censored version below. Nevertheless, in the censored image you can see "ο ων" inscribed within the figure's halo.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeeTJhcnrGsflM8O1XCyJ0loPwrl5LAdBrm37Sv320BGguWgQI1qDJtUOUfUmXvQ_wfS8tFfsIHmKYfhksncsUCiNNKogQIOtM3Etr1wMw-Y0wYGz-Ppg8H5giERfg056FMDs1DFPFCCYoMzk7WsGwBmBU2ZFEfOq83M_a1pJ4UiWBxUHzuAT6w/s222/iconwithOWNletters.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="222" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeeTJhcnrGsflM8O1XCyJ0loPwrl5LAdBrm37Sv320BGguWgQI1qDJtUOUfUmXvQ_wfS8tFfsIHmKYfhksncsUCiNNKogQIOtM3Etr1wMw-Y0wYGz-Ppg8H5giERfg056FMDs1DFPFCCYoMzk7WsGwBmBU2ZFEfOq83M_a1pJ4UiWBxUHzuAT6w/s1600/iconwithOWNletters.png" width="222" /></a></div>3) When KTA asserts, "It is clear that at least "ο ων" in Revelation 16:5 is an indisputable nomen sacrum," we should offer some pushback. The "IC" and "XC" abbreviations in this image are examples of what are called "nomina sacra" style abbreviations, as distinct from other kinds of abbreviations, such as suspension (e.g. "Imp." for Imperator or "Caes." for "Caesar", where only the first few letters are provided), acronym (e.g. ἰχθύς (Ichthus), which takes suspension to the next level by using initial letters of multiple words to form a word - in this example, Ἰησοῦς Χρῑστός Θεοῦ Yἱός Σωτήρ, meaning "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior," or ligature, such as the Omicron Upsilon ligature, ȣ shown twice on the right side of the icon, where two or more letters are combined into a single symbol). The letters O ω N are not examples of what are called "nomina sacra" abbreviations. They are a spelling out of the Greek phrase "ο ων" (with the nu shaped like a capital N rather than a lower case v). <br /><p>4) If what KTA means is that "ο ων" is a phrase that is used a title of God, this can be established contextually, without reference to later Byzantine idolatry. In the same way that "ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου" (shown in two parts above the shoulders in the icon) i.e. "the savior of the world" is a title of God, so also is "ο ων" (the being one). For evidence of the former, we can go to John 4:42, where that title is used by the Samaritan acquaintances of the Samaritan woman to refer to Jesus. Similarly, the phrase "ο ων" is used of God in Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5. </p><p>5) The phrase "ο ων" is likewise used specifically of Jesus in Romans 9:5, 2 Corinthians 11:31, and Revelation 5:5 (although it is not treated as a title there in the KJV). John uses the phrase in John 1:18, John 3:13, John 3:31, John 6:46, John 8:47, John 12:17, and John 18:37, all of which are just treated as ordinary uses in the KJV, but some of which could be understood as references to Jesus' divine nature, akin to the phrase "I am." Indeed, as KTA noted the first use of the phrase "ὁ ὤν" in the Septuagint is as part of the phrase, "ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" (I am the being one). Moses is told by God to tell the children of Israel that "ὁ ὤν" (the being one) has sent him to them.</p><p>6) So, on the one hand, the phrase is a title of God, although it can also be used in an ordinary sense. It's hard to tell how many of the Johannine uses are intended to be allusions to Exodus 3:14, but this is a point worthy of further consideration.</p><p>7) The phrase "ὁ ἦν" is not a participle, but instead is an imperfective indicative. It is not often used as a title for God, apart from Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5, but is used to refer to Jesus as the initial words of John's first epistle: "Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς" (Who has been from the beginning ...). It is also used to refer to the Beast in Revelation 17:11, "τὸ θηρίον ὃ ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν" (the Beast, the one has been and is not ...). </p><p>8) The phrase "ὁ ἐρχόμενος" (the coming one) is used of God in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8. The phase is also applied to Jesus in Matthew 11:3, Matthew 21:9 (quoting Psalm 118:26), Matthew 23:39 (quoting Psalm 118:26), Mark 11:9 (quoting Psalm 118:26), Luke 7:19-20, Luke 13:36 (quoting Psalm 118:26), Luke 19:38 (quoting Psalm 118:26), John 6:14, John 12:13 (quoting Psalm 118:26), and Hebrews 10:37. Psalm 118:26 (Septuagint numbering 117:26) uses the phrase. </p><p>It is also used in a more usual sense in 2 Samuel 2:23 (Septuagint), Luke 6:47, John 6:35, and 2 Corinthians 11:4. Thus, like "ο ων" or "ὁ ἦν" so also "ὁ ἐρχόμενος" is used of God (and specifically of Christ) not only here in Revelation but elsewhere.</p><p>9) By contrast, the only time the word εσομενος appears in the Septuagint or New Testament is in Septuagint Job 15:14, which states: "τίς γὰρ ὢν βροτός ὅτι ἔσται ἄμεμπτος ἢ ὡς ἐσόμενος δίκαιος γεννητὸς γυναικός" "For who, being a mortal, can be without fault? Or who, being born of a woman, can be righteous?" It's hard to translate the future participle of "to be" in English, but the sense is something like, in the second half, "Or who shall ever be born of a woman and be righteous?" In context, Eliphaz is affirming the universal sinfulness of mankind, although perhaps in an interesting way this points us forward to the one and only exception, which is Christ.</p><p>10) Moreover, the phrase "ὁ ἐσόμενος" is never used as title of God. The closest exception would be the one statement by Clement of Alexandria, where he uses it as a part of the explanation of the meaning of Yahweh (alluded to above, and discussed at the link provided above). </p><p>11) Gregory of Nyssa is not an exception. Gregory's usage is a benediction similar to what we find in Romans 9:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:31. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Gregory: "Κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης <b><u>ὁ Χριστὸς</u></b> <b><u>ὁ ὢν</u></b> καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος͵ <b><u>εὐλογητὸς</u></b> νῦν καὶ <b><u>εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας</u></b> τῶν αἰώνων͵ ἀμήν."</p><p>Romans 9:5 - ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν <b><u>ὁ Χριστὸς</u></b> τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· <b><u>ὁ ὢν</u></b> ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς <b><u>εὐλογητὸς</u></b> <b><u>εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας</u></b> ἀμήν</p><p>2 Corinthians 11:31 - ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ <b><u>Χριστοῦ</u></b> οἶδεν <b><u>ὁ ὢν</u></b> <b><u>εὐλογητὸς</u></b> <b><u>εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας</u></b> ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p>It is an interesting question whether the KJV ought to have translated "<b><u>ὁ ὢν</u></b>" as a title, such as "the Being One" or the like. However, in point of fact, the KJV translates them as "who is" or "which is," not "the Being One." </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Romans 9:5 - Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.</p><p>2 Corinthians 11:31 - The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.</p><p>Likewise, Gregory: "And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen." Gregory of Nyssa, <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xii.iii.html">On the Baptism of Christ</a> </p></blockquote><p>The "and was and shall be" is just a pious expansion of the "is" in the doxological formula found in 2 Corinthians 11:31 and similar to that of Romans 9:5. </p><p>On this point, KTA has an interesting dilemma. KTA can claim that Gregory offers evidence for a titular use of ὁ ὢν (and by extension also of ὁ ... πρόων and ὁ ... ἐσόμενος) but in doing so would suggest that the KJV mistranslated Romans 9:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:31. On the other hand, the careful eye notes a distinction between Gregory and the Revelation uses. In Revelation, in each case, each verb is preceded by its own article, whereas Gregory has one article for all three. The use is different. As much as I would like to improve the KJV, I think the KJV may already be correct at Romans 9:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:31, though I am open to an argument to the contrary. Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 11:31 "blessed" is consider the object of the being verb. If this translation is correct, then likewise "blessed" is the object of "is, was, and shall be" in Gregory. </p><p>13) The weakness of this theory is not limited to these points. There are several additional problems with the nomina sacra theory.</p><p>First, as KTA seems to concede, no one knows exactly when nomina sacra abbreviation came to be used. The assumption of most attempts at reconstructing the New Testament is to assume that words were written out, not abbreviated. My personal theory is that nomina sacra was used during time of persecution to obscure certain words for which the Roman soldiers were looking to identify a document Christian. The nomina sacra abbreviation method left the word looking like a Greek numeral. This allowed the document to survive the persecutors.</p><p>Second, the development of nomina sacra abbreviations seems to have begun with a core group of 4 to 6 contracted words, and eventually to have expanded to about 15. While KTA is right that occasionally words outside the 15 list were abbreviated in the same manner, this is a rarity.</p><p>Third, one of the characteristics of the nomina sacra style of abbreviations is that an overstroke was used to indicate the abbreviation (and, as I have surmised, possibly also to give the word the appearance of being a number). In the one instance that KTA appeals to as potentially being a candidate for such an abbreviation, there is no such overstroke. KTA's supposition that maybe nomina sacra style abbreviations were originally done without overstrokes is pure speculation. </p><p>Fourth, we have not been presented with a single instance in which ἐσόμενος was ever so abbreviated, in any literature. As one will recognize, abbreviations are useful to the extent that they can be understood by the intended reader. However, one-off abbreviations are not useful in this way.</p><p>Fifth, we should acknowledge that it is possible that the New Testament authors themselves employed these abbreviations, as they are found even in papyri manuscripts. That said, we have no examples of any being verbs being so abbreviated. All fifteen of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra">usual list</a> of nomina sacra are nouns (God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Human, Jerusalam, Heaven). KTA offers an interesting counter-example of a place where "blows" (a verb) is abbreviated in nomina sacra style. However, that is not the normal case.</p><p>Sixth, KTA's proposal that "In nomen sacrum form, "ο εσομενος" might be abbreviated as OЄC," is unreasonable. First, none of the usual nomina sacra style abbreviations incorporate the article into the abbreviation. Second, even if we assume KTA means that "εσομενος" might be abbreviated as ... ЄC," this too is unreasonable. The word, εσομενος, is an infrequently used word. The proposed abbreviation would be ambiguous with other Greek words even including other forms of εἰμί, such as εἴης. Thus, this seems very unlikely.</p><p>Seventh, John was a seer and was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who certainly did know the future. While OCC might seem like a reasonable abbreviation in the nomina sacra style for οσιος, adjectives were less often so abbreviated. Apparently, the word ἅγιος was abbreviated at least once as <span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: overline;">α</span></span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: overline;">ς</span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"> </span>(<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Texte_und_Untersuchungen_zur_Geschichte/SIXSAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA788&printsec=frontcover">source</a>), so we should not say it is impossible that there could be an abbreviation for the less common οσιος as well. However, following a similar pattern, one would expect that to be <span face="sans-serif" style="color: #202122;"><span style="font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: overline;">ο</span></span><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: overline;">ς</span>.</p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">4.2 Theory 1: Conclusion</h4><p style="text-align: left;">With the above being a possibility, the following chronological chart explains how the intended "και ο εσομενος" could have changed to "ο οσιος":</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>КАІ ΟЄC</b>" (100 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">John wrote "ο εσομενος" in nomen sacrum form</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>КАІ ΟCC</b>" (100-250AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">The middle line in the rounded Epsilon disappeared</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>КАІ OCIOC</b>" (100-250 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">Scribes thought the nomen sacrum referred to "Holy One"</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>КАІ OCIOC</b>" (250 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in P47</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>Ο ΟCΙΟC</b>" (350 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in Sinaiticus</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>ΟCΙΟC</b>" (400 AD):</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in Alexandrinus</p></blockquote><p>While we can applaud the creativity of this chart, there is nothing to corroborate the first few critical steps of the process, and the linear model for the latter steps is plainly wrong. One advantage of this theory over some others that could be offered is that it aims to account both for the asserted loss of "the shall-being one" and the gain of "O Holy One."</p><p>V. Response to "Theory 2: Bad Conditions Gave Rise to Corruption"</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div>In the fifth main section, KTA provided a multi-part proposal for a second theory of how Beza's conjecture could be correct. This theory, because it is more general is more dangerous to the doctrine of preservation of the text. Nevertheless, we must carefully consider KTA's claims. </div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;">5.1 Confirmable Transcription Errors</h3><p>Scribes are known for making some strange transcription errors. Consider the following confirmable mistakes of the scribe of Sinaiticus:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The proper reading in Revelation 10:1 is "ιρις" (rainbow). However, the original hand of Sinaiticus has "θριξ" (hair). Thus the original scribe of Sinaiticus wrote, "I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud with hair on his head."</li><li>The proper reading in Revelation 21:4 is "πρωτα" (former things). However, the original hand of Sinaiticus has "προβατα" (sheep). Thus the original scribe of Sinaiticus wrote, "neither shall there be any more sorrow, nor crying, nor pain; for the sheep have passed away."</li><li>The proper reading in Revelation 21:5 is "καινα" (new). However, Sinaiticus has "κενα" (empty). Thus the scribe of Sinaiticus wrote, "Behold, I make all things empty."</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>If a scribe could mistake "ιρις" for "θριξ," "πρωτα" for "προβατα," and "καινα" for "κενα," it is certainly reasonable to suppose that a scribe mistook "εσομενος" for "οσιος." The common feature of all these other confirmable mistakes is that the original reading and the erred reading can look fairly similar. For example, "ιρις" and "θριξ" share 2 same letters. "πρωτα" and "προβατα" share the same beginning and ending letters. "καινα" and "κενα" share the same beginning and ending letters. Likewise, "εσομενος" and "οσιος" share enough of the same graphic features that a careless scribe might mistake one for the other.</p></blockquote><p>1) I actually don't agree with KTA's take. As for KTA's three examples, "hair on his head" is actually a lot less strange than "a rainbow on his head." Moreover, sheep passing away is much less odd than an adjective with no noun passing away. Finally, given the preceding verse about removing tears, death, and (the scribe thought) sheep, making things "empty" is at least as natural as making them "new." So, I don't think these are "strange transcription errors," I think they are quite natural transcription errors.</p><p>2) While I agree that there are some graphical similarities between "εσομενος" and "οσιος" they are not really that close. Likewise, I would think it more likely that the Sinaiticus scribe's errors selected for this example were phonic, rather than graphic, and the sound difference is greater with "εσομενος" and "οσιος" than with the given examples.</p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">5.2 Three Conditions That Could Give Rise to Erroneous Copying</h4><p>Even if "ο εσομενος" was not written as a nomen sacrum, we can still provide a reasonable hypothesis as to how "ο εσομενος" could be confused as "οσιος". There are three conditions that could lead to a scribe mistaking "εσομενος" for "οσιος". They are: </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A poorly written text</li><li>An abbreviated text</li><li>A damaged text</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><p>We will consider each of these in turn:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">5.2.1 Poorly Written Text</h4><p>Scribes did not always write words clearly. Consider how confusing and barely legible the word "οσιος" appears in Sinaiticus:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjTrtpicFMa0nc8pS6bDCJX2QkSRdgr54mwjkVTAEL2E_8rNXlsnQ8fablElU6296vgBPcHEQu6HIKYiJHipncA12kHTx5zPxpepQXw5F5cNIJbj6tifY5SyU7rNKu1Gem1xiWOCM5mUjINz1pOCgQ9lcmDjecSGhgpbH9orgxA1zZo84CJIBKrVw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="546" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjTrtpicFMa0nc8pS6bDCJX2QkSRdgr54mwjkVTAEL2E_8rNXlsnQ8fablElU6296vgBPcHEQu6HIKYiJHipncA12kHTx5zPxpepQXw5F5cNIJbj6tifY5SyU7rNKu1Gem1xiWOCM5mUjINz1pOCgQ9lcmDjecSGhgpbH9orgxA1zZo84CJIBKrVw" width="320" /></a></div><p></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">The underlined portion reads: "O ΩN KAI O HN O OCIOS (which art and which wast that holy one)"</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjoAGhRaWIxWESVUOhUqRTT-u1lmrWYuABSpSGVi9zUPYcDsL6nwOLIR4GLj7e_VsZNys3mf-v_dfIsPyonIzTU0tEWVcYr2Vk7hv9EN2UIRHyM7meYqOOOxm3Lw31E_RHZLbhrPfCIYWXLppoM16bhPCxpWK96r2-_PBBy6gdSgDSt2cVAe3VGrA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="71" data-original-width="180" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjoAGhRaWIxWESVUOhUqRTT-u1lmrWYuABSpSGVi9zUPYcDsL6nwOLIR4GLj7e_VsZNys3mf-v_dfIsPyonIzTU0tEWVcYr2Vk7hv9EN2UIRHyM7meYqOOOxm3Lw31E_RHZLbhrPfCIYWXLppoM16bhPCxpWK96r2-_PBBy6gdSgDSt2cVAe3VGrA" width="320" /></a></div><p></p></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">The last four letters of "ο οσιος" are scrunched together and barely legible</p><p style="text-align: left;">"ο οσιος" is difficult to read in Sinaiticus not because of any effect of age, such as fading, but because the letters are scrunched together. This word would have been just as difficult to read when the codex was still new. Considering that a scribe could write "ο οσιος" as illegibly as it appears in Sinaiticus, it is not unreasonable to suppose that a scribe who saw "ο εσομενος" in a condensed and barely legible form mistook it for "ο οσιος".</p></blockquote><p></p><p>1) Sinaiticus is around 1700 years old. I suspect it was more legible when it was first written. Also, some of the lack of clarity may be due to distortion resulting from image compression of the image itself.</p><p>2) While I agree that the smaller letters are harder to read, the smaller letters at the right side of the column are a frequent feature of this manuscript. Someone reading the manuscript, therefore, would expect and take into account such miniaturization of the letters and pay greater attention, not less, in such circumstances.</p><p>3) While this specific effect is applicable to Sinaiticus, where "osios" happened to fall at the end of a line, there is no reason to suppose that "osios" usually fell at the end of the line, such that a similar effect would be seen in many other of the now lost exemplar manuscripts of the fourth century.</p><p>Turning to the next sub-section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">5.2.2 Abbreviated Text</h4><p>There is even a possibility that a scribe used an abbreviation for ο εσομενος, which may have looked very much like οσιος. Abbreviations for the purpose of nomina sacra have been discussed above, but even ordinary words were abbreviated on occasions. An abbreviation may have been used to save space at the end of a line or page, for example. A subsequent copyist of a papyrus with that abbreviated form of ο εσομενος may have thought that it was οσιος. There is evidence that scribes had the tendency to abbreviate some common words. Consider the text of P47 and how the scribe adopted an unusual abbreviation for ανθρωπων at Revelation 9:15: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-IcLs7df67LJFKYImhAjgzWjrW0aQCjZzIkjBTVO639KjQotgXZycBAO8ev5uZrgzeTxFwoEj-6_soSdR0PP7MxwFMxbRfCP2n-Rp0kGN0lUclkjuhAPNDGwfQp-Ssa3eJr3YfpO3yCbi9ZDwC1rs4vmpmEuVMwJaG9RLIZfnQI1JsIX6E-Hgtg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="226" data-original-width="425" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi-IcLs7df67LJFKYImhAjgzWjrW0aQCjZzIkjBTVO639KjQotgXZycBAO8ev5uZrgzeTxFwoEj-6_soSdR0PP7MxwFMxbRfCP2n-Rp0kGN0lUclkjuhAPNDGwfQp-Ssa3eJr3YfpO3yCbi9ZDwC1rs4vmpmEuVMwJaG9RLIZfnQI1JsIX6E-Hgtg" width="320" /></a></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;">The underlined portion is from Revelation 9:15</div><p style="text-align: left;">Sir Frederic G. Kenyon commented on this strange abbreviation. He says, "The very unusual (if not unique) abbreviation, αθν for ανθρωπων, occurs on fol. Iv, l. 19." (Preface to the Revelation portion of The Chester Beatty Biblical papyri : descriptions and texts of twelve manuscripts on papyrus of the Greek Bible). It would not be surprising if a scribe who abbreviated ανθρωπων as αθν also abbreviated ο εσομενος as something like ο εσμος, which could easily be confused with οσιος. Moreover, an abbreviation of ο εσομενος, such as ο εσμος, would have had a line above the abbreviation to indicate that it is an abbreviation. But lines also indicated nomina sacra ("sacred names"). Thus a scribe seeing "εσμος" with a line above it could have mistakenly read the word as "οσιος" because "Holy One" would be a suitable sacred name of God.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p>1) KTA does not make clear that the issue with this example of nomina sacra style abbreviation is not about whether anthropon (human) is abbreviated, but specifically how. There is a more common way to abbreviate anthropon, but this scribe did not follow that more usual way. As noted above, this is one of the 15 relatively commonly abbreviated words within the nomina sacra type abbreviation system, though not one of the core four to six words (God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, and Spirit).</p><p>2) Although some authors speculate that the nomina sacra style abbreviations were space-saving techniques, I am not persuaded that this view is correct. The choice of words to abbreviate does not seem to have been based on frequency nor on length. Of course, such a view is possible.</p><p>3) I don't agree that "εσμος" would have "easily" been confused with οσιος. To begin to substantiate this theory, one would probably want to identify some case where "esmos" was an abbreviation for "esomenos" (KTA does not offer any) and/or some other place where an esomonos/osios substitution allegedly took place. Neither of those building blocks for this argument have been provided. </p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next sub-section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">5.2.3 Damaged Text</h4><p>Scribes using damaged manuscripts may have had to make their best guesses as to what the damaged portions contained. Beza had a manuscript that was damaged at Revelation 16:5. He said:</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">"The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." (Theodore Beza, Novum Sive Novum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Whereas Beza believed the damaged portion contained "ο εσομενος", other scribes looking at a damaged copy of Revelation 16:5 may have believed the portion in question contained "ο οσιος".</p></blockquote><p>1) This is not what Beza said. See above for a more accurate translation of Beza, which does not mention anything about sections being worn away. </p><p>2) This argument seems to imply a linear copying pattern for Revelation, such that the one and only exemplar was worn away before being copied, and thus left no trace of the allegedly original reading. This is an untenable explanation given the geographic diversity of the text from ancient times.