Showing posts with label greek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greek. Show all posts

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Jonah in Acts 18

It's always enlightening reading the Bible in different languages. 

Last night at a German-language Bible study group we were going through Acts 18, and I read something I'd never noticed in English or Greek, which is that God says to Paul (who'd been having an awful time in Corinth), "ich habe ein großes Volk in dieser Stadt." - "I have a large people in this city."

English translations go with "many" because it works better, but the word groß (big) fits πολὺς (many) just fine, AND it made me think of Jonah and Jonah 4 in particular. 

Throughout Jonah the word גדול "big" comes up more than a dozen times, although the Greek word is μέγας (mega!).

But in the last line of Jonah we do get the word "many", speaking of the many animals who would have been destroyed, not to mention the 120k+, had Yhwh not had mercy on them. The "more than" is the adjectival form of πολὺς: πλείους. So we have "many" in the conclusion of Jonah, as in Acts 18:10.

All this makes clear what God is saying to Paul in Acts. Just as God had mercy on Nineveh through the unwilling Jonah, so too will he have mercy on the people of Corinth through the willing (if slightly battered) Paul.

It is a great city, with a great many people in peril with out God's salvation. 

Monday, November 07, 2022

Some patterns in 1 Corinthians 13

While researching my masters on the structure Ecclesiastes, I came across John Harvey's "Listening to the Text", where he sets the foundation for how one should and should not seek to understand and describe structures in texts. I found it immensely helpful (I say "chiasm" a lot less these days, preferring "ring structure" or "concentric symmetry"), but his interest is really in Paul's letters (and even then, his Hauptbriefe), so I couldn't make use of any examples, just the theory. 

But now I'm in 1 Corinthians, I've been able to refer to some specifics in his book, and while he's sceptical about the second structure (because of a lack of linguistic parallels), his suggestion for the third is pretty convincing. So I'll suggest my own for the first, and develop his (rejected) one for the second, and also show a bigger picture one which I think is helpful.

Bookends, 12:31; 13:13

Beginning at the end then, it's noteworthy that the end of 1 Corinthians 12 finishes with Paul telling the Corinthians that they should rather desire the "greater" (μείζονα) gifts. He then goes on to discuss love, what it is and what it isn't, which seems so out of place that Conzelman for instance suggests ch13 is an interpolation, or has been dislocated from perhaps after ch12. However, after mentioning faith, hope and love, he returns to the word "greater" (μείζων) to describe love in comparison with faith and hope. I think it's fair to say that love, and ch13 as a whole, is the governing principle for the wider unit chs12-14. As good as prophecy, tongues and the other charismata are, it is love which must govern and order their use.

Life without love, 13:1-3

The first section, vv1-3 is just three parallel phrases, beginning Paul's use of triplets in this passage (see also v8, 13). These three verses all have three parts: 

  1. If I am x
  2. But I have not love
  3. I am y

Where x is something which could be good, but is probably used to boast in their context, and where y is something not so great: in v1 it is an annoyance, in v2 it is nothing, and in v3 it gains him nothing.

This ties well back to the issues brought up in chs1-4, where the Corinthians are boasting and getting in fights over the wrong thing. Here too, while Paul thinks tongues are great, as is prophecy and great faith and gospel-centred priorities, these things without love are nothing. Instead of things that are not becoming things that are, here they are inverting that, turning things that are into nothing.

What love does/doesn't, 13:4-7

Harvey's issue with any paragraph-wide structure here is the lack of lexical parallels. Which is fair enough. But what we do have are four sections which are each tightly contained, and together forms something of an ABBA structure.

Love is patient
Kind is love

Love doesn’t:
get jealous,
brag,
puff up,
dishonour,
self-seek,
get provoked,
record wrongs

Love doesn’t rejoice in evil
but
does rejoice with the truth.

Love always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
always perseveres.

Note there is a legit chiasm in the first verse (v4a), and then a list of "doesn'ts" (v4b-5), then a contrast between οὐ χαίρει and συνχαίρει, while finally the passage crescendos with a four-fold πάντα. So while there aren't bracketing words or structures to this section, the movements between each sections, with the positive outside and negative inside, I think holds this section together well as a "what love does/doesn't". 

Love outlasts, 13:8-13

Finally in the last section there is a more legit concentric ABCDCBA structure, complete with a bookend of ἡ ἀγάπη (v8,13), but also alternating sets of contrasts.

8a Love never ends

8b–d Prophecies, tongues, knowledge will cease

9–10 In part? Won’t matter

11 Children will grow up

12 In part? Will be fully

13a Faith, hope, love will endure

13b Love is the greatest

So there is a lexical bookend, a doxology to love. Then a contrast between those things which will cease (a triplet: prophecies, tongues, knowledge) and those which will endure (another triplet: faith, hope, love). The third level into this structure reuses the "in part" (ἐκ μέρους) idea, which is thrice in vv9-10 and returns once in v12. There is also a contrast between a negative implication in vv9-10 and a positive application in v12. Finally the central section uses the word "child" four times, which is probably an unsubtle way of telling the Corinthians to grow up!


