#A Patristic Greek Lexicon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eli-kittim · 3 years

Text

Academic Bias on the Web

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.

——-

2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!

——-

This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!

——-

*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis

According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).

According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

NRSV translation:

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself.”

A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Conclusion

The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in

finding out the truth, but are much more inclined

to accept the first story they hear.

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)

——-

Response

I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:

Your pending post was declined from

Group for New Testament Studies by an

admin. See their feedback.

When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:

Group Rules that were violated

2 Keep it Scholarly:

NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the

field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to

impose a Christian perspective will not be

approved & commenting in this way will

result in a warning & then removal.

So, I wrote back to them . . .

Open letter

——-

I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.

——-

You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.

——-

As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).

——-

Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!

I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!

I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!

——-

Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!

——-

I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.

Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.

Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!

Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!

——-

I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.

——-

I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

——-

7 notes · View notes

techbible-blog · 7 years

Text

The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek - An upgrade to Liddell-Scott-Jones

I'm catching up a bit here, but The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (published late 2015) looks to be an important and critical addition to Greek lexical resources. (To keep this separate from BDAG=the Baer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon, I guess we'll have to abbreviate this one to BrillDAG.) I've not looked at it personally yet, but according to Larry Hurtado, this lexicon effectively supercedes the venerable Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) both by going beyond the 2nd century CE to the the 6th century CE and by including more entries from Christian patristic literature. According to the Brill catalog page:

The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek is the English translation of Franco Montanari’s Vocabolario della Lingua Greca. With an established reputation as the most important modern dictionary for Ancient Greek, it brings together 140,000 headwords taken from the literature, papyri, inscriptions and other sources of the archaic period up to the 6th Century CE, and occasionally beyond.The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek is an invaluable companion for the study of Classics and Ancient Greek, for beginning students and advanced scholars alike. Translated and edited under the auspices of The Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek is based on the completely revised 3rd Italian edition published in 2013 by Loescher Editore, Torino. Features • The principal parts of some 15,000 verbs are listed directly following the entry and its etymology. For each of these forms, the occurrence in the ancient texts has been certified. When found only once, the location is cited. • Nearly all entries include citations from the texts with careful mention of the source. • The dictionary is especially rich in personal names re-checked against the sources for the 3rd Italian edition, and in scientific terms, which have been categorized according to discipline. • Each entry has a clear structure and typography making it easy to navigate.

There is a 28-page preview available, and it certainly is attractively laid out and presented.

A quick survey of some of the entries indicates that there are many more lemmata included as compared to either LSJ or BDAG, but one may still wish to consult those for some citations not included in BrillDAG. Considering that it is from Brill and is 2431 pages long (there is also a 2-volume edition), €99,00 / USD$125.00 seems to be quite a fair price. It's also available as an online resource, but that's going to cost you €1.975,00 / USD $2,590.00 per year! It will be interesting to see if any of the major Bible software publishers will be able to obtain digital rights to include it within their packages.

#lexicon #greek

0 notes

eli-kittim · 4 years

Text

What Does Galatians 4.4 Mean When it Says that Jesus is “Born Under The Law”?

By Author Eli Kittim

Kittim’s Futurist Eschatology

As you may know, my unique view is that Jesus has not yet come to earth and that he’ll make his first appearance “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) or in the “last days” (Heb. 1.2) or “at the final point of time" (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)! So, before attempting to expound on what being “born under the law” means, let me briefly explain how Gal. 4.4 closely ties into my unique futurist view. I will briefly refer to my interpretation of Gal. 4.4 so that you can understand the basis of my hermeneutic, but will not delve into it at length.

Interpreting the Implicit by the

Explicit

We won’t be able to mine the depths of Scripture if we don’t allow the Bible to tell us what something means. We are accustomed to imposing our own presuppositions on the text (called “eisegesis”). That’s why the best interpretation is no interpretation at all! For example, since there is a verbal agreement between Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10 with respect to the phrase, “the fullness of time,” we should allow the more explicit passage in Ephesians to interpret and define the more implicit one in Galatians. Ephesians 1.9-10 (NASB) reads thusly:

“He [God] made known to us the mystery of

His will, according to His kind intention

which He purposed in Him with a view to an

administration suitable to the fullness of the

times, that is, the summing up of all things

in Christ, things in the heavens and things

on the earth.”

