TO: WRENCH...

 

Posted by Ray alka1@sssnet.com on January 06, 2000… at 02:52:13:

 

Hello Wrench: In responding to my multi-part reply you begin by drawing attention to your "summation" statements that you make at various intervals throughout your original treatise. Thus, after citing your presentation about Rev. 3:14 you quote your summary, "What this leaves us with is a preponderance of evidence that funnels down to the conclusion..." You then go on to cite a couple more places where you make similar statements, "filters down to...narrows down to..."etc.  As you cite these you repeatedly remind me that, "I worded it that way on purpose, Ray...I again purposely chose the phrase...I again purposely chose language that was not the 'absolution'...etc. However, something has been left out here that's very important. What is it?

 

You have neglected to even acknowledge much less explain your initial statements at the very beginning of your treatise, and yet these words set the standard that we would expect to be reflected in your summary statements. So let's put them on the table before proceeding any further, "THE SON OF GOD CREATED--A THREEFOLD WITNESS...'At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established. " Now I think it's safe to say that you included these words "on purpose" too, right? You see, Wrench, these words set the theme for your entire treatise, for they tell us where you are going and what procedure you have chosen to use in order to get there. And since the latter of the two statements is actually a quote from Scripture, we can be sure that you consider the procedure reliable, right? So then, while reading through your treatise I would quite naturally understand your summary statements as meaning ..."to establish the matter"...or..."thus establishing the matter", in perfect harmony with those initial statements. For ordinary people, at least, "establishing the matter" means to prove the point. :-)

 

But in this latest post you seem to have lost confidence in these initial statements, or at least in your ability to sustain them. And I'm sorry but in trying to "lighten the burden", you seem to be engaged in double-talk. On the one hand you say that you are still personally convicted that the evidence you presented establishes the matter in absolution, but you no longer want to accept or be held to the burden that goes along with making those initial statements. Even worse, you now seem to be suggesting that you never intended to "establish the matter" from the very beginning. However, your initial statements clearly indicate otherwise. And again, "establishing the matter" means to prove the point, doesn't it? Sure it does, after all there is no such thing as being pregnant but not absolutely so.

 

You say, "The entire intention of the information from the beginning was to get the Trinitarian camp to see that there is 'much', in fact a preponderance of scriptural, statistical information that puts Christ among creation." I have no doubt that you had that in mind, but to the extent that you did, you were unintentionally and unconsciously off onto a strawman line of reasoning. How so? Well, as I've shown, Trinitarians already believe that he was "among creation", and we believe this as per John 1:14 and this is also referred to in Phil. 2:7-8...when he took the form of a "slave". Recall that angels are fellow-slaves (creatures) with men, as we read in Rev. 22:8-9. So when he took the form of a slave, this is when he ...came to be...."among creation". What you need to demonstrate in order to "establish the matter" is that he was the FIRST creation of God, the first in the category. Once this is understood, the difficulty involved in "establishing the matter" becomes much easier to recognize, as you have quite obviously seen.

 

Having said all this, I really don't object if you wish to re-frame the whole thing. But I think it's important to bear in mind that several of the points I've made and stances I've taken have been in direct reaction to your statements at the beginning of your treatise about "establishing the matter", and so if you now change the framework, it may become necessary for me to make some adjustments accordingly. At the moment I'm not really clear just where you want to go with this thing. It has to be left up to you, I guess. The ball is clearly in your court. All I can do is take it as it comes, and respond in the best way I can to whatever you set before me.
********************************************

Next, in reply to my point that if the evidence were as compelling as you seem to think it is (that it establishes the point), surely we would find some indication of it in the scholarly community, you say: "Well, I certainly feel that the information is compelling, regardless of what is found in the scholarly community, including Thayer, but more about him and the scholars you mention further down". In response let me say that these scholars did not publish their works anonymously. Instead they put their reputations on the line in what they say. The evidence is either there to back it up, or it isn't. When the WT Society wanted a reputable Greek Text to base their NWT on, to whom did they turn? You bet, they turned to Professors Westcott and Hort. No one twisted their arm to do this, and we don't find them adopting the position "well, we cannot dismiss bias as a possibility". Not at all, instead they pointed out that the WH text is generally considered to be "one of high excellence". Note what the WT says about this on page 318 of "All Scripure is Inspired of God and Beneficial",

 

".......The New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures, being based on this excellent Greek text, is thus able to give its readers the faithful 'sayings of Jehovah', as this has been so wonderfully preserved for us in the Greek resevoir of manuscripts. --1 Pet. 1;24, 25. "...

 

Well, Thayer did the very same thing with Grimm's Lexicon. What did he point out? He likewise pointed out that Grimm's Lexicon received high commendations from all quarters and was generally considered as the best New Testament Greek Lexicon extant (more about this soon). Thayer also says that Grimm and his publisher "courteously" gave him permission to translate, and place his remarks in brackets. Now why do you suppose Professor Grimm was so "courteous" in this case? No doubt it was because he had a clear conscience and knew he had done it right. He knew he had not fudged the evidence or allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work. He knew therefore that he nothing to fear. Consider the following entry in this Lexicon as an example: Under "theos", #2....

