#Kittim method | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

eli-kittim · 3 months ago

Text

The Greek Jesus

Eli Kittim

We know by revelation that Jesus is Greek. But we can also confirm it through Scripture. In the New Testament there are several ways by which Jesus is portrayed as a Greek (i.e. as a non-Jew). One of these portrayals is found in the Gospel of Matthew (4.15-16), which tells us that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; see also Luke 1.26). Ever since the 10th century BC, Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Already by the 8th century BC the prophet Isaiah referred to this region as "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 9.1). In addition, in John 8.48 the Jews categorically call Jesus a “Samaritan” (i.e. a Gentile) in order to demonstrate that he is not a Jew. Not to mention that Jesus' sentence was not death by stoning, which was the standard form of execution for Jews, but crucifixion, a Roman method of capital punishment. And he was tried in a Roman court of Law that was reserved only for Roman or Greek citizens, thereby demonstrating that Jesus was not a Jew. In fact, there were quite a few early 20th century scholars——including Oxford classicist G. A. Williamson and New Testament scholar Walter Bauer——who also held the view that Christ was not a Jew!

The notion that people protested against Jesus because he did not come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles is especially emphasized in the Gospel of John (7.41-43):

“Others said, This is the Christ; but others said, Does the Christ come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the town where David was? There was a division among the people because of him.”

In John 7.52, Jesus defies Jewish messianic expectations:

“Look, and see, for out of Galilee no prophet arises.”

What is more, most of the books of the New Testament were written in Greece: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the book of Revelation. None of the books of the New Testament were written in Palestine. And most of the letters are addressed to Greek communities: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians! Is this a coincidence or does it have something to do with Jesus?

It’s also important to note that when the New Testament writers quote from the Scriptures they often quote from the Greek Old Testament rather than from the Hebrew writings. This indicates that the New Testament writers were not familiar with the Hebrew language. And given that they were fluent and highly articulate in the Greek language, their exclusive use of Koine Greek shows that the writers of the New Testament were not Jews but Greeks. So why would the New Testament be written in Greek rather than Hebrew?

Most people are under the impression that the New Testament was written in Greek because Greek was the lingua franca (or the common language of the day). But if that was so, then we would expect to find all the Scriptures to be written predominantly in Greek. But that’s not what we find. In fact, most of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which were written around the same time period) were written in Hebrew, not Greek. This demonstrates that the lingua franca hypothesis is wrong.

So why didn’t the New Testament writers complete God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to convince the Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture than to write it in Hebrew? But they didn’t do that! Why? The reason is Jesus. He’s not Jewish but Greek! So the narrative must be written in Greek to reflect the Greek protagonist. This is precisely why the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. And this explains why all the messianic figures in the Bible are essentially depicted as Gentiles. From Abraham (Chaldea) to Noah (Mesopotamia) to Job (Uz) to Joseph and Moses (who are portrayed as Egyptians, members of Egyptian families/Egyptian Royalty), all the messianic figures in the Old Testament are basically depicted as Gentiles. That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46.11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land.” This would certainly drive home the idea that the Messiah is a non-Jew!

Furthermore, if Christ were a Jew he would have said that he was the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, Christ constantly uses Greek letters to denote his identity and to designate the divine “I am” (Ἐγώ εἰμι; Revelation 1.8):

“I am the Alpha and the Omega.”

Besides, it’s important to emphasize that the Hebrew name of God (Yahva, pronounced as Yava) is also the Hebrew name for Greece (namely, Yavan). This verbal agreement is not coincidental. There is further evidence regarding the Greek name of God. In some rare Septuagint manuscripts the Tetragrammaton is translated as Ιαω (known as the Greek trigram). That is, the divine name Yahva is translated into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see e.g. Lev. 4.27 Septuagint manuscript [LXX] 4Q120). This fragment comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found at Qumran, and dates to the 1st century BC.

What is of great importance is the fact that the name IAO seemingly represents the ancient Greeks (known as IAONES), the first literary depictions of which are found in the epics of Homer (Ἰάονες) and also in the works of Hesiod (Ἰάων). Bible scholars agree that the Hebrew name Yavan represents the Iaones, i.e. the ancient Greeks. Moreover, there are independent attestations that come from the Patristic writings about the Tetragrammaton. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B. D. Eerdmans: Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BC) translates the name of God as Ἰαῶ. Irenaeus (d. c. 202) states that the Valentinians use the divine name Ἰαῶ. Origen of Alexandria (c. 254) writes Ἰαω. Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – c. 458) also writes Ἰαω. Therefore, the secret name of God in both the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible seems to represent Greece! This is why John of Patmos is not in Greece by accident. He is there to proclaim the revelation of Jesus and the word of God (Revelation 1.9):

“I, John, … was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.”

0 notes

eli-kittim · 2 years ago

Text

Kittim’s Eschatology:

The Kittim Method

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futurist eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”

According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!

In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.

The Epistolary View of Christ

The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!

Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method

Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”

What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.

The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!

Christ is born in the Fullness of Time

Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!

Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age

In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”

There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!

Conclusion

Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

——-

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 3 years ago

Text

The Fullness of Time

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What does the Bible mean when it says that God sent his son in “the fullness of time”? Many scholars and pastors automatically take for granted that this phrase refers to the birth and first coming of Jesus 2,000 years ago. In other words, instead of doing rigorous linguistic research to find out exactly what this phrase actually means, many experts simply rely on their *theological assumptions* and speculations in hopes that they can carry them through. But there’s no linguistic or biblical support for their conclusion.

In order to bolster their point of view that “the fulness of time” simply means the “appropriate” time or the “fulfillment” of time, they often cite Mark 1.15, which uses the term πεπλήρωται. But, as we shall see, this term is different from its cognate (πλήρωμα) in Galatians 4.4, from where we get the phrase “the fullness of time.” So, let’s compare both texts. Mk 1.15 (SBLGNT) reads:

καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ

ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ·

My translation:

And saying that the time has been fulfilled

and the kingdom of God has drawn near.

In the aforementioned verse, the verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is in the perfect indicative form and it’s translated as “has been fulfilled.” But this so-called *fulfillment* of time (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) in Mk 1.15 is not grammatically equivalent to the *completion* of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal 4.4! Not to mention that Mark 1.15 doesn’t even tell us which particular time-period or age has been fulfilled.

What is more, according to verbal aspect theory, we cannot establish the objective “time of an action” (or the Aktionsart) simply by looking at the “aspect” (or the semantics of a tense-form), which is the author’s subjective portrayal of an action. Moreover, if we apply “the criteria of authenticity”——the various methods of ascertaining the historical plausibility and probability of an event——to the gospel genre, it will probably turn out that the narratives are purely theological and literary constructs rather than historical or biographical accounts.

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should also be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation.

