Byzantine monasteries: When defrauding is not called by its name /Βυζαντινά μοναστήρια: Όταν η απάτη δεν λέγεται με το όνομά της

 

* Κωνσταντίνος Γ. Πιτσάκης,
«Έγκλημα χωρίς τιμωρία; Τα πλαστά στη βυζαντινή ιστορία»,
στο Σπύρος Τρωιάνος (επιμ.),
Έγκλημα και τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο,
Ίδρυμα Γουλανδρή-Χορν, 1997, σ. 381.

NT textual criticism /Κριτική του κειμένου της ΚΔ

* Paula Gooder (ed.),
Searching for Meaning:
An Introduction to Interpreting the New Testament,
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009, p. 49 /
Αναζητώντας το νόημα:
Μια εισαγωγή στην ερμηνεία της Καινής Διαθήκης,
Χ. Ατματζίδης & Αι. Τσαλαμπούνη (επιμ. ελλ. έκδ.), Π. Πουρναράς, 2011, σ. 79.

YHWH: the One who exists for us /ΓιΧΒΧ: Εκείνος που υπάρχει για εμάς

Even in that apparently primitive and anthropomorphic passage in the Book of Exodus where Yahweh promises to "proclaim the Name of the Lord" to Moses, this proclamation of the Name of God by God Himself is connected with the sovereign, freely electing, grace of God: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." God's self-manifestation is the act by which God steps out of the sphere of His own glory and self-sufficiency, in which the One who exists for Himself alone becomes the One who exists for us.



Ακόμη και σε αυτή τη φανερά αρχαϊκή και ανθρωπομορφική περικοπή στο Βιβλίο της Εξόδου όπου ο Γιαχβέ υπόσχεται να “διακηρύξει το Όνομα του Κυρίου” στον Μωυσή, αυτή η διακήρυξη του Ονόματος του Θεού από τον ίδιο τον Θεό συνδέεται με την υπέρτατη, ελεύθερα επιλέγουσα, χάρη του Θεού: «Θα είμαι φιλεύσπλαχνος σε αυτόν που θα είμαι φιλεύσπλαχνος και θα δείξω έλεος σε αυτόν που θα δείξω έλεος». Η αυτοφανέρωση του Θεού είναι η πράξη με την οποία ο Θεός εξέρχεται από τη σφαίρα της δόξας Του και της αυτάρκειάς Του, στην οποία Εκείνος που υπάρχει για τον Εαυτό του και μόνο γίνεται Εκείνος που υπάρχει για εμάς.


* Emil Brunner,
The Christian doctrine of God
Dogmatics Vol_01,
The Westminster Press,
p./σ. 124.

Origenism, Lucianism & Arianism on God /Ο ωριγενισμός, ο λουκιανισμός & ο αρειανισμός περί Θεού

* David Sutherland Wallace-Hadrill,
Christian Antioch A study of early Christian thought in the East
[Η Χριστιανική Αντιόχεια: Μελέτη της πρώιμης χριστιανικής σκέψης στην Ανατολή],
Cambridge University Press, 1982,
pp./σσ. 83-86.

Britannica on the forms of eschatology: Messianism, apocalypticism & millennialism/H Britannica για τις μορφές εσχατολογίας: Μεσσιανισμός, αποκαλυπτικισμός & χιλιετισμός

The forms of eschatology

Historical eschatology appears in one of three distinct forms— messianism, millennialism, or apocalypticism. Messianic hopes are directed toward a single redemptive figure who, it is believed, will lead the people of God, now suffering and oppressed, into a better historical future. Messianism sometimes promotes visions of the vengeance and justice that befall tyrannical political and religious leaders. In these instances, local historical expectations shape the belief in the fulfillment of history before its end. Apocalypticism, on the other hand, promises a sudden, cataclysmic intervention by God on the side of a faithful minority. According to this view, "this world," unable to bear the "justice of God," will be destroyed and replaced by a new world founded on God’s righteousness. Millenarian, or chiliastic, hope is directed toward the 1,000-year earthly kingdom of peace, fellowship, and prosperity over which Christ and his saints will reign following the destruction of the forces of evil and before the final end of history.

Messianism

The term messiah, or mashiah (Hebrew: "anointed"), has been applied to a variety of “redeemers,” and many movements with an eschatological or utopian-revolutionary message have been termed messianic. Although messianic movements have occurred throughout the world, they seem to be especially characteristic of the Jewish and Christian traditions. Therefore, many of the terms used to describe messianic phenomena are derived from the Bible and from Judeo-Christian beliefs—prophetic, millenarian, and chiliastic movements. Moreover, the scientific study of messianic beliefs and movements—originating in the Western theological and academic tradition—initially concerned phenomena that occurred mainly in Christian history or in cultures exposed to Western colonial and missionary influences. Because the Western origins of messianic terms and concepts give discussions of messianism an almost unavoidable Judeo-Christian slant, sociologists and anthropologists prefer more neutral terminology—nativistic, renewal, or revitalization movements and crisis cults. Many of these terms, however, fail to convey the essential features of the phenomena. Thus, recent scholarship has preferred the term millennial (used by Church Fathers and anthropologists alike) to describe movements of collective redemption.

