Ἕλλην (Hellēn): Greeks, Gentiles OR Hellenist Jews?

Saturday, January 9, 2010, 3:18 PM

ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΣ (allogenēs) NO CLOSER!

Let's examine the Greek adjective Ἕλλην (Hellēn - G1672). As can be seen, it is used in 27 verses in the NT.

The Blue Letter Bible (following the Thayer's Lexicon) gives these two main meanings:

1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies

2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship

As a partial correction to 2), Thayer's Lexicon says that ...

"The Hellēnes spoken of in John 12:20 and Acts 17:4 are Jewish proselytes from the Gentiles"

... that is Gentiles who have converted to Judaism.

But do the above 1) and 2) really represent the uses of  Hellēn in the NT?

Let's examine more closely the first instance, John 7:35, at NETBible, which provides also the Greek text. A (clumsy) word by word translation of the Greek text gives:

ειπον  ουν οι ιουδαιοι προς εαυτους που ουτος μελλει πορευεσθαι οτι ημεις ουχ ευρησομεν αυτον μη εις την διασποραν των ελληνων μελλει πορευεσθαι και διδασκειν τους ελληνας

said then the Jews/Judeans to one-other [:] where this [man] is going to go that we not will find him [?] not to the diaspora of the [1] Hellēnes [he] is going to go and to teach the [2] Hellēnes [?]

Most translations, misleadingly and deceptively render "diaspora of the [1] Hellēnes" as "Jewish people dispersed among the Greeks", but [2] Hellēnes simply as "Greeks", as though, the Jews/Judeans of Jerusalem were wondering if Jesus was about to leave Jerusalem and its Jews to go to the "Jews dispersed among the Greeks", but then, for some peculiar reason, Jesus would not make of the "Jews dispersed among the Greeks" his new pupils, but the Greeks.

This is simply absurd.

In fact Ελλενης ( Hellēnes) at John 7:35 are NOT "Greeks" or (as the NLT translation rather freely proposes) "maybe even ... the Gentiles", BUT,  in both instances ([1] and [2]) the are ALWAYS the Hellenist Jews, Jews who had assimilated into the Roman-Greek culture and language.

If ever John 7:35 wanted to refer to the "Greeks", "maybe even ... the Gentiles" there was available the proper word, ἀλλογενής (allogenēs - G241), which corresponds perfectly to the Hebrew גּוֺי (gowy  -  H1471)

In fact ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΣ (allogenēs —"another genus") is exactly the word used on an inscription on one of the surviving stones from the Soreg, "a giant stone structure separating the public area from the area [of the Temple] where only Jews could enter". (See Wikipedia > Herod's Temple > The Court of the Gentiles) as a warning to the Gentile visitors NOT to trespass: in fact, to stay away. (see photograph)

It is an easy extrapolation (I leave it for readers as an exercise) that, also at John 12:20 ("Now some Greeks [Hellēnes] were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast."), Hellēnes, contrary to what the NET © Note ¹ sn says, does NOT mean "Greeks", BUT Hellenist Jews.

Likewise, it is easy to see how misleading it is to translate Hellēnes as "Greeks", rather than Hellenist Jews, in all the 10 instances in Acts.

So, how did the ambiguity, the confusion arise? Simple: it was Paul who made a point of blurring NOT ONLY the ethnic difference between Jews and Greeks, BUT ALSO the religious one, as can be seen from his use of Hellēn: Rom(6), 1Cr(5), Gal(2), Col(1).

But God found some use also for Paul and for his "push" ...

It is interesting to look at Acts 18, where Paul's real "turning point" occurs:

Paul in Corinth

So they all [KJV: the Greeks] seized Sosthenes, the president of the synagogue, and began to beat him in front of the judgment seat. Yet none of these things were of any concern to Gallio. (Acts 18:17)

Take good note of this as a spectacular example of how the KJV "translators" tried, even by crassly and clumsily manipulating the text, to contrast the "stubborn" Jews with the "open" Greeks, to give more "oomph" to what is, actually, Paul's real "turning point":

When they opposed him and reviled him, he protested by shaking out his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am guiltless! From now on I will go to the Gentiles!”

And when they [the Jews in Corinth] opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles [ta ethnē, lit. "the nations"].” (Acts 18:6 - emphasis and underlining added)

Take good note: "From now on" ... NOT before

The Incarnation as Mystery and Miracle

Monday, January 4, 2010, 5:59 PM

Beato Angelico, Annunciation, Saint Mark, Florence

Question

If we believe that Jesus is the Son of God (as all Christians who accept the Apostles' Creed do - NOT an imaginary God-the-Son, a later elaboration which had its crowning with the doctrine of the "trinity" at the end of the 4^th century), was it necessary for God, the One and Only, the Father Almighty, to resort to the Virgin Birth for the Incarnation of His Eternal Word in/as the God-man Jesus Christ?

Answer

No, strictly speaking it was NOT necessary: in the Incarnation of God's Eternal Word in/as Jesus, the Son of God, the are two distinct elements:

• The mystery, which consists in God's Eternal Word getting incarnated in/as the real man Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the Incarnation, and it is difficult enough to accept it, let alone understand it.