Accordingly, the epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4 gives us the exact period of time when Jesus’ incarnation will take place, namely, when time reaches its "fullness" or "completion." Galatians 4.4 gives us a specific point in time that is indicated by the nominative noun πλήρωμα, which is translated as “fullness.” This means that Christ's incarnation will transpire when time reaches its “fullness” or “completion.” Ephesians 1.10 further demonstrates that “the fullness of the times” will occur at the final consummation, when all things will conclude in Christ, “things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Therefore, “the fullness of time” coincides with “the completion of time” and with “the end of the age.”

By contrast, Mk 1.15 only tells us that an indefinite time-period has been fulfilled, without ever objectively specifying “when” or “what” has been fulfilled, irrespective of the theological genre. In other words, how do we even know that this timeframe was actually fulfilled? Because from a literary standpoint, given the subsequent rhetorical development and embellishment of the gospel literature, it’s quite difficult to deconstruct the authors’ literary assumptions, or to separate history from theology, or the “historical Jesus” from the “literary Jesus.”

The Greek text of Mark 1.15 reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (the time has been fulfilled). The verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is the perfect passive indicative of πληρόω and it means to “make full,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish.” It’s used 4 other times in the New Testament to mean that “the time has come” or “the time has been fulfilled” (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς). Interestingly enough, the term πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is derived from the root word πληρόω (pléroó), which means “to make full” or “to complete.” And pléroó in turn comes from the term πλήρης (plérés), which means “full” or “complete.” It actually means “completely filled up.” Think of the hour hand of a clock which turns 360 degrees in 12 hours. At 9 o’clock it has turned 270 degrees, or 3/4 of a circle. It’s not yet full or complete. It’s only when the hour hand of a clock has come full circle that it is plérés or “full.” Or think of a cup that is half full. It will become πλήρης or “completely full” when it’s filled to the brim. This same idea is conveyed in the New Testament. See, e.g., Mt 14.20: “twelve full [πλήρεις] baskets”; Lk 4.1: “Jesus full [πλήρης] of the Holy Spirit”; Acts 19.28: “they were full [πλήρεις] of wrath.” That’s why Colossians 2.9 tells us that in Christ dwells not simply a part of the deity but rather the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the deity bodily:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς

θεότητος σωματικῶς.

Similarly, the Greek text of Galatians 4.4 reads: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time). The term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) also comes from πληρόω (pléroó) and means “fullness,” “completion,” “summing up,” or “total” (see Liddell & Scott [1940] “A Greek–English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press). Thus, when the term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) is used in the New Testament (in 18 occurrences), it usually means “fullness” or “completion” (as in Gal 4.4: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου [the fulness of time]; cf. e.g. Mk 6.43; 8.20; Jn 1.16; Rom 11.25; 15.29; 1 Cor 10.26, 28; Gal 4.4; Eph 1.10, 23; 3.19; 4.13; Col 1.19; 2.9)!

In fact, none of the Bible versions of Gal 4.4 (that I’m aware of) translate πλήρωμα as a *fulfillment* of prophecy that has already taken place. On the contrary, all of them, without exception, render πλήρωμα as the *completion* of historical time in one form or another! Most Bible versions say “when the fullness of time came.” For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says “But when the end of time arrived.” The Christian Standard & the Holman Christian Standard Bibles are far more explicit in saying “When the time came to completion.” Not one version translates τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (in Gal 4.4) as fulfilled prophecy. None!

Furthermore, if we read the New Testament in canonical context, using the analogy of scripture, we’ll come to realize that Ephesians 1.10 actually interprets and expounds Galatians 4.4! Ephesians 1.10 clearly defines God’s “plan of the fullness of the times” (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) as the “summing up” or “completion” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), “things in the heavens” (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), “and things on the earth” (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ). Thus, in both Galatians 4.4 and Ephesians 1.10, *the fullness of time* clearly denotes *the completion of time,* when all things will conclude in Christ. For this reason, the alternative expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου/τῶν καιρῶν act as signifiers for “the end of the age.” Yet remarkably, according to Gal. 4.4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the NT sets Christ’s birth in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material.

According to the Collins English Dictionary:

If you say that something will happen in the

fullness of time, you mean that it will

eventually happen after a long time or after

a long series of events.

And, as an example, it quotes a written excerpt:

…a mystery that will be revealed in the

fullness of time.

The conclusion drawn from this brief study of “the fullness of time” matches the results obtained from other areas of research. For instance, it squares well with an eschatological Jesus who makes his initial appearance “at the final point of time” (1 Pet 1.20 NJB). It also fits well with the messianic male-child who is said to be born in the end-times (Rev 12.5), and who is expected to *sacrifice* himself and *die* “in the end of the world” (Heb 9.26 KJV). Accordingly, Christ will subsequently resurrect at the time of the end (Dan 12.1 LXX) and abolish “all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15.22-24)! And there’s no two-thousand-year gap between Christ’s *resurrection* and *judgment-day* because “He arises to terrify the earth” (Isa 2.19)!

For further details, please consult the following articles:

——-

1. THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH

——-

2. PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

——-

3. WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

——-

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years ago

Text

Science & God’s Existence

By Author Eli Kittim

Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?

Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.

No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!

If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!

——-

Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?

Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp

Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.

Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.

——-

Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?

Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.

——-

Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God

If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.

We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.

It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.

——-

38 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 3 years ago

Text

The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Biblical Flood: Universal or Local?

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible's internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience. — Wikipedia

According to Bible scholarship, Noah is not a historical figure. And we also know that the legendary flood story of the Bible was inspired by an earlier epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, namely, “The Epic of Gilgamesh." Moreover, if we zero in on the mythical details of Noah’s Ark, the story has all the earmarks of a legendary narrative.

The Bible is an ancient eastern text that uses hyperbolic language, parables, and paradox as forms of poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call “theology.” In the absence of satellites or global networks of communication, any catastrophic events in the ancient world that were similar to our modern-day natural disasters——such as the 2004 tsunami that killed 228 thousand people off the coast of Indonesia, or Hurricane Katrina, one of the most destructive hurricanes in US history——would have been blown out of proportion and seen as global phenomena. This would explain the sundry flood myths and stories that have come down to us from ancient times. And, according to Wikipedia:

no confirmable physical proof of the Ark

has ever been found. No scientific evidence

has been found that Noah's Ark existed as

it is described in the Bible. More

significantly, there is also no evidence of a

global flood, and most scientists agree that

such a ship and natural disaster would both

be impossible. Some researchers believe

that a real (though localized) flood event in

the Middle East could potentially have

inspired the oral and later written

narratives; a Persian Gulf flood, or a Black

Sea deluge 7500 years ago has been

proposed as such a historical candidate.