In this case, the key word that gives us the meaning of “the fullness of time” in Ephesians 1.10 is the Greek term ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι (“summing up”). It means “completion,” “end,” “summary” (see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 106)! The didactic or exegetical principle is as follows: if this *time-period* or *timeline* in Ephesians refers to the final consummation and the conclusion of all things or the *summing-up* (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth, then the same exact phrase in Galatians 4.4, given that it refers to the same temporal context, must have an identical meaning. And, if that’s the case, then the phrase should refer to the consummation of the ages, not to 2,000 years ago! Therefore, we have erred linguistically by attributing this eschatological expression to the time of antiquity! We have thereby misinterpreted the Greek text.

Is the Law Still Applicable in

Modern Times?

Now that we understand Galatians 4.4 as a reference to future eschatology, the question arises: how can Gal. 4.4 be a reference to modern times? In other words, how is the “law” still applicable in our day and age? More specifically, how do we interpret Gal. 4.4 when it says that God’s Son is “born under the law”? It’s a very good question. And it was asked by a member of the Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group on Facebook.

Here’s the answer. The first thing to realize is that Galatians 4.4 is in fact referring to the Mosaic Law and depicts Christ’s birth as if it takes place under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον). The use of this often repeated term (νόμον) in the Bible ensures us that Gal. 4.4 is not referring to the natural law. It’s also important to understand that the Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments, was not only intended for the Jews, it was meant to be the standard of morality for the entire human race. And we would be judged by it accordingly until the arrival of grace in Christ Jesus. So why are we told that Jesus is “born under the law”? The next verse tells us why:

“in order to redeem those who were under

the law, so that we might receive adoption

as children (v. 5).”

Has the Law Been Abolished or

Not?

Now, the Greek term νόμον is exclusively referring to the Moral Law (not the ceremonial or civic law). So, the Law was given to instruct us as to what is good and evil. However, according to the New Testament, only the *death* of Jesus can *abolish* the Law. [1] Nothing else. Therefore, if Jesus has not yet died the law remains in effect. And if in fact Jesus has not yet died, then he will be born under the law in the fullness of time. Paul tells us that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” (Gk. katargeo, which means “discarded” or “nullified”) by the *death* of Jesus (Eph. 2.14-15). However, the past tense “was” may be an English mistranslation because the temporal value of this verse hangs on the Greek verb καταργήσας, which does not necessarily refer to past history. But even with regard to translations that presuppose the past-tense “was” as the correct translation of καταργήσας (perhaps due to the past-tense ποιήσας [having made] from the previous verse [v. 14]), nevertheless the *time-of-the-action* still seems to be in a transhistorical context. I’ve mentioned numerous times that Stanley E. Porter, a top Hellenistic Greek linguist, assures us that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25)! In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past events. Isaiah 53 is a perfect example. Despite all of the past tenses, it is obviously a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about, at least from a Christian hermeneutical standpoint! So, returning to our main topic, according to Paul, only the death of Jesus can truly abolish the Law!

Paul’s Christ is Not Yet

Remember that in other places Paul suggests that the evidence for Jesus’ ransom is still future:

“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be

testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2.6).

In 1 Cor. 15.8 (NRSV) Paul declares that Christ appeared to him “as to one untimely born,” that is, as if Paul were born before the time of Christ. And in Romans 5.6 the grammatical structure of the sentence appears in a transhistorical context and doesn’t necessarily warrant a reference to history. Paul employs the word ἔτι which implies not yet. So when Paul says that Christ “died” (απέθανεν), his death is in this transhistorical context! This is further confirmed by Paul’s use of the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2.6), or at “the appropriate time,” in the sense that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history:

Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι

κατά καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν (Rom.

5.6)!

Translation (NASB):

“For while we were still helpless, at the right

time Christ died for the ungodly.”

Similarly, Luke 17.30 also suggests that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed!

Only Jesus’ Death Can Abolish the

Law

Technically speaking, even the New Covenant (New Testament) is not ratified until the *death* of Jesus:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,

which is poured out for you” (Luke 22.20).

Hebrews 9.16-17 suggests that without the death of the testator the will (i.e., “testament”) is not yet in effect.

Hebrews 8:13 reads:

“When He said, ‘A new

covenant,’ He has made the

first obsolete. But whatever is

becoming obsolete and

growing old is ready to

disappear.”

We’re also told that the condemnation of the Law (the charges brought forth against us) would be nullified or cancelled as a legal code by Christ’s *death* (cf. Col. 2.13-14).

Galatians 3:23 reads:

“But before faith came, we were kept in

custody under the law, being shut up to

the faith which was later to be revealed.”

Galatians 3:24 explains:

“Therefore the Law has become our tutor

to lead us to Christ, that we may be

justified by faith.”

Thus, Galatians 3:25 declares:

“But now that faith has come, we are no

longer under a tutor [Law].”