• The miracle, which consists in God resorting to His Holy Spirit so that His Eternal Word would, somehow "work" as the functional equivalent of a man's seed in procreating a human being (a male, Jesus) in the Blessed Womb of the Virgin Mary. Put is more modern terms, the Word of God, by the mysterious and miraculous work of God's Holy Spirit, acted as the functional equivalent of a male sperm (even the Church Fathers use the expression λογος σπερματικος, logos spermatikos, literally, "Seminal Word"). To be even more accurate, and resorting to the terminology of our days, God's "Seminal Word", by joining itself with the ovum of the Blessed Virgin Mary, acted functionally as some sort of "divine DNA", which, by joining itself with the human (female) DNA of the Blessed Womb of the Virgin Mary, produced the God-man Jesus.

If "Virgin Birth" (better, Virgin Conception) means anything at all as fact (NOT just as a symbol), it MUST mean what I have above described, or something similar.

Is the miracle of the Virgin Conception important? I believe it is, and for at least two reasons:

1. It is immediate, self-explanatory evidence that God, the One and Only, the Father Almighty is NOT an "idea", or a "force", BUT (in the most obvious sense of the word) a Personal God, who can intervene in His Creation as He pleases.

2. God wants everybody to know that, in Jesus He has fully relealed His Will, His Word. The "humble and simple", unlike the "learned and prudent", would certainly find it hard to confront, let alone understand the metaphysical sophistications of the Incarnation, but everybody, even a child, can perfectly well understand the miracle of the Virgin Conception ...

... of course one has to be ready to accept the Supernatural, miracles, and that ... 

³⁴ And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” [since I do not know a man]

³⁵ And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore [διό καί] the child to be born [of you] will be called holy—the Son of God. ³⁶ And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. ³⁷ For nothing will be impossible with God.” ³⁸ And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant [bondservant] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:34-38 - emphasis MdS)

... nothing will be impossible with God.

El Eyon, El Shaddai, Yahweh

Monday, November 30, 2009, 10:22 AM [General]

(Many "names" of God: only One Proper Name)

The critical passage in the Bible is this:

18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) 19 He blessed Abram, saying,
“Blessed be Abram by the Most High God,
Creator of heaven and earth.
20 Worthy of praise is the Most High God,
who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything.
21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and take the possessions for yourself.”  22 But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, “I raise my hand to the LORD, [Hebrew, יהוה (Yĕhovah - H3068 )] the Most High God, [אל עליון ( 'el 'elyown  - H410 + H5945)] Creator of heaven and earth, and vow 22 that I will take nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal. That way you can never say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’
(Genesis 14:18-23)

 So, at verse 22, Abraham solemnly declares that YHWH (Yĕhovah, Yahweh) and the "Most High God" ( 'el 'elyown, El Elyon) are one and the same God.

The identification established by Abraham, though very strong, is rendered somewhat problematic by what we read in Exodus, viz. that Yahweh, having revealed to Moses His Proper Name ...

God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The LORD [ יהוה, Yĕhovah ]– the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – has sent me to you. This is my name [that is, יהוה, Yĕhovah] forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’ (Exodus 3:15)

... and having therefore identified Himself as one and the same as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", in a later couple of verses of Exodus ...

 2 God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD. [ יהוה, Yĕhovah ] 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, [אל שדי ('el Shadday - H410 + H7706)] but by my name ‘the Lord’ I was not known to them. (Exodus 6:2-3)

... declares that His Proper Name (יהוה, Yĕhovah) "was not known to them".

It is therefore evident that the name יהוה, must have been "retrofitted" in Genesis 14:22. In this respect, the NET © Note ⁵tn/sn, appended to Exodus 6:3 (too long to be examined here) is worth examining in detail. (#)

All we can say, in conclusion, is that the relationship between the appellatives El Elyon, and El Shadday, and the Name Proper Yahweh  is a complex one, not fully explained.

I refuse as a Jewish-Gnostic heretic myth the idea that  El Elyon would be the "father" of the "degenerate" son Yahweh, and that Jesus, the "holy son" of El Elyon, (or himself an incarnation of El Elyon?) would have come to earth to re-establish the "truth and order" of El Elyon, against Yahweh.

It is clear that one of the implication of this Gnostic idea is to lead straight to anti-Semitism. It is a real irony of history that the remote and obscure Jewish-Gnostic heretics, are the ones who, in a remote past, have paved the way to anti-Judaism and prepared one of the most formidable weapons against their own people, for the following 2000 years, and in particular for the 20^th century.