</p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next sub-section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">5.3 Theory 2: Conclusion</h4><p>With all of the above being possibilities, the following may have been the way the text in Revelation 16:5 became corrupt:</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;">και ο εσομενος</strong>" (100 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">As conjectured by Beza</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">KAI O </strong></span><span face="Lato, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><s style="box-sizing: border-box;">Є</s></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><s style="box-sizing: border-box;"><strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">C</strong></s></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">O</strong></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><s style="box-sizing: border-box;"><strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">M</strong></s></span><span face="Lato, sans-serif" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><s style="box-sizing: border-box;">Є</s></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121; font-family: "Open Sans"; font-size: 14.6667px; font-variant-ligatures: none; text-align: center; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><strong style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;">NOC</strong></span>" (100-250AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">The word became illegible and/or abbreviated</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>KAI OCIOC</b>" (100-250AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">A scribe attempted to salvage the illegible word</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>KAI OCIOC</b>" (250 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in P47</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>Ο ΟCΙΟC</b>" (350 AD)</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in Sinaiticus</p><p style="text-align: center;">↓</p><p style="text-align: center;">"<b>ΟCΙΟC</b>" (400 AD):</p><p style="text-align: center;">As seen in Alexandrinus</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">A copyist error due to a poorly written script, an abbreviation, damaged papyrus, or a combination of all three factors may have arisen early in the transmission process.</p></blockquote><p>As hinted at above, this solution would suggest that we should have no confidence in any of the readings of the New Testament, because it suggests that a bottle-neck exemplar could be corrupted to the point where all the manuscript evidence including in all versions and citations fails. It seems to be based on the flawed linear manuscript chain view objected to above.</p><p>There is no possible way that this series of unfortunate events could be viewed as a more probable explanation of the manuscript evidence than that osios is the original. </p><div><p>VI. Response to "Theory 3: A Scribe Harmonized 16:5 with 11:17"</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div>In the sixth main section, KTA provided a proposal for a third theory of how Beza's conjecture could be correct. This theory, surprisingly, seems even less probably than the two preceding, if that is possible. </div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">6.1 Revelation 11:17</h4><p>Revelation 11:17 in the Textus Receptus reads, "ευχαριστουμεν σοι κυριε ο θεος ο παντοκρατωρ ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος" (We thank you Lord God Almighty, who is and who was and who is to come). However, some ancient manuscripts read differently, not having "και ο ερχομενος". Although Tyconius (4th century), 1841 (9th/10th century), 051 (10th century), 1006 (11th century) and other witnesses have the clause, Sinaiticus (4th century) and Alexandrinus (5th century) do not (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)).</p></blockquote><p>1) "Some" is an understatement. Most (of the 100 transcribed by INTF) do not include και ο ερχομενος, although an interesting minority include a και with an accompanying ο ερχομενος.</p><p>2) Harmonization with the recitation of και ο ερχομενος in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8 is the best explanation for the inclusion of the phrase at Revelation 11:17 in a minority of manuscripts. </p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Turning to the next section of KTA's article: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h4 style="text-align: left;">6.2 Harmonization</h4><p>The triadic formula mentioning the past, present and future appear at Revelation 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8 in all manuscripts. In a manuscript that does not have the future aspect of the formula at 11:17, it would appear as though the author of Revelation is saying that Christ has already come by 11:17. Such a suspicion is strengthened by Revelation 11:15, which reads, "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Some interpret this verse 11:15, just two verses before 11:17, as saying that Christ has already come (However, a counterargument could be made that verse 15 only fulfills a claim to the temporal realm and Christ actually comes later at Revelation 19:11-16). Perhaps 11:15 is the reason a scribe may have omitted "και ο ερχομενος" at 11:17. Whether or not "και ο ερχομενος" is authentic at 11:17, the fact is that the future clause did not appear in some early manuscripts.</p><p>A scribe having a manuscript with the future clause omitted at 11:17, may have looked at a manuscript with "και ο εσομενος" at 16:5 and believed it to be an error. Since the future aspect of Christ was no longer addressed by 11:17, it may have seemed erroneous to address the future aspect at 16:5. This, of course, depends on whether the scribe read the narrative from 11:17 to 16:5 as a continuous chronological narrative. If so, a scribe would have had contextual reasons to avoid transcribing "και ο εσομενος" at 16:5.</p><p>This theory of harmonization could be best considered if it is considered in tandem with the other two theories, namely, the theory that "ο εσομενος" was written as a nomen sacrum or the theory that poor conditions gave rise to corruptions of "ο εσομενος". When "ο εσομενος" at 16:5 became indiscernible or illegible, the contextual factor that the future aspect of God was not mentioned at 11:17 may have persuaded a scribe to avoid having the future aspect at 16:5. "O οσιος" may have been preferable for such a scribe.</p></blockquote><p>1) The wording of Revelation 4:8 is similar to but different from Revelation 1:4 and 1:8. Calling it "The triadic formula," therefore, is at least slightly misleading.</p><p>2) It is an interesting possibility that some scribes omitted due to contextual suggestions of Christ's second coming taking place at the seventh trumpet. I think that harmonization with the previous phrases is a more likely explanation for the inclusion of the phrase in a minority of manuscripts, but this aspect of KTA's argument has at least a little merit.</p><p>3) The big challenge for KTA's position is that even the manuscripts that have και ο ερχομενος at Revelation 11:17 do not have και ο εσομενος (nor και ο ερχομενος) at Revelation 16:5. This is hard to explain. If only the manuscripts lacking και ο ερχομενος at Revelation 11:17 also lacked και ο εσομενος at Revelation 16:5, this would make more sense.</p><p>4) The interesting further issue is that Beza himself argued that και ο ερχομενος would be inappropriate at Revelation 16, because Jesus has come in judgment in chapter 15. A similar mentality could explain the omission of και ο ερχομενος in Revelation 16:5, but KTA is not arguing that και ο ερχομενος was in Revelation 16:5.</p><p>5) In addition to the above, "holy," is not from Revelation 11:17, even in the copies that fail to insert και ο ερχομενος. Thus, at best this argument would only explain the absence of και ο ερχομενος in Revelation 16:5 (and presumably by extension και ο εσομενος), but it would not explain the presence of "holy." </p><p></p><blockquote style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: none; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><p>VII. Response to "Theory 4: A Hebraist imposed Hebraic style onto the text"</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div>In the seventh main section, KTA provided a proposal for a fourth theory of how Beza's conjecture could be correct. This theory is probably the wildest and most troubling of all. </div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;">7.1 The Hebrew perfect and imperfect</h3><p>Greek has the future participle for the future tense of a verb. The fact that Clement of Alexandria ( The Stromata, Book V, 6 ) and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Baptism of Christ) used the future participle "ο εσομενος" to refer to Jehovah and Christ, respectively, shows that the Greeks had no problem with referring to God with the future participle. In fact, Greek would actually require the future tense to refer to the future aspect of God. John, writing for the seven Gentile churches, would have been aware of the Greek use of the future participle. In Hebrew, however, there are only two aspects - the perfect and the imperfect. Whereas Greek verb tenses focus on the timing of the action (i.e. past, present, future), Hebrew verb aspects focus on the completeness of the action (i.e. complete or incomplete). The Hebrew perfect signifies a completed action, which could correspond to the Greek past tense. The Hebrew imperfect signifies an incomplete action, which could correspond to either the Greek present or future tense.</p><p>The fact that only two aspects are required to signify all three Greek tenses means that "ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος (which art, and wast, and shalt be)" may have appeared redundant to a Hebraic reader. In Hebrew, the imperfect and perfect "ההוה והיה" captures all three Greek tenses. "ההוה והיה" translated literally and minimally could be "ο ων και ο ην". Therefore a Hebraist may have found the "ο ων και ο ην" at Revelation 16:5 to be sufficient to refer to God in all tenses. Perhaps a scribe saw a corrupted form of "ο εσομενος" due to circumstances described in Theory 1 or Theory 2 above, and having known Hebraic style he may have preferred to resolve the text as "ο οσιος" rather than "ο εσομενος".</p></blockquote><p>1) In Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8 (as well as Revelation 11:17 in the TR though not the majority of Greek manuscripts) a future "aspect" may be indicated, but it is not done through a future tense verb. Instead, ἐρχόμενος is a verb that is a <b><u>Present</u></b> Middle (or Passive Deponent) Participle. "Coming" suggests a future arrival to be sure, but it does so without a using a future tense.</p><p>2) So, although Greek does have a future tense, John (and the angel) did not use in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, or 4:8. If anything, KTA's observation seems to weigh <b><u>against</u></b> John (a Jewish believer) originally writing a future tense verb here. </p><p>3) Moreover, again, the idea that a corruption could happen so early and corrupt all the manuscripts, patristic citations, and versions is fundamentally problematic from the standpoint of providential preservation. Thankfully, we have no reason at all to believe that it occurred here.</p><div><div><p>VIII. Response to "Summary"</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p></p><div>In the concluding section of the article, KTA provided a list of bulleted points followed by a single sentence conclusion. End matter such as links to other articles and the like have been omitted. </div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;">8. Summary</h3></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"Which art, and wast, and shalt be" completes a formula.</li><li>Beatus' excerpt mentions the future aspect of God.</li><li>Haimo alluded to this formula.</li><li>Copies of Revelation were extensively corrupted very early.</li><li>Revelation 15:4 in P47 has a corruption involving "οσιος".</li><li>Revelation 11:17 has a variant related to Revelation 16:5, but with more witnesses.</li><li>Bruce Metzger approved the use of conjectural emendations in principle.</li><li>There is rabbinical and Greek authority for Beza's conjectured triadic formula.</li><li>There are only four witnesses of Revelation 16:5 prior to the 10th century.</li><li>There is evidence of textual corruption in three of these earliest manuscripts.</li><li>"ο εσομενος" may have been abbreviated as a nomen sacrum, which may have been confused with a nomen sacrum of "ο οσιος".</li><li>εσομενος and οσιος can look similar if the quality of the writing or material is poor.</li><li>Sinaiticus has confirmable examples of a scribe confusing similar-looking words.</li><li>Sinaiticus exhibits a case where the writing of ο οσιος is poor.</li><li>οσιος may look similar to an abbreviated form of ο εσομενος.</li><li>P47 exhibits a scribal tendency to create strange abbreviations to common words.</li><li>Manuscripts were prone to damage.</li><li>There is contextual motive to harmonize Revelation 16:5 with Revelation 11:17.</li><li>The grammatical construction, completely acceptable in Greek, may have appeared erroneous to a Hebraist.</li></ul><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Beza’s conjectural emendation seems reasonable under these circumstances.</p></blockquote><p>Obviously, I disagree with KTA's conclusion. I've addressed the bulleted issues in more detail above. The main rebuttal argument that could be offered to what I've pointed out above would be to suggest that we have just one strand of evidence, and that there were other manuscripts with Beza's reading. Even if that were the case, and we have no good reason to think so, it would be easier to explain the presence of Beza's reading as being based on similar conjectural reasoning to what Beza himself offered. In other words, we cannot rule out that Beza was the second (rather than the first) person to think of this. Others had noticed issues with the wording of the text before Beza and one or more of them may have tried to correct the perceived error. On the other hand, all the extant manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations favor the reading with "Holy" over Beza's conjecture. This is not a close case.</p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0WF34+66 Vatican City41.9030107 12.455556441.8998165304922 12.451264865576173 41.9062048695078 12.459847934423829tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-18800029240365083842024-01-24T01:08:00.002+00:002024-01-24T01:50:35.898+00:00Warren McGrew's Outlandish and Slanderous Accusations<p>Warren McGrew recently obtained a lot of attention by making a bizarre accusation against his theological opponents.</p><p>Warren states: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">I just wanted to highlight how that's the same kind of spirit and mindset that the ancient worshippers of pagan deities would engage in when they would sacrifice their children to Baal. Because as long as I get my good crops I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre. You know, as long as I am being blessed financially I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre. It's the same mindset where they're like well God may have eternally reprobated my child but as long as I get into heaven I'm cool with that.</p></blockquote><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qEy12rXjXsw?si=reSHal8cXT7oMyRA&clip=Ugkxv2i2EFjHoNJywE4qNjcp7iqiQDxdKmJW&clipt=EJyfBhjwlgg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /></p><p>That clip is taken from his appearance on Leighton Flowers' show. On his own show, Warren doubled down on this ridiculous claim. He stated: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">It's the same mindset -- the same Spirit -- behind adherence of infant damnation and those ancient worshippers of Molech and Ba'al who would burn their children alive in sacrifice. They say I'm out of line for drawing this comparison and to those who've raised this complaint I do want to apologize. I'm sincerely wrong that I did not use harsher terms to condemn it: like noting it's the spirit of antichrist and that it's contrary to the god of scripture. </p></blockquote><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qEy12rXjXsw?si=huaTDxC8dbtMnzNV&clip=Ugkxn7q_G_0EPdai0VvrmgVIcUHSjLGropcd&clipt=EJikGxiniB0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /></p><p>Shortly after the clip above, Warren continued with more of the same:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Let's consider that comparison for a moment. You have a pagan and they love their baby and in profound grief they toss it into the fire because ultimately they want their God's approval and if the crops come, well then ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child. Similarly, adherents of infant damnation love their baby and are in profound grief when they see God toss it into the Eternal fires of hell because ultimately they want their God's approval. And in the grand scheme of Eternity, ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child. And there you have it: that's the same mindset - same Spirit - same energy. So the comparison sticks. So, no other differences between them will actually serve to invalidate the comparison. </p></blockquote><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qEy12rXjXsw?si=lk94BJmIrkmwC-bg&clip=Ugkx0ASiLwzJyfjU4caWZ_1ae35fsl7Me8VU&clipt=EJCpHRjYiCA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /></p><p>The Rebuttal</p><p>It's not hard to rebut Warren's comparison, and there are several ways that it could be rebutted. One rebuttal that was offered by some Calvinists is that they don't hold to infant damnation. Warren's comments sounded to some people as though they were intended as a critique of Calvinism. Since infant damnation is not a core tenet of Calvinism (much less a distinctive of Calvinism), it seemed like an odd criticism, to put it mildly.</p><p>However, even if we give Warren the benefit of the doubt that he intended this as a criticism of the subset of those who do think God does damn to hell at least some humans who die in infancy, there are still gaping holes in his comparison.</p><p>First, it's one thing to offer up one's children as a sacrifice to false god, and it's quite another to accept the loss of one's children at the hand of God. Job, who had sacrificed for his children while they were alive, when he heard God had taken their lives (not knowing, of course, that Satan was God's instrument in this), responded: " the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21) This is not the same spirit as those who caused their own children to pass through the fire. </p><p>Second, as hard as it would be to stomach, if God were to command child sacrifice, it would be evidence of great faith in God to proceed toward doing it, as we saw with Abraham. The author of Hebrews tell us:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,</p></blockquote><p>Indeed, Moses tells us that God himself said:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.</p></blockquote><p>Third, the <i>quid pro quo</i> inherent in the analogy Warren offered is absent from the mindset of the folks that Warren criticizes. Those who sacrificed their children to false gods did so to obtain something from their gods. Those who humbly accept the loss of their children do not do so in order to obtain God's favor. </p><p>Even, in the case of our father Abraham, he did what he did because he trusted God, not because he was hoping to get something from God. There is nothing Abraham wanted more than a son. Not so for those who caused their children to pass through the fire: they wanted something more than they wanted their children, and consequently were willing to engage in an unholy attempt to obtain a benefit this way.</p><p>This stands in stark contrast to the resignation of believers to a hard Providence. We see David offered as both a negative example of sin causing the death of infants, but also of David's acceptance of God's decision:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>2 Samuel 12:16-23</p><p>David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.</p></blockquote><p>Some of us have taken this as an expression of David's hope to see his son in paradise, not merely in the grave. However, whether we adopt that view or not, David clearly did not want his child to die, and was grieved at the thought of it. Nevertheless, when God took the child's life, David acquiesced in what God had done. David did not curse God, but acknowledged that if the child lived it would be simply by God's grace.</p><p>In his follow-up video, Warren alleged that he did not hear rebuttal of his points, merely outrage. Well, of course there was outrage. The comparison is bumbling at best. Those who credit Warren with some measure of intelligence saw it not as a failure of his ability to understand the ill-fitting criticism of "Calvinism" nor to see the errors in his comparison even as offered more narrowly of advocates for the existence of the damnation of some humans who die in infancy. They saw it as simple slander. I'm sure those others who complained could also have offered the rebuttals above, but I offer this anyway, to close the loop.</p><p> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-24995254997168211692024-01-23T05:19:00.002+00:002024-01-23T05:19:40.085+00:00Response to Will Kinney on Revelation 16:5<p>Will Kinney has an article on Revelation 16:5 (<a href="https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Article:_Revelation_16:5_%22and_shalt_be%22_by_Will_Kinney">link to article</a>).</p><p>I thought it might be worthwhile to review the arguments and evidence provided by Will Kinney in his article hosted by Nick Sayers:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney</p><p>Revelation 16:5 "Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus."</p><p>The Book of Revelation has more textual variants than any other New Testament book. The reading found in the King James Bible in Revelation 16:5 represents one of the hundreds of such textual variants. It is admittedly a minority reading, but it should be noted that for every One minority reading found in the KJB, there are at least 20 such minority readings found in the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV. These modern versions often do not even agree with each other. One will follow a particular minority reading while the other will disagree and follow another.</p></blockquote><p>1) The issue is the removal of "O Holy One" and the replacement of it with "and shalt be" that was introduced by Theodore Beza in 1582.</p><p>2) Revelation is one of the longer books of the New Testament. So, it would not be surprising if it had the most textual variants. That said, the total number of textual variants apparently hasn't been counted. It would be surprising if Revelation had more textual variants than Matthew, given that there are many more copies of Matthew than of Revelation. It's hard to guess what Will means instead. Perhaps he means that people raise more issues with respect to the King James Version's text of Revelation than with other books. This may be the case because it is probably the least well done of the New Testament books in the King James Version.</p><p>3) Calling this substitution a "minority" reading is generous. It looks more like a conjectural emendation by Beza. There are no pre-17th century Greek manuscripts that make the substitution of Beza made. There are no versions that make the substitution Beza made. As far as we can tell, Beza came up with this himself some time between 1565 and 1582. </p><p>4) Will's reference to a supposed ratio of minority readings in the KJV to the "modern versions" appears to be similarly a made-up statistic. In a previous post, I went through a more extensive list of the variants in the Greek manuscripts at Revelation 16:5, addressing more than two dozen of them (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/12/manuscript-evidence-of-revelation-165.html">link to post</a>)(<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/readings-of-revelation-165-with-images.html">see also this post</a>). In most cases, both the Nestle-Aland/UBS (NU) text and the KJV-based text of Scrivener (TR) followed the majority of Greek manuscripts. However, in the two places where the NU and TR disagree, (the insertion of "Lord" and the substitution that this article focuses on) the TR is not following the majority reading.</p><p>5) Even if we were to assume Will's data to be correct, what should we do with it? Let's assume that, on average, the NU text is much more likely to follow a minority reading than the TR. If following the majority is a good thing, then that means that the NU has a lot more explaining to do than the TR. However, it does not excuse the TR in this instance, just because in other instances a minority reading is followed by the NU.