 

"......Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. 1.1; XX.28; 1 Jn. V.20; Ro. ix.5; Tit. ii.13; Heb. i.8 sq., etc; the matter is still in dispute among theologians; cf. Grimm, Institutio theologiae dogmaticae, ed. 2,p. 228 sqq. [and the discusson (on Ro. ix.5) by Professors Dwight and Abbot in Journ. Soc. Bib. Lit. etc. u.s., esp. pp.42 sqq. 113sqq.]. "

 

Now I don't think I need to include much commentary on the above, except to ask you a simple question: Do you think Professor Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work?
***********************************

 

Next you say: "If one could demonstrate 'compelling' information to the contrary then obviously, something has to give." Well, I agree with the best and most reliable scholarship that passages like John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17 and others, present clear obstacles to any who would claim that he was an original creature (first in the category), or to anyone who would deny his true deity, and this information has been in the public domain for a long time. But as you say, before going into these points, we have plenty to clean up with what has thus far been presented, and I agree...so let's turn to the task.
************************************************

 

In response to your friend's suggestion, with your agreement, that Thayer was a unitarian, but only a translator, I quoted some excerpts from Thayer's Preface to show that he did not agree with you about the probability of bias in this Lexicon, and also that he did much more than just translate. After I presented these excerpts, which included Thayer's point that Grimm's work received "high commendations" from scholars of widely divergent views, from "Hupfeld to Hengstenberg"...etc., you did a nice piece of investigative work and uncovered two useful articles concerning these two scholars. But you seem to have missed the full impact of what is revealed in them, for note your assessment: "In checking at the theological seminary and elsewhere on the net I didn't find the diversity of Hupfeld and Hengstenberg as relevant to any 'unitarian' controversy or position. Their diversity was not over the issue of unitarianism so I don't really see how that would be relevant to the unitarian issue."

 

However, whether their views had to do with the "unitarian issue" or not, misses the point altogether. I offered the point in reaction to your claim that "the probability of bias is still very much in tact". Thayer disagrees with that and points out that Scholars of widely divergent views had rallied around this lexicon, and that it was considered as the best lexicon extant. The mention of Hupfeld and Hengstenberg was just to illustrate how wide the gap was...So, how wide was it? The 2 articles you uncovered reveal that very clearly...so let's take a closer look at what these articles bring out.

 

First notice that these articles are written from opposite perspectives. The writer of the "Catholic" article seems sympathetic to the orthodox view and thus characterizes Hupfeld's views as "so subversive of ancient traditions regarding the Five Books (Pentateuch)", having just pointed out that Hupfeld denied Mosaic authorship to them. And the writer of the internet article seems sympathetic to Hupfeld, thus he seems to characterize Hengstenberg as a loose cannon, calling him "the collussus of orthodoxy" and further applying the terms "the haughtiness of a Prussian drill-sergeant...the zeal of a Spanish inquisitor"..etc. Yet, even though they write from opposite perspectives, they still show us how wide the gap is between them. In denying Mosaic authorship to the first five books of the bible, Hupfeld is clearly to the left of the WT Society even. Notice the Catholic article's mention that Hupfeld's views gave impetus to the "Document hypothesis", and let's compare that with what the WT Society has to say about this, for example in their publication "Aid to Bible Understanding", page 643:

................... "THE 'DOCUMENTARY THEORY' OF CRITICS"

"........A theory has been invented by some Bible critics that Genesis is not the work of one writer or compiler, namely, Moses, but, rather, represents the work of several writers, some of these living long after Moses' time. On the basis of supposed differences of style and word usage, they have advanced the so-called 'documentary theory' According to this theory there were three sources, which they call "J' (Jahwist), "E" (Elohist) and "P" (Priest Codex). ...There are many absurditites to which they go to support their theories..."

 

Obviously, Wrench, you can read the entire article in the WT publication, but I've quoted enough here to show clearly that the WT Society is absolutely opposed to Hupfeld's views on the subject. And one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why. The WT Society finds the evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch internally, therefore for them Hupfeld's denial of Mosaic authorship is tantamount to a denial of the inspiration of Scripture! But what about Hengstenberg? Both articles place him square in the middle of the Orthodox camp with a list of scholars of "Catholic learning"...as the writer of the internet article calls him "the collussus of orthodoxy". Note also, while we're at it, that Hupfeld's problem with the inspiration of Scripture is very similar to the radical unitarian, for they also have problems with the inspiration of Scripture. So your investigative work has vindicated and verified Thayer's point that Scholars of widely divergent views have highly commended Grimm's work and rallied around it...how wide? From Hupfeld to Hengstenberg...or...from a position left of the WT Society all the way to a position square in the middle of the Orthodox camp.
*******************************************

 