---

(#)

⁵ tn The verb is the Niphal form נוֹדַעְתִּי (noda’ti). If the text had wanted to say, “I did not make myself known,” then a Hiphil form would have been more likely. It is saying, “but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.”

sn There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the interpretation of this section. First, it is important to note that “I am Yahweh” is not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. It would be introduced differently if it were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one calling Moses – that would be proof for the people that their God had called him. Second, the title “El Shadday” is not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accounts “El Shadday” is used six times; in Job it is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God as “El Shadday,” the name “Yahweh” was also used. But Wellhausen and other proponents of the earlier source critical analysis used Exod 6:3 to say that P, the so-called priestly source, was aware that the name “Yahweh” was not known by them, even though J, the supposed Yahwistic source, wrote using the name as part of his theology. Third, the texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation. Fourth, “Yahweh” is revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to his word and could be believed. He would do as he said (Num 23:19; 14:35; Exod 12:25; 22:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14). Fifth, there is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who received the promises but without the fulfillment. The fulfillment could only come after the Israelites became a nation. Now, in Egypt, they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahweh” to the patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God. The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name. So Gen 17:1 says that “Yahweh appeared…and said, ‘I am El Shadday.’” See also Gen 35:11, 48:2, 28:3. Sixth, the verb “to know” is never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The Niphal and Hiphil of the verb are used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance of the name (see Jer 16:21, Isa 52:6; Ps 83:17ff; 1 Kgs 8:41ff. [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or recognized (see Exod 33:6; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9; and Ps 76:2). Seventh, “Yahweh” is not one of God’s names – it is his only name. Other titles, like “El Shadday,” are not strictly names but means of revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not compare to this one, because God was now dealing with the nation. He would make his name known to them through his deeds (see Ezek 20:5). So now they will “know” the “name.” The verb יָדַע (yada’) means more than “aware of, be knowledgeable about”; it means “to experience” the reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage of שֵׁם (shem), “name,” which encompasses all the attributes and actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the way that God revealed himself – God gave meaning to his name through his acts. God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs (that would have used the Hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the fathers – and they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. U. Cassuto (Exodus, 79) paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name Shaddai…I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises.” This generation was about to “know” the name that their ancestors knew and used, but never experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of Exodus confirms this interpretation, because in it God promised to bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised land – then they would know that he is Yahweh (6:7). This meaning should have been evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plagues – that they might know Yahweh (e.g., 7:5). See further R. D. Wilson, “Yahweh [Jehovah] and Exodus 6:3,” Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “Exodus 6:3b: Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” CTM 4 (1931): 345-49; F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in Genesis,” EvQ 40 (1968): 103-9.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the myth of the "Jesus myth"

Saturday, November 21, 2009, 6:54 AM

(Portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1753)

The best answer ever to the advocates of the "Jesus myth" (Christ myth theory) is what Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the great philosopher from Geneva, wrote 250 years ago ...

“Shall we say that the gospel story is the work of the imagination? My friend, such things are not imagined; and the doings of Socrates, which no one doubts, are less well attested than those of Jesus Christ. At best, you only put the difficulty from you; it  would be still more incredible that several persons should have agreed  together to invent such a book, than that there was one man who supplied  its subject matter. The tone and morality of this story are not those of any  Jewish authors, and the gospel indeed contains characters so great, so  striking, so entirely inimitable, that their invention would be more  astonishing than their hero. With all this the same gospel is full of incredible  things, things repugnant to reason, things which no natural man can  understand or accept. What can you do among so many contradictions? You  can be modest and wary, my child; respect in silence what you can  neither reject nor understand, and humble yourself in the sight of the Divine Being who alone knows the truth.”

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile or, On Education, p. 256 [emphasis MdS]

... respect in silence what you can neither reject nor understand ...

Is there a "Platonic influence" on Philippians 2:5-11?

Thursday, November 12, 2009, 7:42 AM

(Plato, detail from The School of Athens, Raphael, 1509–1510, Vatican City)

There are serious objections (historical, philological and philosophical) to reading Philippians 2:5-11 as the total or partial result of "Platonic influence".

[Historical] As already remarked in my textual analysis,[#] most scholars (and I with them), consider Philippians 2:5-11 a hymn of the Earliest Christianity, quoted by Paul. Paul's conversion is dated by many scholars to the period  AD 33 - AD 36 (see Wikipedia > Paul of Tarsus > Conversion and mission), quite early after the death of Jesus, the first Pentecost spoken of in Acts and the birth of the Church in Jerusalem. There is no evidence, either factual or circumstantial, that in this period there had been any Greek philosophical influence, not to mention Platonic, on the budding Christian movement (the "Way"), which, in the beginning, was strictly Palestinian Jewish.

[Philological] As already remarked in my textual analysis,[#] two words, both meaning form appear in this passage:

μορφή (morphē - G3444) used in the sense of "strong resemblance".

σχῆμα (schēma - G4976) used in the sense habitus, "aspect", "fashion".

In the NT, two other words expressing the notion of form are employed.

ἰδέα (idea - G2397) (which, in Trench's Synonyms (lxx. μορφή, σχῆμα, ἰδέα) is presented as a synonym of morphē and schēma) in the NT is used only once (in Matt 28:3: "His [of the angel that appeared to the "pious women" when they went to the tomb of Jesus "at dawn on the first day of the week"] appearance [ἰδέα, idea] was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.").