</p><p>6) In those cases where the NU fails to follow the majority, it better have a good explanation for failing to do so. If it does not, let's improve the NU. Will, however, is not similarly open to improving the TR by conforming it to the majority.</p><p>7) Modern version disagreement is an interesting phenomenon, to be sure. It is particularly interesting to note the places where the modern versions disagree with the NU and favor the TR. That said, that's not the case here. Even if it were the case, that might simply tell us that the variant was harder to determine to be original.</p><p>Will continues:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>For example, in Revelation 15:3 the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera say: "just and true are thy ways, thou King OF SAINTS." (hagiwn)</p><p>The NASB follows other texts and says: "King OF THE NATIONS" (ethnwn), while the NIV follows different ones still and says: "King OF THE AGES" (aiwniwn).</p></blockquote><p>The Greek manuscripts that are transcribed over at INTF (<a href="https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/collation">link</a>) show that the majority of Greek manuscripts have "ages" at Revelation 15:3 but a minority have "nations." The minority include some of the oldest copies. None of the transcribed copies have "saints," and Hoskier (<a href="https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/403/mode/1up">link</a>) does not seem to have found any copies with "saints." Instead, "saints" seems to be an erroneous back-translation by Erasmus from a Latin copy with "saeculorum" abbreviated as "sclrum," which Erasmus took to be "sctrum" for "sanctorum." Accordingly, Erasmus erroneous placed the word "ἁγίων" in the text, where it remained despite Henri Stephanus' apparatus noting the issue in the 1550 edition:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYrmiJN-zMcJ3I8yyr9vDLUIwXaWPozUQD7Ls7Zp4eJa91Po9Q6nRe2OmJkeWeXYADsZioeRVqCGSdJuUQVKI8oguSSZ_c7qqOZltftRa4QFM5ioibMfzkD5OmBn7vUNBxVujsfIJsqA7ci3LzWfhYxoS0e6uPazwhKEfvrO6DlUbd4LAu49DfXw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="40" data-original-width="669" height="38" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYrmiJN-zMcJ3I8yyr9vDLUIwXaWPozUQD7Ls7Zp4eJa91Po9Q6nRe2OmJkeWeXYADsZioeRVqCGSdJuUQVKI8oguSSZ_c7qqOZltftRa4QFM5ioibMfzkD5OmBn7vUNBxVujsfIJsqA7ci3LzWfhYxoS0e6uPazwhKEfvrO6DlUbd4LAu49DfXw=w640-h38" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://archive.org/details/textus-receptus-stephanus-1550-original/page/n247/mode/1up">source</a>)</div><br />The NT conjectures page offers this interesting account:<p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Finally, we come to a very bizarre case. Those who had won the victory over the beast and its image and the number of its name are standing near the sea of glass, holding the harps that God had given them (3), and they sing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb: “Great and wonderful are your deeds. Just and true are your ways, o King of the nations.” The last word, ἐθνῶν, printed by Nestle-Aland, 25th and 26th edd., as well as by the GNT, is controversial, and the variant αἰῶνος has strong manuscript support (Papyrus 47, late 3rd c., Sinaiticus, 4th c. and other witnesses). Ἐθνῶν is suspicious because it could mean “of the Gentiles”, and this is how Luther originally translated it; later he changed his mind and accepted (ἁγίων, “of the Saints”) from Erasmus, but this is also wrong. Erasmus had retranslated this part of the Apocalypse from the Latin Vulgate, because he had no Greek manuscript for it. In the Codex he was using, he found the compendium sclrum (for saeculorum) which he misread as the compendium for sctrum (= sanctorum), so he boldly translated ἁγίων, which survived as part of the ‘textus receptus’ until the truth became clear in the early 19th century. Meanwhile, αἰῶνος had been accepted as the true reading by Grotius, Mills and others long ago. It is confirmed by 1 Tim. 1:17. The correct form could easily be corrupted into ἐθνῶν, because αι sounded like ε, and the ὠμέγα could be taken as a θῆτα. This example is sufficient, all by itself, to show how unreliable our editions of the Greek New Testament are. The NJB translate “King of nations”, without any comment.</p></blockquote><p>I should note, however, that we should be cautious about this claim that Erasmus had no Greek manuscript. It's possibly that Erasmus corrected the text <i>despite</i> having an accurate Greek manuscript. </p><p>Nevertheless, the roughly 80 (nations) / 20 (ages) variant distribution in the manuscripts, together with the fact that the minority reading seems to be older, is why the "modern" versions disagree between "nations" and "ages" as well as why "saints" (another one of the KJV's conjectural readings) is clearly wrong.</p><p>Will continued: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Another instance of fickle changes and disagreements among the modern versions is found in Revelation 13:10. There we read: "...HE THAT KILLETH with the sword MUST (dei) be killed with the sword..." "He that killeth with the sword MUST" is in the active voice; he is doing the killing. And there is the additional word "must" which in Greek is a three letter word DEI. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus, Sinaiticus and manuscript C. It also used to read this way in the previous Westcott-Hort and the Nestle Greek texts. I have a copy of the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition, 1934 and it clearly reads the active voice and has the additional word "dei". "he that killeth must..." (apoktenei dei)</p><p>"HE THAT KILLETH with the sword MUST..." (active voice, and includes the word "must") is the reading of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta.</p><p>However, later on, the Nestle Greek text was once again changed and they decided to follow the reading of ONE manuscript, that is, Alexandrinus. This single manuscript changes the reading from "he that killeth" (apoktenei) to "he that is to be killed" (apoktantheenai) and it also removes the Greek word "must" - DEI. Now, the NIV, ESV and Holman versions have adopted this new reading based on ONE manuscript, and they now read: "IF ANYONE IS TO BE KILLED with the sword, with the sword he will be killed." Notice that the RSV and NRSV both followed the King James reading, but now the new ESV (a revision of the old RSV, NRSV) has now "scientifically" decided to go along with the NIV and follow a different text, and the 1995 NASB doesn't even follow the newest UBS 4th edition text, so it must be "out of date". This is how the "scholars' game" is played.</p></blockquote><p>1) The majority of Greek manuscripts have the δει. </p><p>2) There are numerous variants at Revelation 13:10b, and it is true that the NU text goes with a variant attested only by a single manuscript. However, this is also one of the oldest manuscripts of the text, and arguably best explains the rise of the numerous other variants. I say "arguably," because I'm not necessarily convinced yet by the explanation I've read.</p><p>3) The scoffing terms with scare quotes are simple mockery. Trying to do our best to follow what John originally wrote is not a game, whether or not scholars make it such. Simple mockery is not a valid argument.</p><p>4) More importantly, Will does not offer a demonstration that the TR is right and that the NU text is wrong. Will does not interact with the scholars' argument for why they believe that Alexandrinus alone preserved the original reading. </p><p>5) I will be interested to see what evidence is offered for the reading in the forthcoming ECM edition of Revelation. It may indeed be only a single manuscript.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Revelation 18:2</p><p>KJB - "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful BIRD." (orneou)</p><p>So read the Majority of all texts, the TR AND Sinaiticus. "every unclean and hateful BIRD" is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, The Message, and the NIV.</p><p>However manuscript A (Alexandrinus) reads "the cage of every unclean and hateful BEAST." (theerion)</p><p>The previous Westcott-Hort, Nestle's Greek texts read as do the King James Bible and even the NASB, NIV, but later on, the UBS Greek "scholars" decided to change it, and it now includes both readings in full.</p><p>So now the 2003 Holman Standard and the 2001 ESV have come out and they add this extra reading of five Greek words which follows neither the Majority text, Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus. These two latest versions read:</p><p>“Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great! She has become a lair for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN BIRD, AND A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND DESPICABLE BEAST." (Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001.) So, it looks like not even the "old" NIV or the 1995 NASB are now "up to date with the latest scholarly findings"!!!</p></blockquote><p>1) Again, the mocking is not particularly helpful, nor does it show any comprehension of the actual issues.</p><p>2) There are multiple manuscripts that mention both birds and beasts, but it is a minority reading.</p><p>3) By default, I favor the majority reading, but there is nothing in Will's explanation that could help one understand or decide which reading is correct. </p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Here are a few more examples of how the modern versions follow different texts and don't agree among themselves.</p><p>Revelation 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of HEAVEN saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, AND BE THEIR GOD."</p><p>There are two textual problems with this verse. The word HEAVEN is the Majority reading, as well as that of the TR, the Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the NKJV. However the NASB, NIV, RSV follow Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and say: "I heard a great voice out of THE THRONE saying..."</p><p>The second textual variant is where we see more of the hypocricy and fickleness of what they call the "science of textual criticism". The final words in this verse: "AND BE THEIR GOD" are found in multiplied scores of Greek manuscripts including Alexandrinus, the Syriac Peshitta, Philoxenian, Harclean, and the Old Latin.</p><p>"And be their God" is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Geneva Bible, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the NKJV, the NIV, the TNIV, the 2004 Holman Standard and the new ESV (English Standard Version). However the NASB from 1960 to 1995 continues to omit these words, as well as the RSV and the NRSV. The silly and misleading footnote in the NASB of 1995 should be noted. The 1960 NASB footnotes: "Some ancient manuscripts add "and be their God". The RSV footnote says: "Other ancient authorities add "and be their God", BUT now the new 1995 NASB tells us: "ONE early manuscript reads: "and be their God". This is flat out deception!!! The UBS Greek text lists ONLY ONE manuscript that OMITS these words, and that is Sinaiticus. Wallace's NET bible version also omits these precious words of inspired Scripture.</p><p>The older Nestle Greek text omitted these words, but the newer critical Greek UBS text has once again changed, and they now include these words, though in brackets. Notice too that the previous RSV, and NRSV omitted them, but now the revision of the revision of the revision has once again placed them back into the verse as it has always stood in the King James Bible. Such is the true nature of what the scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism".</p></blockquote><p>1) Isn't it interesting that in the case of Revelation 18:2, Will did not say that the KJV and majority of manuscripts "omit these precious words of inspired Scripture" regarding the beasts. Of course, the designation begs the question, and - as before, Will offers no real way to discern which reading is correct.</p><p>2) The word for "throne" and the word for "heaven" are somewhat similar in appearance. It seems that one variant probably arose as an error of sight of the original reading. While I would by default favor the majority reading, Will does not in any meaningful way address the argument for the "throne" reading.</p><p>3) If indeed there are misleading footnotes in the NASB, then shame on them.</p><p>4) I suppose Will means that the "science of textual criticism" sometimes produces different outputs at different times, whereas the KJV (since 1900) has stayed the same. That seems to be only a point in favor of the KJV (1900 edition) if it has already corrected everything that needed to be corrected, which Will hasn't established.</p><p>Will continues:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>In the very last verse of Revelation 22:21 we read in the KJB and the NKJV: "The grace of OUR lord Jesus CHRIST, be with YOU all." Here the NASB, NIV unite in omitting "our" and "Christ" but instead of reading "you all" (pantwn humwn) the NASB follows neither the Majority, nor the TR, but Alexandrinus which omits "you" and says: "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with ALL." This is the reading of ONE Greek manuscript.</p><p>The NIV, on the other hand, follows Sinaiticus and even paraphrases this. Sinaiticus says "grace...be with THE SAINTS (twn hagiwn) and the NIV reads: "the grace....be with GOD'S PEOPLE." Again, this is the reading of ONE Greek manuscript.</p></blockquote><p>1) Once again, we can appreciate the need for calling out cases where the NU (or modern versions) follows a singular manuscript reading. </p><p>2) However, where is any manuscript with "ὑμῶν"? None of the manuscripts seem to have this. This is not surprising, because this reading was famously created by Erasmus who did not have the last page of Revelation in his commentary, from which he was extracting the Greek text.</p><p>3) By far, the majority text is "all the saints." I tend to favor the majority reading here, against the shorter readings that omit "all" or omit "the saints." The fact that 01 and 02 are different from one another on this point is interesting, but Will has no way of resolving which is better.</p><p>4) The insertion of "our" is found in a small minority of manuscripts, none of which seem to be very early. That's doubtless the reason it's not included.</p><p>5) The insertion of "Christ" is the majority of manuscripts, but a sizeable minority, including the earliest manuscripts, omit it. It's an example of one of many expansions of piety, which is doubtless why it is not included.</p><p>6) Nevertheless, in each of these cases, Will does not provide us with a reason for why the KJV reading should be accepted. Instead, Will seems to forsake the battleground of the evidence altogether.</p><p>Finally, however, Will turns to considering Revelation 16:5:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Revelation 16:5</p><p>"Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus."</p><p>The texts that underlie Revelation 16:5 vary greatly among themselves. The word LORD is found in 051, 296, 2049, some Latin copies, the Coptic Boharic and Ethiopic ancient versions. LORD is also the reading of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, KJB, NKJV, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Douay, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, and Green's Literal KJV.</p><p>The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV all omit the word LORD.</p></blockquote><p>Manuscript 2049, a 16th century manuscript (i.e. already from the age of printing and copied from a printed edition, as per J.K. Elliot), has the insertion of the word "Lord." This one is referred to by Hoskier as number 141 (following Scrivener's numbering) and corresponds to von Sodens alpha 1684.</p><p>Manuscript 296 is Hoskier's 57 and von Soden's delta 600. Hoskier indicated that this manuscript has "Lord." However, as J.K. Elliot pointed out, this text is from the 16th century (i.e. the age of printing) and is copied from a printed text. </p><p>Manuscript 051 does not have "Lord." It's not clear why it was included in this list.</p><p>Oddly enough, Will omits the one relevant manuscript that includes the word "Lord," which is GA manuscript 2344, probably from the 11th century. He also omitted 2619, which has "Lord," but is probably based on a printed text.</p><p>Given the overwhelming weight of the manuscripts, the insertion of "Lord" is best seen as an explanatory expansion to clarify that the angel is speaking to God, not John.</p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The second part is the one that is more hotly debated - "AND SHALT BE" This is the reading found in the Greek texts of Beza, which the KJB translators mainly used, and is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Green's Literal KJV, Webster's, Young's, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible. I've also located several independent English translation that also read "and shall be". Among these are the Natural Israelite Bible of 2008 done by Ed Schneider; The Urim-Thummin Version 2001, A Revised Translation 1815 by David Macrae; The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments 1808 by Charles Thomson, and A New Family Bible 1824 by Benjamin Boothroyd. "And shall be" is also the reading of the Greek texts the Trinitarian Bible Society of 1894, and that of J.P. Green's interlinear Greek text. The KJB reading is also supported by a Latin commentary on the book of Revelation done way back in 380 A.D. by Beatus.</p></blockquote><p>The "shalt be," "shall be," and "is to be" readings in the English translations are clearly all derived directly or indirectly from Beza's 1582 substitution in which he took "Holy" out and replaced it with "the shall-being". We will address the claim about Beatus, in responding to Will's next paragraph, which states:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Beatus of Liebana’s compiled commentary on the book of Revelation (786 A.D.) where he uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es”. In this compilation he was preserving the commentary of Tyconius (approx 380 A.D.). So there is manuscript support. Whether Beza knew of it or not, the 1611 translators may well have, and we do not know what manuscripts they had at their disposal, likely many more than we know of four centuries later.</p></blockquote><p>1) The Latin used by Tyconius and preserved by Beatus provides two Latin verbs, and also (not mentioned by Will) includes "holy." This is not the same substitution as Beza, even if we thought that the Latin translation was based on a Greek Vorlage with similarly tensed verbs.</p><p>2) While anything is possible, Beza makes no mention of it, unless it is a manuscript of Beatus that he was referring to in his annotation. We have no reason to think he specifically referred to Beatus' commentary, however. Likewise, we have no reason to think that the King James translators themselves referred to Beatus' commentary. Moreover, since we have Beatus' commentary, it's really a moot point as to whether Beza or the King James translators had it.</p><p>3) We may not know exactly what manuscripts were available to Beza and the King James translators, but we have a pretty good idea. For example, we know most of the manuscripts that Beza had, and we have reason to think that the King James translators focused on printed texts, especially Beza's 1598 and Stephanus' 1550. </p><p>From here, Will begins to summarize or quote the work of others, namely Moorman and Holland (who in turn referenced Woodworth). We will consider these in turn. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Jack Moorman, in his "When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”, says: The King James reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found.</p><p>1:4 “him which is, and which was, and which is to come” 1:8 “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” 4:8 “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” 11:17 “Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come”</p><p>Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorized Version reads, “With the former translations diligently compared and revised”. (Jack Moorman)</p></blockquote><p>We have elsewhere already dealt with Moorman's arguments (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z207N-fJ73g">link to video response</a>). However, since those were in video, it makes sense to respond here.</p><p>1) Revelation 1:4 and 1:8 use the phrase, "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος." Revelation 4:8 does not use that phrase, but uses a similar phrase, "ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος." Revelation 11:17 has the shorter phrase, "ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν" (without "καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος") although a minority of manuscripts have the same phrase as Revelation 1:4 and 1:8, and the TR follows that minority reading. Revelation 16:8 does not have the phrase, "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" in any of the manuscripts, and Beza did not propose to have that phrase here. Beza put "ἐσόμενος" rather than "ἐρχόμενος." The majority of Greek texts have the same shorter reading of Revelation 11:17 and include "O Holy one" ("ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">ὁ ὅσιος</b>." Thus, it is not the case that the TR reading is "in harmony" with four other places. Those four other places have three different wordings. The correct wording here (i.e. ""ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" without " καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" or " καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος" is in harmony with the correct reading of Revelation 11:17. </p><p>2) Moorman correctly notes that one of Jesus' names is "Holy." However, Moorman overlooks the fact that Jesus named as "Holy" is present using the same Greek word, just one chapter earlier: Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, <b><u>O Lord</u></b>, and glorify <b><u>thy name</u></b>? for <b><u>thou only art holy</u></b>: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.</p><p>3) Furthermore, in Revelation 4:8, Christ is called "Holy" by the four beasts: Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, <b><u>Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come</u></b>. It's true that "Holy" there is the synonym "agios" rather than "osios," as in 1 John 2:20. </p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>What is of great interest is the English Hexapla Greek-5 English versions of 1841. Though the Greek text used in this printed Greek text follows the reading of hosios or "Holy", yet it footnotes that the reading of the Greek Received text is esomenos or "and shalt be". It was called the Received Text reading way back in 1841. You can see the site here: http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1304.htm</p><p>Among foreign language Bibles that follow the same Greek texts as the King James Bible and read “AND SHALT BE” are the French Martin of 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 with both reading: - “Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS”, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2005 translation also reads like the King James Bible - “Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, Y SERAS, porque has juzgado así.”</p><p>What is also of interest is that the earlier English Bibles apparently followed some other Greek texts because they do not read as the King James Bible nor as the Critical text versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV. Wycliffe read: “Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis;” Wycliffe left out “and wast” and has the awkward reading that God “WERE Holy”. This came from the Latin Vulgate, which came along after the Old Latin. On the other hand, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops Bible 1568 all read: Lord, which art, and wast, thou art RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY, because thou hast given such judgements.” Here they add the word “righteous” Then the Geneva Bible came along and it differed from all four previous English bibles reading: “Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things.”</p></blockquote><p>1) It is unclear why the label "received text" being used in Revelation 1841 is of "great interest" to Will. Maybe it is because this particular reading was not universally received, since it is not found in Stephanus 1550 text and in some of the later printings of the Greek text in the 1600s and 1700s. The term itself was used back in the 1600s, based on a concept that developed already in the 1500s.</p><p>2) The previous English Bibles were based either on Latin (such as Wycliffe's) or on Erasmus or Stephanus Greek, or even one of the pre-1582 editions of Beza. Since Beza had not yet changed the text, they unsurprisingly don't follow his change.