Now after citing the above excerpts from Thayer's Preface, You point to my use of the "ellipis", saying "I think it is significant the statement that was left out at your dot-dot-dot. Thayer stated: 'This decision has occasionally imposed on me some reserve and entailed some embarrassments:' Not exactly an 'endorsement' without ANY reserve."....but hold the phone. You seem to miss what Thayer is saying. Please read it again and notice that he has just lavished high praise on Professor Grimm and his work, saying that it received commendation from "all quarters", and so impressed was he that he even gave up any notion of publishing his own book on the subject. Then after saying that he had gotten permission to translate and include his own remarks in brackets, he says that this procedure occassionally causes his some reserve. Why? Because in placing his own remarks into brackets, he may appear to be sitting in judgement over the great Professor Grimm whom he had just praised to high heaven. See it? But he says, nevertheless this minor drawback notwithstanding, it's well worth it, because the student will get the INCREASED ASSURANCE or at least a broader outlook in debatable matters...". This is exactly opposite from what you claim. Thayer is saying that not only did this Lexicon receive high commendations from "all quarters" before he translated it, but he thinks it will maintain the same credibility as a result of his bracketed remarks. Hence the student gets a broader outlook, and this on top of the credibility the Lexicon already had. hmmmm.......
**********************************************

 

Next, after citing my statement that Thayer didn't offer a "syllable of protest" at Rev. 3:14, you reply: "Yet he does mention the embarrassment and the reserve he had at certain places ( I just showed your misunderstanding of what he was referring to) As well, we aren't sure if Thayer was even a unitarian at this point as you have acknowledged. You mention that he did not offer a syllable in relation to Rev 3:14. That really isn't the case, it it? Go back and look and you will see a number of scholars cited within Thayer's distinguishing []'s." I reply: You make two points here, so let me take them one at a time. First, I thought I had made it obvious when saying that Thayer didn't offer a "syllable" of protest that I meant a protest from Thayer himself...with such "compelling evidence" before him. Bracketed remarks without commentary more than likely suppliments Grimm's references, but even should they reveal a disagreement it wouldn't prove that Grimm allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work (bias), for he may not have had access to the referenced material at the time. But usually when he introduces a different opinion he precedes it with "but" or "but see"...and where, pray tell, does he include "representative discussions from both sides" of a disagreement with these bracketed references?

 

Now for the second point. You say we aren't sure "at this point" if Thayer was even a Unitarian. However, you seem to have gotten the sequence of our statements about Thayer in disarray. If you go back and follow the sequence you will see that the first time in our exchange that the label "unitarian' was actually applied to Thayer came from your side. Your friend who posted in your behalf, took the position that Thayer was a unitarian and warned me not to try relying on it, for, he said, Thayer was just the translator and they were actually the words of a Trinitarian. You then came along behind him and said to me that the information he gave me about Thayer was "correct". Prior to this my statements about Thayer remained well within the evidence I had, and I was simply relying on his excerpts from the preface to come against your claim of bias. All I needed was a maybe situation and I knew I had that much. Now, Wrench, at this point, please bear in mind that I don't know what information you guys have on Thayer, and I was not to find this out until about 2 weeks later when you left me a post saying that you "keep running into information" that made you wonder if he was a unitarian after all. Two points come into play here, first I know the nature of the evidence I have on Thayer, and I DON'T know what you have...and secondly I don't have the burden of proof anyway. These two points are extremely important.

 

You see, two weeks later when you asked me to share my evidence with you about Thayer, I did exactly that, but you must have misunderstood the character of the evidence I had. This lack of understanding makes you think I was being dishonest. I had accumulated two types of evidence about Thayer, on the one hand I had evidence of a positive nature that he was a unitarian (a flat out statement from the publisher that he was) and another piece of evidence that said he succeeded Unitarian Dr. Ezra Abbot as Bussey Professor of Harvard Divinity School, a school which until that time had been well known as exclusively unitarian. On the other hand I had other evidence that at best could only be considered as neutral, and that was his being classified as a "congregationalist" (given the instability within the congregational churches of the last century with trinitarians and unitarians often co-existing in the same church)...so with these two kinds of evidence, and not knowing at that point what YOU had on him, when your friend and you took the position that he was a unitarian (even defending against it), I simply had nothing to justify challenging you. I wasn't about to do that...my goodness, I might have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night, lol!

 

Now, put this together with the fact that I did not have the burden anyhow, and I simply played with the hand you dealt me, and you guys gave me a green light on Thayer being "your guy" and "agreeable to your views"...It was two weeks later before you finally let me know that you in fact didn't even have as much on him as I did, and that you were having second thoughts about what you had already been taking for granted, that he was a unitarian. (How was I to know what you knew until you revealed it to me?)...So I could not challenge you guys with my evidence about him, and it was also mainly of a positive nature in favor of him being a unitarian anyway... I didn't have the burden either....therefore, Wrench, I merely went with you guys and the positive nature of my own evidence. Since you had the burden, that is all I needed to do. Were you being dishonest by waiting two weeks to reveal to me that you didn't have anything on Thayer? How could you have told me that your friend was "correct" about him, if you didn't really know?