Apocalypticism

Apocalypticism refers to Western eschatological views and movements that focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention by God in history, the judgment of all men, and the rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth. The archetypal apocalyptic work in the Judeo-Christian tradition, The Book of Daniel, is the only apocalyptic book to be admitted to the canon of the Hebrew Bible, just as the Revelation to John is the only apocalypse included in the canon of the New Testament. There are many noncanonical apocalyptic works from both Jewish and Christian authors, including the three Books of Enoch, the Second Book of Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Nonetheless, all the apocalyptic works written during the first efflorescence of millennialism, including the Revelation to John, owe much of their shape and style to Daniel.

Millennialism

Millennialism (from the Latin word for “1,000 years”) is the branch of eschatology concerned with the earthly prospects of the human community, rather than the worldly and eternal prospects of the individual. Millennialism focuses on collective, public salvation and asserts that humanity will endure the great cataclysms of the coming Endtime before fulfilling the age-old dream of dwelling in an earthly paradise. The term is derived from a passage in the Revelation to John (Revelation 20) that describes a vision of Satan bound and thrown into a bottomless pit and of Christian martyrs raised from the dead to reign with Christ for a 1,000-year period, the millennium.

Millennialism has had broad appeal throughout history. The original Jewish and Christian millennial treatises of the Hellenistic Age (c. 300 bc to c. ad 300), particularly the books of Daniel and Revelation, provided the building blocks from which the successive millennial structures were erected (as they had done for apocalypticism). In constant repetition the motifs, leading characters, symbols, and chronologies of these works have arisen in the teaching of some prophet of the end of the world, each time taking on new significance from associations with contemporaneous events. Jesus, according to some scholars, was a millennialist who announced the imminent arrival of the earthly kingdom of God. Millennialism also remains active in a number of modern Protestant groups, including the Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and certain Evangelical and fundamentalist Christian denominations. Anthropologists, historians, and sociologists also have found millennialist currents in non-Western cultures.

* "eschatology." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/192308/eschatology>.

The anti-synodical priest & the the baser phobic instincts of the Greek Orthodoxy /Ο αντισυνοδικός ιεράρχης & τα κατώτερα φοβικά ένστικτα της ελληνορθοδοξίας

* Το Βήμα,
«Ανάθεμα του μητροπολίτη Πειραιώς κατά Πάπα και λοιπών... αιρετικών
Ο κ. Σεραφείμ επιτέθηκε σε όλες τις άλλες θρησκείες,
αλλά και τον διαχριστιανικό διάλογο»,
12 Μαρτίου 2012.

"A time, and times, and half a time", interpreted by Theodoret /«Καιρός, καιροί και μισός καιρός», κατά την ερμηνεία του Θεοδώρητου

καὶ ῥήματα εἰς τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους τοῦ ὑψίστου κατατρίψει καὶ προσδέξεται ἀλλοιῶσαι καιροὺς καὶ νόμον, καὶ παραδοθήσεται πάντα εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ
ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ ἕως ἡμίσους [θ', καὶ ἥμισυ] καιροῦ

 —Δανιήλ / Daniel 7:25

 

«εἰς καιρὸν, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ»
σημαίνει δὲ τρία καὶ ἥμισυ ἔτη.

—Θεοδώρητος ο Κύρου / Theodoret of Cyrus,
Υπόμνημα εις τας Οράσεις του προφήτου Δανιήλ /
Interpretatio in Danielem .

* Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel,
Robert C. Hill (transl.),
Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2006,
pp./σσ. 196, 197, 320, 321.

vatican.va TANGO DOWN

* Herald Sun,
"Anonymous hackers take down Vatican website",
March 08, 2012.

Church and State: The historical experience /Εκκλησία και Κράτος: Η ιστορική εμπειρία

Doug Bandow, 

Beyond good intentions: A Biblical view of Politics

[Πέρα από τις καλές προθέσεις: Η Βιβλική άποψη για την Πολιτική],

Crossway Books, 1988,
pp./σσ. 121-125.

The Gospel of John: The gospel of the Word /Το Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη: Ευαγγέλιο του Λόγου

The Gospel of the Word

To very many people the Fourth Gospel is the high-water mark of the NT. "Chiefest of the Gospels," Luther called it, "unique, tender and true." Very early in the history of the Church the four living creatures of the Revelation (4:7) were used as the symbols of the Gospels. The allocation of them varies, but according to Augustine the man stands for Mark, who gives us the most human picture of Jesus; the lion stands for Matthew, who shows us Jesus as the Messiah, the lion of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, for the ox is the animal of sacrifice, and Luke shows us Jesus as the sacrifice and the Saviour for the sins of the world; and the eagle stands for John, "because John took a higher flight, and soared in his preaching much more sublimely than the other three" (Homilies on John, 36). It is said that only the eagle of all living creatures can look straight into the sun; so John looks more directly into the blaze of divine truth than any other of the Gospel writers. Certain things have to be noted about John.