εἶδος (eidos - G1491), , used in John 5:37 ("And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form [εἶδος, eidos] at any time, ...").

Now, both the above words, ἰδέα (idea) and εἶδος (eidos), are extensively used by Plato: in fact they are the very "watermark" of his philosophy (see Wikipedia > Platonic realism > Forms).

Yet, in spite of both words being used in the NT, neither of them is used in Philippians 2:5-11, whereas they could have easily and equivalently been used instead of μορφή (morphē) and σχῆμα (schēma).

[Philosophical] Philo of Alexandria, aka Philo the Jew, joined Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics with his Middle-Platonic philosophy. In his works he developed the notion of the Logos as "Second God". Considering his lifespan (20 BCE - 50 CE), he could be considered a "suspect" of "Platonic influence" on Earliest Christianity, and consequently a potential "influence" on the hymn at Philippians 2:5-11. But there is no historical and/or textual evidence that he influenced any Christian author before Justin Martyr.

Besides, while the philosophical notion of Logos (λόγος, logos - G3056, see also logos at LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon) reaches as far back as Heraclitus (c. 535–c. 475 BCE), who was the first to use this term in a philosophical sense, the notion of "Incarnation of the Logos" is totally alien to the Greek thought, and is first found in the Prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).

Conclusion

Having substantially established that there are serious objections (historical, philological and philosophical) to reading  Philippians 2:5-11 as the total or partial result of "Platonic influence", I think that it is a matter of projection, started by the Greek Church Fathers and culminated in the heavily Platonizing Christianity of people like, e.g.  Augustine of Hippo, in the West, and the "Cappadocian Rascals" (aka "Cappadocian Fathers") in the East.

[#] See article “... Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:5-11)

What did Abraham think to himself? (Genesis 22)

Sunday, December 6, 2009, 6:09 PM

Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah (Gustave Doré)

¹ After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” ² He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” ³ So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. ⁴ On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. ⁵ Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” ⁶ And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. ⁷ And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” ⁸ Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together. (Genesis 22:1-8)

What did Abraham think to himself? We can only speculate, because the Bible says absolutely nothing. At most we can see some hints at Gen 22:5 and Gen 22:8.

To attribute Abraham some kind of "rational ethical thought", as though he was a Greek philosopher like Aristotle, or even a post-Illuminist philosopher like Kant, is rather anachronistic. At most we can imagine that Abraham's "ethical thinking" may have been something like this:

“I did not know You, and You have revealed Yourself to me. You are great and all-powerful, and nevertheless You have made me the object of Your favour, and do me the incomparable privilege of treating me as Your friend. But how could You be my friend if You are demanding from me to give back to you the most precious thing that You have given to me, my beloved son Isaac, who impersonates the promise that You have made to me, that in him (and nobody else), I will be the "the father of a multitude"?

Still I treasure Your friendship and our covenant, and therefore I am going to have faith in You, that You are not going to break the covenant that You have taken the initiative of establishing with me, a mere humble human being. Out of the love that I still believe You have for me, I will obey your demand and do what You are asking, even if I am puzzled and horrified. If you really intend to carry Your demand to the ultimate conclusion, I will have lost my son, that I owe entirely to You, but I will have also lost You, because our covenant will be broken, and, if You would not consider it broken, I would, anyway.

I can only hope that this is, on Your part, a test of my faith in You, and love/obedience for You, and that You are not deeming the gift that You have given me, my son Isaac, so worthless that you can ask it back, without giving any reason, other than you want me to offer him to You in sacrifice. If I am wrong, nothing would matter to me any more, anyway. You are all-powerful: all I have left, beside my faith in you and love for you, for my son Isaac and for my wife Sarah, is my hope that you are not a tyrant, playing with people's lives, for whom human life is so expendable as the life of any ram.”
[Abraham's thoughts, freely but truthfully attributed by Miguel de Servet]

To claim, as some do, that God did speak to Abraham, but that it was some sort of 'playful' demand, that God never seriously meant to put Abraham to the test, and that Abraham understood the 'playful' nature of the demand, seems like a (bad) joke to me.

How could Abraham know, anyway? Where would Genesis 22 suggest anything of the kind?

If one really wants to see Abraham's Trial under the category of "game", all I can say is that one has obviously not understood that this was, for Abraham, a mortal game, in which he was putting at stake all he had.

Mary's expensive perfume vs Judas' cheap betrayal

Saturday, December 5, 2009, 10:21 AM [General]

Jesus at Bethany (Eastern icon; painter unknown)

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

⁹Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ¹⁰So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, ¹¹for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him. (John 12:1-11 NIV)