 

Later you wonder how long I had accumulated the evidence on Thayer, and that was a little more than a year ago when SOTB challenged the idea that he was a unitarian...before that I had never seen the slightest indication to disagree with the publisher's straight-forward statement that he was. And now, since you asked me to share with you my info on him, since then I've come across some additional evidence that even MORE clearly supports the conclusion that he was a unitarian. If you'd like, I will share that with you as well. I found a reference in a book I was reading of excerpts from a letter written by Dr. Thayer that appeared in "The Congregationalist", a popular and well known magazine published in the Boston area in the last century. This letter is very revealing ....So I contacted a Boston Library who has the article and hopefully they are forwarding it to me. If I had a place to send it, I'd be glad to share this with you. Just let me know. To understand the impact of this letter, you would need a preceeding context (in the book I was reading...I'll send that too).

 

And since we are on the subject, I also noticed something (after answering your post asking me to share anything I had on Thayer) when reading over Thayer's preface again, at the end of the preface, page XV, he says that Dr. Abbot also had a hand in this Lexicon just prior to his death. Here's what he says about Abbot's involvement: "He did, however, go through the manuscript and add with his own hand the variant verse-notation, in accordance with the results of investigation subsequently given to the learned world in his Excursus on the subject published in the First Part of the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica Major." Presumably "Dr Abbot" refers to the famous Unitarian Dr. Ezra Abbot, whom Thayer had just succeeded as Bussy Professor in the Harvard Divinity School. According to "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, VOL. XI, page 4, Abbot died on Mar. 21st, 1884, a little more than a year before Thayer dated the preface (Dec. 25, 1885). We learn also from this article, not only that Thayer was Abbot's successor as Bussy Professor, but also that several of Abbot's previous writings (some of which included Tischendorf's works) were compiled and published in 1888 under the editorship of guess who? That's right, good old Dr. J.H. Thayer. I'm telling you, Wrench, these guys must have been packing each other's luggage...:-) So it appears that no matter what we conclude about Thayer, we still could not claim that my references were the exclusive works of only Trinitarians, for both Thayer and Abbot made valuable and meaningful contributions to Grimm's Lexicon. With what result? According to Thayer, so the student would get "encreased assurance" and a "broader outlook". Just as I said in my first reply to your treatise, bias in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish., and my statement still stands.

**********************************************

 

Next, after I pointed out that the other sources I cited reached no different conclusion with regard to Rev 3:14, you respond by saying: "Robertson and Zhodiates are obviously Trinitarian so we can't dismiss bias from them and as I have pointed out, Thayer did not simply leave it alone. It will be most interesting to find those citations and have a look at what they are promoting." In reply, note your words "...so we can't dismiss bias from them", do you see the stance you are assuming in this statement? This is why I labored the "burden of proof" point so much at the beginning of this post. Wrench, with your initial statements at the outset of your original treatise about "establishing the matter", you walked in looking like a prosecutor, but with your statement above "so we can't dismiss bias from them" you're behaving like the attorney for the defendant. Only the defendant can survive on possibilities. The prosecutor, having the burden of proof, doesn't have that luxury...With your statement above, you are trying to get away with assuming that it's the other side's burden to prove that these references were NOT biased, but since you came in to "establish the matter" it's really YOUR burden to prove they were biased. See it? See how you tried to switch the tables? I'm trying to think of a way to illustrate my point. Can you imagine the prosecutor standing before the Jury in a murder trial, saying of the defendant, "Well, you know, he was in the general area, so we can't dismiss the possibility that he might have done it". How do you think such a statement would go over with the Jury? Probably about like a screen-door on a Submarine...LOL!  And yes, it will be interesting to see what the bracketed remarks indicate, but even if they do indicate a disagreement with Grimm, it still wouldn't prove that he allowed his personal convictions to corrupt his work (bias), for the info may not have been available to Grimm at the time. The more likelyhood, however, is that they will simply suppliment Grimm's references. Can't be positive, though, but I don't have the burden anyhow.
**************************************************************

 

You say: "The point really remains that arche, followed by a genitive phrase, is always a part of the group, or class or thing signfied in the genitive, not including our topic scripture of Revelation 3:14. That point in itself does put you out on a 'syntactical' limb to hold on to that explanation for you would have to view it as the 'single' incident in scripture where it happens. " Let me reply as follows: We've already seen that taking the genitive as "partitive" poses no problems for the Trinitarian position, for we believe also that he came to be "among creation" when he took the form of a slave (Phil 2:7-8). And if the sheer number of examples cuts any ice in the matter, stop to think what that would mean with regard to the term "firstborn", for you've already cited many many more examples of this term referring to the first one actually born or the first in a series (numerically), but did that fact restrain God from applying that term when numerical order was NOT the focus? Of course not, we STILL can find examples where "firstborn" is applied when status not numerical order was the emphasis. This illustrates the fallacy in assuming that the sheer number of examples "funnels down to a certain conclusion". With regard to your examples pertaining to Rev 3:14, how many of them are directly relevant to the subject material (the relationship between the Son and creation at the beginning)?? 2 or 3 that I can think of right now, John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-17...and yet these two passages lend better support to the orthodox view since they make straight forward predicate statements, both placing the Son before all creation at the beginning. More about this later in reply to you.
*******************************************

 