Bible Exegesis: Literal versus Allegorical Interpretation

My primary task, here, is not to weigh in on the findings of science as to whether or not a historical flood took place but rather to offer an exegetical interpretation that is consistent with the Biblical data. Taking the Bible literally——as a standard method of interpretation——can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. For example, in Mark 9.50 (ESV), Jesus says:

Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its

saltiness, how will you make it salty again?

Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace

with one another.

Question: is Jesus literally commanding his disciples to carry salt with them at all times? In other words, is Jesus talking about “salt” (Gk. ἅλας) per se in a literal sense——the mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride——or is he employing the term “salt” as a metaphor to mean that his disciples should *preserve* their righteousness in this life of decay?

Obviously, Jesus is using the term “salt” as a metaphor for preserving godliness in the midst of a perishing world. This proof-text shows that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted.

The Judgment of the Flood: There’s No Judgment Where There’s No Law

If one re-examines the flood story, one would quickly see that it doesn’t square well with history, science, or even the theology of the Bible. For example, Paul says in Romans that human beings became aware of sin only when the law was given to forbid it. But there is no judgment where there is no law. Romans 5.13 says:

for sin indeed was in the world before the

law was given, but sin is not counted where

there is no law.

So, my question is, if the law was given after Noah’s epoch, and if there was no law during Noah’s time, how could “sin … [be] counted [or charged against anyone’s account] where there is no law.”?

How, then, could God “judge” the world during the Pre-Mosaic law period? It would appear to be a contradiction in terms.

What is more, if we know, in hindsight, that no one is “saved” by simply following the law (Galatians 2.16) or by sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10.1-4), how could people possibly be “saved” by entering a boat or an ark? It doesn’t make any theological sense at all. But it does have all the earmarks of a mythical story.

The Flood as Apocalyptic Judgment

There’s no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood). Moreover, the Book of Revelation predicts all sorts of future catastrophic events and natural disasters that will occur on earth, where every island and mountain will be moved from its place, coupled with earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, etc. The frequency & intensification of these climactic events is referred to as the “birth pangs” of the end times. In fact, it will be the worst period in the history of the earth! Matthew 24.21 puts it thusly:

For then there will be great tribulation,

such as has not been from the beginning of

the world until now, no, and never will be.

And since it is possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events, so the flood account may be alluding to an apocalyptic judgment. For example, if we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* with the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place: see e.g. Locusts: Exod. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3); Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Exod. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21); Pestilence: Exod. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8); Water to Blood: Exod. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.9; 16.3-4); Frogs: Exod. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13); Boils or Sores: Exod. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2); Darkness for three days: Exod. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). Apparently, the darkness lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5). All these “plagues” are seemingly associated with the Day of the Lord (Mt. 24.29):

Immediately after the suffering of those

days the sun will be darkened, and the

moon will not give its light; the stars will fall

from heaven, and the powers of heaven will

be shaken.

In the same way, the Old Testament flood narrative may be representing a type of **judgment** that is actually repeated in the New Testament as if taking place in the end-times (cf. Luke 17.26-30): “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17.26)! In the Olivet prophecy, Mt. 24.39 calls the flood “a cataclysm” (κατακλυσμὸς) or a catastrophic event. And as 1 Pet. 3.20-21 explains, Noah’s flood is a “type” of the endtimes, and we are the “antitype” (ἀντίτυπον). As a matter of fact, in reference to the end-times destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. 9.26 says “Its end shall come with a flood.” In other words, there will be utter destruction and devastation, the likes of which the world has never seen before (Gen. 6.13; Dan. 12.1; Mt. 24.21).

Creation in 6 literal 24-hour days?

In Genesis 1.5, we are told that “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” By comparison, Genesis 1.8 says “there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” What is puzzling, however, is that God made the moon & the sun on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19). How do you explain that?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a literal 24-hour day model is inexplicable and does not seem to be part of the authorial intent. How could you possibly have mornings and evenings (or 24-hour “days”) if the sun & moon were formed on day 4? Obviously, they are not meant to be literal 24-hour days (see e.g. Gen. 2.4 in which the Hebrew word “yom,” meaning “day,” refers to the entirety of creation history). The creation days are therefore symbolic or figurative in nature.

Part of the internal evidence is that there are *allegorical interpretations* that are applied to scripture from within the text, such as 2 Peter 3.8, which reminds us of the following Biblical axiom:

But do not forget this one thing, dear

friends: With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are

like a day.

Similarly, Paul instructs us to interpret certain parts of the Bible **allegorically.** For example, Paul interprets for us certain Old Testament passages **allegorically,** not literally! Paul says in Galatians 4.22-26:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons,

one by a slave woman and one by a free

woman. But the son of the slave was born

according to the flesh, while the son of the

free woman was born through promise. Now

this may be interpreted allegorically: these

women are two covenants. One is from

Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;

she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in

Arabia; she corresponds to the present

Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her

children. But the Jerusalem above is free,

and she is our mother.

So, as you can see, there are not necessarily 6 literal days of creation, or 6,000 years in earth’s history, or a global flood, nor are there any talking donkeys holding press conferences and doing podcasts, there’s no evil that is caused by eating fruits, there are no trees of immortality on earth, no human angels wielding futuristic laser guns, and there are certainly no mythological beasts with seven heads walking around on park avenue in Manhattan. Proper Biblical exegesis must be applied.

But it’s equally important to emphasize that this allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible, its inerrancy, its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3.16-17), or its truth values! The reason for that will be explained in the next two sections.

Biblical Genres Require Different Methods of Interpretation

The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **parables and metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents and talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. For example, the “beasts” in the Book of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8, are interpreted by scripture as being symbolic of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Similarly, the so-called “locusts” and “scorpions” in the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, seemingly allude to modern-day warfare. No one in their right mind would dare say that the beasts of Daniel or those of Revelation are **literal beasts.** Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Just as Ancient Philosophical Inquiry Was Discussed Through the Language of Poetry, So too Theological Truth Was Expounded Poetically in Sacred Scripture

It’s important to stress that a refutation of the historical flood narrative is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. Truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.

For example, Lucretius’ only known work is a philosophical *poem* that is translated into English as “On the Nature of Things,” in which he examines Epicurean physics through the abundant use of poetic and metaphorical language. Similarly, the single known work by the Greek philosopher Parmenides——the father of metaphysics and western philosophy——is a *poem* “On Nature” which includes the very first sustained argument in philosophical history concerning the nature of reality in “the way of truth."

What is of immense interest to me is that both of these ancient philosophers explored their “scientific” and philosophical “truths” through the richly metaphorical language of *poetry*. So, why can’t the ancient books of the Bible do the same? Is modern science and literary criticism correct in dismissing biblical “truths” on historical grounds simply because of their richly poetic or metaphorical language? Perhaps our modern methodologies can be informed by the ancient writings of Lucretius and Parmenides!