In summary then, I think ch13 holds together well, in three clear sections, with three clear ideas in each. Each of the three sections hold together tightly and make it clear both where the Corinthians should aspire, but also where they are failing, which makes all the more sense as they reflect on the state of their public worship in the chapters either side.

If you're interested in structure, you should check out John Harvey's book. Here is my goodreads review if you want some more thoughts. 

Monday, November 15, 2021

3 John Structure and key ideas

I've been spending this term working and preaching through 1 John, and have previously preached a baptism sermon on 2 John. So with baptism approaching, I'm doing some work on 3 John (or, as other Anglophone countries might put it, Third John). 

This is the shortest text in the Bible, at a lean 221 words, and forms a partner letter to 2 John, which is also short (a slightly bulkier 248w), and is similarly by "the Elder". But where 2 John is written to "the lady" (most likely a church community), 3 John is written to a person, Gaius. In that way, in 3 John we are reading someone else's mail (to steal a chapter title from Mike Bird). 

As far as a book of the Bible goes, the structure is very straightforward, with an introduction and a conclusion, with the body in the middle. I reckon 4 paragraphs in the body, three of which begin with the vocative "Beloved" (often translated Dear Friend). I like translating it "Beloved" to maintain the lexical link with "love". We have the same issue in 1 John, where "love" is such a common word, but we might miss the link to "Dear Friends" if we aren't aware that it translates "Beloved".

The other paragraph is marked by the asyndeton "I wrote (something to the church)" as well as the change in subject. 

Something I find fascinating is the difference between the verse count in English translations and the Greek. The Greek has 15 verses, but the English has only 14, combining the final two into one. It is of zero consequence, but it is nonetheless fascinating to me that they couldn't agree on how many verses there might be. I can think of only one time I noticed this (but can't remember where that was). 


Key words: 

  • Love: The title beloved (4x), the verb I love (1x) and the noun love (1x) make this the second-highest grossing irregular word in the letter (not including conjunctions and articles). This carries on from 1 John, and is pointing us to Gaius as an exemplar of the love talked about in the larger letter.
    • To beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth
    • Beloved, ... they bore witness to your love
  • Truth: The noun truth (6x) and the adjective true (1x) point to another theme carried over from 1 John. 
    • Gaius is loved in truth
    • People bear witness to your truth
    • You are walking in the truth
    • My children are walking in the truth
    • We might be coworkers in the truth
    • Demetrius is born witness by ... the truth
    • Our testimony is true
      • Rather than an abstract idea, truth as a noun is always linked to action, to love which is lived out toward other people and toward God.
  • Bear witness: this is the last idea I wanted to note, as this verb appears four times to describe a community and their response.
    • They bore witness to your ... walking in the truth
    • They bore witness to your love before the church
    • Demetrius is born witness by everyone
    • We also bear witness [to Demetrius]

To the structure (I wrote something on this over a decade ago! This could be considered the updated version of that):

A  1 Greeting

B  2-4 Well wishes in response to receiving a visit

B` 5-8 Encouragement to continue in godly conduct

C  9-10 Being unwelcoming betrays a bigger heart problem (like Diotrephes)

C` 11-12 Mimic the good instead (like Demetrius)

A` 13-14/15 Final greetings


The opening and closing frame the body well. The two examples at the end put forward the negative and positive cases. It's interesting to me that none of the three lexemes mentioned above (love, truth, bearing witness) occur in the negative panel (9-10). It's as if John would not let those words come into contact with such a one as Diotrephes lest they be sullied by merely being in the same paragraph. 

I'm not sure if this is a thing or not, but it seems that there are lots of prefix lexemes in 9-10 - like the name Diotrephes! There's εκ, επι, υπο, another επι, and two more εκs, as well as a μη and ουτε. Again, this could be nothing, but I wonder if there's a deliberate collocation of these around the name Diotrephes which looks like a prefix form (διο-) to reinforce how far he has stepped out of line.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

What is the word/the seed in Mark 4?

I'm preaching Mark 4:1-34 this Sunday. It's the parable of the soils, followed by a couple of parables explaining the kingdom of God. The parable of the soils talks a lot about "the word", but it's never explained. This is an attempt to explain what it might mean.

When you look at the many times "the word" (ὸ λογος) is in the New Testament, it's often translated in any way except "the word." It's message, thing, statement - usually something word related - but "the word" is undertranslated. Dr John Davies raised this point in an FBS seminar on Luke's use of λογος, which is really straightforward, but rarely commented on.

So what is "the word" which is sown in Mark 4? It's usually generalised to preaching generally about the kingdom, based on the parables which follow. But I think it's more specific than that.

In preparing for this series, I've enjoyed working through Peter Bolt's NSBT volume, "The Cross from a Distance", which reads the whole of Mark through the lens of atonement. He doesn't really go here (although he does have a footnote referencing N.T. Wright referencing McDonald, 1989), but there are a few things which made me think "the word" here is specifically the message of the cross.