Ray says: 2 or 3 times you question my honesty when claiming that my point was "overinflated", but that is not true. At the time I made those remarks all I had of a positive nature was unitarian evidence, and you and your friend had already taken the position that he was a unitarian and applied the label to him (not me!). It wasn't for two weeks or so before you were to finally reveal to me that you were having second thoughts about that, and that you didn't have even as much evidence as me. Why did you wait so long to reveal this to me? How could you say that what your friend (in behalf of Wrench) said was "correct" about Thayer, when you didn't know yet? Did you think that Thayer was "just a translator" too?
**************************************************

 

Ray continues: After I pointed out how tough it is to satisfy the burden of proof, it means that you can leave no possible alternative standing, you reply: "Well again, I wasn't even trying to create a 'no possible alternative standing'. Those are your words".....However, I'm sorry, Wrench, but your initial statements simply will not bear this out. Further, this is the second post of any length you've sent to me, and I've consistently reminded you over and over that you accepted the burden of proof, yet only now are you saying that you never meant that from the git-go. If I had gone that far afoul of your real intentions, and did it repeatedly, why are you only now putting forth such a claim? Seems more reasonable that you would have come out right away and said, "hey, wait a minute...I didn't mean that". But facts are stubborn things, and from your initial words that you placed right up front "At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established", to establish the matter must mean to prove the point, right? Besides, you've admitted that you DO feel that way personally anyway. So this sounds like you just want to be able to talk the talk..... without having to walk the walk. If you want to change the framework, It's OK...but my reactions so far have been in accord with what you've said right up front.
**************************************************

 

Wrench says: "You say that some of the passages are listed under the various meanings, tell me, however, when they listed some of those passages under the various meanings, did they address the point about 'arche' followed by a genitive phrase. We both know that there are many reasons why one might choose to quote a passage. Did any of the references you checked with actually deal with the problem as I presented it? Do you know of any scholar, to date, from the Trinitarian camp who has addressed the problem as I have presented it and in turn, commented on it's implications? Just because a passage is cited doesn't mean he was considering the aspect of that verse I referred to."....I reply: That's just the point, Wrench, I asked you the same questions...if this evidence is as compelling and obvious as you claim it is, how can YOU explain that no one seems to deal with it? And I have another question too. How about the WT Society? Stop to consider, if anyone had an incentive to deal with such "compelling evidence", it would be them since they claim the same as you, yet have they ever dealt specifically with what you claim in order to persuade and convince??? Where have they pointed to all the examples of "arche" with the genitive...making the same claims as you? Or are you saying that you know more than them....that God by-passed them to reveal these things to you? I think we have to look for a better answer friend. Context is always rule number one when it comes to bible interpretation. Hence then, when we want to understand the meaning of Rev 3:14, other passages directly related to the contextual matter (the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning) will carry much more weight than examples of grammer, especially when most of the examples have little or nothing to do with the contextual matter.
***************************************

 

Ray replies:  After I pointed out that Dr. Robertson is giving minimal commentary on the whole Apocalypse, and so when he arrives at Rev. 314, he comments of the whole idiom, pointing out that your CONCLUSION is not the right one, and that the other one is.

 

 You reply: "First, what is your definition of an 'idiom'? The dictionary defines an 'idiom' as 'an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically or in having a meaning that can not be derived from the conjoined meaning of its elements.'? What is 'idiomatic' about the expression right before that 'the faithful and true witness'. Do you think we need to be familiar with the language of John to know what 'that' means?" It's plain language to me. Is there something about the individual parts that can't be understood in a normal fashion? I don't see where? There is nothing 'idiomatic' about the phrase 'the faithful and true true witness' so why do we have to understand 'the beginning of the creation of God' as idomatic? I think that is an assumption to avoid the problem. It is his or your opinion as a Trinitarian. Are you claiming the whole phrase is 'idiomatic' or just the work 'beginning' or what? If the whole phrase is an idiom, why do the scholars turn around and try to assign an 'alternative' meaning to 'arche'?"

 

 

Ray replies: That this is an "idiom" there can be no doubt, but first, since you seem so cynical about the credibility of Dr. Robertson's scholarship, let's allow the WT Society to establish that. >From the WT publication "Aid to Bible Understanding", under the entry "Greek" with regard to the koine', page 694: "Professor A.T. Robertson says: 'Westcott has true insight when he says of N.T. Greek: "It combines the simple directness of Hebrew thought with the precision of Greek expression..." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p.92)...and on the same page (694) Dr. Robertson again: "The developement of the Greek article is one of the most interesting things in human speech" (page 754. A Greek Grammar...same as above). As a matter of fact the WT appeals to Robertson and other scholars like Westcott/Hort often and vociferously when they find it convenient. Recall that the NWT Committee (Anointed witnesses of Jehovah) adopted the WH text as the primary basis for their NWT (Christian Greek Scriptures)...and they didn't jump up and down and cry "bias" in that case, did they? The reason they did not is because it wasn't convenient then. OK, now we can consider whether Rev 3:14 is properly referred to as an "idiom". I also refer to Professor Robertson's "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research" page 777, concerning the use of the Greek Article, and under the subtitle "VI. Position with Attributives"

 

".......3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12:10, ten pylen ten sideran ten pherousan. Cf. to pyr to aionion to hetoimasmenon (Mt. 25:41), ho mathetes ho allos ho gnostos (Jo. 18:16), ten romphaian ten distomon ten oxeian (Rev. 2:12). In particular note the repetition of the article in Heb. 11:12; Rev 3:14; 17:1; 21:9. In Rev. 1:5 note four articles, ho martys ho pistos ho prototokos--kai ho archon. Cf. Rev. 12:9; 1 Pet. 4:14. For

this common classic idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328ff..."