Conclusion

It’s absolutely clear from the New Testament that without the *death* of Christ the Law is still in effect, as well as the charges levelled against humanity by its moral code. In other words, if Christ hasn’t died, then those who are reborn in Christ are retroactively *saved-by-faith-in-the-promises-of-God* but are not fully and literally saved yet. That’s why the Holy Spirit is given to regenerated human beings as a deposit, not as a full payment or reward:

“[He] set his seal of ownership on us, and

put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,

guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor. 1.22

NIV).”

Nevertheless Paul seemingly says that he believes that Christ is able to protect what he has “entrusted to Him until that day” when he fulfills it and presumably *dies* for him:

“For this reason I also suffer these things,

but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I

have believed and I am convinced that He

is able to guard what I have entrusted to

Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1.12 NASB).

And when is that day? It is the day of Christ’s sacrifice and atoning death that transpires in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10)! This eschatological motif is present throughout the New Testament: from Rev. 12.5 to Rev. 19.10 to Rev. 22.7 to 1 Jn 2.28, we constantly find the theme that Christ will appear “once at the consummation of the ages” to *die* for sin (Heb. 9.26b NASB), which is also confirmed in Eph. 1.10 and Gal. 4.4!

Therefore, if Jesus hasn’t died yet, we are all still under the Law. And thus if he appears “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b NRSV), then he, too, is “born under the law.”

Footnotes

[1] In using the term “abolish” I

don’t mean the eradication of

the moral standard completely.

Rather, I mean to abolish the

law as a soteriological means;

as a way to salvation, as well as

a means of condemnation.

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 6 years

Text

WHAT DID MOSES MEAN WHEN HE SAID THAT GOD WILL RAISE UP A PROPHET LIKE ME? WAS HE REFERRING TO MUHAMMAD OR TO SOMEONE ELSE?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Deuteronomy 18.15 foretold the coming of a notable prophet after the manner of Moses whose words would command everyone’s attention. Here, we must use the principle of "double-fulfillment" in the interpretation of Bible prophecy. The first fulfillment of the prophecy refers to Joshua, who was to succeed Moses as leader. However, the second fulfillment of the prophecy refers to the prophetic line that would follow, ultimately culminating in Jesus Christ, the Messiah (see Acts 3.20-21), as this Torahic prophecy was then carried forward into the New Testament and recorded in the Book of Acts:

“Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out from the people’” (3.22—23; cf. 7.37).

The Greek text is as follows:

Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι

προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς

ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν

λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ.

The key word, here, is ἀναστήσει (“raise up”). The Greek word ἀναστήσει is derived from the verb ἀνίστημι, which means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead” (see G. W. H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 145—46). The term ἀναστήσει—just like its cognates ἀναστήσεται and ἀναστήσονται—seemingly refers to a resurrection from the dead (see e.g. Mk 9.31; Lk. 18.33; Jn 11.23—24; 1 Thess. 4.16).

In Deuteronomy 18.15, the Hebrew term is קוּמ֖ (qum). The word qum means to “stand up” or to “raise up,” but all too often it means to “rise from the dead” (e.g. Isa. 26.19; Mk 5.39—42). Since the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστήσει, it is reasonable to assume that Luke, the author of Acts, is drawing his inspiration from the LXX.

Notice also that Acts 10.41 uses a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει (Acts 3.22), namely, ἀναστῆναι to refer to a resurrection from the dead (cf. Acts 17.3; Mk 9.10; Lk. 24.46; Jn 20.9). Interestingly enough, the New Testament uses yet another resurrection theme (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ) and a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει in reference to the teachings of Moses: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’” (Lk. 16.31). What is more, the phrase “raise up” (Acts 3.22) in connection with Moses’ reference to a future great prophet is also used in Acts 5.30 to denote Jesus’ resurrection: “‘The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”

Conclusion

Based on translation and exegesis of Greek and Hebrew, Moses’ prophecy that “God will raise up [ἀναστήσει; qum] … a prophet like me” gives us a criterion by which its fulfillment may be judged. In other words, by this sign everyone will know that the notable prophet has indeed come. And what is this sign? It is simply this: the great prophet like unto Moses will be raised from the dead! In using this criterion of resurrection, we’ll be able to identify whether he is a true or false prophet.

Accordingly, Muhammad cannot lay claim to Moses’ prophecy, given that he has not been brought back from the grave. There can only be one person who fits the bill of the great prophet predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18.15 (Acts 3.19–23): Jesus Christ!

After all, Jesus Christ himself says that Moses “wrote about Me” (John 5.46)❗️

4 notes · View notes