Wallace and the Convertible Proposition

[Cal_Minian]

Forgive me if I have been off topic. My background is in classical Greek before entering the field of biblical languages; but the same rules apply when addressing any similar language. I thought that you were addressing the meaning of 1 Co 8:6 and John 17:3. I was simply trying to point out that addressing these verses as if grammar were of greater import than diction is a seriously flawed approach... since you are only addressing Wallace's understanding of the "convertible proposition", the use and meaning of κύριος in Hebrew culture and Greek writings of the time may not be relevant... at least not to such a narrow discussion... seems to me it would be difficult to keep the discussion to such a narrow scope and not to fall over into exegesis.

Here is my hermeneutic. Look at the Greek and determine which contexts are supported by the objective grammar. Context is subjective. Lets not overturn the objective grammar by appealing to one of many possible contextual solutions.

Do you agree with this?

-Cal

[RonC]

Here is my hermeneutic. Look at the Greek and determine which contexts are supported by the objective grammar. Context is subjective. Lets not overturn the objective grammar by appealing to one of many possible contextual solutions.

Do you agree with this?

-Cal

Given my background, my approach tends to be more Aristotelian. Aristotle would ask how it is possible for one to “determine which contexts are supported by the objective grammar” if one has no grasp of the diction?

[Cal_Minian]

Given my background, my approach tends to be more Aristotelian. Aristotle would ask how it is possible for one to “determine which contexts are supported by the objective grammar” if one has no grasp of the diction?

I see no evidence to support your inference that politics influenced the gospel. That this would result in watering down the gospel flies in the face of the evidence that Christians were not cowards in the face of persecution, neither in the time of the apostles nor later when they died for their faith.


-Cal

[apostoli]

Here is my hermeneutic. Look at the Greek and determine which contexts are supported by the objective grammar. Context is subjective. Lets not overturn the objective grammar by appealing to one of many possible contextual solutions.

If this is really your criteria then on the basis of Jn 20:28 you must affirm that Jesus is distinctively God.

Verse 29 is Jesus' response to Thomas' declaration in vs28 and Jesus says "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

[Cal_Minian]

If this is really your criteria then on the basis of Jn 20:28 you must affirm that Jesus is distinctively God.

Verse 29 is Jesus' response to Thomas' declaration in vs28 and Jesus says "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

You might be interested in what Danker says in his new “Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” by Frederick William Danker (editor of Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon) that was published recently. The entry on QEOS is very interesting. Regarding the texts where they identify the Son as QEOS (J 1:1b; 20:28; 1 J 5:20b; Hb 1:8) they do say that “in connection w. these four passages s. instruction by Jesus in 2 below” which is “—2 of humans who enjoy special status and esteem J 10:34, 35a.”

JWs have published that they are not dogmatic as to whether one or two persons are identified as my Lord or my God in this passage. We hold the same view as Danker with respect to the context here.

-Cal

[RonC]

I see no evidence to support your inference that politics influenced the gospel. That this would result in watering down the gospel flies in the face of the evidence that Christians were not cowards in the face of persecution, neither in the time of the apostles nor later when they died for their faith.


-Cal

Cal, I really don't think you understand what I said. I said nothing about politics at all. I was referring to Aristotle's approach to/analysis of writing/communication fundamentals, form and structure. You cannot understand what an author is saying unless you first understand his diction – what the words mean… in context, of course, but the context of the meaning of the words in regard to Paul's epistles is the Greek language prior to and during the 1st Century CE.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal, I really don't think you understand what I said. I said nothing about politics at all. I was referring to Aristotle's approach to/analysis of writing/communication fundamentals, form and structure. You cannot understand what an author is saying unless you first understand his diction – what the words mean… in context, of course, but the context of the meaning of the words in regard to Paul's epistles is the Greek language prior to and during the 1st Century CE.

Paul wrote to counsel and strengthen the Corinthian congregation. Paul warns against sectarianism and exhorts unity (chapters 1-4) and says "Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). Of course we know that there is one Lord of the new community (BDAG, KURIOS in 1Co 8) , and not many. Paul teaches on the subject of immorality (1Co 5-6), singleness and marriage (1Co 7) and then food offered to idols (1Co 8). Corinth was a pagan city with many gods and lords, the earthly lords ruling on behalf of the gods. However to Christians there is one God out of whom all things are and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom all things are. This Christian creed was in contrast to the polytheism of the city of Corinth. To Christians there is one God who is the creator, the source of all things and one Lord, the one whom the one God mediates all things. Their roles are distinguished with the Father as source and therefore creator of all things and the Son as his instrument.

Paul's grammar is masterful. He distinguishes between the gods of Corinth and their lords, and the one God of Christians and the one Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time he distinguishes between the one God and Creator, the Father and the one Lord Jesus his instrument in making all things. This Christian creed makes it clear that the Father alone is the source and creator of all things but that at the same time he does all these things through one Lord, not many Lords. Christ is not divided (c.p. 1Corinthians 1:13).