3 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years ago

Text

A Critique of Form Criticism

By Bible Researcher & Award-Winning Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is Form Criticism?

Form criticism is a discipline of Bible studies that views the Bible as an anthology of conventional stories that were originally transmitted orally and later codified in writing. Therefore, form criticism tries to identify scriptural literary patterns and trace them back to their particular oral tradition. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament Bible scholar, was the founder of form criticism. He was also one of the leading proponents of the “history of religions school,” which employed the methods of historical criticism. While the methods used in *comparative religion* studies were certainly important, these liberal theologians nevertheless began their formal inquiry with the theoretical presupposition that Christianity was equal to all other religions and they, therefore, rejected its claims to absolute truth. However, this underlying presumption involves circular thinking and confirmation bias, which is the habit of interpreting new evidence as confirmation of one's preexisting beliefs or theories. Despite the usefulness of the approach, form criticism involves a great deal of speculation and conjecture, not to mention blatant unbelief. One of its biggest proponents in the twentieth century was German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884—1976). Similar to other form-critics who had a bias against supernaturalism, he too believed that the Bible needed to be “demythologized,” that is, divested of its miraculous narratives and mythical elements.

Form criticism is valuable in identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as narrative, poetry, wisdom, or prophecy. It further seeks to find the “Sitz im Leben,” namely, the context in which a text was created, as well as its function and purpose at that time. Recently, form criticism's insistence on oral tradition has gradually lost support in Old Testament studies, even though it’s still widely used in New Testament studies.

Oral Tradition Versus Biblical Inspiration

Advocates of form criticism have suggested that the Evangelists drew upon oral traditions when they composed the New Testament gospels. Thus, form criticism presupposes the existence of earlier oral traditions that influenced later literary writings. Generally speaking, the importance of historical continuity in the way traditions from the past influenced later generations is certainly applicable to literary studies. But in the case of the New Testament, searching for a preexisting oral tradition would obviously contradict its claim of biblical inspiration, namely, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3.16). It would further imply that the evangelists——as well as the epistolary authors, including Paul——were not inspired. Rather, they were simply informed by earlier oral traditions. But this hypothesis would directly contradict an authentic Pauline epistle which claims direct inspiration from God rather than historical continuity or an accumulation of preexisting oral sources. Paul writes in Galatians 1.11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible, in order to confirm their revelations. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And all of them are writing from outside Palestine.

By contrast, the presuppositions of Bible scholarship do not square well with the available evidence. Scholars contend that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his purported death, and that these oral traditions were obviously in Aramaic. But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how did the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death? Furthermore, who are these sophisticated Greek writers who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? It sounds like a non sequitur! Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? Given that none of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine, it seems well-nigh impossible that the Aramaic community ever existed.

Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and is trying to confirm his revelations by quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic oral traditions but from Greek literary sources!

Conclusion

It doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul, or anyone else, reiterates because it’s irrelevant in proving the impact of oral tradition. The point is that all the sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation (cf. Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Tim. 3.16)!

And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek literary tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.

Moreover, who are these Greek authors who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It therefore sounds like a conspiracy of sorts.

And why aren’t Paul’s letters in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic oral sources are the Pauline epistles based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Greek Septuagint in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of New Testament Scripture? And why does Paul record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis just doesn’t hold up. Nor do the so-called “oral traditions.”

—

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years ago

Text

What is Textual Criticism?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Definition of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual studies, which comprise various disciplines whose aims are to transcribe, edit, or annotate texts and documents. Textual criticism is a branch of philology (the study of language in oral and written historical sources) and literary criticism, which is interested in the identification of textual variants or different versions of books or manuscripts. Simply put, textual criticism is a method by which scholars try to determine what an original text actually said. Whereas *higher criticism* is concerned with the origins of the original text (e.g. its authorship, date & place of composition), *lower criticism* (i.e. “textual criticism”) seeks to determine the original linguistic-grammatical structure of the text.

The Process of Textual Criticism

In ancient times, prior to the 15th century invention of the printing press, scribes were usually employed to copy documents by hand. During the copying process, however, intentional and unintentional alterations were made, the former sometimes due to political or religious reasons, the latter out of sheer misunderstanding or negligence. Thus, the aim of the textual critic is to understand the historical composition and transmission of a text and its variants. In so doing, the textual critic may be able to produce a so-called “critical edition,” which is a scholarly edition of a corrected text in conjunction with a critical apparatus that records editorial changes, names of manuscripts, and the like.

As already noted, prior to the printing press, literary works were copied by hand and, as expected, copyists produced different variations at certain places in the text. Given that different scribes introduced various errors, the task of textual reconstruction usually requires a selection of readings gathered from multiple sources. Such an edited text is called “eclectic.” In contrast to the multiple-sources approach, however, a number of textual critics will only seek to identify the best extant text with regard to textual reconstruction. When considering various documents (i.e. “witnesses”) of an original text, the linguistic or grammatical differences or variations are called “variants” or “variant readings.” So, through various comparative methods, textual criticism tries to ascertain how the variants were introduced into the text——whether accidentally (via duplication or omission) or intentionally (by way of censorship or harmonization)——as scribes copied from the original autograph and then transmitted these writings across the then-known world.

Guidelines of Textual Criticism

We have hundreds of extant copies of ancient works, thousands as far as the Bible is concerned, but their relationship to the original text is often unclear. Thus, in order to ascertain which readings are faithful (most closely related to the autograph), textual scholars typically debate which sources appear to be derived from the original text. Typically, when there’s no known original manuscript but only several extant copies or versions, certain guidelines/methods of textual criticism are employed in an attempt to *reconstruct* the original text (i.e. the autograph) as faithfully as possible. In order to determine the most accurate readings of a text, scholars have devised certain guidelines (i.e. “canons”) of textual criticism. Without going into great detail, one of the most prominent rules was established by Koine-Greek scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who also produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentaries, Bengel (aka Bengelius) established the rule that “the harder reading is to be preferred.” That’s because the most difficult reading is probably the one that is less tampered with. A number of these guidelines, which were initially designed for Biblical textual criticism, are now applied to all literary texts that have been exposed to errors of textual transmission!

Conclusion

Textual Criticism is important in determining the original words of texts. But it’s especially important in Bible studies with regard to establishing “the word of God” (Hebrews 4:12), that is, the things that God originally said and revealed in holy writ, since it is said therein that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)!