 

Now if you go back and check my first response to your initial treatise, Wrench, you will see that I began my discussion about Rev. 3:14 by emphasizing that each of the three clauses were preceded by the article, thus distinguishing them as separate grammatical units. That is the particular "idiom" Professor Robertson is describing above. In 3:14 we have three clauses, the first being "the Amen"...an idiomatic title, and the second two clauses following along in smooth apposition...as further separate units attributable to the first. It is the use of the article and the appositional arrangement that signifies the idiom. The appositional clauses are not predicate statements in and of themselves. Notice above that Robertson follows his reference to 3:14 by referring to the four articles in Rev. 1:5. and note the similarity with 3:14 "the faithful and true witness". In 1:5 the adjective "pistos" stands in the attributive position (idiom)...yet there is another way to use the same idiom and mean the same thing, thus: ho pistos martys catches the "idiom" quite well and means exactly the same thing. The bottom line for recognizing the attributive position of the adjective is that the article must appear right before it. What if we wanted to say "the witness is faithful" without using the verb? Then we would place the adjective in the predicate position (idiom), thus: Pistos ho martys....or...ho martys pistos, now notice that in each case the adjective does NOT have the article directly in front of it. This is the predicate position (idiom), and in such cases the verb is supplied. You seem to have had some studies in Greek, Wrench, so what are these antics all about? This is elementary and would be known by any first year Greek student.

 

The term "idiom" can be used in a variety of ways. Context determines. My point was obvious, or at least I thought it was :-). Remember me inviting you to compare John 1:3 with Rev 3:14, and saying that in John 1:3 we have a predicate statement being made and in Rev 3:14 an idiomatic title being applied? Here's where you should have caught the contrast I was emphasizing. The expression in Rev 3:14 is not predicate in and of itself, but is a single grammatical unit preceded by its own article and placed in apposition...hence it is "idiomatic" by application being attributed to "the Amen". It carries therefore the same force as the immediately preceding clause "the faithful and true witness". Now, in addition to referring to a linguistical device of communication, idiom can also refer to a resultant clause from such a device. Thus we may say that idioms come in all shapes and sizes. Some idiomatic expressions are more descriptive than others. There is no rigid consistency here, and that's the key to my main point. If we have a choice as to which is going to be the dominant scripture, the passage that makes a direct predicate statement is bound to carry more force than an idiomatic unit that is not predicate in and of itself. Why? Because there is no consistent methodology that will always produce the correct meaning of an idiom by breaking down its individual parts or grammatical nuances. In other words we cannot say that such a method is scientific because a consistent application of it will not produce a consistent result.

 

Let's just take a couple idiomatic expressions in English to show that one may be more descriptive than another...first, "kick the bucket" is a common idiom, and we all know what it means, but it might be hard to determine its meaning by breaking down its individual words or grammatical nuances...we instead have to know the meaning of the entire unit. But consider another common idiom, "pass the buck", now this is a little more descriptive but not much. And the same is true with titles used idiomatically, for example the title "The author and finisher of our faith" seem descriptive enough, right? But "The bright and morning Star" is not nearly so descriptively obvious. Better yet, and in direct context, try "the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star", can you see, Wrench, that one is more descriptively obvious than the other? So, when I said we want to know what the whole unit means, that's what I had in mind. Predicate statements like John 1:3 and Col. 1:15-17 should dominate when it comes to our conclusions about this subject material (the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning). Hence these two passages, both straight-forwardly placing Him before all creation (without a single exception Jn 1:3b...and Col 1:16...all in heaven and earth), tell the story, and since the expression in Rev 3;14 is not predicate in and of itself, and can be easily harmonized with the other two. That makes better interpretive sense than trying to force the other two to contradict themselves outright just to agree with an appositional unit that's not even predicate. Do you see my point? And the reason the scholars (all that I've seen) "turned around" and assigned the alternative meaning...is because they agree among themselves that the predicate statements (John 1:3 & Col. 1:15-17), being straight-forward and unambiguous, should dominate, and thus Rev. 3:14 should be understood in the light of these passages, rather than the other way around.
*******************************************************

 

After I replied to your complaint that Robertson didn't address your specific points, by saying: "I am very sure that if he were intending a polemic on the specific subject his explication would have been much more extensive. yet obviously the verses he mentions in passing are those which he feels settles the issue with regard to the conclusion you reached.".....