</p><p>3) Not all foreign language Bibles followed Beza on this, though clearly some did.</p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Dr. Thomas Holland regarding the KJB reading of Revelation 16:5 http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm "First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."</p><p>Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenos" (who is, and was, and shall be).</p><p>Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:</p><p>"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture... But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does." (end of article by Dr. Thomas Holland) </p></blockquote><p>I have provided a detailed written response to Thomas Holland (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/responding-to-thomas-hollands.html">see post here</a>) as well as a video response (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJcctQ7Wo9c">see this video</a>). To reiterate a few highlights, it isn't "Trinitarian phraseology," and Holland's translation of Beza's annotations is seriously wrong at a few points and misleads the reader. </p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Instead of "and shalt be" (ho esomenos) most texts read "the Holy" (ho hosios). However there is variation even among these. P47, which is the oldest remaining Greek copy and dates to the third century has a nonsensical reading of "who was AND holy". Vaticanus does not contain the book of Revelation, so we cannot look to it for confirmation one way or the other. Sinaiticus says "who was THE Holy", while Alexandrinus reads: "who was Holy", omitting the word "the". Even among the so called Majority of texts, there are four slightly different readings found, some adding extra definite articles or the word "and", while others do not in varying combinations.</p></blockquote><p>Recall above where Will focused on the apparently misleading claim that the "one early manuscript" reads a certain way? None of the texts read "and shalt be" rather than "holy," "the holy," "and the holy," or "and holy." Interestingly, Vaticanus is bound with a copy of Revelation, Manuscript GA 1957, but this is a 15th century manuscript, not the much older manuscript that Vaticanus is elsewhere. (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/readings-of-revelation-165-with-images.html">see discussion here</a>) </p><p>While Will calls P47's reading "nonsensical," P47s reading attempts to smooth the Greek of Revelation by making "Holy" coordinate with "Righteous" earlier in the verse. Thus, "Righteous you are (who are and were) and Holy" would be the sense. It's not the original, but it's not "nonsensical" either. Sinaiticus is better rendered "O Holy One" although "the Holy" is not necessarily a wrong translation. Alexandrinus' reading is another attempt to smooth the text, in this case by making the text mean something like "righteous you are, the one who is and was holy". </p><p>I have no idea why Will refers to the "so called Majority of texts." It is not just the majority so-called, but the actual majority of extant manuscript copies. It's more than four variants, but those four (holy, the holy, and holy, and the holy) are the most frequent. </p><p>Will continued (unfortunately, the images he mentions are not in the version of the article that I am working from):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Another King James Bible believer sent me the following site where you can actually see the Sinaiticus manuscript and what it looks like. He writes: These images might be interesting too. It's the line "ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος̣ (who is and who was that holy one)" in Sinaiticus. The smaller image is a close-up of the word which appears to be οσιος. But as you can see, the last four letters of οσιοs are disproportionately smaller, scrunched together and barely legible. It's very suspicious, and indicative of a scribal "correction." The images are from http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/</p><p>If you go to the site and look at the Sinaiticus manuscript where Revelation 16:5 is found, what you find are very large capital letters in the entire line, but at the very edge of the line on the border of the manuscript the letters sios which make up osios are about one-forth the size of the previous letters and they are scrunched together and barely legible.</p></blockquote><p>First, let's address the scrunched point:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSDVlITI56n70dRiL-9zyc7WgtXmDoMexUrQTJJ5IDmeDNPYd_bhIWsLEhAO4ZC-csSGEhFhm9Ymc_Irud_YUXww9cqk139jPxHk64Mk3sbh49_AupYlISSr1FiNjRASI8KuicUdRNP__EolmeW4KIdcRmIAcBNhUlwUBT-citL5IdAM6nKk0qPQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="189" data-original-width="675" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSDVlITI56n70dRiL-9zyc7WgtXmDoMexUrQTJJ5IDmeDNPYd_bhIWsLEhAO4ZC-csSGEhFhm9Ymc_Irud_YUXww9cqk139jPxHk64Mk3sbh49_AupYlISSr1FiNjRASI8KuicUdRNP__EolmeW4KIdcRmIAcBNhUlwUBT-citL5IdAM6nKk0qPQ" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=59&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=5&zoomSlider=0">raking light</a>)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPRUO1A_bbs08D6_BTEPUhLJTn8xhIhPikOoL61aEiSwaYhJqSczRFF0VyF4wHqZZ3KH-FN6YlwJeij8Geu0sPvJUWOkES5N0XxxruuNssS84vXFAxjoP7rmn6hHSL9eZCFGLi7Crf1JTjoOpiOLAJgsmh0-0Tacn-Ch6jddtQ9guwSSxhck47_Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="640" height="85" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPRUO1A_bbs08D6_BTEPUhLJTn8xhIhPikOoL61aEiSwaYhJqSczRFF0VyF4wHqZZ3KH-FN6YlwJeij8Geu0sPvJUWOkES5N0XxxruuNssS84vXFAxjoP7rmn6hHSL9eZCFGLi7Crf1JTjoOpiOLAJgsmh0-0Tacn-Ch6jddtQ9guwSSxhck47_Q" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=59&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=5&zoomSlider=0#59-16-12-24">standard light</a>)</div><br />The last few letters of both the first and second line of the imaged section have smaller letters at the end of the line. This is not unique to these two lines, but occurs numerous times, as can be seen from this larger shot of the column:<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhIHDOyJR5xj5A6zRneGrlLzMwy_kL70gEwLfd5I-UTuvy4NJLteubYhNl7AIM39c0op4n-fvjRjkUEU8VEfCAttHBwKIdaz5JetPDk08l-4wi-1ATBIo0_cQCxPOXqBtQf276r9Cw7WaCyihsg9ksqALYCZ1p2dXq9bbxlF06fe0cdigyLF-VqVA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="681" data-original-width="348" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhIHDOyJR5xj5A6zRneGrlLzMwy_kL70gEwLfd5I-UTuvy4NJLteubYhNl7AIM39c0op4n-fvjRjkUEU8VEfCAttHBwKIdaz5JetPDk08l-4wi-1ATBIo0_cQCxPOXqBtQf276r9Cw7WaCyihsg9ksqALYCZ1p2dXq9bbxlF06fe0cdigyLF-VqVA=w205-h400" width="205" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=59&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=5&zoomSlider=0#59-16-5-8">source</a>)</div><br />My speculation regarding the scribe's reason for going to a smaller letter size was to keep track with an exemplar that had a wider column to begin with, at least relative to the usual letter size. Thus, in some places, the scribe had to reduce the size of the letters to accommodate the rest of a row within the limited space of his column. This is just speculation, but it makes sense of the otherwise unnecessary reduction in size of letters, as the scribe could just have continued to the next line and kept a standard letter size. Some people might assume that the smaller letters are corrections, but there are two many such cases at the ends of lines to justify such an assumption.<p></p><p>Regardless of the reasoning, however, Sinaiticus is a witness that tends to support the NU text over the TR at this verse.</p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">You can read much more about the evolution of the textual varieties found in Revelation 16:5 and how not even the remaining earliest manuscripts are in agreement among themselves in this single verse here: https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165</p></blockquote><p>Perhaps in another post, we will consider the "KJV Today" article. The bottom line, though, is that one thing the earliest manuscripts agree on is the presence of "holy" rather than "shall be."</p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>For the modern versionists who depend on one of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts", namely Sinaiticus, it may be an eye opener to see some of the really strange readings found in this text in the book of Revelation.</p><p>Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."</p><p>Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.</p><p>Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."</p><p>Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."</p><p>Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."</p></blockquote><p>Will might be interested to discover that the presence of more than three "holy" statements is not unique to Sinaiticus. Nevertheless, Sinaiticus' unusual readings are beside the point when it comes to Revelation 16:5. The original text certainly was "holy" not "shall be" at Revelation 16:5, even if Sinaiticus has the most unusual readings on the face of the earth. </p><p>Will continued: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">What we have here in Revelation 16:5 is a very common cluster of divergent readings and the King James Bible went with one reading while other versions went with another.</p></blockquote><p>Thankfully, it is not "very common" that the King James went with a reading with no extant Greek manuscripts supporting it. Revelation 15:3 might be another example. However, if it were very common, that would be further reason to improve the KJV, not a reason to dismiss the issue.</p><p>Will continued:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">It is a well documented fact that multiplied numbers of ancient Greek manuscripts were available to the translators of early English Bible versions that we no longer have today. Another "minority reading" found in the KJB is 1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one". Only a few Greek manuscripts exist today which contain this reading, yet it was not always so. John Gill remarks in his commentary on 1 John regarding this trinitarian verse in the texts used by Stephanus in 1550: " Out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it." This example serves to illustrate that some readings found in the KJB were supported by far more textual evidence than is available for us today.</p></blockquote><p>Error defended by more error. Even setting aside the typo, as such, there is not good reason to suppose that the translators of early English Bible versions had access to some plethora of now-disappeared manuscripts. For example of the sixteen "ancient" copies of Robert Stephens, we have almost all of them, and in fact at least eleven of the sixteen are in the Paris Library (BNF), and at least two are in the Cambridge University Library (according to J.K. Elliott in "Manuscripts Cited by Stephanus"). Moreover, John Gill made an understandable error in his claim that "nine of them had it." He seems to be reasoning that because seven were cited against it, and there were sixteen total, then it follows that the other nine had it. The problem with this logic is that most of the sixteen were not complete new testaments, and consequently did not include the catholic epistles. Thus, they were not cited against the comma, but also did not have it (because they did not have 1 John at all).</p><p>So, no. </p><p>Will continued:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza's Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza's reading of "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words.</p></blockquote><p>There is no record of whether or not the KJV translators slavishly or thoughtfully followed Beza's Greek text here. At least we can say that they must have consciously followed it, as they revised the Bishop's Bible at this place. The argument from what "we do not know" is a hollow one. If there was any other manuscript that guided them, no one ever records having seen it, aside from Beza (if we generously interpret Beza as saying he saw a manuscript with this reading). </p><p>Will's claim that God has "clearly placed His mark of divine approval" on the KJV is gratuitously offered and may similarly be denied. According to Will's view, the KJV printed texts contained errors for nearly 300 years until the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition. No sooner was that edition made, then God in his Providence caused other versions to begin to flourish and further errors in the KJV to be identified. </p><p>The remainder of Will's article attempts to deal with the problem of the KJV's translation of Revelation 5:8-10. As that is not germane to our discussion above, I have omitted it here.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-71306018261607870822024-01-19T03:17:00.005+00:002024-01-22T00:21:32.323+00:00Responding to Thomas Holland's "Manuscript Evidences" regarding Revelation 16:5<p>Dr. Thomas Holland wrote the following regarding Revelation 16:5 (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081121031635/http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/courses/mssevidence/lesson10.html">source</a>)(cited by Khoo and from there by Moorman):<br /></p><p>*** Start of Thomas Holland *** </p><center><p><b><span>Revelation 16:5:</span></b></p></center><blockquote><p>And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.</p></blockquote><p>The question arises concerning the Trinitarian phrase, "which art, and wast, and shalt be." Modern versions read, "which is, and was, the Holy One." Dr. Edward Hills has correctly cited passage as a conjectural emendation (Hills, 208). Bruce Metzger defines this term as,</p><ul><p>The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention. (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)</p></ul><p>From this, we learn the following.</p><ul><p>1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.</p><p>2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.</p><p>3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.</p></ul><p>Such is the case here. First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."</p><p>Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenoV" (who is, and was, and shall be). It should be pointed out that among the Greek manuscripts the reading is different. Most of them read, "o wn, kai o hn, o osioV" (who is, and was, the Holy one). The oldest Greek text of Revelation containing this passage, which is P47, has a textual variant. This Greek text reads, "o wn kai, o hn, kai osioV" (who is, and was, and Holy one). It is interesting to note that while the actual manuscript itself uses both kai and osioV, and that only the word osioV will fit, the text is rather worn here leaving the other words in the passage mostly unscathed.</p><p>Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:</p><ul><p>"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)</p></ul><p>In addition to the Greek manuscript witnesses (which in this passage are few, as we have already noted), early translations should be considered. Again, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of "holy" and not "and shall be." Most translations, such as the Latin, omit the "and" using only "holy" (the Latin word is "sanctus"). Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus." They mean the same, but it does reveal yet another variance in the text. This, of course, brings us to yet another group of witnesses: Patristic citations.</p><p>Two things should be stated before continuing. One, as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)</p><p>Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.</p><p>It should be noted that none of the early English versions, nor the foreign translations, read as does the Authorized Version. However, they do not read as most modern versions do either. Instead they read somewhere in between using both the "and" with "holy." The New King James Version follows the reading of the Authorized Version.</p><p><b><span>New American Standard Version:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things.</p></blockquote><p><b><span>The Great Bible:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes.</p></blockquote><p><b><span>Bishops' Bible:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lorde, which art, and was, thou art righteous and that holy one, because thou hast given such judgements:</p></blockquote><p><b><span>Luther's German Bible:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast</p></blockquote><p><b><span>Italian Bible:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>Ed io udii L'angelo delle acque, che diceva: Tu sei giusto, O Signore, che sei, e che eri, che sei il Santo, d'aver fatti questi giudicii.</p></blockquote><p><b><span>New King James Version:</span></b></p><blockquote><p>And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.</p></blockquote><p>*** End of Thomas Holland *** </p><p>This article (the same substance) was posted as early as March 6, 2001 (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010306223443/http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm">by Jody Adair, apparently on behalf of Dr. Thomas Holland</a>, ThD) at the now-defunct (or perhaps re-homed to a different URL?) pure words website. I assume that Dr. Holland is actually the contributor's name (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAuMvP_cH6w">not that it matters</a>), but it is interesting to note that it is also the name of one of the King James translators (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Holland_(translator)">link to wiki bio</a>).</p><p>1. Trinitarian Phrase</p><p>Holland's assertion that the phrase in Revelation 16:5 is a "Trinitarian phrase" is a mistake. There is no argument to support the assertion, and treating the phrase as "Trinitarian" seems problematic. If all that was meant is that "the Being" and the "Having Been" and the "Coming" are names or titles of God, who is Triune. </p><p>2. Conjectural Emendation</p><p>Holland adopts and approves of Edward Hills identification of the reading "and shalt be" as a conjectural emendation (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/dr-edward-f-hills-on-bezas-conjectural.html">as discussed here</a>). Indeed, Holland offers a translation (apparently his own - at least I could not track it down to any earlier source than his of 2001) that suggests that Beza saw a manuscript with part of the text worn away and filled in the gap himself.</p><p>3. The Metzger quotation</p><p>The full quotation from p. 182 of Metzger's second edition of <i>The Text of the New Testament</i>, has:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>The classical method of textual criticism regularly involves, as was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the exercise of conjectural emendation. If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been.</p><p>A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. (FN1) Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.</p><p style="text-align: left;">FN1: For a discussion of the paradoxical possibility of a textual critic's 'improving' on the original, see G. Zuntz's article on I Cor. vi. 5 entitled 'The Critic Correcting the Author', <i>Philologus</i>, xcix (1955), pp. 295-303.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">I provide the full statement just to avoid any concern about the ellipses presented in the article, not to suggest a misquotation. However, let's consider each of the lessons drawn therefrom, namely:</p><ul><p>1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.</p></ul><p>Textual criticism is not a translational technique and it is not limited to Greek (or other foreign language) texts. It is not limited to Scripture. In fact, on p. 183, Metzger provides an example of conjectural emendation with respect to an odd line in Shakespeare's play, <i>Henry V</i>. </p><p>Moreover, the issue is less one of authenticity (as such) and more about originality. Moreover, it is not applied in "every" case that such a question arises. However, it can arise in many cases. It's particularly common when a text is represented only by a single copy. In such a case there are seldom variants (although there could be, via corrections of the text itself). However, there may be passages that appear to be wrong, and in need of correction.</p><ul><p>2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.</p></ul><p>Actually, no. The number of variants is not the standard. Note that Metzger first mentions the case of "the only reading" before mentioning "each of the several variants."</p><ul><p>3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.</p></ul><p>It's unclear what Holland means here. Rather than "variant in question," Holland probably meant "conjecture in question." If so, he would be correct. Metzger is saying that conjectural emendation is the art of removing anomalies. To do so, the reading (or all the variant readings if there is more than one reading) must be evaluated as to whether they represent an anomaly.</p><p>Holland continues:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Such is the case here. First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."</p></blockquote><p>As mentioned above, the phraseology is not "Trinitarian." To this we must add that the phraseology at 4:8 (surely 4:3 is a typo), is different from that at Revelation 1:4, and 1:8 in that the first two elements are in the opposite positions. The phraseology at Revelation 11:17, like that of Revelation 16:5 omits "the coming one" in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Thus, the phrasing of Revelation 16:5 is not as inconsistent as Holland suggests. Moreover, Beza's proposed fix is to use yet a different phrasing, thereby maintaining inconsistency with the previous instances, even if the TR reading of Revelation 11:17 were accepted against the majority of manuscripts.</p><p>Referring to Jesus as Holy (e.g. "O Holy One" or "the Holy One") is more harmonious than it is being credited - it is name given to him multiple times in the Old and New Testaments and it is a description uniquely applied to him in Revelation 15. </p><p>Admittedly, it is unexpected in Greek to use an adjective as a title. This, no doubt, accounts for the variants that we see, such as variants treating it as a coordinate adjective with "righteous." However, to suggest that it is repetitive is a mistake. Consider:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.</p></blockquote><p>Is the word "holy" objectionably repetitive in that context? Certainly not. So also, if it were the case that it were a coordinate adjective with "righteous" (as suggested by Beza), then it would simply be taken as a poetic reiteration for emphasis.</p><p>Similarly, we do not expect to hear Holland object to the King James Version's phrasing:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.</p></blockquote><p>Any anomaly suggested on this basis must have very little weight.</p><p>Holland continues:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenoV" (who is, and was, and shall be). It should be pointed out that among the Greek manuscripts the reading is different. Most of them read, "o wn, kai o hn, o osioV" (who is, and was, the Holy one). The oldest Greek text of Revelation containing this passage, which is P47, has a textual variant. This Greek text reads, "o wn kai, o hn, kai osioV" (who is, and was, and Holy one). It is interesting to note that while the actual manuscript itself uses both kai and osioV, and that only the word osioV will fit, the text is rather worn here leaving the other words in the passage mostly unscathed.</p></blockquote><p>I assume that the "V" oddity arose from the use of a special font for Greek that treated a capital V as a terminal sigma. That was a more popular way of writing Greek before Unicode Greek was in widespread use on the Internet.</p><p>The correct term is "textual variants," although I have heard folks even on "my side" say "variances." </p><p>The note about the variants involves some mistranslation of the Greek corresponding to the variants. Beza's text is more literally "the being [one], and the [one who] has been, and the shall being [one]." The majority text is more literally "the being [one] and the [one who] has been, O Holy [One]." The P47 variant is more literally "You are righteous (the being [one] and the [one who] has been) and holy" - I've included more context for clarity. This is the coordinate adjectives variant that I mentioned above. Several letters of the word "osios" are worn in P47, as shown below, but it certainly is the word written in P47.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2Iozk-_pqEpo9dh7k1fjPpjlbiDZ6P5ih-gdZbpc2R-fL7Xh8plCeWW2XL_aulTcDqpjxid87V4woD83s8i454YUrowcgtyB-8Ku5nhUSorte3kr7CmOp5TFRmuOAYj7fsFZ_jRLWK4RFdAk9TUMsMO4XBFMqbxvUsD327VgwB7e6cI3-CSXIA/s1492/P47.