1. John did not write until almost AD 100. His Gospel is, therefore, the product of long thought and of long living with Jesus and of long experience of the Spirit. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long, and that is an excellent description of John's Gospel. John was more concerned with the meaning of the facts of Jesus' life than with the facts themselves. It is in John that we get the highest teaching of the Spirit. "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16. 12, 13). For John that promise had come true; he saw things that only years in the Spirit could teach; and his Gospel may well be called the Gospel of the Sprit.

2. All tradition has it that John did not write alone. The account of the writing of the Fourth Gospel in the Muratorian Canon, the earliest list of the books of the NT, cannot be factually correct, but it is certainly true in principle: "When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged John (to write)", he said: "Fast together with me for three days, and let us tell to each other what shall be revealed to each one of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, with all of them reviewing it, John should describe all things in his own name. "The picture is that of a group sitting in the Spirit and remembering and saying to each other: "You remember what Jesus said. . . and now we know that this is what he meant." In John we have the product of what happens when two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18.20).

3. John was confronted with a different problem from that of the other Gospel writers. They had been Jews writing in Jewish terms largely for Jews, or for those brought up in the Jewish tradition; but John was in Ephesus and he had to find some way of expressing the truth of the Gospel in a way that a Greek could understand. To call Jesus Son of David or even Messiah would be to a Greek quite unintelligible. John found his new way in the conception of Jesus as the Logos, the Word. This conception has three advantages.

(a) It has a universal background. In any circumstances a word is two things. First, a word is the expression of a thought. We think and then we express the thought in words. So then to call Jesus the Word is to call him the expression of the thought of God. Second, a word is a means of communication. Therefore, to call Jesus the Word is to say that he is the person and the means whereby God communicates with men.

(b) It has a Jewish background. To a Jew a word was not simply a sound in the air. A word was a thing which did things; it was an effective unit of energy. A word did not only say things; it did things. If that is true of a human word, how much more it must be true of the divine word. The word of God does not return void and ineffective; it does what God designed it to do (Isaiah 55:11) The word of God is like a hammer that breaks the rocks in pieces (Jeremiah 23.29). By the word of God the heavens were made (Psalm 33:6-9). Every act of creation begins, "And God said . . ." (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). So then to say that Jesus is the word of God is to say that he is the dynamic, creative power of God in action.

Here we have to insert into the pattern another basic fact. Logos does not only mean word; it also means reason. There is in fact no English term which covers both these meanings, and that is why Moffatt in his translation does not attempt to translate it, but simply says: "The Logos became flesh." Now in Judaism another idea became increasingly common, the place of Wisdom, Sophia, in the work and design of God. In Proverbs 8:22-31 Wisdom is there from the beginning, and before the beginning, the master workman who was God's agent in the creation of the world. This is still further developed in the inter-testamental Wisdom literature. Wisdom was present at creation and was the instrument of God's creating work (Wisdom 9:1, 2, 9). Wisdom is nothing else than the breath of the power of God, and the clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty (Wisdom 7:25). Here again we have the idea of Reason, Wisdom, Logos, Sophia as the creative power and energy of God, existing before the world began.

(c) It has a Greek background. In Greek thought the Logos had a very special function. The Greek thinkers were impressed by the diversity of the universe, and by the principle of change and alteration which obviously operates within it. But they were also deeply impressed by the dependability of the universe, by the fact that this is a reliable universe with a pattern and a plan in it, in which all things follow in their appointed order and in which a cause always produces the same effect. So they asked, what keeps the stars in their courses, what makes the sun rise and set, what brings back the seasons in their appointed order, what is it that puts mind into man? Their answer was that this is the work of the Logos, the mind of God operating in the world. So then to call Jesus the Logos is to say that he is the mind of God, become a flesh and blood human creature. It is as if John said: "For centuries you have been speaking and thinking about the Logos, the mind of God, and you have been tracing the Logos in the structure of the universe. If you want to see the mind of God full displayed, look at Jesus."

(d) One final piece has to be fitted into the pattern. Almost at the same time as Jesus and Paul there lived in Alexandria a great Jewish thinker called Philo; he knew Jewish thought and he knew Greek thought as no one else has ever known both. He was the bridge between them. In his voluminous works there are no fewer than six hundred references to the Logos, and basically they all have the same essential thought. God is high and lifted up, utterly transcendent. He cannot himself communicate directly with sinful man. His means of communication, his liaison with the world is the Logos. "The Father, who has begotten all things, granted as his choicest privilege to the chief messenger and most august Logos that he should stand in the midst between the created and the Creator." So to say that Jesus is the Logos is to say that he is God's supreme means of communication with men.

So then all these lines converge on the one thought that the Logos, with its double meaning of word and reason, is the expression of the mind of God, and the power of God in action. In Jesus we see in human action the mind of God.

Let us now turn to the Prologue, the first 18 verses of the Fourth Gospel to see what John has to say about Jesus as the Logos. We find that he has five things to say.