Take for instance the parable of the seed growing quietly (4:26-29). The seed is not just "ripe" (EVV), it is "delivered over" or "betrayed". And it is not just picked, but the sickle is sent in (cf Joel 3:13).
The following parable, of the mustard seed (4:30-32), describes a seed, dead in the ground, which comes to life. This same image is used in 1 Corinthians 15:35-37 to describe the resurrection body.
Bringing it back to the parable of the soils, we can see that the first three soils each point to an element of Jesus' passion.
  1. The footpath recalls the path Jesus took, as he was led to his crucifixion, mocked by the crowds (Mk 15:16-22).
  2. The rocky soil (πετρώδης) reminds us of Πέτρος - Peter - who thrice withered under the heat of the questioning (Mk 14:66-72).
  3. The thorns which choke the word (ἄκανθα) are reminiscent of the thorns which crowned Christ's head (Mk 15:17).
I know these, on their own, are a bit hard to connect, but with the context, and their colocation, I think it's fair to suggest something is being said here.

"The word" then is not a general message, nor is hearing about being generally better listeners. But the message is specifically the atonement and the resurrection, with this being the first of multiple calls to follow the son of man who will suffer, die, and then rise.

Monday, February 01, 2021

Getting behind Jesus in Mark

Ὸπίσω in Mark's first call narrative

We're in Mark for the next term, and I noticed something interesting with the preposition ὀπίσω (behind) in 1:17, 20. It occurs twice in the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20), once with each set of brothers. What I found interesting is that it occupies two different places in each calling, whereas it could easily have been within one or even both callings. 

The first time is in Jesus' call to Simon and Andrew, where he says to come "behind me", and their response is to follow (ὰκολουθέω) him: 

16-18 And going along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Come behind me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately leaving their nets, they followed him.

Ὸπίσω is in the call, but not in response. This contrasts with the second call, to James and John, where there is no speech, simply a report that he called them, and the response that they followed behind him:

19-20 And going on a little, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat fixing the nets. And immediately he called them. And, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the workers, they departed behind him. 

It would have been easy enough to include ὀπίσω in the response in the first instance, or in the call in the second. Instead, what we in effect have is a bracketing together of the two calls of the two pairs of fishing brothers, the call with ὀπίσω in the first being concluded by the response with ὀπίσω in the second. 

Ὸπίσω elsewhere in Mark

Apart from the one time ὀπίσω occurs as an adjective (13:16), it occurs thrice outside of the call narrative. The first is in the introduction (1:7) as Jesus is previewed as the one who will come after John (ἔρχεται ... ὀπίσω μου). If we are able to link this with the calling of the disciples a paragraph later, then John is introducing Jesus as his disciple, albeit the disciple who will become the master. The cluster (if thrice within a chapter can be called a cluster) in the opening of the Gospel indicates that Jesus is to be followed rather than simply learned from.

The other uses of ὀπίσω are found around the turning point of Mark; twice in 8:33-34. This is the paragraph where Peter announces he believes Jesus to be the messiah, and where Jesus details what must happen to the Son of Man. Peter's defence of Jesus quickly leads to a rebuke, as he is told "Get behind me, Satan!" (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ). This is then quickly turned into a teaching point, as he describes to his disciples the life of the one who "wishes to come after me" (θέλει ὀπίσω μου  ἀκολουθεῖν). 

Thinking through ὀπίσω in terms of discipleship, following on from chapter 1, indicates that this odd use of ὀπίσω both for Peter/Satan (8:33) and for true disciples (8:34) might be better understood together rather than separately. That is, for Peter to be told to "get behind me" might be not so much as a dismissal (go away from me) as a command to situate himself in the correct position (follow after me). Peter's problem was that he had gone out in front, trying to tell Jesus what to do, rather than behaving rightly as his disciple: following, learning and listening. 

That was his original calling (1:17) and to that he must return in order to be an authentic disciple of Jesus. 

Monday, January 25, 2021

So many questions about Balaam

In Numbers 22-24 we first meet Balaam (or Bil'am, בלעם) son of Beor, a prophet hired by Balak king of Moab, to curse Israel. 

Amazingly, we know Balaam son of Beor also from extra-biblical material; the Deir 'Alla Plaster Inscriptions (Context of Scripture 2.27, Baruch A. Levine) writes about and translates the reconstructed fragments of an inscribed plaster wall from the 9th-8th century BC, slightly north of Moab in Ammonite territory. 

In those inscriptions he is a prophet who receives messages from the gods, providing a remarkable parallel to the biblical story. 

Balaam gets mentioned quite a lot in the Bible, which is surprising for a bit-player. His name comes up 60 times in the OT and a further three times in the NT. However, 51 of those 63 times are in Numbers 22-24, which is some impressive name repetition! He is mentioned again in Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 13 and 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6. The emphasis in the OT seems to be varied. 