Even on a superficial reading level, if, as the Gospel of John explicitly says, the one who poured the "pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume", was Mary, one of the two sisters of Lazarus, "whom Jesus had raised from the dead", she had all the reasons to spend all she had, even to the last penny, to express her thankfulness to Jesus.
Anyway, it is rather ironical that some "intellectual unbelievers", who don't even consider the existence of a historical Jesus, but prefer to indulge in the the myth of the ... Christ myth theory, have the gall, the chutzpah, of commenting on the passage of John at face value, without any effort of comparative reading with the parallel narrations in the Synoptics and with the OT passages that are explicitly associated with the figure of Judas and of the 30 pieces of silver of his betrayal.
If one wants to try and understand what is going on, what is behind the scene, it is necessary, to begin with, to read the passage of Jesus’ Anointing, preferably, in a translation like NETBible (John 12:1-11 - NET), not forgetting the very useful footnotes.
Also, it is important to compare John's passage on Jesus’ Anointing with the parallel Synoptic narratives, extended enough as to include the immediate context (The Plot Against Jesus and The Plan to Betray Jesus by Judas), present even in Luke (although Luke omits the narration of Jesus’ Anointing): see Mat 26:1-16; Mark 14:1-11; Luke 22:1-6.
More, it is important to understand that, in particular in Mark, the theme of the "three hundred pieces of silver" of Jesus’ Anointing, is echoed by the "thirty pieces of silver" of Judas' betrayal, in a prophetic perspective (like saying, “Judas deemed Jesus less that 10 times worthy than the perfume he was anointed with”). Read Mat 27:9 and compare it with Jeremiah, that Matthew explicitly cites, probably confusing, in his quotation, Jer 32:9 with Zech 11:12-13.
To end with, my personal opinion: money is a straw-man, both in Matthew and in John, as an explanation of what motivated Judas, and that money would have been the ultimate motive behind his decision to betray Jesus.
In my opinion, Judas probably admired Jesus, but did NOT love him. The "thirty pieces of silver" are just an excuse, a smokescreen for the real reason of his betrayal: confronted with Jesus actions, that he understood less and less, he wanted to put Jesus to the ultimate test, to force him in an impossible situation, whereby either Jesus would have been compelled to reveal himself as the "Mighty Messiah" that only interested Judas, or Jesus would have succumbed.
(What I am here describing is, of course, my view of Judas' foolish scheme.)
Jesus did indeed succumb (but believers know that this is NOT the "end of the story" ...), and Judas, although "he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders", probably never realized that his betrayal had been instrumental to God's plan. (Mat 27:3-10)

The Shroud of Turin: authenticity and image formation

Saturday, November 7, 2009, 7:28 PM

(Raymond Rogers examines the Shroud in Turin, 1978)

Here is a list of some of the scientific papers and websites on the Shroud of Turin that:
* support the authenticity of the Shroud;
* exclude the evidence of "aromas and/or burial ointments" on the Shroud
* explain a probable mechanism of image formation;
* account for the historical-geographical "route" of the Shroud, from Palestine, 1st century, to Lirey, France, 1356, when and where the Shroud "resurfaced".

No evidence of "aromas and/or burial ointments" on the Shroud
The Original presence of burial ointments on the Turin Shroud, by Giovanni Fazio (INFN, Dept. of Physics, University of Messina, Italy), 2006 [which, in turn quotes Pellicori S.F., Applied Optics 19 (1980) pp. 1913-1920: "Relatively to the matter that concerns us, we think that, due to their therm[al] instability, on the Shroud there are no traces directly [detectable] of aromas and/or burial ointments."]
The Holy Shroud, Scientific investigations, Blood analysis (@ xoomer.alice.it) [which also affirms that the presence of Aloe and Myrrh, "two essences with strong conservative capacity" is, again, a mere hypothetical inference]
What Shroud image properties have been observed objectively by scientific  methods? (@ shroud.typepad.com) [where we read: "Without making any assumptions that are based on the appearance of the image, some statements of fact can be proved from the scientific observations: (...) Neither aloes [n]or myrrh could be detected on the cloth."]

Possible historical-geographical "route" of the Shroud
Acheiropoietos Jesus Images in Constantinople:  the Documentary Evidence (@ shroudstory.wordpress.com), by Daniel C. Scavone, University of Southern Indiana) [which argues, on solid historical ground, that the Acheiropoietos Jesus Image, which was brought to Constantinople from Edessa in 944 AD (also known as Mandylion) and which disappeared from Constantinople in 1204 may well have resurfaced at Lirey in 1356 as the ... Turin Shroud]
On the Provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A Minor Suggestion, by Alan Friedlander, © 2006 Cambridge University Press (@ journals.cambridge.org) [which explains how the sindon was really "hidden" only for 150 years, between 1204, when it was hoarded from Constantinople, and 1353, when it "resurfaced" in possession of Geoffroy de Charny, at Lirey, France]

Errors in the Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud
The Biggest Carbon 14 Dating Mistake (@ innoval.com) [which exposes the carbon dating of 1988 as ... "The Biggest  Carbon 14 Dating Mistake ever", and, shows how a lot of independent criteria (optical, chemical, textile, of image formation, of bleaching techniques etc.) concur independently to affirm that the Shroud of Turin is authentic]