1. He tells us what Jesus personally was. He begins with a brief statement which provides the translator with a problem not far from insoluble in the English language. "The Word", say both the AV and the RSV, "was God" (John 1:1). Moffatt is one of the few modern translators who dare to depart from that rendering. "The Logos", he translates, "was divine." In a matter like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: "James is the man", then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but, if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God". The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was."

John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God. What he does say is that no human description of Jesus can be adequate, and that Jesus, however you are going to define it, must be described in terms of God. "I know men," said Napoleon, "and Jesus Christ is more than a man."

But no sooner has John presented us with a problem in translation than he presents us with a problem in theology. "In the beginning", he says, "was the Word." "He was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1, 2). Here we come upon the doctrine which is known as the doctrine of the preexistence of the Word, or the pre-existence of the Son. There is no more difficult doctrine to understand in all theological thinking. It quite clearly cannot mean that this flesh and blood man Jesus existed before the creation of the world. What then does it mean?

We do not say that in what follows there is anything like a full account of the meaning of the pre-existence of the Son or of the Word, but, whatever else that doctrine may or may not mean, it does mean this. Let us remind ourselves what John basically means when he called Jesus the Word; he meant that in Jesus we see perfectly displayed in human form the mind of God. To put it at its very simplest, he meant that God is like Jesus. This means that, when we see Jesus feeding the hungry and healing the sick and being the friend of outcasts and sinners, when we see Jesus dying on the Cross, we can say: "God is like that." Now, if we go on to speak of the pre-existence of the Logos, one thing at least that we must mean is that God was always like that. The mind of God, the attitude of God towards men, was always from all eternity to all eternity that which we see in Jesus.

To grasp this is of the most crucial importance. There are certain ways of speaking about Jesus which imply, or even come near to stating, that Jesus did something to change the attitude of God to men, that somehow Jesus changed God's wrath into love, that somehow Jesus persuaded God to hold his hand and to pacify his anger to withhold his judgment of condemnation, that, to put it very crudely, Jesus by his sufferings and his death bought off God. It is perfectly possible to speak in such a way as to leave an impression of an opposition and a contrast between Jesus and God. Jesus is presented as forgiving love; God is presented as awful holiness; and Jesus is depicted as winning forgiveness for men from God.

But, if we insist that the Logos was in the beginning and before the beginning, it means very simply that God was always like Jesus and always will be, and that Jesus did not come to change the attitude of God to men, but to show quite unmistakably what that attitude is and always was.

2. John goes on to tell us what Jesus did. "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3). The Word, the Son, Jesus is thus connected with the creation of the world, which for a modern mind has always been a difficult idea, and yet an idea integral to NT thought. "By him", says Paul, "all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Colossians 1:16). The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the Son by whom God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2). Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things (I Corinthians 8:6).

The connection of the Word, the Son, with creation was an idea which arose to combat a certain heresy which we shall meet again as we study other NT books. In the Graeco- Roman world there was a type of thought which goes by the general name of Gnosticism. Gnosticism sought to explain the evil in the world by means of a thorough-going dualism. It said that from all eternity there has been in the world two realities, Spirit, which is God, and matter. Spirit and matter are co-eternal. Matter is the stuff, the raw material, out of which the world is made, and from the beginning matter is essentially flawed and imperfect. This is to say that the world is made out of bad stuff. Since matter is bad the God who is pure spirit cannot touch it. He therefore put out a series of aeons or emanations, each one a little more distant from himself, stretching like a kind of ladder between himself and matter. The further the series descended, the further the emanation was from God, the more ignorant of God it was. As the series still further descended, to ignorance there was added hostility; and so at the end of the series there is an aeon, the Demiurge, the World-fashioner, who is utterly ignorant of, and totally hostile to, the true God who is spirit, and by that power the world was created. Creation is essentially evil because it was carried out by an ignorant, hostile, inferior deity working with flawed and imperfect material. Given the premises, it is a perfectly logical explanation of the presence of evil in the world.

The Christian answer is No; creation is not the work of a hostile, bungling, ignorant power; it is the work of the Logos, the Word, the Son. Now let us see what this practically means.

Let us again remind ourselves who the Logos is–the Logos is the perfect expression of the mind of God. In the kindness and the graciousness and the love of Jesus we see God in action. If then the Logos is the agent of creation it means that the principle which is in the created world is the same principle as is in Jesus Christ. It means that the God of creation and the God of redemption are one and the same; it means that the love which is in redemption is in creation also.

There are times when only the clinging to that principle prevents the complete collapse of faith. There are times when life seems our enemy. Pain may agonize the body and sorrow may bring anguish to the mind; wave upon wave of disaster may engulf life. But, if we believe that the principle of creation and the principle of redemption are the same, then we can be absolutely sure that life is out to make us and not to break us, that "it means intensely and means good", and we too can say: "God, thou art love, I build my faith on that." The idea of the Christ of creation is not merely a cosmological speculation: it is also many a time the stay and the refuge of the broken heart.