He is also mentioned in the New Testament as an archetypal incitement to greed, in 2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11 and Revelation 2:14. 

In Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6, God's determination to bless Israel despite human attempts to curse them. However in Joshua 13 the problem is his sinning through divination and being put to death as a cleansing of the land. 

Later on within Numbers (31) the Balaam/Balak saga is conflated with what becomes known as the Peor incident, in Numbers 25. In Numbers 31:15-18 Moses is upset that women who are not virgins, as well as boys, have been allowed to live in an attack on Midian. The reasoning is that the women who are not virgins are those who followed Balaam's advice to seduce Israelite men, which occurs in Numbers 25 but is not linked to Balaam in that place. 

That said, there are a few issues in Numbers 25 which are not clear, such as a plague which is stopped but is never explicitly said to begin (although 25:3a, "Yhwh's anger burned against Israel", may be an elliptical reference to the plague beginning). All this is to say the lack of a reference to Balaam is perhaps not that unexpected.


I do have some questions about Balaam, which are about 1) his location and 2) his patronym. 

Balaam of Pethor 

Numers 22:5, Balaam is at Pethor, his native land (NIV), that is the land of the children of his people (ASV), which is by "the river", i.e. the Euphrates. This description is filled out in Deuteronomy 23, as Pethor is further explained as in Aram Naharaim, or Aramea by the (two) rivers, which is identified as north-west Mesopotamia. You can see it right up the top of this map in red (made in Accordance Bible), while Beth Peor and Bezer are the names in red down the bottom, which are part of Moab, also in red below those towns. I've overlaid modern borders for some scale.




It doesn't take long to work out why people have problems with Pethor as Balaam's base and hometown. The plains of Moab, opposite Jericho either side of the Jordan River, are almost 600km away from each other as the crow flies, which is a long long way away. One might even suggest prohibitively far away to make sense in the story. If the details are correct, that Balak sent his messengers 600km to ask, and then they returned unsuccessful, and then they were sent back, whereupon he was willing to come with them (the talking donkey notwithstanding), then they have walked upwards of 2,500km in order to gain some support. The distances are staggering. 

Added to this is when Balak meets Balaam, he asks why he didn't come immediately in response to his "urgent summons" (22:37), which is laughable - the amount of time it would have taken to make two return trips of that distance would make haste or delay essentially negligible. 

It is of course possible that The River is a different river. The Nile could justifiably also be called The River, and the Jordan, for those in that area, could similarly be their The River. Further to this, it is always possible that Aram is Adam, a place attested to elsewhere in the Scriptures (such as in Josh 3:16, as well as a suggestion elsewhere in place of Aram), due to the easily confused pair of letters, the Hebrew daleth and resh, ד/ר. 

If Balaam was indeed from Adam, not Aram, and The River was the Jordan and not the Euphrates, then Balaam is slightly less exotic and the story becomes much less confusing, from that aspect at least. That would also fit more with the archaeological evidence discussed above. 

Balaam son of Beor or Bezer

The other issue I want to try to understand is why, in 2 Peter 2:15, Balaam is called the son of Bezer and not of Beor, as he is throughout the OT. Where has Peter got this from?

The patronymic, Beor, is written both plene and defectively within the same passage; that is, both בעור and בער. 

There were two things I immediately noticed upon hearing the name Beor. First off, there is a nice assonance between the three names in the passage: Beor, Balaam, Balak. This is nice, and a lovely coincidence (if it is that). Second, Beor sounds a lot like Peor, and apart from the B/P exchange, Peor is spelled the same as Beor (the plene spelling). 

I don't know what to make of that. Peor is clearly a real place in the Transjordan, known elsewhere as Beth Peor (not to be confused with another Peor within Canaan). 

If I had to guess, I would say Beor is how you spell Peor if you want it to rhyme with Balak and Balaam, so that Beor, rather than being a patronym, is a toponym. 

If this were the case, it could mean that 2 Peter preserves the name of Balaam's father, Bezer, so he is Balaam son of Bezer of Peor. 

However, it's not that easy. Bezer rhymes just as easily as does Beor, and you don't have to change anything. And Bezer is also a place, near to the plains of Moab (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:36; 1 Chr 6:78; 8:78). 

So which place is his place? Is it Peor, Pethor, or Bezer? 

I think it's safest to go with what the OT has to say, rather than imagining that Peter has access to something that has escaped everyone else's notice for a millennium. This still doesn't explain how the patronym Bezer turns up in 2 Peter. 

The Greek behind it is Bosor, which is how the LXX consistently translates Bezer. However, it seems some scribes had some issues with that, as Vaticanus has Beor, and the original hand of Sinaiaticus combines Beor and Bosor into the horrific portmanteau Beorsor, which I take it is Beor + Bosor. UBS5 gives Bosor an A rating, suggesting that this is the most likely reading and that Siniaticus represents an attempt to correct the text.