—

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years ago

Text

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Our Teacher Should Be the Holy Spirit

Before I venture out to expound on how Biblical “inspiration” occurs, it’s important to first say a few words about who determines the “meaning” of a text. In other words, where should we get our “hermeneutic” from? Should we draw it from our personal responses? Or should we conform to what the scholars say? But isn’t that still speculation and conjecture either way? Yes, it is! And it could be totally wrong, even if it’s a long-held consensus held by leading scholars! So what determines the meaning of a text? Is it Bible-study tools? No because they only give us a partial understanding. The short answer is: the Holy Spirit! Just as the Holy Spirit is responsible for “inspiring” the Biblical authors, so it is also responsible for communicating the “meaning” to its “recipients.” However, its recipients are not just anyone. They are neither those who openly profess to be “reborn” Christians nor those who post Facebook memes, “Repent or Go to Hell.” Rather, they’re the true, authentic Christians who don’t show off and hardly ever talk about their status as saved believers. Unbeknownst to the Cessationists, they hear from God “directly.” And they can interpret the Bible not based on current theological trends or methods of exegesis but on the word of the Spirit! So, they are “in the know.” Ideally, this is where the meaning of Scripture should come from! Bible-study tools won’t reveal these meanings no matter how sophisticated they might be. Now, let’s get back to the concept of Biblical “inspiration.”

Can the Bible Limit What God Can and Cannot Do?

There are many modern Biblical interpreters who hold to a form of “Pelagianism.” In ancient times, the Pelagian heresy comprised the Christian theological position that the human will alone is capable of choosing the good without the assistance of grace or any divine aid. Even Jesus’ salvific atonement becomes ultimately irrelevant in this view. These people, and I have met quite a few of them, don’t believe that the Spirit plays any significant role in our salvation. According to them, all we need to do is to follow the external dictates of the Bible. In this view, the Bible replaces God and thus becomes God-like, so to speak. Besides contradicting large portions of the New Testament, this position is also heretical in another way because it presents a counterfeit Christianity; that is to say, it presents the exact opposite of what authentic salvation truly consists of. It rejects inward spiritual experiences that lead to true “union” with God and promotes only an external form of obedience to rules and regulations. Jesus himself explains that such people don’t know God; they have neither heard from him nor do they know his “word”:

“You have never heard his voice or seen his

form, and you do not have his word abiding

in you, because you do not believe him

whom he has sent” (Jn 5.27-38).

Jesus nails it. Their erroneous doctrine is based on disbelief. In essence, they don’t even believe in Jesus. He goes on to say:

“You search the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; it is

these that testify about Me” (Jn 5.39).

So, for them, the Bible has supplanted the Godhead and has become their “god.” It’s no longer God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit who holds sway but rather the Bible per se and nothing but the Bible. That’s a form of idol-worship where “a means to an end” has suddenly become an end in itself! The King-James Only cult is a case in point!

The Dictation Theory

What is more, as far as Biblical inspiration is concerned, most modern scholars typically say that the Holy Spirit did not give the New Testament authors each and every word by dictation. To which I say, why not? They try desperately to fit in with the modern-secular, liberal culture that does not believe in supernatural phenomena and mocks all forms of divine communications. And yet, according to the Bible, these communications do exist (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17)!

The Bible stands or falls on the presence or absence of these divine communications. What ever happened to the Old Testament declaration: “Thus says the LORD”? Why water it down? Why dilute it to make it more palatable to the masses? Either God communicates with the human family or he doesn’t. In other words, either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t. It’s that simple. By comparison, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. There’s no in between. Either God directly spoke to Isaiah and to Jeremiah or he didn’t. If he did, the Bible is transcribing divine communications. If he didn’t, then the Bible is the word of man. But if God indeed spoke to Isaiah, why couldn’t he equally speak to the Biblical authors, giving them the precise words audibly? After all, the authors themselves claimed to have heard God speak, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3.17). Besides, Jesus himself openly declares:

“For I did not speak on my own, but the

Father who sent me commanded me to say

all that I have spoken” (Jn 12.49).

If God has spoken directly in Isaiah 6.7, Jeremiah 26.2, Ezek. 28.2, John 2.1, 8, and also through Jesus (Jn 12.49), why wouldn’t he speak directly to the Biblical authors as well? It’s akin to when “Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of the Lord that he had spoken to him” (Jer. 36.4).

The Dictation Theory Has Been Greatly Misunderstood

The reason most scholars don’t accept the dictation theory is because it seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit inscribed the words of Scripture through the agency of human authors who were somehow under God’s full control, in a state of passivity (perhaps in a trance), in which God dictated each and every word with perfect accuracy. In other words, scholars totally mischaracterize this communication process, as if they’re talking about zombies, automatons, people half-asleep, on sodium pentothal, under hypnosis, somnambulism, or the walking dead. In other words, the dictation theory has often been mistaken for the mechanical view of inspiration, such as automatic writing, and the like.

This mischaracterization and distortion stems from the fact that these scholars don’t yet fully understand what salvation really is, that is to say, what the relationship of the regenerated person to God consists of. Actually, by default, a regenerated person is already under the control of God, so that they don’t have to pass out or become an automaton in order to hear God’s voice. In other words, God communicates with them naturally, without restriction or interference, via a form of interpersonal communication while they are physically and cognitively stable, completely aware, and fully conscious! Therefore, the authentic, born-again Christians are already under God’s control and don’t need altered states of consciousness in order to hear God’s voice. Given that they are already sons of God (Jn 1.12-13), “born of the Spirit” of God (Jn 3.5-6), they hear God all the time (Jn 10.14, 27, 28)!

Stylistic Differences May Reflect the Source Rather Than the Authors

As for the argument pertaining to the stylistic differences between the New Testament authors, which suggests a variety of different personalities at work——consequently ruling out the possibility of verbatim-dictation from a single source——my reply is, why couldn’t the “stylistic differences” reflect the source rather than the authors? In other words, perhaps the texts reflect the Spirit itself——setting the context and content in various ways within the different compositions——rather than the individual personalities of the authors. After all, Heb. 1.1 says that “God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets.” That’s why we can find verbal agreements between disparate texts. For example, we read in the Old Testament narrative of Exodus 34.29 that Moses’ “face shone” (Hb. qaran; meaning “shine”) and then, lo and behold, we find the exact same equivalent words used in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 17.2) to say that Jesus’ “face shone” (Gk. ἔλαμψεν; meaning “shine”). Two completely different authors with completely different writing styles and languages, writing from two completely different time periods and locations, with over 1,000 years separating the two texts, and yet we find verbal agreements! Why? Same source; same Spirit dictating the exact same words through different languages and styles. Such verbal agreements and parallels abound in Scripture. Otherwise, if it was left up to each and every individual author to write whatever they wanted, then it would obviously be the word of man and should not be accepted as the word of God.

Biblical Interpretation Should Be Based Entirely on Biblical Inspiration

Furthermore, Biblical interpretation should be based entirely on the Spirit, not on guess-work. Being partly-right doesn’t cut it because it implies that we may also be partly-wrong. Either we know what’s going on or we don’t:

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide

you into all the truth; for he will not speak on

his own, but will speak whatever he hears,

and he will declare to you the things that

are to come [ἐρχόμενα]” (Jn 16.13).