3. Jesus goes on to tell us what Jesus became. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). To John's readers this must have seemed the most startling statement in the whole Gospel. Augustine, who was a very great classical scholar, said in his Confessions (6:9) that he had found in the great classical thinkers some kind of parallel for everything in the Gospels except this one statement, "The Word became flesh."

For a Gnostic the body is clearly essentially evil, for the body is matter. But apart from Gnosticism there was in Graeco-Roman thought a profound belief that the one thing to be desired was to be rid of the body. Soma sema ran the Orphic jingle, "The body is a tomb". The body, said Philolaus, is a house of detention in which the soul is imprisoned to expiate its sin. Philosophy, said Plato, is the study of dying; to have a body is to be contaminated with evil; the body is a prison-house and death the only release (Phaeda 64-67). Epictetus described himself as a poor soul shackled to a corpse (Fragment 23). Seneca spoke of the detestable habitation of the body (Letters 92:110). That God could in any sense take upon himself a body was to the Greek incredible. We shall later, when we are studying John's letters, see how this conception drifted into the Church and threatened disastrous consequences to the Christian faith. At the moment it is enough to say this, no Christian can ever despise the body, for God himself took this human flesh upon him.

4. John goes on to say what Jesus gives. As John sees it, Jesus gives three things.

(a) Jesus gives life. This is the statement which is the beginning the middle and the end of the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel begins: "In him was life" (1:4). In the middle Jesus claims that he came to give life and life more abundant (10:10). The Gospel ends with the statement that it was written to enable men to believe in Jesus Christ and to have life through his name (20:31).

This life is eternal life. The word for eternal is aionios, which means far more than life which lasts indefinitely, for quite clearly mere prolongation of life might be the supreme punishment and curse. Aionios in Greek is a word of mystery; there is only one person to whom it may properly be applied and that one person is God. Eternal life is nothing other than the life of God. The gift of Jesus Christ here and now is a foretaste of the life divine.

(b) Jesus gives light. He is the true light (1:9). The word for true is here alethinos, which means real or genuine, as opposed to that which is substitute and counterfeit. Jesus is the real light. Other lights flicker and die, mislead and seduce; he alone is the light which is real and which leads to reality.

(c) Jesus gives the new birth (1:12, 13). The change he works is so radical that it cannot be called anything less than a new birth. In him life begins again, and in him the coward becomes the hero, the sinner becomes the saint, and the man of the world becomes the man of God.

5. Lastly, John tells us what Jesus suffered. He came to his own world and the world did not know him; he came to his own home and his people refused to receive him (1:10, 11). Here is the tragedy of the glory offered, and the glory refused.

To John the supreme fact about Jesus is that Jesus is the perfect expression of the mind of God. We can be quite certain that God cares and God shares. Of whom, then, shall we be afraid?

* William Barclay, *

Many Witnesses, One Lord,

Westminster John Knox Press, 2001/¹1963,

pp./σσ. 12-21 (Chapter 3: John).

“ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ ΥΨΩ”:A Christian inscription? /Χριστιανική επιγραφή;

ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ [ΙΑΩ?] ΥΨΩ

“I divine Jehovah raise up”,
“O Divine/God Jehovah, raise up”
or “I exalt [you] O divine Jehovah”

“Εγώ, ο θεϊκός Ιεχωβά, εξ-/υψώνω/εγείρω”,
“Ω Θεϊκέ/Θεέ Ιεχωβά, εξ-/ύψωσε/έγειρε”,
ή “Σε εξυψώνω, ω θεϊκέ Ιεχωβά”

* Real.gr,
«Αντιδράσεις από αρχαιολογική ανακάλυψη στην Ιερουσαλήμ»,
29 Φεβρουαρίου 2012.

* Daily Mail,
"'Divine Jehovah, raise up': Does discovery of coffin lid prove the resting place of Jesus is under Jerusalem tower block?",
28th February 2012.

* PhysOrg.com,
"Tomb exploration reveals first archaeological evidence of Christianity from the time of Jesus",
February 28, 2012.

5. Ossuary 5:3=Kloner 5:2. This ossuary is has a highly ornamented front façade with twin rosettes and an elaborate frieze border. In the narrow curved blank space between the rosettes there is a four line Greek inscription written in uncial letters (Fig. 19). The final two letters of line 4 are uncertain, both in their formation and due to the limitations of remote autopsy by camera. The following variations appear possible:

ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΓΒ
ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΓΙΩ
ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΠΟ
ΔΙΟΣΙΑΙΟΥΨΩΑΠΒ

We are convinced that each line of the inscription is a separate and discrete word, yielding the following word divisions. I include here the variables of line 4:

 

1. ΔΙΟΣ
2. ΙΑΙΟ
3. ΥΨΩ
4. ΑΓΒ ΑΓΙΩ ΑΠΟ or ΑΠΒ

All the letters of lines 1, 2, and 3 are quite clear although we did consider the possibility that l.1 might be a zeta rather than an iota but ΖΑΙΟ seems to make no sense either in isolation as part of another combination of words from lines 1-3. There is an obscure word in Pliny’s Natural History—ΖΑΙΟΣ, that refers to some kind of fish—apparently of the sea urchin variety, which interested us greatly considering the iconography on ossuary 6, described below. However, there is no sigma in l. 2 or beginning of l.3. Taking these words one by one, based on our line-by-line breakdown, we have the following:

ΔΙΟΣ is an adjective (masc. nom/voc. sing.) likely modifying what we take to be the proper noun in line 2. It can be variously translated as “heavenly,” “divine” “wondrous”–but here in this context it seems to clearly refer to God.