There has been much work on 2 Peter and Jude's sources (very little of which I'm across), but I'm unaware of where the Bezer (Bosor) source may have come from, or why Peter didn't go with Beor (unless Sinaiaticus alone preserves the original text). 


Edit/update - I checked Norman Hillyer's UBC (1,2 Pet; Jude) and he suggests Βοσορ (Bezer) is a play on בשר (flesh); Peter then thinks Balaam is then a son of the flesh rather than being confused about who is father is. Why confuse us with the nearby town Bosor/Bezer I'm not sure. That said, the Greek has του, the genitive article, so it broadly means "belonging to", either as the son, or another type of belonging, as Hillyer suggests. 

Conclusion

All in all, there are a whole bunch of riddles associated with Balaam, son of Beor, of Pether. I don't know if I solved any of them, but I hope I have at least scratched the surface and edged towards some possible resolutions. 

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Hallelujah!

I'm getting to the end of my psalm per day reflection that I've been sending out to people from church (plus a few others) and in the last few I'm coming across the phrase "Hallelujah" quite a bit. You probably know that it means "Praise Yah", where Yah is short for Yahweh (or, as I choose to write it, Yhwh). It's one of those transliterations, which is to say "Hallelujah" isn't a translation, nor is "Hosanna" or "Baptise" or "Amen" - they have acquired meanings in English but they are not translations. (For those who are interested, Hosanna means save us, baptise means wash or overwhelm, amen is to do with agreement or trust).


Hallelujah is mostly two words, sometimes joined with a maqqep (essentially a Hebrew hyphen), sometimes separated, and once they are joined into one word. Oh, and they all occur in the last third of the psalter, as follows:

  • Hallelu-Yah 17 (102:19; 104:35; 105:45; 106:48; 113:9; 115:17; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:3, 21; 146:1, 10; 147:20; 148:14; 149:9; 150:6b)
  • Hallelu Yah 9 (111:1; 112:1; 113:1; 135:1; 147:1; 148:1; 149:1; 150:1, 6a*)
  • Hallelujah 1 (106:1)
I think this is all of them - it's from a software search and I haven't double checked it. But you'll notice a couple of things:
  1. The two words joined with a maqqep is by far the most common. 
  2. There is one case (150:6a) where the verb takes a different form, it's tehallel yah (all breath will praise Yah).
  3. Every time the standard form occurs without a maqqep, and including the time where they're joined (106:1), is in the first line of the psalm. The hyphenated form never occurs at the beginning of a psalm, and with the exception of 150:6a, the un-hyphenated form only occurs at the beginning. 
  4. If the form begins the psalm, it often occurs later on also. Of the nine which begin with Hallelu Yah or Halleljuah, seven have Hallelu-Yah later on. 
  5. As mentioned already, they are all in the last third of the psalter, and are clustered in a few groups: 102-106 (but not 103), 113-117 (but not 114), 146-150, with 135 the only one on its own. 

It's also noteworthy that the phrase Hallelujah (or Allelujah in the KJV) has come into English, perhaps not from the Psalms, but from the book of Revelation, where it is transliterated from Hebrew to Greek and then into English. It occurs four times in Revelation 19:1-6, and is the noise of those in heaven roaring praises to God for destroying Babylon, vindicating his saints, and bringing them to the wedding feast of the Lamb. 

What do we make of all this? I'm not yet sure. But it's interesting! It's also wonderful that we say it so much - and I think probably preserving the meaning - Praise Yah for his powerful works of rescue and redemption on earth, and for the future he is bringing about through the Lord Jesus. Hallelujah indeed!
 

Monday, August 17, 2020

Titus 3 structure

As I mentioned recently, one thing that stands out in Titus is the number of times works are mentioned. There are good (agathos) works, there are beautiful (kalos) works, and there are righteous (dikaiosune) works. All three of these turn up four times in chapter three, with beautiful (kalos) works turning up twice, as well as a third use of kalos (translated excellent in the NIV, in parallel with profitable).

What stands out is, for the four times works occur in this chapter (v1,5,8,14), between the first and second, and between the third and fourth, there is a description of the opposite of good works, including disobedience, depravity and division. 3:3, 9-10 essentially describe the type of person previewed back in 1.16 - the person who is unfit for, and unable to do, good works. 

There is also, along with 2.11-14, the greatest and clearest description of the gospel in this short letter, in 3.5b-7, which occurs between the second and third occurrences of works.  This reveals this structure:

A 3.1-2 Remind them about relationships with others, and to be ready for good works (ἔργον ἀγαθὸν)
B 3.3 We used to be pretty awful people
C 3.4-5a God saved us - not by our own righteous works (ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)
D 3.5b-7 We were saved by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, in the hope of eternal life
C'3.8 Those who believe in God should be devoted to good works (καλῶν ἔργων)
B' 3.9-11 There is no more place for those who behave in awful ways
A' 3.12-15 Those with whom I am in relationship with; remind people to commit to good works (καλῶν ἔργων)

I like the way this structure begins and opens with practical examples of good works, moves through descriptions of the opposite of good works, then back to good works, and finally, moving to the centre, has this beautiful description of the saving gospel. 