 

You replied, "Since I do not possess this particular book (although I am looking to purchase it) and it was being used the entire time I was at the library, I do not have the advantage of seeing exactly what was said. Are you able to post the pertinent information of this discussion without any dot-dot-dots? From your words above he obviously didn't elaborate on the point I have presented. If he didn't, how can you say HE FEELS it settles the issue. How do know he even considered the issue? Do you think that the scholars have considered every issue that has ever been raised in regard to syntax and grammar? I'm sure you don't. Where then, Ray, has a Trinitarian addressed the ISSUE that I have raised and consequently 'debunked' it or at least shown reason why not to worry about it? Considering a verse does not mean that an individual has considered the particulars of what I presented. I need to see that information you reference."

 

 

Ray replies: Very well then, Wrench, since you are such a pleasant fellow :-), I will type out Robertson's entire presentation about Rev. 3:14, but first let me try to respond to some of your expressed feelings. "Word Pictures in the New Testament" is an excellent 6 Volume Commentary on the New Testament in which the Professor provides both commentary and pertinent grammatical information. I've had mine for over 10 years now, but I saw a set recently for I think $69.00, a bargain in my opinion. Obviously I'm not a mind reader and I don't have direct access to the scholars, so I can only speculate or give you my opinion as to why they have not dealt with what you feel so strongly about. But it's important to include the WTBTS among them when asking the question, because I've been reading WT material for some time now and I've never seen them address the specific material you mention either. And this would seem to pose a greater problem for you than anything else, since JWs believe that the Organization is God's only channel on earth today. As I mentioned earlier in this post, if anyone had an incentive to make a big deal out of this material, surely it would be them since they consider themselves as God's only channel and they claim the same as you about Christ. So at least try throwing that one "down the funnel" too, while your at it. Perhaps they have a different set of priorities that lead them to see a stronger case for other passages that deal contextually and specifically with the relevant subject material (in this case the relation between the Son and creation at the beginning)....and THIS carries more truck with them than a whole truck load of grammatical examples...the majority of which do not deal with the exact subject material. I don't know for sure, but those are my thoughts off the top of my head...OK now for Dr. Robertson's article:

 

"14. In Laodicea (en Laodikiai). Forty miles south-east of Philadelphia and some forty miles east of Ephesus, the last of the seven churches addressed with special messages, on the river Lycus on the border of Phrygia, near Colossae and Hierapolis, recipient of two letters by Paul (Col. 4;16), on the great trade-route from Ephesus to the east and seat of large manufacturing and banking operations (especially of woolen carpets and clothing, Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, p.40ff.), centre of the worship of Asklepios and seat of a medical school and also of a provincial court where Cicero lived and wrote many of his letters, home of many Jews, called by Ramsay (op. cit., p. 413) 'the City of Compromise,' the church here founded apparently by Epaphras (Col. 1:7; 4:12f.), now a deserted ruin, one of six cities with this name (meaning justice of the people). No praise is bestowed on this church, but only blame for its lukewarmness. The amen (ho Amen). Personal (masculine article) name here alone, though in Is. 65:16 we have 'the God of Amen' understood in the LXX as 'the God of truth' (ton theon ton alethinon). Here applied to Christ. See 1:5 for ho martus ho pistos (the faithful witness) and 3:7 for ho alethinos (the genuine), 'whose testimony never falls short of the truth' (Swete). The beginning of the creation of God (he arche tes ktiseos tou theou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Col. 1:15, 18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Heb. 1:2, as is made clear 1:18, 2:8; 3:21; 5:13)."...that's it.
***********************************************************************

 

Ray continues:  Wrench, as I'm working my way through your letter, it might appear that I'm skipping over some of our points, but actually alot of this is repetitious..such as our disagreement about what you meant by your up front statements...to establish the matter…prove the point…etc. I've already dealt with this now about 3 or 4 times in this post, and another is your repeated musings that I've been dishonest. I've already dealt with that too. I've got no motive to be dishonest, friend, for that would be counter-productive to my reason for being here in the first place. In my heart of hearts I believe the orthodox position is the biblical one, and I desperately want to help others to see it too...the more so when I see someone as studious and sincere as you have been. There's also no need to apologize for failing to make yourself clear, for we both suffer from that malady. And I'm not above criticism either for my human failings. I just try to notice and correct them without letting old slew-foot beat me over the head with'm for very long. LOL!
*************************

 

Ray says:  I like your expression "we're all midgets standing on the shoulders of giants when it comes to our understanding of the original languages"....ha…No truer words were ever said, and that's why when I see them all agree on something, THAT tends to get my attention. There has to be some reason why even the Slave hasn't seen how "compelling" this evidence is that you are so convinced of. It's hard to think that God would bypass them to reveal such nuggets of truth to you...or Greg (I'm talking about your references to arche with the genitive phrase..etc). I don't know how much of this you may have gotten from him. The way I always understood it is when Jehovah wants to reveal something like this to his people, He goes through the Faithful and Discreet Slave, and they place it on the table for the domestics. When that happens, then you are not to be "suspicious", but have confidence in the Slave's provisions. Am I wrong or right about that?
**************************************************

 

 

Ray replies:  John 1:1-3

In dealing with this passage, you don't go too far aloft in stating the orthodox understanding, so let's consider your response.