ΙΑΙΟ we take as a Greek representation or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton: י ה ו ה ‎ (Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh)—that is Yahweh. It is unusual in that it has four letters rather than the common three-letter form ΙΑΩ. Josephus says the divine name is represented by four “vowels.” It is possible that this writer intended it as a precise transliteration—since the Hebrew name of God also has four letters.

Accordingly, the inscription, though written in Greek letters, is purposely bilingual first a Greek representation of God—the “Divine one,” followed by a Hebrew presentation—Yahweh—but represented in Greek letters.

ΥΨΩ is the present indic. act. 1st person singular of the contract verb ΥΨΟΩ, to “raise,” “lift up” or “exalt.” As literally written it could then be translated “I divine Jehovah raise up” or “I exalt [you] O divine Jehovah” (taking ΔΙΟΣ as a vocative). This verb is most interesting in the context of early Christianity and late 2nd Temple Judaism. Paul uses the intensified verb ὑπερυψόω in Philippians 2:9, speaking of Jesus’ exaltation or “super-lifting up” to heaven. He then applies a text from Isaiah 45:23 about “every knee bowing” to Yahweh, equating it to Jesus in his new heavenly status. Most scholars agree that Paul here is drawing upon a very early Christological hymn. John 12:32 uses the verb ὑψόω to refer to both Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and his exaltation or “lifting up” to heaven: “And I, when I am lifted up out of the earth (ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς), will draw all people to myself.” The thought here is identical to that of Paul in the Philippians hymn, as an echo of Isaiah 45:23. Jesus is taken up from the earth to heaven and in his new status draws all of humankind in homage as Yahweh’s representative and one who bears Yahweh’s name. John repeats this theme often using the same verb, referring to both Jesus being lifted up on the cross—and thus exalted to heaven (Jn. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). Acts 5:31 echoes a very similar thought, using again the verb ὑψόω: God lifted up this one at his right hand ( ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” This “lifting up” of Jesus “embraces resurrection, reception, ascent, enthronement, and royal dominion.” In the New Testament there are many passages in which Jesus knows, bears, and reveals God by his “Name” Yahweh—that is the four-letter Tetragrammaton. Accordingly, depending on the wider context of this tomb, if it does indeed relate to early Jesus followers, they might be appropriating the divine name Yahweh in referring to Jesus, as Paul does numerous times in his authentic letters.

In the LXX the verb is also used for one being “lifting up” from the gates of death: Psalm 9:14 (13 English) ὁ ὑψῶν με ἐκ τῶν πυλῶν τοῦ θανάτου. This should be compared to Psalm 29:2 (Psa 30:2 Hebrew/ 30:1 English) Ὑψώσω σε, κύριε, ὅτι ὑπέλαβές με. The writer, in context, is celebrating deliverance from Sheol: “O Yahweh, you have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.” These kinds of strong parallels with some of our earliest Christian materials about the exaltation of Jesus, involving heavenly ascent and enthronement at the right hand of God, provide a very convincing background to the use of the verb ὑψόω among Jesus’ earliest followers.

We are inclined to argue that in this inscription, even though the three-letter verb ΥΨΩ can be read as a 1st person singular present indicative active, when crammed into this small space, it is most likely suspended or abbreviated. When first working on the inscription we considered that it might be a shortened form of the dative superlative ΥΨΙΣΤΩ, which is so commonly found in dedicatory inscriptions “to the most High God.” However, the ending in omega strongly argues against this possibility. Even though one finds suspended forms of ΥΨΙΣΤΩ they never drop the third letter iota and substitute it for an omega. Also ΔΙΟΣ is clearly either nominative or vocative, not dative, as would be required in such a case.

We propose that what we have here is ΥΨΩ[ΣΕΝ] (aorist indic. Act. 3ms “he has raised up”), ΥΨΩ[ΣΕΙ] (future indic. Act. 3ms “he will raise up”) or more likely, as I will explain below, ΥΨΩ[ΣΟΝ] (aorist Imperative, 2ps “Raise up!”). Given the cramped space the omega ending would be enough to carry the meaning in this context. If so this inscription would be a plea to “God/Yahweh,”called upon in bilingual fashion, to raise someone up: “O Divine/God Jehovah, raise up!—or alternatively a call to Jesus as Yahweh’s representative.