I've only just started working on this passage, but looking forward to preaching on it in a couple of weeks to conclude our short Titus series. 

Monday, February 24, 2020

Thyatira's Chiasm - Revelation 2:19

There's so much going on in Revelation in terms of structure. One interesting feature of the book is where irregular constructions are used to highlight something. In 2:19, as Jesus outlines the commendable things in the Thyatiran church, there is this odd construction with the word σου (of you) occurring, not after each item, nor only after the whole list, but before and after the list of five positive traits.


οἶδά 
σου 
τὰ ἔργα 
καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην 
καὶ τὴν πίστιν 
καὶ τὴν διακονίαν 
καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν 
σου


"I know of you, the works and the love and the faith and the service and the endurance, of you." It should just be translated "I know your works and your love and your faith and your service and your endurance," but "your" only occurs before and after the list.

Why? It could be, perhaps, that it's trying to draw attention to this group of admirable traits present in Thyatira, despite the difficult context they find themselves in. And, above all of them, it could be that the central one--their faith/trust/belief--is what is of supreme importance.

When this letter (2:18-29) begins wrapping it, it returns to the idea of trust. 2:25 reads,
"Only this: what you have, hold on to it, until I come." 
It is only by their faith in Christ, and not the teaching of Jezebel (20-23a), the deep things of Satan (24), that they have can be certain of conquering and keeping the works of Jesus until the end (26). 

So it could just be that John didn't want to write σου out five times, but he did write it twice, including once before the list begins, so I think it's fair to say there was some purpose in doing so. It could have been to draw attention to the whole list, or it could be to draw especial attention to the central idea: your faith/trust/belief in Jesus.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

andres adelphoi in Acts 13

Acts 13:13–52 has Paul and Barnabas (rather than Barnabas and Saul, as in 12:25–13:12) heading to Pisidian Antioch. The round journey which began from and will end with Syrian Antioch for some reason heads 150km through the mountains from Perga to this other Antioch as the mission of 1:8 continues. Some suggest it's because Paul was having some eye issues and needed to head to higher ground for medical reasons, but that seems a bit too random. But as we see when they arrive there, a Jewish community lives there who has not yet heard about Jesus.

Image created in Accordance Bible Software

The synagogue is evidently comprised of Jews and God-fearers, and it's their identity as God's people, whether as children of Abraham or as those who have seen the light, that Paul focuses on his speech.

Structurally, it's the phrase "andres" following which gives shape to the five units of this section. The phrase occurs four times, once before the speech and at three key times during it. The final section is a compilation of eleven verses of varying responses. Here's the NIV11 with the relevant Greek:

  1. Acts 13.15 “Brothers (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί) , if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
  2. Acts 13.16 “Fellow Israelites (ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται) and you Gentiles who worship God (οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν), listen to me!"
  3. Acts 13.26 “Fellow (Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί) children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles (οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν), it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent."
  4. Acts 13.38 “Therefore, my friends (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you."

To explain, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί literally means "male brothers", or "male brothers and sisters". Of course, that is ludicrous; the word ἄνδρες (male) as used here evidently means something closer to the third translation offered in the NIV: "fellow". Perhaps ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί would be better translated "Hey guys!"

The five units of this section would then be:

  1. Acts 13:13–15 Hey guys, if you have something to say, please say it.
  2. Acts 13:16–25 Hey guysyou God-fearers toolisten to how the story of Israel anticipates Jesus!
  3. Acts 13:26–37 Hey guyschildren of Abraham and any of you who fears God—this is the message of salvation!
  4. Acts 13:38–41 Hey guys, hear the message of forgiveness in Jesus.
  5. Acts 13:42–52 The wide variety of responses people make to the gospel.
It's probably not as reverent a translation, but it is certainly consistent, and Aussie idiomatic (as at 2019AD!). It's a great speech by Paul (via Luke), and there's a great contrast between the unifying gospel as preached to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch and the diverse response to it afterward.

Monday, June 04, 2018

The craziness of 1 Thessalonians 2:7

It's not often a verse is so confusing. Actually, there are lots of times this is the case. But there are two confusing things here; one is high level confusing but with low level impact, while the other is normal level confusing but with greater impact.

So the very weird thing: differing versification between Greek and English.

NIV (cf. ESV, CSB etc etc)
2:6 We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else,
even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.
2:7 Instead, we were like young children among you.
Just as a nursing mother cares for her children,

NA28 (cf. USB5 etc)
2.6 οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν οὔτε ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων,
2.7 δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι,
ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν ⸀νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν.
ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα,

I guess it's not super-weird, but I can't remember seeing the versification being different within a verse. Normally it's a different chapter division (cf. eg. Eccl. 4.17MT = 5.1Eng.), which affects the verse counting, but this is the first time I've seen it change within a verse.