In other words, those who are indwelt by the Spirit walk by the Spirit and are constantly informed by the Spirit who guides them “into all the truth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, it seems indisputable that the Spirit of God inspired the Biblical authors by giving them each and every word by dictation. For God speaks to us directly, but only those who belong to him can actually hear his voice. The following quote demonstrates that Scripture (which is almost entirely prophetic) was not left to the discretion of the individual authors but that the authors were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” when they “spoke from God”:

“for no prophecy was ever produced by the

will of man, but men carried along by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1.21).

——-

10 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years ago

Text

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

άρθρο του ψυχολόγου - συγγραφέα, Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Χριστιανική Ψυχοθεραπεία

Θα πρέπει να πλαισιώσω τη συζήτηση λέγοντας εξαρχής ότι ο ορισμός μου για τη χριστιανική μέθοδο ψυχοθεραπείας δεν βασίζεται στην οργανωμένη θρησκεία ή σε κάποια συγκεκριμένη χριστιανική εκκλησία. Η «χριστιανική» ψυχολογική προσέγγιση που εισάγω δεν σχετίζεται με θρησκευτικά δόγματα ή θρησκευτικές πρακτικές. Αντίθετα, βασίζεται στην προσωπική μου κατανόηση των συλλογικών βιβλικών διδασκαλιών σε συνδυασμό με τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία και την υπαρξιακή εμπειρία! Ως εκπαιδευμένος ψυχολόγος, βλέπω μια στενή σχέση μεταξύ αμαρτίας και ψυχολογικής νεύρωσης!

——-

Τι σημαινει αμαρτία;

Σύμφωνα με τους Βιβλικούς όρους, η «αμαρτία» είναι μια πράξη που παραβιάζει τον θεϊκό ηθικό νόμο και θεωρείται εξαιρετικά κατακριτέα, προκαλώντας ενοχή ή/και ντροπή για το άτομο που την διαπράττει μέσω της συνείδησης (δηλ. Superego). Χρησιμοποιώντας κοσμικούς όρους, αυτό ακριβώς αποτελείται από μια κλινική «νεύρωση», δηλαδή, συνειδητά ή ασυνείδητα συναισθήματα ενοχής ή/και ντροπής που εμφανίζονται στην προσωπικότητα ως συμβολικά συμπτώματα, όπως ανησυχίες, φοβίες, καταναγκασμοί, και τα παρόμοια. Αν και ο όρος «νεύρωση» έχει απορριφθεί από το 1980 από το Διαγνωστικό και Στατιστικό Εγχειρίδιο Ψυχικών Διαταραχών (DSM III), είναι ωστόσο διαδεδομένος στην κλινική ψυχοθεραπευτική βιβλιογραφία (π.χ. χρησιμοποιείται ακόμα στο ICD-10 Κεφάλαιο V F40–48).

Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι υπάρχει κλινική σύνδεση μεταξύ της νεύρωσης και της αμαρτίας. Ορισμένοι αξιοσημείωτοι ψυχαναλυτές, όπως ο Moshe HaLevi Spero, έχουν δημοσιεύσει ακαδημαϊκά έργα σχετικά με αυτήν τη σύνδεση (δείτε το άρθρο του «Sin as Neurosis» στο «Journal of Religion and Health» Τόμος 17, Αρ. 4 [Οκτ. 1978], σελ. 274-287).

——-

Ποια είναι η διαφορά μεταξύ χριστιανικής και κλινικής ψυχοθεραπείας;

Ενώ ο στόχος της σύγχρονης ψυχοθεραπείας είναι να σας κάνει να αισθάνεστε λιγότερο ένοχοι για τη νεύρωσή σας, ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός προσπαθεί να εξαλείψει εντελώς την πηγή της ενοχής σας μέσω της *συγχώρεσης.* Αυτές είναι δύο ριζικά διαφορετικές προσεγγίσεις. H σύγχρονη ψυχολογία στερείται σε μεγάλο βαθμό από ηθικά ζητήματα και βασικά σας ενθαρρύνει να συνεχίσετε να ασκείτε τις αμαρτίες σας (αρκεί να μην πληγώνετε τον εαυτό σας ή τους άλλους), ενώ προσπαθεί να σας πείσει να μην αισθάνεστε τόσο καταδικασμένοι για αυτές. Ζούμε στον 21ο αιώνα. Οι άνθρωποι είναι ελεύθεροι να κάνουν όπως θέλουν. Για παράδειγμα, ένας ψυχαναλυτής είπε κάποτε σε έναν ασθενή — ο οποίος ξαφνικά αποκάλυψε τη σεξουαλική του διαστροφή κατά τη διάρκεια μιας ψυχοδυναμικής θεραπείας — «καλώς ήλθατε στο κλαμπ.»

Η άλλη προσέγγιση (δηλαδή της Βίβλου) αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι είναι ηθικά λανθασμένο στην ψυχή, και υποστηρίζει ότι, ανεξάρτητα από τις προσπάθειές σας, η ενοχή και η ντροπή δεν θα εξαφανιστούν εντελώς εάν δεν *συγχωρεθείτε.* Η σύγχρονη ψυχοθεραπεία δεν προσφέρει «θεραπεία» αλλά μόνο έναν καλύτερο μηχανισμό αντιμετώπισης που βασίζεται στην καλύτερη κατανόηση των συμπτωμάτων σας. Με άλλα λόγια, στην καλύτερη περίπτωση προσφέρει ένα χάνζαπλαστ.

Ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός, από την άλλη πλευρά, προσφέρει μια «θεραπεία» που βασίζεται σε έναν «εσωτερικό μετασχηματισμό» του νου. Μπορεί να συνεπάγεται περισσότερους κινδύνους και πολύ βαθύτερη κατανόηση, αλλά σχεδόν πάντα εγγυάται μια αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, πρέπει να γίνεις ένα νέο πλάσμα: μια νέα δημιουργία. Πρέπει να ξαναγεννηθείς. Μια μέρα είσαι αυτό το άτομο. Την επόμενη μέρα είσαι ένα εντελώς διαφορετικό άτομο. Αυτό ακριβώς συνέβη στον Παύλο (στην Νέα Διαθήκη). Μια μέρα διώκει τους Χριστιανούς. Την επόμενη τους αγαπά και τους προστατεύει. Στην Β΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους (5.17 Νεοελληνικη), ο Παύλος εξηγεί αυτήν την αλλαγή ως εξής:

Όταν κάποιος ανήκει στο Χριστό είναι μια

καινούρια δημιουργία. Τα παλιά πέρασαν·

όλα έχουν γίνει καινούρια.