 

"The question is reasonable enough and deserves a reasonable answer. I first think it is important to realize that these words are set within the frame of happening after the words "in the beginning" of verse 1. The 'beginning' in John 1:1 certainly reminds us of the words of Genesis 1:1. I think it easily stated that the beginning here in John 1:1 could be the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. The 'beginning' in Genesis really limits itself to the creation of the physical universe. The 'all things' mentioned in John 1:3 could be limited therefore to the 'physical universe or even the physical things of this earthly realm. Notice the following example which could demonstrate this point:

 

Psalm 8:5 (LXX) Speaking of man it states that 'thou hast put ALL THINGS under his feet'. Clearly, in this case, man is given authority over the 'works of God's hands', namely, the physical creations of this eartly realm. So the all-inclusived statement does not necessarily mean, as some have suggested, that the Logos cannot be a created being, for the context, being directly related to the 'beginning' of Genesis 1:1, is discussing the creation of all PHYSICAL things. As for the meaning of "apart from him not even one thing came into existence' again must be understood in the context, John's reference to the 'beginning' of Genesis 1:1 shows that 'all things' in this context have to do with PHYSICAL universe, as mentioned above."

 

 

Ray replies: First, Your attempt to connect the beginning in John 1:1 with the beginning in Genesis 1:1 and remove them both from the beginning of all creation...or have them both refer only to the physical creation is contrary to the WT's teaching. They identify the beginning in John 1:1 as "the beginning of Jehovah's creative works" and although they obviously claim that Jesus was the first creation, they nevertheless place the beginning of John 1:1 at the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works. Note the following from page 918 of "Aid to Bible Understanding"

 

""In the beginning the Word [Greek, Lo'gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god ['was divine', AT; MO; or 'of divine being,' Boehmer; State (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.' Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps. 90.2; Rev. 15:3), the Word's being with God from the 'beginning' must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah's creative works." So the WT disagrees with you that the beginning mentioned in John 1:1 is to be limited to the physical creation.

Secondly, The WT also does not distinguish in time the first creation referred to in John 1:3 from the beginning mentioned in John 1:1...note from the following quotation that after the WT quotes John 1:3 they place in parenthesis John 1:1-4)....showing that the first creation of John 1:3 would include and refer to the beginning of Jehovah's creative works in John 1:1, and not just the physical creation. This comes from page 391 of "Aid to Bible Understanding"...

 

"John's inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that 'all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.' and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (John 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17)."

 

So, Wrench, I even have the WT with me in rejecting your attempt to remove the beginning of John 1:1 from the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works and restrict it to the physical creation. And also with me in saying that the first creation of John 1:3 likewise goes back to the beginning of John 1:1...and is not restricted to the physical universe. Hence, whether you came up with this yourself, or got it from Greg's book, it needs to be resolved with the WTBTS. The beginning of John 1:1 is very clearly in context the beginning of God's creative works, and according to John 1:3 it does NOT include the Logos, for the first creation came into existence THROUGH him. This is the plain statement of the word of God.

 

Your reference to Psalms 8:5 (LXX) cuts no ice with John 1:3, for we likewise insist that context determines meaning. So the context of Psalms 8:5 IS restricted to the "all things" of that context.....and the context of John 1:3 is restricted to the "all things" of THAT context. So then, what is it that makes the "all things" all inclusive with no exceptions in John 1:3. It is the fact that John qualifed the first part by doubling up on the negative in the second part of the verse. We see no such qualifer in Psalms 8:5, do we? No we do not. Let's take a closer look at the qualifer "and without him not even one thing came into existence that has come into existence". The word "oude" is a negative of the indicative (the mood of reality) and it means "not even". This is connected with the neuter number "one" (hen). This adjective is being used here substantively, taking advantage of the inherent property of gender...it means "one thing". So together the expression "oude hen" means "not even one thing".

 

So Wrench, looking at John 1:3, how many things came into existence through the Logos? It says here "all things". And how many exceptions will this context allow for? It says here "not even one". If words as plain as these cannot tell us that the Logos pre-existed all creation without a single exception, what words can? All the stops are being pulled out of language here to reveal to us the ultimate identity of the Logos as God....what kind of God? The Creator kind of God...the best kind...not the Father, now, but true God nonetheless. What I want you to look hard at, Wrench, is that John didn't only call him God, but he immediately described him as the hand's on Creator of all things....without even a single exception...not even one. This means that the first thing that ever came into existence did so through the Logos.

 

Now, was Paul's testimony any different in Col. 1:15-17? Not at all, for Paul likewise uses unambiguous language to tell us that he is BEFORE "all things [heaven & earth]", which in context means all creation... In both places he's distinguished from all creation in words as plain as language can make it. . So clear were Paul's words in Col 1:16-17 that the NWT translators felt they had a theological emergency on their hands. By placing Christ before all things, Paul was saying that he's God for only true God exists before all creation. Something had to be done. Paul was being a stinker here. Certainly not a team player :-)) The NWT translators had to apply a linguistical tourniquet of some kind to prevent Paul from saying what they didn't want him to say. The big question for you, Wrench, is do you want to be a part of that? Personally I think you're too good for it. Take care, friend, Ray.

*************************************************