What's doubly weird is I can't find anyone who cares to speak on it. The critical commentaries I've looked at either don't mention it or just note it with no explanation or discussion. The reason for this is that it doesn't affect anything, but it's still weird, and it musses up the cross-highlighting in Accordance.

The less weird thing: textual variant: the dropped or added Ν
As you can see above, there is a text critical mark before νήπιοι, which tells us that in some manuscripts the reading isn't νήπιος (infant), but ἤπιος (gentle). It's a pretty straight-forward case: either someone added the N to ἤπιος because they liked the imagery - there's also mother in 2.7 and father in 2.11, plus Paul likes νήπιος, using it 15 times in his letters. The alternative is someone removed the N, because they didn't want to mix the metaphor, making this one of only two times Paul says ἤπιος (the other being 2 Tim 2.24).

I guess if you don't agree with Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters you would say it has to be νήπιος, as ἤπιος isn't a word Paul uses. Although you probably don't think he wrote the Thessalonian correspondence either, so whatever.

What's frustrating is in context it could really be either. But it does change how you structure the sentence. If you letter, rather than number, the clauses as follows, there are really only two ways to structure it, and it all hangs on your text critical decision.

NIV (cf. ESV, CSB etc etc)
A We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else,
B even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.
C Instead, we were like young children among you.
D Just as a nursing mother cares for her children,

NA28 (cf. USB5 etc)
A οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν οὔτε ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων,
B δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι,
C ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν ⸀νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν.
D ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα,

Option 1: If you go with νήπιοι/infant, then you have to have one sentence = ABC. New thought: D...
Option 2: However if you decide it should be ἤπιοι/gentle, then your first sentence = AB. Next sentence: CD...

In the first option, infant is describing Paul's refusal to assert his authority. He asserted the same authority as an infant can, that is, none.
But in the second option, gentle is describing a nursing mother. The lack of authority is not further explained, but the character of a nursing mother to her child is: Paul & Silas became gentle among them, just like a nursing mother to her children.

Funnily enough a lot of ancient texts bear witness to both, with νήπιοι the original reading, later corrected to ἤπιοι. So on the weight of that, infant makes sense. But both work. The NA28/UBS5 went with νήπιοι, while the new THGNT has decided on ἤπιοι. Similarly NIV chose infant, while the ESV chose gentle.

Ultimately it's up to you, but hopefully this is a clear enough presentation of the options for you to make sense of.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Sanctuary - first secular or sacred?

In Australia at the moment, in response to the dehumanising treatment of refugees under our care, not a few churches have offered sanctuary to any refugees the government may want to deport against their wishes. Which led me to think about the origin of the word sanctuary.

Sanctuary in the Bible renders either the Hebrew word מקדש (miqdash) or the Greek word αγιος (hagios); sanctuary is the Latin version of a word which means holy place. You may be familiar with the word sanctification which means 'to be made holy.'

Some time in the middle ages, any church which had been sanctified and was thus a sanctuary could offer safe haven in the pattern of Numbers 35. There were to be cities in the land nominated as refuges (the word sanctuary is never used to refer to such a town) so that those worried they would be the victims of retributive justice after an accidental murder could flee and be assured of a fair trial.

What I am interested in is the order. The idea of sanctuary is that God is the true judge; his faithful officers are most able to administer justice when the other powers may have lost their way (think Psalm 2!). So the idea of sanctuary flows from our knowledge of God, and it is in his name that safe have is offered these people vulnerable to the whims and excesses of our governments.

Whether they have any legal status in this country or not is another question; despite the evils uncovered in the royal commission against institutional child abuse, the imagery of churches protecting the people is thankfully an even stronger statement, and one which most Christians will be ready to identify with.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Things that flow

Generally speaking*, there are two flows described in the Bible:

  1. things that flow (ῥέω) in a good way are: milk and honey in the promised land, water from the rock, and living water from the heart of the believer (Jn 7.38). 
  2. but things which may flow away (παραρρέω) or drift if we're not careful are: sound wisdom and discretion for the fool (Prov 3.21) and us from our salvation (Heb 2.1).

The answer to holding onto the good flows and not letting them drift is found in Hebrews also: 6.19 - holding onto our hope which is the anchor** for our soul.

I'm enjoying getting into Hebrews - looking forward to preaching through it for the next two months.

* there are some exceptions. in Leviticus uncleanness is also said to 'flow'.
** hey - anchor's a Greek word: ἄγκυρα - who knew?!

Thursday, February 09, 2012

passive imperatives in Phil. 4

I'm trying to understand the difference in emphasis between the two passive imperatives in Philippians 4.5,6:

5 (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν) γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. [aorist]
6 (τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν) γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν. [present]

5 let (your gentleness) be known by all people
6 make (your requests) be known to God

they stand out in that they have essentially the same construction except for the verbal aspect.
now, the roots are fairly similar, and i don't know if you can make much of the difference between them (they both are from that gnosis word, knowledge).
so the difference then must be the aspect in the verbs.
but the difficulty comes in understanding the emphasis in a passive imperative.

with the aorist, the force might be toward a result, with a summary aorist; may people come to the knowledge of your gentleness.
with the present, it's about making God aware of something, namely, your requests; may God now know of your requests.

i think my question is to do with how do i get across the parallel construction and emphasis, which i think Paul had in mind, in a way that i and others can grasp hold of?

this is where i'm up to at the moment anyway.