Η χριστιανική διαδικασία του μετασχηματισμού δεν είναι διαφορετική από εκείνες που σχετίζονται με τον βουδισμό ή τον Ινδουισμό. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι σχεδόν παρόμοια με αυτές όσον αφορά την αυτοπραγμάτωση και την υπερβατικότητα, η μόνη διαφορά είναι ότι στο κέντρο της αδιαφοροποίητης συνείδησης είναι ο θεϊκός Χριστός. Ο Ιησούς εξηγεί τον λόγο για τον οποίο υποτιμούμε τις διδασκαλίες του (Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγέλιον 3.3):

Απήντησε ο Ιησούς και είπε· ‘σε

διαβεβαιώνω, ότι εάν δεν γεννηθή κανείς από

τον ουρανόν, δεν ημπορεί να Ίδη και να

απολαύση την βασιλείαν του Θεού.’

Για αυτό η Επιστολή προς Εφεσίους (4.22-24) μας δίνει εντολή να απομακρύνουμε τον «παλιό εαυτό» μας και να φορέσουμε μια νέα ταυτότητα, που λέει ο λόγος, δηλαδή τον «νέο εαυτό» που δημιουργείται σύμφωνα με την εικόνα του Θεού:

έχετε πράγματι διδαχθή να αποβάλετε

και πετάξετε από επάνω σας τον παλαιόν

άνθρωπον της αμαρτίας όπως αυτός είχε

υπάρξει και εκδηλωθή εις την

προηγουμένην ειδωλολατρικήν ζωήν και

συμπεριφοράν σας. Αυτός ο παλαιός

άνθρωπος, εξ αιτίας των αμαρτιών και των

παθών του, φθείρεται συνεχώς και

προχωρεί στον όλεθρον από τας επιθυμίας,

που ανάπτει η απατηλή αμαρτία. Εχετε

ακόμη διδαχθή να ανανεώνεσθε συνεχώς με

τα υγιή πνευματικά φρονήματα του νου σας

και να ενδυθήτε τον νέον άνθρωπον, ο

οποίος ανεδημιουργήθη και αναγεννήθη

σύμφωνα με το θέλημα του Θεού.

Έτσι, από αυτήν την άποψη, δεν χρειάζεται να επισκέπτεστε έναν ψυχίατρο μία φορά την εβδομάδα. Αυτό που χρειάζεστε είναι μια ριζική αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, δεν χρειάζεστε ομιλίες. Χρειάζεστε συγχώρεση!

——-

Η χριστιανική ψυχοθεραπεία όχι μόνο θεραπεύει αλλά προσφέρει και σωτηρία

Εκτός από αυτό το ψυχοθεραπευτικό πλεονέκτημα που προσφέρει η Βίβλος, στο οποίο μπορεί να επιτευχθεί βαθιά εσωτερική ικανοποίηση, παρέχει επίσης κάποιες ιδέες για το ασυνείδητο κίνητρο και την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Για παράδειγμα, υπερβαίνει το προσωπικό ασυνείδητο και μας ενημερώνει για τις επιρροές του λεγόμενου «συλλογικού ασυνείδητου» στην ψυχή μας, όπως έχει δείξει το έργο του Ελβετού ψυχίατρου, Καρλ Γκούσταβ Γιουνγκ.

Φυσικά, το θέμα της υπερβατικής φιλοσοφίας είναι σημαντικό επειδή, στο Βιβλικό πλαίσιο, η υπέρβαση αναφέρεται στις μεταφυσικές πτυχές της φύσης, οι οποίες είναι πέρα από όλους τους φυσικούς νόμους. Αυτά τα παραψυχολογικά φαινόμενα μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν σε διάφορες «θρησκευτικές εμπειρίες» του τύπου που μελετά ο ψυχολόγος Γουίλιαμ Τζέιμς, οι οποίες συνήθως εκδηλώνονται στην προσευχή, στην υπερηαισθητική αντίληψη, στη διόραση, στον διαλογισμό ή στα παραφυσικά «οράματα» και στις υπαρξιακές εμπειρίες. Εν ολίγοις, φαίνεται να υπάρχει σύνδεση μεταξύ φυσικών και μεταφυσικών φαινομένων που παίζονται στον ψυχολογικό τομέα του ατόμου και στον τομέα του νου.

Για το σκοπό αυτό, η Βίβλος έχει πολλά να πει σχετικά με το πώς διαγιγνώσκουμε και ως εκ τούτου αντιμετωπίζουμε ορισμένες ασθένειες. Πρέπει παραδείγματος χάρη να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλα τα ζητήματα ψυχικής υγείας ως θέματα που σχετίζονται με την αμαρτία; ή πρέπει να συμβουλευτούμε τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία; Σύμφωνα με τη Βίβλο, εάν οι ανησυχίες, οι φόβοι, οι καταθλίψεις και οι φοβίες είναι οι ρίζες των ψυχικών διαταραχών, τότε μόνο η *αγάπη* τις θεραπεύει απαραίτητα. Η Α΄ Επιστολή Ιωάννη (4.18) τονίζει το ίδιο σημείο:

Η τέλεια αγάπη εξαλείφει τον φόβο· επειδή,

ο φόβος έχει να κάνει με τιμωρία· και

εκείνος που φοβάται δεν έχει ακόμα

τελειοποιηθεί στην αγάπη.

——-

συμπέρασμα

Η πανάκεια για όλες τις μη βιολογικές ψυχικές διαταραχές είναι η *αγάπη.* Οι Μπητλς είχαν δίκιο όταν είπαν: «Το μόνο που χρειάζεστε είναι η αγάπη». Η B' Επιστολή προς Τιμόθεο (1.7) συμφωνεί με τα προαναφερθέντα:

Το Πνεύμα που μας έδωσε ο Θεός, δεν είναι

πνεύμα δειλίας αλλά πνεύμα δύναμης κι

αγάπης και σωφροσύνης.

Έτσι, από ψυχοθεραπευτική σκοπιά, η *αγάπη* και η *συγχώρεση* εξοπλίζουν ένα άτομο για να σπάσει τις αλυσίδες της νεύρωσης, του εθισμού και του φόβου, αποκαθιστώντας το μυαλό του στην υγεία!

(To read this article in English, click the following link: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/635864715577393152/is-sin-the-cause-of-mental-illness).