Problems and possibilities of image formation
Chances that the Shroud of Turin images formed naturally? [which shows how the ... "chances that the Shroud of Turin images formed naturally" are very scant indeed, and how, nevertheless, the shroud is there, and the image (the browning of the micrometric starch coating of the outer fibers) was certainly NOT obtained by any artificial means]
Evidences for Testing Hypotheses about the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud (PDF @ shroud.com), acts of The Third Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin (Dallas, Texas, September 8-11, 2005) [with an ample panoramic of recent research]
The skeptical inquirer and the Shroud of Turin (@ skepticalspectacle.com) [which argues why "It is preposterous to think the Shroud of Turin was painted"]
How do you know that the image was not produced by radiation? (@ shroud.com) [where the American thermochemical scientist Raymond Rogers clearly and plainly responds to the title question - question no.3 of "Frequently Asked Questions"]
The Chemical Nature of the Image on the Shroud of Turin? (@ shroudstory.com) [with a detailed explanation of the nature of the image: a form of "browning" (caramellization) of the micrometric layer of starch deposited by evaporation on the outermost fibers of the shroud during its drying, by sun and by air, after washing/bleaching with a natural soap made from the soapwort plant (Saponaria officinalis)]
What Chemistry Disproves about the Shroud of Turin? (@ shroudstory.com)  [where it is shown that the Shroud is certainly not painted, not a photographic image, and not produced by scorching heat]

The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) may explain the Image Formation, by  Raymond N. Rogers & Anna Arnoldi, ©2003 [with detailed explanation of the Maillard Reaction]

The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging and Image Formation (2005 @ shroud.com) [with systematic objections by Raymond Rogers to all types of "radiation effects", and in particular to the "Corona effect"]

NOTE
For the scriptural and theological implications of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, I direct to my article The only possible "harmony" between Luke's and John's account of Jesus Burial.

Quick NT Lexicon for Baptism

Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:07 PM [General]

Baptism of Neophytes - Masaccio (Cappella Brancacci, Florence)

G907: βαπτίζω, baptizō (TC=80), 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging 3) to overwhelm

G908: βάπτισμα, baptisma (TC=22), 1) immersion, submersion a) of calamities and afflictions (Mar 10:38; Luk 12:50; cp. Mat 20:22) b) John's baptism, that purification c) of Christian baptism
G909: βαπτισμός, baptismos (TC=4), 1) washing, purification effected by means of water a) washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:10)

G910: βαπτιστής, baptistēs (TC=14), 1) a baptiser [immerser] 2) one who administers the rite of baptism 3) surname [nickname] of John, the forerunner of Christ

G911: βάπτω, baptō (TC=3), 1) to dip, dip in, immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour ("Not to be confused with 907, baptizo ..." - see box)

This word [baptizō] should not be confused with baptō (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptō) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizō) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, [sic!!!] produces a permanent change.
-- from Blue Letter Bible, βαπτίζω, baptizō - G907, Outline of Biblical Usage [emphasis and [notes] added by MdS]

What's really being said in Exodus 3:13-15

Sunday, October 25, 2009, 7:31 PM

Marc Chagall - Moses And The Burning Bush

I will provide here an explanation of the exchange between God  and Moses at Exodus 3:13-15.

First of all, let me provide here below the English Translation from the original Hebrew, interpolating the [critical Hebrew words], transliterated in the Latin alphabet  (actually, approximately transliterated into the English pronunciation).

---

3:13 Moses said to God ['elohiym], “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God ['elohiym] of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?”

3:14 God ['elohiym] said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM.” [hayah asher hayah] And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM [hayah] has sent me to you.’”

3:15 God ['elohiym] also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The LORD [YHWH] – the God ['elohiym] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – has sent me to you. This is my name forever [that is, obviously, God's Proper and Mysterious name, YHWH], and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’

---

Let me now provide here-below the English Translation from the Greek LXX “Septuagint”, again, interpolating the [critical Greek words], transliterated in the Latin alphabet  (actually, approximately transliterated into the English pronunciation).

---

3:13 Moses said to God [ton theon], “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God [o theos] of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?”

3:14 God [o theos] said to Moses, “I AM THE BEING.” [egò  eimì o on] And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘THE BEING [o on] has sent me to you.’”

3:15 God [o theos] also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The LORD [KYRIOS] – the God [o theos] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – has sent me to you. This is my name forever [#], and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’

---

[#] Please notice how, as in the Greek LXX "Septuagint" translation there is NO Proper Name of God, the expression "This is my name forever" can easily be intended to refer to any of the following:

“I AM THE BEING” [egò  eimì o on]

“I AM ” [egò eimì]

‘THE BEING’ [o on]

‘The LORD’ [KYRIOS]