Monday, February 07, 2011

hebrews + matthew OR zechariah

i gots to decide - one year of college left, and i need to choose between OT in hebrew (where we do the entirety of Zechariah) or NT in greek (where we do Hebrews then Matthew). i could do both but that knocks out an elective and doing a project means i can only do two electives.

so far we've done
(nb: eng means only eng, heb or gk means both)
  • OT
    Numbers (eng)
    Deuteronomy (heb)
    1-2 Samuel (heb)
    Psalms (heb)
    Job (eng)
    Isaiah (eng)
    Ezekiel (heb)
    Daniel (eng)
    Jonah (eng)
i'm hoping to do aramaic as one elective, so that would mean i'd get to do the aramaic section of Daniel and the aramaic paragraph of Ezra. we also did a bit of Ruth in hebrew, but just to think about text criticism.
  • NT
    Mark (gk)
    Luke (gk)
    John (gk)
    Acts (gk)
    Romans (gk)
    1 Corinthians (gk)
    Ephesians (eng)
    1-2 Timothy (eng)
    Titus (eng)
    1 Peter (eng)
    Jude (eng)
reasons for NT4
  1. can complete the quadrafecta (quadrilla?) of gospels
  2. can study a non-Pauline epistle in greek
  3. long term in ministry greek will probably be used more - and i'm more likely to take it for granted (i.e. i should keep working on it this year)
  4. i i don't think i'll do ATBGE (advanced topics in biblical greek exegesis - or simply, nerd greek), but i plan to audit it
  5. doing aramaic means i'll be doing a language related to hebrew anyway
reasons for OT4
  1. we can do a whole book of the bible in an original language - everything else has been overview, with a deeper focus on particular areas only
  2. zech is a pretty crucial book in the NT (particularly matthew i think)
  3. it's my last chance to study in hebrew - i don't think any masters subjects are in hebrew, only greek
  4. it'd probably make sense to keep hebrew up whilst learning aramaic

so that's my thinking. what do you think, faithful reader(s?)?

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Jesus in you

i haven't yet read a Greek Grammar textbook and said 'oh wow'. but i did say 'that's really interesting' after reading the section on the preposition Πρός (pros).* i've always assumed the idea of 'asking Jesus into your heart' was a Biblical idea, talking about what you do when you become a Christian.

it seems the place this comes from is Revelation 3:20 (hovering should show the verse). but what does it mean to come in to (not into), and to whom is Jesus talking to?

anyway, long story short, the people he's talking to are already Christians, who are being lukewarm in the way they're living out their lives. and εἰσελεύσομαι πρός (eiseleusomai pros [enter in]+[to]) always has the idea in the NT of coming in toward/before someone/thing.

so what we can say is that it's not an offer of salvation, but a consequence thereof. and i would want to say it's a 'being with' idea, not 'dwelling within' - the verse continues with a shared meal, which would otherwise be parasitic!!! it's about fellowship with Jesus.

i was going to finish off this post talking about the fact that the holy spirit is who does dwell within the heart of the believer - but the closest i can find is 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 2 Timothy 1:14, but even they are inconclusive - especially 2 Timothy which could just as well be translated 'among us' (ἐν ἡμιν - en hemin) whilst 1 Corinthians talks about the Holy Spirit being in 'the body' of 'youse' - part of the theme of the picture of a church being one body, with Christ as the head.

where do we get this idea of inhabitation? sci-fi?
where else in the bible???

i guess if anything, it puts the emphasis back on salvation being relational.


* pp380 in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan 1996

Thursday, May 21, 2009

a new reading group

a friend has asked if i want to come along to an LXX (the greek translation of the hebrew scriptures) reading group.
cool!
apparently only few are christians; most are jewish, trying to get a different perspective on their scriptures.


i've never made much effort to get into the septuagint, except to have a look when the hebrew just seems wacky.
unfortunately whenever i think that the LXX will fix it up, it generally doesn't.
some things have been quite interesting however, such as in Deuteronomy 30:14(13)

ESV: But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
LXX: The word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, and in your hands to do it.

so it's actually just making a bit clearer that doing it (the commandment that Yhwh commands Israel) isn't just about your words or your thoughts but your hands - something that could actually be implicit in the 'do it' - indeed the LXX could be a little tautologous by adding that. although at the very least poetically, it's good to have 'mouth, heart and hands' - a real sense of completeness.

anyway, that's on tomorrow. no idea how it'll go. but do pray that some great conversations may come out of it as we chat about how God reveals himself in his Word.