The tight Greek clauses are necessary in order to make sure that we do not mix the title and role of the Father and Son in all things while maintaining their unity of purpose. If you merge the two titles and therefore roles into one SHEMA then you mix the roles in a decidedly un-scriptural way. The Son is NEVER described as the one out of (EK) whom all things are. To say this would be contrary to the entirety of Scripture.


1 Timothy 2:5 speaks to another facet of this unity of purpose when he again describes the Father as the one God and distinguishes between the one God and the one mediator. Just as the mediator of the law covenant (Moses) was the mediator between the one God and humans but not included in the one God, so too the mediator of the new covenant.


-Cal

[RonC]

Paul wrote to counsel and strengthen the Corinthian congregation. Paul warns against sectarianism and exhorts unity (chapters 1-4) and says "Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). Of course we know that there is one Lord of the new community (BDAG, KURIOS in 1Co 8) , and not many. Paul teaches on the subject of immorality (1Co 5-6), singleness and marriage (1Co 7) and then food offered to idols (1Co 8). Corinth was a pagan city with many gods and lords, the earthly lords ruling on behalf of the gods. However to Christians there is one God out of whom all things are and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom all things are. This Christian creed was in contrast to the polytheism of the city of Corinth. To Christians there is one God who is the creator, the source of all things and one Lord, the one whom the one God mediates all things. Their roles are distinguished with the Father as source and therefore creator of all things and the Son as his instrument.

Paul's grammar is masterful. He distinguishes between the gods of Corinth and their lords, and the one God of Christians and the one Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time he distinguishes between the one God and Creator, the Father and the one Lord Jesus his instrument in making all things. This Christian creed makes it clear that the Father alone is the source and creator of all things but that at the same time he does all these things through one Lord, not many Lords. Christ is not divided (c.p. 1Corinthians 1:13).

The tight Greek clauses are necessary in order to make sure that we do not mix the title and role of the Father and Son in all things while maintaining their unity of purpose. If you merge the two titles and therefore roles into one SHEMA then you mix the roles in a decidedly un-scriptural way. The Son is NEVER described as the one out of (EK) whom all things are. To say this would be contrary to the entirety of Scripture.


1 Timothy 2:5 speaks to another facet of this unity of purpose when he again describes the Father as the one God and distinguishes between the one God and the one mediator. Just as the mediator of the law covenant (Moses) was the mediator between the one God and humans but not included in the one God, so too the mediator of the new covenant.


-Cal

This is a Biblical Languages forum. I am bringing to your attention Aristotle’s thoughts with regard to Greek from the perspective of a prolific philosopher and writer whose native tongue is Greek and you scribble something from a Sunday School class in response?? Come on Cal!

[Cal_Minian]

This is a Biblical Languages forum. I am bringing to your attention Aristotle’s thoughts with regard to Greek from the perspective of a prolific philosopher and writer whose native tongue is Greek and you scribble something from a Sunday School class in response?? Come on Cal!

I have not seen you demonstrate how "diction" can inform our view of 1 Corinthians 8:6. What I have seen you do it declare that if I don't understand it, my view of the grammar cannot be defended. Now it is your turn. Let's get your discussion regarding "diction" out of theory and into practice.

Here is what I am beginning to think. If you could disprove my analysis of the grammar and its implications with "diction" you would have done so by now. It appears that your view of diction can only cast doubt on any application but never actually prove a position one way or the other.

Prove me wrong. Go for it!

-Cal

[John Reece]

One problem with the KURIOS = YHWH argument in the LXX being applied to KURIOS in the GNT is that in all of the fragments of the LXX before the 2nd century where the divine name is used in the Hebrew, one finds either a form of the divine name in Greek such as IAW or a surrogate (ie nomina sacra) in place of KURIOS. Sometime between the earliest copies and the later ones these references to the divine name were changed by copyists to KURIOS.

Let's stipulate that the original Hebrew translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek did not render the Hebrew term ‏‏יְהוָה (YHWH) with the Greek term κύριος (kyrios).

If that be the case, by whom and why was the rendering κύριος (kyrios) made to be the reading of ‏‏יְהוָה (YHWH) in the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible?

[apostoli]

Originally posted by apostoli
If this is really your criteria then on the basis of Jn 20:28 you must affirm that Jesus is distinctively God.

Verse 29 is Jesus' response to Thomas' declaration in vs28 and Jesus says "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

You might be interested in what Danker says in his new “Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” by Frederick William Danker (editor of Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon) that was published recently. The entry on QEOS is very interesting. Regarding the texts where they identify the Son as QEOS (J 1:1b; 20:28; 1 J 5:20b; Hb 1:8) they do say that “in connection w. these four passages s. instruction by Jesus in 2 below” which is “—2 of humans who enjoy special status and esteem J 10:34, 35a.”

JWs have published that they are not dogmatic as to whether one or two persons are identified as my Lord or my God in this passage. We hold the same view as Danker with respect to the context here.

I'd have to read Danker in full. But I find your referencing most Christadelphian = Jesus had no pre-existence.