Much depends on the transcription of the last line with its three letters since the final two are difficult to read. If we take the final line as ΑΠΟ, that is, the preposition “from,” it is possible that it might be an abbreviated plea for resurrection “from [the dead].” If we read it as ΑΠΒ it makes no sense as a word but it could perhaps be either initials or some kind of apotropaic cipher.

In looking at both the photos and the previous three words we are inclined to argue that we have here either ΑΓΙΩ or more likely ΑΓΒ. If line 4 reads ΑΓΙΩ (taking the last letter as a ligature) in the dative case, it could mean “to the holy,” perhaps referring to God/Yahweh to raising up to the “holy place” or the “holy one” (i.e., throne of God)—or being raised up to the holy place. This notion of ascent to heaven or heavenly exaltation we know from many Jewish and early Christian texts of this period. For example, Clement of Rome writes of Paul who “thus departed from the world and went to the holy place” (1 Clement 5:7).

If it reads ΑΓΒ, which seems quite likely, there are several possibilities. It might be a Greek representation of the rare Hebrew name Hagab (Ezra 2:46; Neh 7:48), which in Greek appears as Agabas (Ἅγαβος). We do in fact know of an early Christian prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:28 and 21:10 by this name. In which case the inscription would read either “I Hagab exalt [you] O Divine Jehovah,” or “I Divine Jehovah raise up Hagab.” Although this reading is possible we do not find it compelling in this context. In the first reading it seems more natural to take ΔΙΟΣ ΙΑΙΟ as asimple nominative—as the subject of the declaration—and thus there is no need to supply the personal pronoun object “you.” But beyond the grammar we have no examples on ossuaries of personal statements of praise to God, or alternatively 1st person utterances by God. This inscription isunprecedented and it likely is intended to affirm much more than the utterance of an unknown Hagabor God’s utterance about him. It is true that names are the most common phenomenon on ossuaries, as “tags” representing the name of the deceased, but this intriguing inscription seems to represent something quite beyond recording the name of the deceased. In this case context is everything and we have to remember we are talking about an inscription in a tomb written by a Jewish family bold enough to write the letters of the name of God in a tomb while declaring a message about “lifting up” or resurrection.

Another possibility is that ΑΓΒ might be read backwards as an Aramaic word written in Greek (bagah) a phenomenon we find on other inscriptions, and thus would be referring to God Yahweh raising up “from it [the tomb].”

We are inclined to take ΑΓΒ as a transliteration of the Hebrew Hiphil imperative hagbah (hbgh) from the verb hbg, to “lift up.” In which case we would have a double imperative—Raise up! Raise up!—once in Greek (line 3), repeated in Hebrew with Greek letters (line 4). This seems to parallel lines 1 and 2 in that we also there have first Greek, for God, followed by the Hebrew Yahweh represented in Greek letters. If such is the case we would have a cleverly balanced bilingual inscription with a plea for God/Jehovah to raise someone up, or alternatively, depending on how the Greek verb ΥΨΩ is understood, a declaration or celebration of God having so acted. There is a remarkable parallel to this idea in Ezekiel 21:31 [v. 26 English]: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Remove the mitre, and take off the crown; this shall be no more the same; exalt that which is low, and abase that which is high.” Here the Hebrew phrase is הַשְׁפִּֽיל וְהַגָּבֹ֖הַ הַגְבֵּ֔הַ הַשָּׁפָ֣לָה , using the verb hbg and the LXX parallels this with forms of ὑψόω—thus “ἐταπείνωσας τὸ ὑψηλὸν καὶ τὸ ταπεινὸν ὕψωσας.” The context of this passage in Ezekiel is quite remarkable as it has to due with abasing one branch of the messianic Davidic lineage and exalting another. There is also a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls from cave 4 that uses the same verb for heavenly exaltation, most likely of the leader of the community: “to [the eternal height and to the cl]ouds of the heavens and He shall exalt him in stature. With the heavenly beings in the congregation of [the Yahad] 4) לרום עולם ועד ש]ח֯קים יגביה בקומה. ועם אלים בעדת Q431 f2:8 ).

I will discuss the further implications of this preferred reading of the inscription in my concluding analysis below but prior to that I want to describe what we discovered inscribed on the next ossuary. We believe it provides further context to the tomb as a whole, and thus how the inscriptionmight best be read.

* James D. Tabor,
"A Preliminary Report of a Robotic Camera Exploration of a Sealed 1st Century Tomb in East Talpiot, Jerusalem",
[«Προκαταρκτική Έκθεση της Εξερεύνησης μέσω Ρομποτικής Κάμερας ενός Σφραγισμένου Τάφου του 1ου Αιώνα στο Ανατολικό Ταλπιότ της Ιερουσαλήμ»]
pp./σσ. 14-20.
at The Bible and Interpretation, February 2012.
[English/Aγγλικά, PDF]

Servetus writes on John 20:28 (Latin & English text) / Ο Σερβέτος γράφει περί του Ιωάννης 20:28(λατινικό & ελληνικό κείμενο)

 

* Michael Servetus, De Trinitatis erroribus [On the Errors of the Trinity] /

Μιχαήλ Σερβέτος, Περί των Πλανών της Τριάδας

(1531)  p./σ. 603.