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="1492" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2Iozk-_pqEpo9dh7k1fjPpjlbiDZ6P5ih-gdZbpc2R-fL7Xh8plCeWW2XL_aulTcDqpjxid87V4woD83s8i454YUrowcgtyB-8Ku5nhUSorte3kr7CmOp5TFRmuOAYj7fsFZ_jRLWK4RFdAk9TUMsMO4XBFMqbxvUsD327VgwB7e6cI3-CSXIA/w640-h104/P47.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P47">source</a>)</div><br />Holland continues:<p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;">Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:</div></div></blockquote><div><p style="text-align: left;">This sentence is based on the wildly wrong translation Holland offers of Beza's annotation. Contrary to Holland's mistranslation, the correct translation (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/11/theodore-bezas-annotations-at.html">see here for more context</a>) is this:</p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;">5 And who [you] will be, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.</div></div></blockquote><div><p style="text-align: left;">You will notice that although Beza alleges corruption of the text, there is nothing about a line being worn away. Beza says that the καὶ is necessary to join righteous and holy, and therefore the Vulgate is wrong. Oddly enough, on this point the Vulgate happens to be right, as the majority of texts do not support Beza's coordinated adjective view.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Holland continues:</p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><p style="text-align: left;">In addition to the Greek manuscript witnesses (which in this passage are few, as we have already noted), early translations should be considered. Again, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of "holy" and not "and shall be." Most translations, such as the Latin, omit the "and" using only "holy" (the Latin word is "sanctus"). Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus." They mean the same, but it does reveal yet another variance in the text. This, of course, brings us to yet another group of witnesses: Patristic citations.</p></div></blockquote><div>The Greek manuscript witnesses here are not especially few, as compared to the remainder of Revelation. Thankfully, Holland acknowledges the undeniable fact that nearly all the ancient translations stand with majority of Greek manuscripts. </div><p style="text-align: left;">While Primasius' use of "pius" rather than the usual Latin translation "sanctus" is interesting, it does not suggest a different Greek Vorlage, as both words are legitimate translations of "osios." To say that this reveals "yet another variance" (sic for "variant") in the text is really only the case with respect to the Latin tradition.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Two things should be stated before continuing. One, as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)</p></blockquote><p>Once again, Holland's concession regarding Wordsworth's statement is significant. There are a variety of "legitimate" ways to translate Greek to Latin, and pre-Jerome Latin translations varied. Neither Jerome's nor the other is woodenly literal.</p><p>Holland continues:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.</p></blockquote><p>Beatus of Liebana does present a different translation from Jerome at Revelation 16:5. That said, Beatus' translation does not suggest a Greek Vorlage corresponding to Beza's Greek. In particular, Beatus' translation has two Greek verbs with Holy. The difference between Beatus and Jerome is the tense of the verbs. This may be more easily accounted for by considering that the translator of Beatus' Latin may have been less literal and more paraphrastic in his translation. The sense of "the being [one] and [who has] been" is, after all, an expression of God's eternal self-existence. This same sense is conveyed by Beatus' Latin translation with different verb tenses.</p><p>Whether or not Beatus' and Tyconius' (as that does seem to be Beatus' source) Latin translation was paraphrastic, it only has two verbs and a word corresponding to osios, which emphatically is not Beza's proposal (three verbs and no osios).</p><p>Holland concludes (before quoting from various translations):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">It should be noted that none of the early English versions, nor the foreign translations, read as does the Authorized Version. However, they do not read as most modern versions do either. Instead they read somewhere in between using both the "and" with "holy." The New King James Version follows the reading of the Authorized Version.</p></blockquote><div>The significance of this is hard to evaluate. The reason why other Reformation-era Bibles translated "and holy" is because Erasmus and Stephanus printed Revelation 16:5 with an extra καὶ, akin to P47. While it is understandable that scribes would add such a καὶ to make "holy" coordinate with "righteous," the majority of manuscripts confirm the absence of such a καὶ.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-21956181800192316442024-01-18T16:15:00.005+00:002024-02-05T00:18:38.548+00:00Debate Proposal for Debate with Will Kinney<p>Here's an outline of debate proposal for a hoped-for debate with Will Kinney regarding whether (and on what basis) the King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition, 1900) and Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881/94) can be improved.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">I. Names</h2><p style="text-align: left;">One of the more difficult questions in translation is how to translate names. When it comes to the names of people, should the names be they transliterated as closely as possible? Should the Bible reflect a post-Biblical human tradition in preference to a more accurate transliteration? The name "James" itself is not a close transliteration of the New Testament name ("Ἰάκωβος" Yakobos) but Archbishop Bancroft demanded that the names be kept in their traditional form, and for the most part the King James translators complied. Even then, though, they were sometimes oddly inconsistent, such as the case of Simeon/Simon, Balac/Balak and Timothy/Timotheus. When it comes to the names of animals, the King James translators did their best, but sometimes they got things wildly wrong: unicorns and satyrs are two fairly clear examples. The name of the Passover is an interesting third example of naming issue in the KJV. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In some of these cases, the KJV is clearly wrong and needs improvement. In other cases, maybe it is merely a matter of translation preference. However, if it is merely a matter of preference, can we agree that preferences can change and it is ok to change the KJV according to our preferences? </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">A. Names of People</h3><h4 style="text-align: left;">1. Acts 15:14 & 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon or Simon?</h4><p>At Acts 15:14, should the English text be "Simeon" (as the KJV has) or "Simon" (as the KJV translation rules dictate)? If the former, then in 2 Peter 1:1, should the English text be "Simon" (as the KJV has) or "Simeon" (as the Greek has)?</p><p>In both cases, it seems apparent that we are talking about Simon Peter. While it is true that the Greek sometimes uses one transliteration rather than the other (i.e. the Greek is itself a transliteration of a Hebrew name), why would we not follow the Greek everywhere or follow a single transliteration consistently? Partially following the Greek and partially not doing so seems like an odd and confusing combination. On this point the KJV can use improvement. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">2. Revelation 2:14 "Balac" or "Balak" (if the former why not "Balac" in Numbers 22:2?)</h4><div>Consistency seems appropriate when we are talking about the same person. The use of a different transliteration for the Hebrew than for the Greek when referring to the same person is (at best) an odd translation decision. </div><div><h4>3. Timotheus (19x) or Timothy (9x) but never Timotheos (more accurate than Timotheus)</h4></div><div>Again, consistency seems like the best policy. The same Greek word is used, but in some places the more English "Timothy" is used, in other places the more Latin "Timotheus" is used, but never is the more Greek "Timotheos" used. Why not pick one and stick with it? </div><h3 style="text-align: left;">B. Names of Animals</h3><h4 style="text-align: left;">1. Isaiah 34:7 "Unicorns" should be "Reems" or "Aurochs" or "Wild Oxen" (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/01/unicorn-or-wild-ox-aurochs-or-like.html">discussed more fully here</a>)</h4><div>I've already discussed this at great length, but there cannot be serious doubt that the King James translators meant the animal on King James' royal coat of arms, and that the animal they had in mind has never existed. Instead, the word "reem" refers to the Aurochs, a species of wild bull that was hunted to extinction in the middle east, and finally died out in the 1600s in Poland.</div><h4 style="text-align: left;">2. Isaiah 34:14 "Satyr" should be "wild goat" (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/02/kjv-improvement-satyrs.html">discussed more fully here</a>)</h4><div>The King James translators wrongly followed Jewish superstition on this point, against the weight of the linguistic and historic evidence.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;">C. Name of Passover (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRDnxj_WbPU">debated at greater length here</a>)</h3><p>Acts 12:4 refers to Passover as "Easter" - it would be better especially in 1900 and beyond to call it "Passover," because no one refers to Passover as "Easter" any more, even though everyone did when Tyndale translated Acts. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">II. Differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus in Revelation </h2><div>While the KJV/TR/NA28 usually align with the majority reading of Greek texts, in some cases they depart from them. The book of Revelation provides an unusually high number of examples of places where the KJV departs from the majority of Greek manuscripts. How do we know when to follow the majority of Greek texts and when not to do so? Treating the King James as the standard is inadequate at best and leads us into error in some cases.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;">A. Where the TR agrees with the NA28 against the Majority</h3><p>Revelation 15:4 Agios (αγιος) or Osios (οσιος) </p><p>The Majority of Greek Manuscripts have Agios rather than Osios at Revelation 15:4. Both mean "Holy." Which is correct? (or is it something else?) Should Agios at least be referenced in a marginal note?</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">B. Where the TR disagrees with the NA28 and the Majority </h3><p>Revelation 16:5 "Lord" should not be added (the vast majority of manuscripts do not have it) and "and shalt be" should not be substituted for "O Holy One" (none of the Greek manuscripts, fathers, or versions have this substitution)(<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/response-to-will-kinney-on-revelation.html">see also this specific post regarding Will's position</a>)</p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29643379562690932992024-01-17T15:44:00.000+00:002024-01-17T15:44:04.197+00:00Some Arguments that Jesus is YHWH<p>The Scriptures abundantly teach that Jesus is YHWH. Here are some of the relevant passages, thematically arranged.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">1. YHWH the Creator</h4><p>Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens <b><u>alone</u></b>; that spreadeth abroad the earth <b><u>by myself</u></b>;</p><p> Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;</p><p>John 1:3 All things were made <b><u>by him</u></b>; and without him was not any thing made that was made.</p><p>Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, <b><u>by whom also he made the worlds</u></b>;</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">2. YHWH the Redeemer</h4><p>Isaiah 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.</p><p>Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:</p><p>Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">3. YWHW the Holy One</h4><p>Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.</p><p>Luke 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.</p><p>Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.</p><p>Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.</p><p>Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.</p><p>Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, <b><u>Holy, holy, holy</u></b>, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.</p><p>Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for <b><u>thou only art holy</u></b>: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.</p><p>Revelation 16:5 (corrected to the Greek) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, which art and wast, <b><u>O Holy One</u></b>, because thou hast judged thus.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">4. YWHW the Just</h4><p>Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a <b><u>just </u></b>God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.</p><p>Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the <b><u>Just</u></b>, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;</p><p>Revelation 15:3 (corrected to the Greek) And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; <b><u>just</u></b> and true are thy ways, thou King of nations.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">5. YHWH the Almighty</h4><p>Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the <b><u>Almighty </u></b>God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.</p><p>Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the <b><u>Almighty</u></b>.</p><p>Revelation 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God <b><u>Almighty</u></b>, true and righteous are thy judgments.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">6. YHWH the First and Last</h4><p>Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.</p><p>Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.</p><p>Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, <b><u>the first and the last</u></b>: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.</p><p>Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, <b><u>the first and the last</u></b>.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">7. YHWH the Self-Existent</h4><p>Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.</p><p>John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.</p><p>Revelation 11:17 (corrected to the Greek) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, <b><u>which art, and wast</u></b>; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">8. YWHW the Saviour</h4><p>Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no <b><u>saviour</u></b>.</p><p>Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our <b><u>Saviour</u></b>;</p><p>2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and <b><u>Saviour</u></b> Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76910006875971909542024-01-16T19:18:00.001+00:002024-01-16T19:18:06.255+00:00"Firing Line" Style Debates as an Alternative to Cross-Examination Debates?<p>I think there is value in the structure of cross-examination heavy academic debates. That format is roughly:</p><p>1v1</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1AC - First Affirmative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the Affirmative speaker by the Negative Speaker</li><li>1NC - First Negative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the Negative speaker by the Affirmative Speaker</li><li>1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative</li><li>1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative</li><li>2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative</li><li>2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative</li><li>(additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)</li><li>NC - Negative Conclusion</li><li>AC - Affirmative Conclusion</li></ul><p></p><p>2v2 </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1AC - First Affirmative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the First Affirmative speaker by the Second Negative Speaker</li><li>1NC - First Negative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the First Negative speaker by the First Affirmative Speaker</li><li>2AC - Second Affirmative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the Second Affirmative speaker by the First Negative Speaker</li><li>2NC - Second Negative Constructive</li><li>Cross-examination of the Second Negative speaker by the Second Affirmative Speaker</li><li>1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative</li><li>1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative</li><li>2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative</li><li>2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative</li><li>(additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)</li><li>NC - Negative Conclusion</li><li>AC - Affirmative Conclusion</li></ul><p></p><p>There are other ways that a similar structure has been adapted, such as:</p><p>1v1</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Affirmative Constructive</li><li>Negative Constructive</li><li>Affirmative Rebuttal</li><li>Negative Rebuttal</li><li>(additional rounds could be added or rebuttal rounds as such could be omitted depending on the complexity of the topic)</li><li>Affirmative CX of the Negative</li><li>Negative CX of the Affirmative</li><li>Affirmative Conclusion</li><li>Negative Conclusion</li></ul><p></p><p>The value of these cross-examination style debates depends on the ability of the debaters to engage in a proper cross-examination. A proper cross-examination has the following characteristics:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>The person asking the questions (the questioner) is limited to asking questions, not making arguments.</li><li>The person answering the questions (the answerer) is limited to answering the question asked, without re-crossing the questioner.</li><li>The questioner controls the time, meaning that the answerer needs to stop talking when interrupted by the questioner.</li><li>The questions need to be addressed to the arguments/evidence presented in the debate by the answerer.</li></ol><p></p><p>When all four of these are regularly violated by both sides, the debate can descend into chaos. When they are violated by one side, and honored by the other side, the debate can be confusing to the audience.</p><p>One option is just to have an informal dialog. A possible advantage of this approach is that there are no strict rules to be followed or disregarded. The downside of this approach is that it can tend to be a bit chaotic and meandering. A good informal dialog can depend on leadership by a host/moderator in keep the dialog moving along a path toward timely conclusion. In cases like a “round table” discussion, an informal dialog may be a sort of necessary evil, as it would be complex to have a First constructive speech for each of four (or more) different positions, followed by three or more cross-examinations thereof, etc. The downside of this approach is that it can be very challenging to moderate, and it can lend itself to being dominated by one person who is more talkative than the other.</p><p>Another option is to have a “Firing Line” style format, to provide a degree of structure and balance with fewer restrictions on the debaters. There are various ways that this could be implemented. One way would be to begin with opening statements by each side, followed by rebuttals, and then ramped down back-and-forth statements by either side on a given topic of the debate. For example:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>First Side Opening statement (15 minutes)</li><li>Second Side Opening statement (15 minutes)</li><li>First Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)</li><li>Second Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)</li><li>Topic 1</li><ul><li>Round 1</li><ul><li>First Side 2 minutes</li><li>Second Side 2 minutes</li></ul><li>Round 2</li><ul><li>First Side 2 minutes</li><li>Second Side 2 minutes</li></ul><li>Round 3</li><ul><li>First Side 2 minutes</li><li>Second Side 2 minutes</li></ul><li>Round 4</li><ul><li>First Side 2 minutes</li><li>Second Side 2 minutes</li></ul><li>Round 5</li><ul><li>First Side 2 minutes</li><li>Second Side 2 minutes</li></ul><li>Round 6</li><ul><li>First Side 1 minute</li><li>Second Side 1 minute</li></ul><li>Round 7</li><ul><li>First Side 30 seconds</li><li>Second Side 30 seconds</li></ul><li>(Either fixed to seven rounds max or continue 30 second back and forth until moderator or debaters go to next topic)</li></ul><li>Topic 2 (same format as Topic 1)</li><li>etc. for additional topics</li><li>First Side Summary of the Discussion (5 minutes or so)</li><li>Second Side Summary of Discussion (5 minutes or so)</li></ul><p></p><p>One downside of this format is that it requires the host to be a quite active in keeping track of and controlling the time. An upside is that this format can allow for topics of maximum of about 30 minutes per topic to be covered in a relatively fair way. It’s also more or less scalable for debates that have larger or smaller numbers of topics.</p><p>A potential advantage of this format is that some topics may go less than seven rounds, before both sides feel everything that needs to be said has been said. Another potential advantage of this format is that it would allow for convenient indexing and “flowing” of the debate on particular topics of interest.</p><p>In this format, the first hour of the debate is a bit more static, and the second hour (or more) of the debate is more dynamic. The topics could be agreed in advance by the debaters, or could be selected in alternation by the debaters (for example, first topic is Side 1’s pick, second topic is Side 2’s pick, etc.), or they could be picked by the moderator or selected by some kind of random draw from a list of possible topics etc. </p><p>I haven’t done any debates in this specific format. </p><p>Another variation of this is to simply go to alternating two minute speeches (without topical constraint) after the rebuttals. The result might be something similar to day two of the Harold Camping vs. James White debate (<a href="https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/misc/day-two-of-the-debate-with-harold-camping/">link</a>). This variation could be tweaked to be two minutes for side 1, followed by 4 minutes for side 2, and then alternating four minute sections, to allow two minutes to respond to the other side and two minutes to raise a new issue for one's own side, with a final section of the pattern being a two minute section for side 2.</p><p>Four minute chunks and an expectation of alternating points, could help to reduce somewhat the amount of direct action by the host/moderator. </p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-86042725125009202682024-01-15T14:29:00.003+00:002024-01-15T14:29:30.409+00:00Dr. Edward F. Hills on Beza's "Conjectural Emendation" at Revelation 16:5<p> In "The King James Version Defended," (<a href="https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Edward%20F%20Hills%20-%20KJB%20Defended/kjbd_chapter_eight.htm">electronically available here</a>) Dr. Edward F. Hills makes a number of references to conjectural emendation, and includes Beza's revision of the text as one such emendation. </p><p>From chapter 8, "The Textus Receptus and the King James Version," Section 2, "How Erasmus and His Successors were Guided by the Common Faith," Sub-Section (i),"Calvin's Comments on the New Testament Text," (p. 204): </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>The mention of Geneva leads us immediately to think of John Calvin (1509-64), the famous Reformer who had his headquarters in this city. In his commentaries (which covered every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John and Revelation) Calvin mentions Erasmus by name 78 times, far more often than any other contemporary scholar. Most of these references (72 to be exact) are criticisms of Erasmus' Latin version, and once (Phil. 2:6) Calvin complains about Erasmus' refusal to admit that the passage in question teaches the deity of Christ. But five references deal with variant readings which Erasmus suggested in his notes, and of these Calvin adopted three. On the basis of these statistics therefore it is perhaps not too much to say that Calvin disapproved of Erasmus as a translator and theologian but thought better of him as a New Testament textual critic.</p><p>...</p><p>To the three variant readings taken from Erasmus' notes Calvin added 18 others. The three most important of these Calvin took from the Latin Vulgate namely, light instead of Spirit (Eph.5:9), Christ instead of God (Eph. 5:21), without thy works instead of by thy works (James 2:18). Calvin also made two conjectural emendations. In James 4:2 he followed Erasmus (2nd edition) and Luther in changing <i>kill</i> to <i>envy</i>. Also he suggested that 1 John 2:14 was an interpolation because to him it seemed repetitious. (22)</p></blockquote><p>Hills' endnote cites Calvin's commentaries, presumably the section on the Catholic epistles. I quote this material as background to Hills' comments about Beza, not as an endorsement or recommendation of Dr. Hills' work.