——-

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 5 years ago

Text

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

7 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 5 years ago

Text

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 5 years ago

Text

A Critical Review of the So-Called “Bible-Wheel” method of Biblical Interpretation

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Like the Zohar in the Kabbalah, the “Bible-Wheel” approach is a kind of Hebraic “Gematria” or “Isopsephy” that corresponds to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet but does not take into consideration several important Biblical factors. For instance, it doesn’t consider the fact that the New Testament uses a different alphabet (i.e. Greek), nor does it seriously consider the historical-grammatical context of the New Testament books. The Bible Wheel’s premise is that “the Hebrew alphabet is established in the alphabetically structured passages of the Old Testament, most notably Psalm 119 that praises God's Word from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end.” This “is a circular presentation of the Bible . . . by rolling up the traditional list of the sixty-six books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of twenty-two spokes.” Here’s how it works:

“The structure consists of a circular matrix of sixty-six Cells on a Wheel of twenty-two Spokes. The sixty-six Cells form three wheels within the Wheel called Cycles. Each Cycle spans a continuous sequence of twenty-two books as follows: With the completion of the Bible Wheel, we now have a fully unified view of the whole Bible as a symmetrical, mathematically structured two-dimensional object. The increase from the traditional one-dimensional list of books to the two-dimensional Bible Wheel immediately reveals a host of unanticipated correlations between the three books on each spoke with each other and the corresponding Hebrew Letter” (according to biblewheel.com).

This is more of an “intuitive” rather than a scholarly approach to the Bible that is devoid of historical, grammatical, hermeneutical, and contextual considerations. For example, the premise that the entire Biblical structure of the 66 canonical books is grounded exclusively in the Hebrew alphabet “from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end” is debunked by Christ’s self-disclosure and promulgation of the Divine Name explicitly through the Greek alphabet:

ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος (SBLGNT).

Translation:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22.13 NRSV).

There is absolutely no correlation, here, to the Aleph and Tav or to the Hebrew alphabet. On the contrary, Christ reveals the divine name in the language of the Greeks by declaring “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” The alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek writing system, that is to say, the beginning and the end of the Greek alphabet!

What is more, the Bible wheel practice is based not on scholarly criteria (i.e. detailed exegesis/authorial intent) but rather on apparent coincidences (e.g. mathematical, alphabetic, Hebraic, etc.), sometimes explained through a matrix that we might call “synchronicity”:

//Synchronicity is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are "meaningful coincidences" if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related. During his career, Jung furnished several different definitions of the term, defining synchronicity as an "acausal connecting (togetherness) principle;" "meaningful coincidence;" "acausal parallelism;” and as a "meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved.// (Wiki).

Therefore, although it may have some symbolic preliminary merits, the Bible wheel practice is obviously not a credible or scholarly approach to Biblical investigation.

The notion that the 66 Books of the Bible can be put on an apparent wheel where each book directly coincides with some other book based on certain numerical, alphabetical, and Hebraic correlations seems to be an outlandish explanation! This practice, including its pictorial representation, is somewhat reminiscent of the medieval divination practices of occultism, such as Kabbalah, Cartomancy (i.e. Tarot card reading) and Numerology:

“Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names, and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts” (Wiki).

——-

The idea behind the Bible-Wheel approach is that Biblical history repeats itself: that time is cyclical. What is the axiom of this interpretive method? As It Was, So Shall It Be… It, therefore, presupposes that there are thematic parallels (and secret codes) between the earlier books of the Bible and the later ones. Similar methods have been proposed by authors Perry Stone and Jonathan Cahn. Thus, with the exception of some trivial and peripheral similarities, I don’t see any major thematic affinities, say, between Jeremiah 17 and Revelation 2, as per the Bible-wheel interpretation.

——-

Let’s Look at Rev. 2

——-

The Church of Ephesus has a lot going for it. It endures with patience, does not tolerate evil, exposes falsehood, and bears much for the sake of Christ (Rev. 2.2-3). No such praise is ever mentioned in Jer. 17 in relation to to the Jews. Furthermore, despite some set backs, God promises certain divine rewards in Rev. 2 that are not mentioned in Jer. 17, namely, offering the faithful the crown of life (Rev. 2.10) as well as eternal life: “Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death” (Rev. 2.11), etc.

——-

Similarly, the Church of Pergamum, despite its shortcomings, is holding fast. Even though it’s located within Satan’s domain, so to speak, it’s holding on to Christ and has not denied the faith (Rev. 2.13).

Here, as before, Christ offers the divine manna and a mystic precious stone to the over-comers (Rev. 2.17). Nothing of the kind is ever referenced in Jer. 17.

——-

Also, the Church in Thyatira is not doing too bad either. Christ is aware of its works—such as “love, faith, service, and patient endurance” (Rev. 2.19). And although some have incorporated certain false teachings, there are others within the church that are blameless and whom Christ does not rebuke at all (Rev. 2.24)! He simply urges them to hold on til he comes (Rev. 2.25). Christ maintains that anyone who endures to the end will be granted “authority over the nations” (v. 26) and will also receive “the morning star” (v.28).

——-

Now Let’s Look at Jer. 17

——-

By contrast, Jeremiah 17 is casting an aspersion on the kingdom of Judah. Its proemium is as follows:

“The sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts, and on the horns of their altars” (Jer. 17.1 NRSV).

Next, there are a number of caveats that culminate in God’s vow to eternally disinherit the Jews from his promises:

“By your own act you shall lose the heritage that I gave you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever” (v. 4). Then God recites a summary of the Blessings and Curses of the covenant (vv. 5-9). Finally, Jeremiah exalts the Lord and offers up his own defense that he is upright, and so on. Here, the text instructs the people of Judah to keep certain commandments, such as “the sabbath day” (v. 24), something that does not occur in Rev. 2. The chapter ends with Blessings and Curses in the form of rewards and punishments (vv. 26-27).

Incidentally, the theme of God who “searches minds and hearts,” in Rev. 2.23, is a common trope that can be found in various places in the Bible and is not exclusive to Jeremiah 17.10 (e.g., 1 Ch. 28.9; 29.17; Ps. 7.9; Prov. 17.3; Ecc. 3.18; Jer. 11.20; Rom. 8.27), as proponents of this view suggest.

——-

Conclusion

Unlike Rev. 2, nowhere is there any mention of eternal life or of surviving a second death in Jer. 17. Moreover, no one is offered any rewards of authority over nations, or any glory, for that matter, such as that implied by the so-called “morning star.” In fact, there’s no one blameless in Jer. 17, nor does any praise come from God concerning anyone whatsoever. Even the prophet himself has to plead for mercy and proclaim his own self-righteousness. Besides, there are so many other differences.

Jeremiah is written in *Hebrew* and heavily redacted probably by the scribe Baruch and later generations of Deuteronomists, while Revelation is written exclusively in *Greek* most likely by a single author. The former is probably from the 6th century BCE, while the latter dates from ca. 95 CE. One is written to a Jewish nation, the kingdom of Judah, just prior to the Babylonian deportation, while the other is written to the predominantly Gentile Churches in Asia Minor. One is written in Palestine, the other in Greece! So where are the parallels?

——-

3 notes · View notes