---

Having examined the critical points of the text (both the Original Hebrew text and the Greek LXX “Septuagint” Translation), we can now proceed to an explanation of the exchange between God and Moses.
First of all my  interpretation is based on the assumption that God, who encounters Moses at the  base of mount Sinai, presenting Himself mysteriously and miraculously in the  Burning Bush, while Moses is leading his father-in-law Jethro’s flock, may not be so impeccably satisfactory from the metaphysical point of view to the fine palates of a Plato or an Aristotle, or an Anselm or an Aquinas, but, to compensate for this deficiency, is a truly personal God (I did NOT say  tri-personal!), who can truly communicate with humans as He so chooses.
Second, I believe that,  faced with the genuine reluctance of Moses to be "commissioned" with the role of “liberator  of Israel” (§), and with Moses’  request to know God’s name so he can tell the people of Israel, God is very reluctant to reveal His  Name.
So, first God, evasively says “I AM THAT I AM” [hayah asher hayah], then he almost seems to pretend to Moses that “I AM” [hayah] is His name.
Only eventually God makes  His Proper, Unique Name known to Moses: YHWH. And the Sacred Name of God became so sacred for the Jews that they were only supposed to use it in ritual occasions, and, by the time of Jesus, they had forgotten how to pronounce it exactly, due to the consonantal character of the written Hebrew.
Nobody knows exactly what YHWH means in Hebrew (but certainly NOT: “I AM” – that is a fable for children, and  also grown up children).
Nobody even knows for sure if YHWH has any meaning at all. Many hypotheses have been formulated. One of them is  that YHWH (from the Semitic root “hwy”) may mean something like: “He who makes  things happen”.
As for the “I AM” found  in the Gospel of John (John 8:58), it is a mere “optical” illusion to associate it with  the  “I AM” of Exodus 3:14: we project onto it the wrong assumption (to a large extent, derived from the infidel “translation” of the “Septuagint” as THE  BEING [o  on]) that is the same thing as “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 and consequently, by totally illogical and totally unwarranted association, the same as the mysterious name of God, YHWH.
A mistake with disastrous consequences ...

(§) Only in Sigmund Freud’s imagination – see his The man Moses and Monotheism - far from being even a man who stammers, he is a  powerful Egyptian leader, the moulder of the Hebrew people.

The Cross: necessary or inevitable?

Friday, October 16, 2009, 1:29 PM

Crucifixion (16th century)

This post addresses a Roman Catholic Church's magisterial document, the Catechism of the Catholic Church's teaching on the fourth article of the Apostles' Creed ("Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried"), and in particular the second clause ("was crucified, died").
The document is linked at the webpage titled Paragraph 2. Jesus Died Crucified, @ vatican.va.
Herebelow are my comments relative to the CCC paragraphs selected from that page.

[599] I would NEVER suggest that Jesus' violent death was the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, in fact I do believe that his death is indeed part of the mystery of God's plan. BUT, as I refuse the dogma of the "trinity", whereby Jesus would have pre-existed, as a "divine person", his existence as divine-human person, I affirm (with the Gospels, BTW ...) that Jesus was NOT fully aware of the entirety of the Plan of YHWH God, the Father Almighty. What does this mean? Does it perhaps mean that God, the Father Almighty and Father of Jesus, presciently did what follows?

God, the Father Almighty, who loves His Creation so much as to give it His One-begotten Son, in the end is also the one who sent Him in this world without any warning of danger, who literally gave Him the illusion of the imminent foundation of God’s Kingdom, and of the possibility to establish this Kingdom in a non traumatic way. --Miguel de Servet, Trinity and Incarnation: a solution

NO, it does NOT mean this: this would NOT be an Euangelion ("good news"), BUT a cacangelium ("bad news" - of course in a sense totally different, nay opposed to the one in which Martin Luther used the expression cacangelium to refer to the Sermon on the Mount)

Jesus knew that he was the Son of God and that he had been appointed by YHWH God, the Father Almighty, to be His chosen one, His Anointed King, the one who woud affirm God's Kingdom on earth.
BUT, in a world tainted by sin (in the Judea of Jesus' time, epitomized, in the Gospels, by the betrayal of his chosen friend and Apostle Judas Iscariot, by the lies of the High Priest Joseph Caiaphas, by the pretence of justice and true violence of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate), Jesus came armed ONLY with Truth and Love: it was inevitable (NOT necessary) that he would succumb to these forces of darkeness and die on the Cross.

[600] NO, it is not true that "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy". The CCC interprets Acts 4:27-28; Ps 2:1-2 in a deterministic way, which is incompatible with real freedom with which God endows every human being. Besides, the CCC grossly confuses God's decrees with His "permissive will".

[601] Once again ...

“The Passion and Death of Jesus was NOT "necessary" BUT inevitable”

... even the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is evidently incapable of making this essential distinction. :(

Jesus' full awareness of the inevitability of the Cross only came with/immediately after Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi (see Matthew 16:13-28)]

[606] Once again ...