</p><p>I note that the KJV does not follow either of these conjectures by Calvin.</p><p>At subsection (j) "Theodore Beza's Ten Editions of the New Testament," of the same chapter and section, Hills writes (p. 208):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Like Calvin, Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the King James Version, namely, Romans 7:6 <i>that being dead wherein</i> instead of <i>being dead to that wherein</i>, and Revelation 16:5 <i>shalt be</i> instead of <i>holy</i>. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.</p></blockquote><p>The subsequent sub-section (k) "The Elzevir Editions-The Triumph of the Common Faith" goes on (p. 208):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Admittedly there are a few places in which the Textus Receptus is supported by only a small number of manuscripts, for example, Eph. 1:18, where it reads, <i>eyes of your understanding</i>, instead of <i>eyes of your heart</i>; and Eph. 3:9, where it reads, <i>fellowship of the mystery</i>, instead of <i>dispensation of the mystery</i>. We solve this problem, however, according to the logic of faith. Because the Textus Receptus was God-guided as a whole, it was probably God-guided in these few passages also.</p></blockquote><p>Ultimately, of course, this is Hills' solution for everything. Because he accepts the KJV as a whole, he resolves every individual question in the KJV's favor.</p><p>Hills identifies the substitution of "shalt be" for "holy" as a conjectural emendation, which it may well have been (despite Beza's comments, which suggest reliance in some way on a manuscript). However, Hills' defense of this is just that "the influence of the common faith" was responsible for keeping these cases "to a minimum." </p><p>While we may agree that there are "few" (though more than Hills enumerates) places where the KJV is supported by only a few manuscripts and "a minimum" of places where the KJV follows a conjecture, their small number is not really a defense of the reading as such.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40428472855772176272024-01-13T03:43:00.000+00:002024-01-13T03:43:03.795+00:00Responding to Jeffrey Khoo regarding Revelation 16:5<p>Jeffrey Khoo has provided some arguments regarding Revelation 16:5 (<a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm">Errors in the King James Version? A Response to William W. Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary</a> in <i>The Burning Bush</i>, Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2009)(Cited by Moorman as "Dean Burgon Society eNews, 89- Sept. 2009," which based on the title and date I assume to be essentially the same point.)</p><p>*** Start of Khoo ***</p><p align="CENTER" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: center;">Revelation 16:5</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">Combs says there is "an indisputable error" in Revelation 16:5 where the KJV reads, "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." He says the words "shalt be," should read "holy one." He says there is no evidence whatsoever for the reading "shalt be" which translates accurately the Greek <i>esomenos</i>. According to Combs the right word should be <i>hosios</i> ("holy one") and not <i>esomenos</i>.<span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#49a" name="49" style="color: #0000cc;">49</a></sup></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">It ought to be noted that Beza said he was certain about the reading <i>esomenos</i> in Revelation 16:5 in light of the internal evidences and the ancient manuscript he had in his possession. To be sure, Beza was not a Bible corrector but a Bible believer and defender of the Faith. As such, he would have known only too well the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 against adding to or subtracting from the Holy Scriptures. There must have been compelling reasons for him, with a high view of Scripture, to restore to the Holy Scriptures the true reading which his predecessors had apparently overlooked. He gave his reasons as follows,</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so <i>without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be."</i></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#50a" name="50" style="color: #0000cc;">50</a></sup></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, <i>qui fuisti et futures es</i>, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.<span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#51a" name="51" style="color: #0000cc;">51</a></sup> It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading <i>esomenos</i>.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">It is also significant to note that the reading <i>hosios</i> preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking <i>hosios</i> as parallel with <i>dikaios</i> creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with <i>ho on</i> and <i>ho en</i> breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."<span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#52a" name="52" style="color: #0000cc;">52</a></sup> We note that the reading <i>ho esomenos</i>, the future participle of <i>eimi </i>in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe <i>dikaios</i>—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">Although it is admitted that <i>ho esomenos</i> is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."<span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#53a" name="53" style="color: #0000cc;">53</a></sup> It is also admitted that the reading of <i>ho hosios</i> in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s <i>ho esomenos</i>. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.</span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#54a" name="54" style="color: #0000cc;">54</a></sup></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;">The reading of Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Text underlying the KJV is thus not proven as "an indisputable error" as Combs would have us think. There are enough reasons for us to receive it as an authentic reading in the light of God’s special providence as seen in both the internal and external evidences.<span style="font-size: 9pt;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#55a" name="55" style="color: #0000cc;">55</a></sup></span></p><p>...</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#49" name="49a" style="color: #0000cc;">49</a></sup> Combs, "Errors in the King James Version?," 156.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#50" name="50a" style="color: #0000cc;">50</a></sup> As cited in Thomas Holland, "Manuscript Evidence," <a href="http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm</a>, accessed on 9 March 2009, emphasis mine.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#51" name="51a" style="color: #0000cc;">51</a></sup> Ibid. See also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, <i>The Text of the New Testament</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 211, for information on Beatus of Liebana.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#52" name="52a" style="color: #0000cc;">52</a></sup> Robert L Thomas, <i>Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary</i> (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 255-6.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#53" name="53a" style="color: #0000cc;">53</a></sup> Hills, <i>The King James Version Defended</i>, 200.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#54" name="54a" style="color: #0000cc;">54</a></sup> Ibid., 223.</p><p align="JUSTIFY" class="mainCopy" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 7px; padding-right: 7px; text-align: justify;"><sup><a href="https://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2c.htm#55" name="55a" style="color: #0000cc;">55</a></sup> See also Moorman, <i>When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text</i>, 102.</p><p>*** End of Khoo *** </p><p>A few thoughts:</p><p>1) Beza's certainty is not something that moves me, and I'm not sure why it would move anyone else.</p><p>2) The assertion, "the ancient manuscript he had in his possession," is unsubstantiated. Most of Beza's references to manuscripts are references to collations by others (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/11/bezas-sources-as-it-relates-to.html">as discussed here, for example</a>), not manuscripts in his possession. Moreover, no such manuscript was seen before or since. Perhaps such a manuscript did exist. Maybe it was Stephanus' manuscript 16. Even if it did, so what? Why would we think a reading found in a single manuscript is correct?</p><p>3) The claim that "Beza was not a Bible corrector" is somewhat absurd. All of Beza's editions prior to 1580 (and all of the other editions of the Greek New Testament, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic) had a different reading, which Beza changed in 1580. The only sense in which Beza was not a "Bible corrector" in this instance is that his correction was not correct.</p><p>4) The assertion that "There must have been compelling reasons" for Beza to alter the text is only true as it regards Beza. Beza felt there were compelling reasons. But are Beza's reasons compelling? Beza's explanation does not even address the best reading of the text here - the reading with the most Greek manuscripts in its favor. </p><p>5) Thomas Holland's mistranslation of Beza's is not really Khoo's fault, but it is erroneous nonetheless. Furthermore, how could anyone find Holland's version of Beza "compelling"? It makes little sense as written. For example, it does not address why not "and is to come" as in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8. It also seems to be an argument not so much from a manuscript itself as from the damaged section of a manuscript.</p><p>6) Beatus may point us to a reading of Revelation 16 attested to by Tyconius. Nevertheless, the best explanation for Beatus/Tyconius' Latin reading of "<i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">qui fuisti et futures es</i>" is that it is a paraphrastic translation of "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" rather than being a witness to an otherwise unwitnessed Greek text with <i>esomenos</i>, because it uses two tenses of the verb "to be" rather than the three proposed by Beza. Moreover, Beatus/Tyconius is a witness to "holy" being present in Revelation 16:5. </p><p>7) Oddly, Khoo argues that "hosios" is a "harder" reading, a point which ought to be in its favor, but seems to be taken as the opposite by Khoo. </p><p>8) Khoo's claim that "shall be" "<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">functions well as an adjectival participle to describe </span><i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">dikaios</i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world</span>" is opposite of the actual opinion of Beza himself, who argued that coming in judgment has already begun. Furthermore, "shall be" is (per Beza) merely a part of the explanation of the meaning of YHWH.</p><p>9) It is true that Hills, who took this to a be a conjecture, asserted that it <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">"seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."</span> But there does not seem to be any basis for this "special providence" claim. The reading is not attested by signs and wonders or anything else miraculous that could be deemed a "special providence."</p><p>10) Likewise, even if Hills thinks we should go with the KJV, Hills' authority is very slight. The force of his argument depends on thinking that God has placed his stamp of approval on the King James Version, a fact that does not seem to be so.</p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-17895249451386654062024-01-12T21:58:00.001+00:002024-01-12T21:58:33.293+00:002 Peter - An Overview<p>In this overview, I've mostly just quoted the text, and formed it into paragraphs and sections, with some major headings.</p><p>Author:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, </p></blockquote><p>Recipients:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:</p></blockquote><p>Blessing:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.</p></blockquote><p>Reason for the Epistle:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. </p></blockquote><p>Warning of the False Prophets:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.</p></blockquote><p>Reiteration of the Epistle's Purpose:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: </p></blockquote><p>Warning of Scoffers and Coming Judgment:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. </p></blockquote><p>Doxology</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42783138445801833712024-01-12T17:57:00.001+00:002024-01-12T17:57:10.050+00:00Thoughts on 1 John 2:19 and Perseverance of the Saints<p>1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.</p><p>Dan commented (<a href="https://twitter.com/theojunkiedan/status/1745527004567413204">link</a>): "The Greek for the end of 1 John 2:19, which is often cited for perseverance, is less clear than I though. The difference between the KJV (that they were not all of us) and ESV (they all are not of us). The KJV leaves open that some, but not all were of us, but the ESV doesn't."</p><p>Setting (for the moment) to the side the wording of the KJV, the underlying Greek of 1 John 2:19 is this:</p><p>(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1jo/2/1/t_conc_1161019">TR per BLB</a>) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν· εἰ γὰρ <u>ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν</u> μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν· ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν</p><p>(<a href="https://www.academic-bible.com/en/bible/NA28/1JN.2">NA28</a>) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, εἰ γὰρ <u>ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν</u>, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν – ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν.</p><p>The only difference between the TR and the NA28 is a word order issue (I've added underline to show it) that I don't think meaningfully affects translation in this discussion, and punctuation, which no one claims is original and has a similar effect in any case.</p><p>The flow of the verse is this:</p><p>(a) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον they went out from us</p><p>(b) ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν but they were not of us</p><p>(c) εἰ γὰρ <u>ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν</u> (or εἰ γὰρ <u>ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν)</u> for if they had been of us</p><p>(d) μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν then they would have continued with us</p><p>(e) ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν but that it might be manifested </p><p>(f) ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν that they were not all of us</p><p>Notice that John's argument refers to a group of folks who went out from us, but were not of us (a-b). John argues that if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (c-d). Finally, John explains that the reason they left was to manifest their disunion with us (e-f). In context, the group of folks are the "ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ" (1 John 2:18), the "many antichrists."</p><p>With that background, the real difference in translation between the KJV "they were not all of us" and the ESV "they all are not of us" is not about whether <b style="text-decoration-line: underline;">some</b> of the many antichrists were of us or <b><u>all</u></b> of the many antichrists were of us, but rather whether the "they" in (f) should be understood as changing referent to the people prior to the manifestation of the many antichrists or keeping the same referent as the antichrists themselves.</p><p>In other words, the KJV is conveying a similar sense to "they are not all Israel" (i.e. some of what appeared to be Israel wasn't really Israel), whereas the ESV is treating "all" as emphatic of the preceding.</p><p>The KJV does not say (nor - imho - does it mean) that "not all of them were of us," i.e. that the "many antichrists" were a mixed crowd, with some being of us and others not being of us. Instead, the KJV says (and imho means) that "they were not all of us," meaning that the "us" was a mixed group of folks who appeared to be of us and folks who actually were of us.</p><p>Not only is this a similar construction to Romans 9:6 but also to John 13:10-11 "but not all" and "ye are not all...." </p><p>In short, I don't think that the KJV translation (even if superior to the ESV) should create any confusion or lack of clarity regarding the message of 1 John 2:19, namely that if the "many antichrists" had been of us then they would not have left us.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-77451767816104608002024-01-07T00:43:00.004+00:002024-01-07T00:43:59.441+00:00Limited Atonement - Notes for a Debate on the Subject<p><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Why Limited Atonement?</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-fa92126b-7fff-adb6-96f3-6d23783762b8"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">It’s explicitly taught in Scripture that Christ died for his people:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us all</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Thessalonians 5:10 Who died </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for the sheep</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for the sheep</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Purpose:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Save his people:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">save his people</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> from their sins.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Luke 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Titus 2:14 Who gave himself </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, that he might </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">redeem us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> from all iniquity, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">purify</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> unto himself </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">a peculiar people</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, zealous of good works.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Galatians 3:13 Christ hath </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">redeemed us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> from the curse of the law, being made a curse </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, who knew no sin; that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">we might be made the righteousness of God in him</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.</span></p><br /><br /><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">What “For” Means </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1. “On Behalf of”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Example:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Genesis 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">2. “Because of”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Exodus 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for his theft</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Ezekiel 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for his iniquity </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">that he hath done shall he die.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for his name</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">suffered for us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">suffered for us </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for our sins</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> according to the scriptures;</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">3. “Instead of”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Galatians 2:20 </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">I am crucified with Christ</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">gave himself for me</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">for the people</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">that the whole nation perish not</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Metaphors of Scripture</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Sacrificial Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Redemption Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Revelation 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">redeemed us</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Debt Cancellation Metaphor & Rescue Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Colossians 2:14-15 </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> that was against us, which was contrary to us, and </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">; and having </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">spoiled principalities and powers</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Suretyship Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Ransom Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">a ransom for all, to be testified in due time</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Commercial Metaphor</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.</span></p><div><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10951408033541453952024-01-05T01:05:00.005+00:002024-01-05T01:10:27.613+00:00We don't worship Mary, but ... <p> Roman Catholics in the US are quick to say that they don't worship Mary. That said, the Vatican website provides the "<a href="https://www.vatican.va/special/rosary/documents/litanie-lauretane_en.html">Litany of Loreto</a>." The prayer states:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>Lord have mercy.</p><p>Christ have mercy.</p><p>Lord have mercy.</p><p>Christ hear us.</p><p>Christ graciously hear us.</p><p><br /></p><p>God, the Father of heaven, </p><p>have mercy on us.</p><p><br /></p><p>God the Son, Redeemer of the world, </p><p>God the Holy Spirit, </p><p>Holy Trinity, one God,</p><p>...</p><p>Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, </p><p>spare us, O Lord.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, </p><p>graciously hear us, O Lord.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, </p><p>have mercy on us.</p><p><br /></p><p>... </p><p>Let us pray. </p><p>Grant, we beseech thee, </p><p>O Lord God, </p><p>that we, your servants,</p><p>may enjoy perpetual health of mind and body; </p><p>and ... </p><p>may be delivered from present sorrow, </p><p>and obtain eternal joy. </p><p>Through Christ our Lord. </p><p>Amen.</p></blockquote><p>Of course, as the ellipses may have given away, I have removed part of the prayer. The part that I have left behind seems like a Christian prayer. The trouble is that I've had to remove the majority of lines of the prayer. The first ellipsis omits about 50 lines of adoration of Mary in which she is called, among other absurd blasphemies, "Virgin most venerable" and "Virgin most powerful." Worse than that, she is titled "Morning star," a title that Jesus claims for himself:</p><p>Revelation 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.</p><p>I wish that exhausted the blasphemy, but it does not. God (not Mary) is the refuge of sinners. </p><p>Psalm 91:2 - I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.</p><div>Rome's promotion of the Litany of Loreto is obvious heresy. Come out of her, my friends!</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-28328603747681158592024-01-04T21:46:00.001+00:002024-01-04T21:46:14.860+00:00External Evidence against Beza's Reading at Revelation 16:5<p>In his 1582 edition, Beza changed Revelation 16:5 from "και ο οσιος" to "και ο εσομενος". There are no extant Greek manuscripts with "εσομενος" in the main text. The one extant Greek manuscript with "εσομενος" in the margin is from the late 1600s, presumably derived from Beza.</p><p>In short, there is no meaningful Greek manuscript evidence that corresponds to Beza's substitution. There is also no meaningful versional evidence that corresponds to Beza's substitution. Thus, although Beza does not explicitly describe his change as a conjecture, I am comfortable doing so.