Overall I'm finding your replies most evasive. If your criteria is grammar then Jn 20:28 is as obvious as a pimple on your face. There is nothing grammatical to dispute in this simple verse. Thomas is decidely addressing Jesus as both his Lord & his God. And Jesus admonishes him for this revelation, just as he admonished A.Peter at Mt 16:17.

Now, to give you space for argument, many an ancient grammarian criticised Christian writings for their barbarism (vernacular). Even Irenaeus remarks of A.Paul's poor Greek grammar, as do other early churchmen concerning both A.Paul & A.John. In fact even within the realms of vernacular Greek (koine) the apostles are by various writers described as bordering on semi-literate.

The traditional response is that the apostles have to be read within the context of Hebrew idiom.

As a general example of grammar, many American phrases have opposite meanings in the wider English speaking world. The most amusing is "fanny" which outside of the USA refers to an opposite and exclusively female part of the anatomy. So regional idiom must be taken into account. What I understand RonC to refer to as diction.

Concerning diction, Aristotle referred to one of the philosphers who said "you cannot cross the same stream twice". At a molecular level this is very true, but at a practical level this is obviously false. The key is the term "this".

At a molecular level (pure philosphy) I'm not aware of any dispute that the Father of Jesus is God alone. But at the particular level both the Father & the Son are God absolute to us, as in scripture it is revealed that no one can know (perceive, experience, contemplate, entertain) the Father except through the Son. And I think this is the point you miss in your dia-tribes against the Trinity.

Without the Son, we only have a human conception of God. May as well go worship a tree.

Even in Jewish thought this idea is found to be true (albeit they substitute the Torah for the Son). I offer their Memra theology as evidence.

[Cal_Minian]

Let's stipulate that the original Hebrew translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek did not render the Hebrew term ‏‏יְהוָה (YHWH) with the Greek term κύριος (kyrios).

If that be the case, by whom and why was the rendering κύριος (kyrios) made to be the reading of ‏‏יְהוָה (YHWH) in the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible?

The ones who made the copies of the manuscripts from the 2nd century onward would be the ones who changed the manuscripts. We know that in both extant manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament that abbreviations for various "holy" words were used instead of the words themselves. So we know they were changed. It should not be hard to understand how this could happen. It happens today! The Hebrew manuscripts have the divine name in Hebrew, but how many bibles actually change YHWH to "Lord" or "God" or "Lord God", etc in English?

-Cal

[Cal_Minian]

[apostoli]
I'd have to read Danker in full. But I find your referencing most Christadelphian = Jesus had no pre-existence.

[Cal]
I can't understand what you are saying here. Danker is Lutheran and I am JW. Who is a Christadelphian?

I assure you that when you read it you will concur my quote is accurate. I have the book in hardcopy.

-Cal

[RonC]

I have not seen you demonstrate how "diction" can inform our view of 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Investigating semantic range by researching use and connotation prior to and during the time of Paul cannot but add to the richness of one’s understanding.

What I have seen you do it declare that if I don't understand it, my view of the grammar cannot be defended.

Not at all. It is not your view of grammar which is problematic, it is your exegetical approach and conclusions which are problematic. Defending them in light of information you may not have been aware of rather than examining this information and objectively assessing how it might impact your conclusions reveals a personal agenda rather then a fearless searching. I have presented original source information which it appears you have not been aware of (citations from Greek literature regarding κύριος and θεὸς for one) and you simply fall back on BDAG or Wallace.

Now it is your turn. Let's get your discussion regarding "diction" out of theory and into practice.

It always has been "in practice". The semantic range of κύριος includes a designation given a god (θεὸς) and the semantic range of θεὸς includes a designation given man (κύριος). This opens up the question as to how a specific writer uses the terms. This must always be kept in mind when seeking the meaning of a specific verse. Others have brought to your attention Paul’s use of these terms in various writings.

Here is what I am beginning to think. If you could disprove my analysis of the grammar and its implications with "diction" you would have done so by now. It appears that your view of diction can only cast doubt on any application but never actually prove a position one way or the other.

Prove me wrong. Go for it!

-Cal

As I have tried to explain, belief in the concept of "proving" or “disproving” a modern English rendering of ancient Semitic concepts is a manifestation of a lack of understanding. I never claimed to be able to “prove” anything. Only the uninitiated believe that possible. I am simply saying that when it comes to exegesis one cannot limit oneself to the conclusions of one or two books on grammar or the glosses of one or two language lexicon. True scholars approach a subject always looking for where they might be wrong… always questioning their conclusions… always seeking new sources… always seeking the “best evidence” which is original sources, not lexicons or school books. That is not to demean Wallace’s books on grammar or BDAG, it is to see their function properly.

[John Reece]

The ones who made the copies of the manuscripts from the 2nd century onward would be the ones who changed the manuscripts.

Why would copyists have changed the rendering of Hebrew ‏יְהוָה (YHWH) to Greek κύριος (kyrios)?

What was the source and rationale for their understanding of YHWH as kyrios?