“The Passion and Death of Jesus was NOT "necessary" BUT inevitable”

Once again, Jesus' full awareness of the inevitability of the Cross only came with/immediately after Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi (see Matthew 16:13-28)
As for the CCC's quotation from Jn 10:17-18, I believe that it entails an (implicit) wrong interpretation.
The CCC (to be fair, along with most interpreters) seems to take it for granted, in spite of the absolute predominance of NT passages from which it is clear that Jesus "was risen" by God, NOT "rose by his own power", that John 10:18 has enough conclusive weight to tilt the balance in favour of "rose by his own power".
For a very different interpretation (AFAIAC, the only acceptable one) I recommend the reading of this (IMO excellent) essay: Did Jesus Christ raise himself from the dead? by Ivan Maddox

[607] In the first two verses quoted in the CCC, John 12:27 and John 18:11, I see absolutely nothing different and nothing more than what we read in the Synoptics (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:41-42 and Matthew 26:52-54, respectively). They all express NOT "prescience" of the Will of the Father, BUT gradual acceptance of the inevitability of what the obedience to the Father's Will entails.
As for the CCC's pithy quotation from John 19:28 (“I thirst”), in its full context (The Death of Jesus, John 19:28-30), it expresses the awareness that, with his death, the Will of the Father has been fully satisfied, because nothing can be done by Jesus beyond that, other than "committing his spirit in God's hands" (Luke 23:46; Ps 31:5)
[608] I have no objections to make to what the CCC says, only, again, a remark: the words with which Jesus expresses his intervened full awareness of the inevitability of the Cross, incompletely cited by the CCC (“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Mark 10:45), come after Peter's Confession of the Messiahship of Jesus at Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-30).
[622-623] I have no objection to make to the summary of the CCC [619-623], and in particular to 622 and 623. Just, once again, in the way of conclusive comment I confirm:

“The Passion and Death of Jesus was NOT "necessary" BUT inevitable”

“... Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”

Thursday, November 12, 2009, 12:57 AM

The entire passage ofg Philippians 2:5-11 has a distinct form of rhythmic prose, and it is considered by many scholars an Early Christian hymn, that Paul quoted. The version presented here is by NETBible, which I have chosen because of its fidelity to the original Greek:

5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,¹

6 who though he existed in the form of God³
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,^3a
7 but emptied himself^3b
by taking on the form of a slave,⁴
by looking like other men,⁵
and by sharing in human nature.⁶
8 He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
– even death on a cross!
9 As a result God exalted him
and gave him the name^6a
that is above every name,^6b
10 so that at the name of Jesus [Yeshwah]
every knee will bow
– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
11 and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11)

NOTES
(The notes that I have added here are my own, and only partly reflect the original NET © Notes.)
¹ The literal translation is: “Have this attitude in/among yourselves which also [was] in Christ Jesus,” or “Have this attitude in/among yourselves which [you] also [have] in Christ Jesus.” The ambiguity is due to the fact that the verb (resp. "was" or "you have") is not present in the original Greek.
³ The Greek term translated form is μορφή (morphē - G3444) indicates a correspondence with reality, a "strong resemblance". The key to understanding this relationship between Jesus and God is to be found in another Greek word, λόγος (logos - G3056, lit. "word", "reason"), with which, in the Prologue of John's Gospel (John 1:1-18), Jesus is spoken of as the "Incarnated Word of God". For a discussion of the synonyms, see Trench's Synonyms, lxx. μορφή, σχῆμα, ἰδέα, in particular the second paragraph, where the different use of the words μορφή (morphē) and σχῆμα (schēma - G4976, habitus, "aspect", "fashion") in (Phil 2:6-8) is examined.
^3a The Greek noun translated with the expression "something to be grasped" is ἁρπαγμός (harpagmos - G725), lit. "booty (of a robbery)". The sense of the whole v. 6 is that Jesus, although he had a divine nature, did not hold on to that "unfair advantage".
^3b The Greek verb for emptied is κενόω (kenoō - G2758), lit. "to empty, make empty". The sense is, again, that Jesus, did not resort to the "unfair advantage" of his divinity, he laid aside his "form of God".
⁴ The Greek term translated as form is, again, μορφή (morphē - G3444). Jesus having laid aside his "form of God", appeared as the humblest of men, even a slave, a slave (or servant) of God, entirely bento on doing the Will of the LORD.
⁵ The Greek expression means, literally, "was made in the likeness of men". The Greek word is ὁμοίωμα (homoiōma - G3667). Jesus was "born of a woman", like any other man, although, of course, his conception was both mysterious and miraculous.
⁶ The Greek expression means, literally "was found [to be] in the fashion of men". The Greek word used here is σχῆμα (schēma - G4976, habitus, "aspect", "fashion"). Again nothing, externally distinguished him from all other men, except that he was sinless, as the Letter to the Hebrews says (Heb 4:15).
^6a,b The twice repeated word "name" is, in Greek, ὄνομα (onoma - G3686), lit. "name", but also "rank", "title", so, "the name that is above every name" (το ονομα το υπερ παν ονομα, to onoma to yper pan onoma) can refer either to Yahweh, the Proper Name of God, or, more probably, as I believe, to His title, that appears at v. 11, Lord, κύριος (kyrios - G2962). After the supreme humiliation and abasement of the Cross, God exalted Jesus, His Messiah, His Son, the Incarnation of His Word, above all else, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

In conclusion
This hymn contains, in only 6 verses, the entire "career" of Jesus, his divinity, his incarnation, his humanity, his freely chosen humble status, his passion and death on the Cross, and finally his Resurrection, Ascension and Glory, "seated at the right of the Almighty".