</p><p>Nevertheless, there are additional ways that the external evidence undermines Beza's substitution. Recall that Beza's rationale was this (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/11/theodore-bezas-annotations-at.html">link</a>):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">If Beza's conjecture were correct, one would expect that at least some of the manuscripts, versions, patristic commentaries, and/or patristic citations would reflect the reading of "shall be" in place of "holy." The closest one can come to finding such a thing is a set of possible allusions, which should be given almost no weight in the discussion because they are much more easily associated with Plato than with Scripture (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/11/beza-plato-and-shall-be-speculative.html">link</a>).</p><p style="text-align: left;">Similarly, even if all traces of the alleged original reading of "esomenos" were gone from the manuscript tradition, the most natural textual variant to arise as an alternative to "esomenos" would be "erchomenos" in an attempt to harmonize the text with the preceding readings in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8, as was also done by some scribes (in error) at Revelation 11:17.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Nevertheless, a survey of the extant manuscripts (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2024/01/readings-of-revelation-165-with-images.html">such as this one</a>) does not show any examples of Greek manuscripts with a variant reading ερχομενος in place of οσιος. Likewise, there are no versional witnesses that evidence a source having a substituted ερχομενος for οσιος. There is also no clear patristic evidence of such a substitution.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Thus, in this additional way, the external evidence disfavors Beza's conclusion. In fact, while Beza takes pains to respond to Erasmus' conjecture that ερχομενος could have been original, Beza does not explain how οσιος could have arisen in the manuscript tradition.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Someone (I think it was Dr. Thomas Holland) developed the following incorrect translation of Beza's annotation (emphasis added):</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since <b><u>a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," </u></b>which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">This is wrong, because it mistranslates Beza's Latin:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">5 <i>Et qui eris</i>, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. Legitur vulgo, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, ostendente articulo, praeter omnem loquendi morem, depravatam esse scripturam. Vulgata vero sive articulum legit sive non legit, nihilo rectius vertit ὅσιος, <i>Sanctus</i>, male extrita particula καὶ, prorsus necessaria ut δίκαιος & ὅσιος connectantur. Sed quum Ioannes reliquis omnibus locis ubi Iehouae nomen explicat, sicuti diximus supra, I.4. addere consueuerit tertium, nempe καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, cur istud hoc loco praeteriisset? Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui nempe Ό ἐσόμενος. Causa vero cur hîc non scribatur Ό ἐρχόμενος, ut supra quatuor locis, nempe I.4&8. item 4.8:& 11.17, haec est, quoniam ibi de Christo ut iudice venturo agitur: in hac vero visione proponitur ut iam in tribunali sedens, & decreta iudicia, & ea quidem aeterna exercens.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">There is nothing corresponding to "a section ... has worn away the part after 'and'" in Beza's Latin. Moreover, in case you want to verify the transcription, here are Beza's annotations in his various editions. As you will note, the relevant annotation entered in 1580 and remained unchanged from 1580 onward:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbfg4pEQXWFmKfE-POcBBb8_aRymHUcgxrbwHqqE2k5HiWqvg9x1NKDcaOEl8GVLFIQn92FtIHLWmqQy09Csr5d9WGm7auFjWzN2MBPNtQPKU66jokAi52_IzZ9_5PH1PYEVYWkpyNrzNqfGuyO61YzmuD9h-p0Do2Mu_LAZ9KroTynzCUxQgDKA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="699" height="44" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbfg4pEQXWFmKfE-POcBBb8_aRymHUcgxrbwHqqE2k5HiWqvg9x1NKDcaOEl8GVLFIQn92FtIHLWmqQy09Csr5d9WGm7auFjWzN2MBPNtQPKU66jokAi52_IzZ9_5PH1PYEVYWkpyNrzNqfGuyO61YzmuD9h-p0Do2Mu_LAZ9KroTynzCUxQgDKA" width="320" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/10661775">1556/7, vol. 2, image 1200, p. 330v</a>)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBLd7XaXPowMzjzmdME5r0QsN0C_FaPTo_kUXgu13722un0I000Fu7pS3xFVsmJZ5xWCErHRy4Bm77Pg1FpID7S5mpwmUdgerdgdk5IK9K-wKHEypafl6R25fYxUeGUq_q6rKkdoHoJYPsTGuHoxP-KLda9RxPbVxlobZ41tusYcAckU7uUATNcg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="750" height="41" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBLd7XaXPowMzjzmdME5r0QsN0C_FaPTo_kUXgu13722un0I000Fu7pS3xFVsmJZ5xWCErHRy4Bm77Pg1FpID7S5mpwmUdgerdgdk5IK9K-wKHEypafl6R25fYxUeGUq_q6rKkdoHoJYPsTGuHoxP-KLda9RxPbVxlobZ41tusYcAckU7uUATNcg" width="320" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/4465251">1565, image 1113, p. 647</a>)</p></div><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjGBX1pejN6WOGuuMt53-UjOwoEpDRZ6CQXxSqRqBb4uHIxpGKJ-RnpzavCuG_V44sEvKo9WOfyt8r10NIwSgmIIAZ3bGrITEiv4MQIrS5Q5bHv4jS4vt-UHCiO1E84joRQYX_DH7RsHKbqrX53iLNc03ix0yFmbHQoFfb5lvH_Cm05IyUjSbjmg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="219" data-original-width="579" height="121" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjGBX1pejN6WOGuuMt53-UjOwoEpDRZ6CQXxSqRqBb4uHIxpGKJ-RnpzavCuG_V44sEvKo9WOfyt8r10NIwSgmIIAZ3bGrITEiv4MQIrS5Q5bHv4jS4vt-UHCiO1E84joRQYX_DH7RsHKbqrX53iLNc03ix0yFmbHQoFfb5lvH_Cm05IyUjSbjmg" width="320" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/4478934">1580 edition, image 1025, p. 475</a>)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg4r6PyILaf4Pw0PGjb0TxcYcy_xi_K5gCJlKnU1tT4WulaSnNBluF3x0M7pqyJ9ZeGuyjCA23bPdwfbTk5nQv9PW1uAqwRE4WiXpU09Xw9QyHyE5nOC28MsfUPykeet9aCRCvhSpA8nXp8M33wpPrVAJ2NNBKbTc1OlcZE7BB8yz6c3ysZ01rulg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="278" data-original-width="706" height="126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg4r6PyILaf4Pw0PGjb0TxcYcy_xi_K5gCJlKnU1tT4WulaSnNBluF3x0M7pqyJ9ZeGuyjCA23bPdwfbTk5nQv9PW1uAqwRE4WiXpU09Xw9QyHyE5nOC28MsfUPykeet9aCRCvhSpA8nXp8M33wpPrVAJ2NNBKbTc1OlcZE7BB8yz6c3ysZ01rulg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/lac1_g/content/zoom/11395951">1588/9 edition, image 1094, p. 506</a>)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2EJb7OA3rnwtRRXf2NM2tBz5i9OZNHSLpEkpnSNuGPO8p_deRvZ63FXobignKICXgUR1MeV9PWLS9s2KwbnfFhQou-Xo066upgaCSc55H8j8eJ9rLGPUt-4115Gwfk3ZbN7nanBNDU6KhDKPRFRj4jf7ZtpncXpXz_vZxdU_gevmKb_4L4DzXjg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1162" data-original-width="450" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh2EJb7OA3rnwtRRXf2NM2tBz5i9OZNHSLpEkpnSNuGPO8p_deRvZ63FXobignKICXgUR1MeV9PWLS9s2KwbnfFhQou-Xo066upgaCSc55H8j8eJ9rLGPUt-4115Gwfk3ZbN7nanBNDU6KhDKPRFRj4jf7ZtpncXpXz_vZxdU_gevmKb_4L4DzXjg" width="93" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/1096448">1594 Annotations, image 1259, p. 643</a>)</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiHaqooxPyguoP8O1P0YPyXoEu-yCEaDuzssw5hAjWg23WuBeLfqLdxUBQ2vLBPihE0GDLbfNmILot-UmqvsPvkR1tiCuAx6bXVyRrX3pxlx6dCP6QyI89qscNhK27nZq9q8XeYK8NeRarCSR4vr1g7HA5L5bgi5FlVA2hmLDTVmW5JnCyDqJPwwQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="267" data-original-width="734" height="116" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiHaqooxPyguoP8O1P0YPyXoEu-yCEaDuzssw5hAjWg23WuBeLfqLdxUBQ2vLBPihE0GDLbfNmILot-UmqvsPvkR1tiCuAx6bXVyRrX3pxlx6dCP6QyI89qscNhK27nZq9q8XeYK8NeRarCSR4vr1g7HA5L5bgi5FlVA2hmLDTVmW5JnCyDqJPwwQ" width="320" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/2026240">1598 edition, image 1152, p. 550</a>)</p></div></div>Thus, I don't think Dr. Holland's interpretation of Beza is the same as Beza. Nevertheless, Holland's view would seemingly reconcile Beza's view with the external manuscript evidence in the sense that there may be some manuscripts where the "ο οσιος" is sufficiently obliterated to require guesswork as to whether it read "ο οσιος" or "o ερχομενος" or "ο εσομενος" (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/06/manuscript-2344-at-revelation-165.html">Ms. 2344 comes to mind</a>).<br /><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Regardless, Holland's view faces the same external evidence problem. If we are to understand that "ο οσιος" arose from a corruption of "ο εσομενος," it is hard to understand that happening during the time of uncial transmission, because of the much greater letter count of the latter and the width of capital mu and chi. Moreover, given the testimony of most of the ancient witnesses to a corresponding exemplar with "ο οσιος", it could not have arisen only in the time of the minuscules.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Nick Sayers, on the other hand, has a radically different explanation. In Nick's view, the word "οσιος" is a reverential scribal substitution for "εσομενος". There are numerous weaknesses to this position including, (1) no one before the 21st century seems ever to have thought of this, including no Greek or other commentator before the 21st century, no translator into any language before the 21st century, and no expert in scribal habits of the apostolic or patristic period; and (2) while creative, the explanation is transparently specially plead: there is no other case where "οσιος" was used as a reverential substitution, there are potentially reverential substitutions in Greek (such as "Lord" rather than a transliteration of YHWH) but this is not one, and there are potentially reverential abbreviations known as "nomina sacra," but this does not fit that model of abbreviation.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Moreover, the external evidence suggests that scribes felt (as Beza also did) that "ο οσιος" here seemed awkward and attempted to remedy it in various ways, including by omitting the article and/or adding a και. These would not have been needed if the scribes understood οσιος the way that Nick proposes it should be understood.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Moreover, two specific textual variants show that scribes did not understand the text Nick's way:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Minuscule 469 (13th century) adds "και ο αγιος·" after "ο οσιος." This suggests that the scribe understood οσιος as having its usual literal sense and employed an expansion of piety by compounding its synonym αγιος. </li><li>Minuscule 2026 (15th century) adds "εν τοις εργοις σου" ("in your works"). This suggests that the scribe understood οσιος as having its usual literal sense and added "in your works" to provide an explanation of God's holiness that fits the context.</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Neither of these variants is the original reading, of course, but they illustrate the scribes' mindset. More specifically, they show that the scribes did not share Nick's view.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-67783220821840383552024-01-04T01:48:00.001+00:002024-01-04T01:48:09.638+00:00Responding to Taylor DeSoto Regarding Revelation 16:5, Beza, and Francis Turretin<p>Back in November of 2019, Taylor DeSoto ("TD") posted a "Crash Course in the Textual Discussion," in which he made the following odd assertion related to Revelation 16:5: "Many advocates of the MCT are quick to point out that the TR does not have Greek manuscript support for Revelation 16:5, but the MCT also has readings that do not have Greek manuscript support, like 2 Peter 3:10, mentioned above. This does not mean that the verses cannot be supported, just that it is rather hypocritical that many MCT advocates demand extant manuscript support when there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading."</p><p>This argument is poorly written and even more poorly thought through. First, hypocrisy by "advocates of the MCT" is not an argument for TD's position or against the alleged hypocrites' position. Hypocrisy is a moral failing.</p><p>Second, the fact that the NA28 has two readings without Greek manuscript support does not excuse "the TR" for having a reading without Greek manuscript support. If the criticism of the TR is legitimate, then it is also a legitimate criticism of the reading of the NA28 at 2 Peter 3:10. The fact that the main text of the NA28 can be improved does not imply that the TR cannot be improved. </p><p>Third, we could improve TD's argument to say that the critics of the TR are being inconsistent by adopting a reading without Greek manuscript evidence (at 2 Peter 3:10) while rejecting the TR reading at Revelation 16:5, which lacks Greek manuscript evidence. However, the critics of the TR could improve their criticism either by (1) acknowledging that the NA28 main text does need improvement (a position taken by some "MCT advocates" including all that hold that the doctrine of preservation entails God preserving the Scriptures in the original languages) or (2) by arguing a more nuanced point (which is what the remainder of the "MCT advocates" -- including the editors that adopted the reading -- would do).</p><p>Fourth, the claim that "there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading" is simply an appeal to ignorance. What "may have" been is not evidence one way or another.</p><p>Fifth, a sharper version of the "manuscripts available" argument would be to argue that Beza's revision of the text he received was based on a manuscript. That said, there is a sound basis to think that no manuscripts had such a reading. More on this point in other posts. </p><p>Two days after the post above (going by the date stamps of the posts) TD posted "<a href="https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2019/11/06/a-summary-of-the-confessional-text-position/">A Summary of the Confessional Text Position</a>," and two days after that a commenter going by "RS" engaged Taylor DeSoto ("TD") in the comment box of TD's "Summary" post.</p><p>I assume that the original comments (having endured these past four years) are there to stay. Thus, the following is edited to remove formalities, to make the formatting more compact, to correct typographic errors, and to insert RS's comments directly into TD's post to avoid repetition (and maybe some more minor changes that I have now forgotten). Also, I'm breaking up the dialog at places where it is convenient for me to comment, even where that breaks up the original comment. So, if you need the original exchange, see the link.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>RS (original comment): Is it safe to assume that the “Confessional” Text position has no Principles, Methodology or Praxis to help determine or guide it’s proponents in the sifting of Textual variants? What is your chosen base Text? Scrivener, Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus etc.? Or do you have the option to choose amongst their readings?</p><p>TD 0: It is not a reconstructive methodology, so there would be no reconstructive principles. The position is based on the concept that the Scriptures have not fallen away and do not need to be reconstructed. In terms of the text I use, I work from a Scrivener text and 1550 Stephanus.</p></blockquote><p>First issue: <u style="font-weight: bold;">unlike Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus</u> (as well as the translators and editors of the KJV), the mislabeled "Confessional Text" position is opposed to reconstruction of the text. Stephanus, in his 1550 edition, provided a textual critical apparatus referring to the Complutensian edition (itself a reconstruction) and multiple manuscripts. Erasmus aimed to reconstruct the Greek text, and relied on more than one manuscript for that reason. Beza likewise aimed to reconstruct the original Greek text and - like Erasmus - altered the Greek text that was given to him at numerous points, usually on the basis of the Greek manuscripts (although at times Beza referred to versions, especially the Latin and Syriac). While Beza seldom changed the main text on the basis of his own conjectural notions, he did frequently suggest such emendations in his annotations. In principle, therefore, the chief architects of the family of printed texts later referred to as the "textus receptus," including Beza whose 1598 edition text is what the King James translators nearly always used, held to and used "a reconstructive methodology" and "reconstructive principles."</p><p>I appreciate TD's forthrightness in acknowledging that the "Confessional Text" position lacks such methodology and such principles. The next logical step would be to openly acknowledge, therefore, that the "Confessional Text" position is not the position of the 16th and 17th century churches that approved of the work of Erasmus and Beza. In particular, the central element of a reconstruction methodology, namely collation, was heartily embraced by folks like Turretin (<a href="https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2017/05/muller-on-turretin-and-textual.html">as I have discussed elsewhere</a>).</p><p>As for TD's choice of texts to use, I have a few minor observations. The main reason to use Scrivener's TR is because one wants a Greek text to match the KJV. On the other hand, Scrivener's TR is a close approximation of Beza's 1598. So perhaps TD would like to Beza's 1598, but it's hard to get in a reliable digital form and/or to get in a quality printed/bound form. The bigger surprise from my standpoint is why TD would need to use two different (even if only a little) Greek texts, if his goal is not reconstruction of the original from those different texts.</p><p>My suspicion is that although TD presents his position as not having a reconstructive methodology or reconstructive principles, he uses those two Greek texts because they are the two 16th century printed editions that have the greatest following amongst the Protestant churches, in terms of serving as the basis for translation into the vulgar tongues of various nations. In the case of the King James translation, for example, the belief is that the King James translators referred to these two editions in their work. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>RS 0x: What about the locations where various editions of the TR have no Greek manuscript evidence backing them,–do you believe that these areas don’t need reconstruction? More importantly, what is the formula used to choose between TR variations when they do exist?</p><p>TD 1.1: In the locations where there is not any extant manuscript support, we go with the reading that is historically received (used), ... </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>RS 1.1x: ***How is the “historically received” reading determined? What factors would lead you to choose one TR reading against another?*** For example: You mentioned Rev.16:5, what *factors* lead you accept the reading of Beza or Scrivener over against Erasmus or Stephanus? The fact that the reading {εσομενος} is *not* found in any single extant manuscript could not have made it attractive to you, so what did/does? Let’s stay on this. The TR is split, therefore a decision must be made; either by us, or for us. (1.) We can choose the reading ‘εσομενος’, which is the reading of Beza and contained within Scrivener by default. This reading is also followed by the A.V. 1611 {“shalt be”}. Or (2.), We can choose the reading ‘οσιος’ which is the reading of Erasmus and Stephanus. This reading {“holy”} is followed by 1534 Tyndale, 1537 Matthew’s, 1557 & 1599 Geneva Bible’s. What makes Beza and the A.V. 1611 correct, and Erasmus, Stephanus, Tyndale, Matthew’s, both Geneva Bible’s and every single trace of extant Greek manuscript evidence wrong? …And who made this decision? </p></blockquote><p>RS is asking a valuable and probing question here. We will get to TD's final answer in a moment, but notice that the criterion of "historically received (used)" would have been (in the 16th and 17th centuries) a reason to overthrow the Greek readings in numerous places on the basis of the historical reception and usage of the Vulgate Latin edition. In fact, there may be places where this was actually done (such as at 1 John 5:7-8). In other words, there may be places where Erasmus and/or Beza (and others following them) actually overthrew the Greek readings in favor of Latin Vulgate readings, which had been widely accepted and used in the churches for over a millenium. Nevertheless, you will be hard pressed to find Erasmus or Beza (or those who followed them) accepting that this is the correct methodology. Indeed, folks on the Protestant side eagerly defended the Masoretic and Greek texts as being original against attacks that were premised on long reception of other readings by the churches. To suggest that the criterion of "historically received (used)" is something that would have been acceptable to the leading 16th and 17th century Reformers as a basis to step over all the Greek manuscripts is to engage in wishful thinking. That is not to say that they considered historical usage and reception irrelevant, just that it is not sufficient to overthrow the Greek manuscripts.</p><p>Moreover, had the 16th and 17th century Reformers considered the historical reception and usage of εσομενος vs. οσιος, the latter would undoubtedly have prevailed, as there was no record of any historical reception or usage of that substitution, either in the manuscripts or in the translations, commentaries, etc.</p><p>Additionally, the 16th and 17th century Reformers did not believe themselves locked into Tyndale's translation, or the Geneva Bible translation, despite the excellent reception that those enjoyed for a time. Indeed, they did not accord heavy weight to the reception and usage in Latin or English (for the New Testament) or the reception and usage in Latin, Greek, and English (for the Old Testament).</p><p>It must be acknowledged that Archbishop Bancroft urged the King James translators to revise the Bible "as little as the Truth of the original will permit," and forbade them to make improvements to transliterations. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bishop's Bible had been received by the church did not make it invulnerable to improvement from the Hebrew and Greek originals. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>TD 1.2: ... and the testimony of those scholars who say they pulled the reading from a once existing manuscript (Beza in Rev. 16:5 for example) </p><p>RS 1.2x: **Does the testimony of Beza carry more weight than the whole Greek manuscript tradition? Or is it the combination of Beza and the A.V. 1611 that tips the scales?**</p></blockquote><p>I must insert here that it seems nearly transparent that it is the usage by the King James translators/editors that tips the scales for folks like TD. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 2. Similar to the first question, the first assumption is that the decisions on variants were decided by the use of a particular reading over another in time. The Reformed and Post-Reformation Divines seem to be more or less unified on which readings were original. Not to say that they were in complete harmony, but I have yet to find an example where such discord results in the change of meaning in a passage as a whole. In short, I have yet to find a variant within the TR tradition that has troubled me, either evidentially or internally (including Eph 3:9). In terms of “Sifting through variants,” there are really not many to sift through within the TR tradition that are meaningful in any way. When variants are considered, we consider them the same way that the framers of the Confession say they did. John Owen and Turretin provide great examples of this type of reasoning.</p></blockquote><p>Of course, neither John Owen (a non-conformist) nor Turretin (Swiss) were "framers of the Confession," although Owen was active in the revision of the Confession for the congregationalists, known as the Savoy Declaration.</p><p>While Owen was somewhat suspicious regarding the work of textual criticism, he did not oppose it in absolute terms:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhiVfwbwPTnRfdCxFSqbcrxhX5IoC6QIQ9Kh4dLJeoijHu0T20wxDhU4EOxYlmVKPMUsP0jodThM307WlNrFFYt7WuM_wjVIuwSNKyMezySAbRlwYLMUCpRTNfvmclOsqMrs26yV3nYjb57_rHjvY1OsV4RcIR3-csoqmDYLTdDbiMYAohsYl_rMQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="235" data-original-width="438" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhiVfwbwPTnRfdCxFSqbcrxhX5IoC6QIQ9Kh4dLJeoijHu0T20wxDhU4EOxYlmVKPMUsP0jodThM307WlNrFFYt7WuM_wjVIuwSNKyMezySAbRlwYLMUCpRTNfvmclOsqMrs26yV3nYjb57_rHjvY1OsV4RcIR3-csoqmDYLTdDbiMYAohsYl_rMQ" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_of_John_Owen/eHQAAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA469&printsec=frontcover">source</a>) But compare:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirMzoIA2Iun7ZRaqKt3GyRmPMCURNGK3FhOfANRognUxjm8Se9Z16wIGuWCM1AOazgfv5YccSAZqTYFb7Rx7y1Gp1UxNUEVcTZDRr592Xcqj41kFYHRYos5lGm3buITwurUC6PkGSva5rsPQbJdncmsNZMvBTH73UF5J72pJ1_s0vI6t37AJ1pcQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="445" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirMzoIA2Iun7ZRaqKt3GyRmPMCURNGK3FhOfANRognUxjm8Se9Z16wIGuWCM1AOazgfv5YccSAZqTYFb7Rx7y1Gp1UxNUEVcTZDRr592Xcqj41kFYHRYos5lGm3buITwurUC6PkGSva5rsPQbJdncmsNZMvBTH73UF5J72pJ1_s0vI6t37AJ1pcQ" width="275" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_of_John_Owen/eHQAAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA471&printsec=frontcover">source</a>) Finally, though:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDqwXClfcKvNmOulpK4caT6tufyjJmOKPYlvoCW4mVihF7GbxUF-gGsdBE74MQwnsH8Q1jbWN3OQTLacwBu5kQg3HcjObD1cH7jweR9Vu8HlfXuBTag0YyKbCDtKYM08JJJHiQGdGkPj1o2Rcs2toII8SmPs4RxOmVGnAsos9Rpb8MdkHSKhbGSA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="457" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDqwXClfcKvNmOulpK4caT6tufyjJmOKPYlvoCW4mVihF7GbxUF-gGsdBE74MQwnsH8Q1jbWN3OQTLacwBu5kQg3HcjObD1cH7jweR9Vu8HlfXuBTag0YyKbCDtKYM08JJJHiQGdGkPj1o2Rcs2toII8SmPs4RxOmVGnAsos9Rpb8MdkHSKhbGSA" width="245" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Works_of_John_Owen/eHQAAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA472&printsec=frontcover">source</a>)</div></div></div><p style="text-align: left;">Notice that while Owen does not like the idea of publishing exhaustive lists of textual variants, he is in favor of winnowing things down to the few places where there is some significant textual variant in the oldest and best manuscripts.</p><p style="text-align: left;">More importantly, Owen does not suggest that the way to identify the correct text is to look to what was done in 1611. While Owen is certainly skeptical of the value of an exhaustive study of the manuscripts, Owen does see value in identifying and addressing significant textual variants based on collation.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Likewise, Turretin explictly affirms the same:</p><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiwZETCXJx7qK326f7KUpxqxljBJ6a4btxLdtMzsn9EoY3irDb43Ffrwd0Y1Uhra1EHa9456JOQ-R60REZPy-YnR11K94mTr4Fg8FKnqfQ0HaZ39t9evAJDYtcvV8DcRfGokeIkS3AzzrODca7THZisy1OhELjuphgGEJ1MvUBSg1OHkxFm0wEPQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="748" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiwZETCXJx7qK326f7KUpxqxljBJ6a4btxLdtMzsn9EoY3irDb43Ffrwd0Y1Uhra1EHa9456JOQ-R60REZPy-YnR11K94mTr4Fg8FKnqfQ0HaZ39t9evAJDYtcvV8DcRfGokeIkS3AzzrODca7THZisy1OhELjuphgGEJ1MvUBSg1OHkxFm0wEPQ" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">(Second Topic, Question 5, Section 5)</div><br /><br /></div><div><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.1: In terms of the reading I use, I refer to the text that was used in the translation I read, as most people do. This particular reading is important, because it does represent one of the few places where the reading is truly split in the TR tradition. I believe this to be a much more reasonable task then, let’s just say, the 19 indeterminate readings in 1 and 2 Peter alone in the ECM. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.1x: **Background: I’ve read the KJV for 35 years (since my youth) and although I have–and–occasionally use other English translations, the KJV is the Bible that I both read and teach out of. That said, the above argument amounts to; Jack has gotten into trouble for breaking one of his mother’s favorite dishes, and in trying to defend himself exclaims, “but Jill has broken 19 of your best sewing needles Mom!”.**</p></blockquote><p>1) The issue that RS raises seems to be an issue that TD overlooks. If there is a principle that we cannot have <b><u>any</u></b> uncertainty, the fact that one position has more uncertainty than the other is a red herring.</p><p>2) I seem to recall from other places that the translation TD uses is the KJV. However, the KJV was not translated from a single text. That's the reason that Scrivener was called upon (two centuries later) to create a Greek text to align with the KJV. </p><p>3) While I agree that there are "few" places where the "the reading is truly split in the TR tradition," there are very few places where an exhaustive collation yields a meaningful split in the manuscript tradition. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.1: I personally receive Beza’s reading as that is the reading that was commented upon and used the most – and it is consistent with the theology and grammar of the passage (though I have seen people argue well for οσιος). Since both theological concepts are present in Revelation, this is truly a reading where doctrine is not changed from my perspective. Many people give lip service that doctrine is not changed no matter what the variant is, but that is not true. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.1x: **So your authority is Beza, the KJV and the majority of your favorite Biblical commentators:–And therefore the testimony and preservation of the *total* transmission history of the New Testament Text, i.e. All of “Catholic Antiquity” has to bow in submission to these 16th and 17th century witnesses. I take it that Dr. Hort’s often blind admiration of Cod. B, or Tischendorf’s equally unwarranted homage of Cod. א, doesn’t strike you as unreasonable and biased?**</p></blockquote><p>While I agree that Beza's change to Revelation 16:5 does not, in itself, teach some heresy, I tend to think that is the case with nearly all the variant issues. TD clearly disagrees that this is more broadly the case, but we can reserve that issue for another time.</p><p>I suspect that RS's comment here was a bit too sharp for TD, but TD should try to develop a better answer.</p><p>More importantly, why should we try to divine which reading was original, based on which reading was (subsequent to 1582, apparently) commented on and used the most? That's quite obviously not the measure used by Owen and Turretin, whose names TD dropped. That's a measure that would have been useless to Beza himself, or at any rate would not have led him to make the change he did.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.2: That being said, the reading came from a Greek manuscript according to Beza, and the reading was preserved in a printed text. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.2x **The first part of your statement is up for debate. Even so, is it possible for me to state that I once saw something in an ancient manuscript and then emend the Text accordingly, even when said singular ms. is nowhere to be found? Or, does this only carry enough authority to overthrow all extant evidence if my name is Beza, or I lived in the 16th or 17th century? This question is posed to evoke thought, not hard feelings.**</p></blockquote><p>Beza's statement has very limited evidentiary value. Even assuming he did have such a manuscript, which we have good reason to doubt, so what? We almost never adopt a singularly attested reading. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.3: The concept that a reading must be preserved in hand written ink rather than printed ink is strange, and I’ve never understood it. If the reading is original, it doesn’t matter if a pen or a press preserved it, the way I see it. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.3x **There’s too much to unpack here. Yet I will say this, you have opened the flood gates to the Redaction Critics and the practice of Conjectural Emendation for the sake of retaining a reading that has the support of *no* Greek manuscript!**</p></blockquote><p>The question is whether the reading is original. Why should we accept it as original on the basis of its existence in a printed text? While I appreciate the fact that TD has never understood textual criticism, that's hardly an argument for his position. The point is not the a reading must be preserved with quill and ink, as opposed to chisel and stone, or modern laser printing (or whatever), but that a late 16th century printed text is in itself a very weak witness to the original from the standpoint of textual criticism. That's true for the Bible, and it's true for other books as well. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.4 There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals, so while manuscript support may give us false assurance that we’ve arrived at the correct reading, simply counting noses doesn’t quite get us to the answer anyway. This is well understood in pretty much every methodology around, but is typically ignored here. So we either make a majority text appeal here, which doesn’t mean a whole lot as there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving, or we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church with the reasonable assumption that the manuscript existed at some point. I side with the latter, though I know many people who go with the majority reading. In any case, I think we have to treat Revelation uniquely, as it is one of the least testified to books in the NT. There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation, and that’s just a fact. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.4x: ** That is in fact your opinion. The methodology of Burgon and others can hold up just fine in Revelation.**</p></blockquote><p>This is where TD clearly departs from the view of Turretin and Owen. When he claims: "There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals ..." he is just wrong. That the view of folks like Ehrman and Parker, perhaps, but it is not a view that accords with the doctrine of preservation.</p><p>Likewise, "there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving" is just nonsense. There are literally hundreds of manuscripts of Revelation surviving.</p><p>Similarly, regarding "we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church," this isn't the argument of Owen or Turretin, and it has the barely concealed premise that "the church" came into existence some time after 1580 to be a useful argument for TD's position in this case.</p><p>To suggest that "There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation" is once again wrong.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.5: Despite common claims, each variant has to be handled uniquely, as they each have their own transmission history which is different than the transmission history of every other variant. If you look at the % agreement in the CNTTS database, the NA text basically follows mss 02 in 89% of the textually significant variants, and the closest agreement that mss has to any other mss in the CNTTS database is 77% and lower. That is to say that Revelation is a tricky book even in the critical text. </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.5x: **Agreed!! Probably the trickiest.**</p></blockquote><p>Oddly, what TD says here is at least mostly correct. However, TD's method of handling "each variant" does not seem to be unique. He seems to go with "what did the Reformed churches from 1611-1850 use?" </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.6: Gill, in his commentary, handles εσομινος first, then οσιος separately. In any case, both readings exist within the TR tradition, so I handle this text by looking to the people that have handled it before me. Every pre-critical text commentary I have read handles the variant reading, and favors the Beza reading on the basis of internal theological grounds based on the context and the theology of the passage itself. So I adopt the reading on that basis as well, not on the basis of it simply being in the KJV or Scrivener text. That being said, I would not divide over this, and since I see it as being easily resolved on internal grounds, </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.6x: **How can the insertion of a reading which has absolutely no external evidence behind it be “easily resolved” on any grounds?**</p></blockquote><p>RS is right about this. To suggest that this is "easily resolved on internal grounds" is naive at best. In point of fact, the internal grounds argument is rather weak and - I think it is telling - TD appeals to the ease of resolution but does not offer a specific solution. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.7 One final note, and possibly worth considering, is that the latest survey of extant manuscripts conducted by Jacob W. Peterson estimates that there are well over 500 manuscripts that have not been examined or “discovered,” not to mention that manuscripts made after 1000AD are being ignored by the ECM. That is to say, that even with the extant data we have catalogued, it is possible that a manuscript we have has the reading but is simply not “discovered.” </p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.7x: **This is an argument from silence, which as it were, is based upon a guess. How many of these “estimated” manuscripts contain the 16th chapter of the book of Revelation? –And how many do you suppose read ‘εσομενος’?**</p></blockquote><p>This half-baked argument ignores the work of Hoskier and others, who did not "ignore" post A.D. 1000 manuscripts, but faithfully catalogued their readings. While it is certainly possible that there could be some as-yet uncatalogued reading at Revelation 16:5, that's not a serious argument for the uncatalogued reading's originality. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD 3.8: Such is the gamble when we base our readings on extant data – we can’t know for certain if the reading is the most reliable, because we don’t have all the data, and even the data we do “have” isn’t all cataloged. I see the merit, from a reconstructionist model, of adopting the οσιος reading, but I simply wouldn’t be able to do so with absolute confidence that the reading is authentic due to the slim mss attestation in the whole of Revelation. Due to this reality, I receive the reading that most commentators of the time considered more theologically and grammatically consistent with the passage and the book as a whole. This way, I am not reverting to “who made this decision” but rather appealing to the passage itself and the reading that fits most comfortably in the passage.</p><p style="text-align: left;">RS 3.8x: **Would it not be more of a gamble to base our readings on *no* extant data? So your position is that we should follow the least attested readings because we don’t know what every manuscript read throughout the history of the Text (again an argument from silence)?** **It may help to know that I am *not* an advocate for the Modern Academic Critical Text. Nor have I ever been.**</p></blockquote><p>Of course, basing our readings on extant data is <b><u>exactly</u></b> the position that both Owen and Turretin supported.</p><p>Furthermore, why should "the time" be given the kind of privilege that TD accords it? Francis Turretin was born in 1623. John Owen was born in 1616. What's privileged time period? The mid- to late-17th century? Why should that have priority over earlier or later periods? But if it must be given such priority, why is priority only given to the conclusion regarding readings and not to the method of obtaining such conclusions? The answer seems obvious: a desire for certainty, even at the expense of sacrificing the foundation. </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">TD (Last word): Probably the most uncharitable way you could have interpreted my response. 1. The reading existed in a manuscript at one point 2. It fits the theology 3. It was used in translation and commentary for centuries uninterrupted ^^ That’s my reason. Please do not comment again.</p></blockquote><p>As far as I know, the dialog ended there. For what it's worth, RS wasn't me, nor vice versa.</p><p>Even if the reading existed in a manuscript at one point (which TD cannot prove), it was not used "uninterrupted" for centuries. Multiple 17th century and 18th century printed Greek texts do not have it, and the reading was challenged during those centuries. Furthermore, if this methodology were consistently applied, we ought to lock in the Vulgate readings, as they were "used in translation and commentary" for even more centuries. That's not an argument that the Reformers accepted, in fact it's what they openly rejected.</p></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-63370485690639131632024-01-03T17:12:00.003+00:002024-01-03T17:12:22.970+00:00A Brief Response to Tyler Vela Regarding the Flood <p>Tyler Vela and I have been back and forth regarding Young Earth Creationism dating back to a time when he was in a Presbyterian church. In fact, I had been planning to respond to more of his interpretive work on Genesis before I learned of his departure from the Presbyterian church. In the following, I'm excerpting what I view as the relevant portions of a recent conversation, and I assume Tyler is more than capable of providing additional points via his own blog etc. (or even in the comment box here if it is working) if he feels I've left out something important.</p><p>Specifically, recently Tyler posted a graphic illustrating that Noah's ark was about half as long as the Titanic, and suggesting that it was incredible that "people REALLY think this kept alive one of every “kind” of animal (whatever ... that means) including each kind of dinosaur and all the food and everything needed to sustain them for ONE YEAR.." </p><p>I pointed out that what we actually believe is that Ark contained two of every kind, and sevens of the clean animals:</p><p>Gen 6:19-21 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.</p><p>Genesis 7:1-3 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.</p><p>Genesis 7:7-9 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.</p><p>Tyler responded by saying: "Define a kind. This becomes wildly problematic."</p><p>To which I replied: "I don’t have a more precise definition. It’s almost always going to be problematic to go beyond revelation."</p><p>Tyler then responded: "Except the problems of taxonomy plague the narrative itself. On almost any way defining kind, there is no way they all fit on the ark, let alone fed and sustained them all. That boat wouldn’t be enough to sustain even a handful of large mammals."</p><p>A user @STulip responded: "In presenting this problem, it seems you have accepted a supernatural explanation for the flood occurring but are not leaving room for one when it comes to the ark. Please correct me if I am wrong."</p><p>Tyler responded:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>It would have to be a supernatural thing for EVERYTHING related to it such that even all of the evidence from paleontology, geology, physics, biology, etc are all wrong and that God did it and only left evidence that points to the exact contrary…</p><p>So if you want to admit that the flood and everything involved is not supported by ANY evidence and despite running contrary to all the available evidence that it is just a tenant of faith to believe it, say that. That would at least be honest.</p><p>I think it would still be wrong but then at least y’all can stop completely mishandling the science and failing to offer any actual evidence outside of “for the Bible tells me so.”</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">My response is this:</p><p style="text-align: left;">Tyler's response seems to suggest two opposite extremes. One extreme is that the flood was, essentially, a fully natural event that was brought on by natural causes, produced natural effects, and left natural trace evidence, such that our examination of the evidence should lead us to confirm every aspect of the Genesis narrative. The other extreme is that the flood was an entirely supernatural event (like creation <i>ex nihilo</i>) that had no natural cause, produced no natural effects, and left no natural traces. Thus, science is a wholly inadequate tool for the study of the flood. In Tyler's understanding, the latter is more consistent because the Genesis narrative (says Tyler) "is not supported by ANY evidence" (his caps) and "contrary to all the available evidence." </p><p style="text-align: left;">On the other hand, the Genesis account lies somewhere in between those extremes.</p><p style="text-align: left;">On the one hand, God specifically identifies the great flood as a deliberate divine punishment for sin:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Genesis 6:11-13 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">On the other hand, God specifically identifies natural means for the protection of life even against the flood He is bringing:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;">Genesis 6:14-21 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.</div></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Moreover, the account references natural causes:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.</p></blockquote><p>Also, the flood is indicated as providing natural effects:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Genesis 7:17-24 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Just as the beginning of the flood is ascribed both to God's purpose and to natural causes, so also the end:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;">Genesis 8:1-5 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. and the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.</div></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">So, there is a mixture of supernatural and natural. Noah and his family were not saved by a wall of water forming around them like the Red Sea passage, but by building a truly massive box (we assume the dimensions to be about 450 ft. long, by 75 ft. wide, by 45 ft. high, which was covered with pitch to be waterproof. The source of the water was rain and the fountains of the deep.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Moreover, contrary to Tyler's claims, it is not as though there is no evidence of this great flood. As one Creationism apologist used to say frequently, if we saw a worldwide flood, we would expect to see dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And, in fact, we do see that. Famously, the Himalayan Mountains (presently the highest on earth) show evidence of having been underwater in the past. This is not to suggest that folks have not offered a fully naturalistic explanation for this occurrence, without reliance on a global flood. Likewise, it probably should not be said that this is "proof" of a global flood, just "evidence" of it.</p><p style="text-align: left;">One challenge, however, is that it is difficult to know how to evaluate the evidence we have. People living over 600 years is something unfathomable today. Something must have been radically different then as compared to now. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Furthermore, what about the practical challenges Tyler mentioned? Many of these practical challenges are easily surmounted if God brought juveniles of the animals onto the ark, and if God caused the animals to, in essence, hibernate on the ark so that they did not consume much food. However, the narrative itself, while not denying this, does not assert either of these things.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Likewise, while radiometric dating offers vastly different ages for things like the Himalayan fossils, such dating is based on an assumption of uniformity of nature. The reliability of that assumption is called into question by the extreme old age of our antedeluvian ancestors, and if that assumption is wrong, science becomes a much less reliable tool for investigation of the evidence.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Ultimately, while scientific study of the trave evidence of the flood may be a valuable undertaking, we hold to the historical account of the flood by faith in the divine author of Scripture, both old and new.</p><p style="text-align: left;">After all, the account in Genesis is not presented as a vision or the like, but as an historical account of historical figures. Thus, while the flood narrative itself is in Genesis 6-9, mentions of the flood as an historical event persist in Genesis 10:1 and Genesis 11:10. </p><div>The Old Testament authors after Moses likewise treat Noah as historical (including quotations from God himself):</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 Chronicles 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.</li><li>Isaiah 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.</li><li>Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.</li><li>Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.</li></ul></div><div>Furthermore, the New Testament authors treat the account of Noah as historical, alongside Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot, Moses, etc. </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.</li><li>Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,</li><li>Luke 17:26-27 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.</li><li>Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.</li><li>1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.</li><li>2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;</li></ul></div><p style="text-align: left;">Accordingly, we ought to believe the account as historical because God says it is, whether or not the scientific evidence appears to align. </p><div class="blogger-post-footer">To God be the Glory!</div>Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com0