* Michael Servetus,
Earl Morse Wilbur (Engl. transl.),
The two treatises of Servetus on the Trinity: On the errors of the Trinity; seven books A.D. MDXXXI; Dialogues on the Trinity; two books; On the righteousness of Christ's kingdom: four chapters A.D. MDXXXII.
(Harvard theological studies, xvi)
Harvard University Press, 1932 /
New York: Kraus Reprint, 1969,
p./σ. 151.

"ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας" (James / Ιακ. 3:6): Siamakes' comments on it /Σχολιασμός υπό Σιαμάκη

Ο ΚΟΣΜΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΔΙΚΙΑΣ

ΚΙ Ο ΚΟΣΜΑΚΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΟΗΣΙΑΣ

       Ὁ ἀπόστολος Ἰάκωβος στὴν πέμπτη ἀπὸ τὶς δώδεκα διδαχὲς τῆς Ἐπιστολῆς του, γράφοντας γιὰ τὴ γλῶσσα ἑφτὰ παραβολές, λέει στὴν τρίτη ἀπ̉ αὐτές (Ἰα 3, 6)˙ Ἰδοὺ ὀλίγον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει! καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. οἱ μεταφρασταὶ τῆς Κ. Διαθήκης καταλαβαίνουν τὴν ἐδῶ λέξι κόσμος μὲ τὴ σημασία της ΄΄λαός΄΄, ΄΄ἀνθρωπότης΄΄, ΄΄ὄχλος΄΄, ΄΄ντουνιᾶς΄΄, ΄΄κόσμος΄΄, καὶ ΄΄κοσμάκης΄΄. παραθέτω τὶς μεταφράσεις των.

Ἰα 3, 6˙ Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας.

Vulgata - Ἱερώνυμος	universitas iniquitatis
Γερμανικὴ - Λούθηρος	eine Welt voll Ungerechtigkeit
Γαλλική	le monde du mal
Ἱσπανική	un mundo de maldad
Ἰταλική	il mondo dell ̉ iniquità
Ἀγγλική (1611)	a world of iniquity
(1946)	an unrighteous world
Μάξιμος	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Βάμβας	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Τρεμπέλας	εἶναι ὁ κόσμος ὁλόκληρος καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τῆς ἀδικίας
Δημητρόπουλος	ὁ κόσμος, ἤτοι τὸ ὄργανο τῆς ἀδικίας
Κολιτσάρας	κόσμος ὁλόκληρος ἀδικίας καὶ πάσης κακίας
Βέλλας καὶ Σια¹ [ΚΔΤΚ]	κόσμος κακίας
Ψαρουδάκης	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Ἀγουρίδης καὶ Σια² [ΝΔΜ]	εἶναι ἕνας ὁλόκληρος κόσμος ἀδικίας
ΕΚΠΑ  [ΛΖ]	κόσμος ὁλόκληρος γιὰ τὸ κακό
Καραλῆς	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Χιλιασταί [ΜΝΚ]	κόσμος ἀδικίας (woldiniquity)
Ἰωαννίδης	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Φίλος	ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
Σωτηρόπουλος	α’. ἡ μεγάλη καταστροφή β’. ἢ ἡ μεγάλη συμφορά γ’. ἢ ὁλόκληρος κόσμος καταστροφῆς
Καζανάκης	εἶναι ὁλόκληρος κόσμος γεμάτος ἀδικία.

__________________

1. Β. Βέλλας, Εὐ. Ἀντωνιάδης, Ἁ. Ἀλιβιζάτος, Γερ. Κονιδάρης.

2. Σ. Ἀγουρίδης, Γ. Γαλίτης, Ἰω. Καραβιδόπουλος, Ἰω. Γαλάνης, Β. Στογιάννος, Π. Βασιλειάδης, Β. Φόρης, Κ. Χιωτέλη.

       Ὁ Λατῖνος μοναχὸς Ἱερώνυμος, ὁ ὁποῖος ἀπὸ τοὺς παπικοὺς θεωρεῖται ὡς ὁ ἕνας ἀπὸ τοὺς τέσσερες πιὸ σοφοὺς πνευματικοὺς καὶ ἁγίους πατέρες τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς ἐκκλησίας, τοὺς λεγομένους ΄΄διδασκάλους τῶν διδασκάλων΄΄ (doctoresdoctorum) καὶ μᾶλλον κι ἀπὸ τοὺς τέσσερες ὁ πρῶτος, μισοῦσε τὴ μετάφρασι τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ τὴ λατινική της μετάφρασι ΄΄ἰταλικὴ΄΄ (itala) τόσο πολύ, πού, ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὅτι τὴν πολέμησε, ἔβαλε καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸ τῆς Χριστιανικῆς πίστεως Ἰουδαῖο ῥαββῖνο Βαρανίνα (Baranina), καὶ τοῦ ἔκανε μιὰ μετάφρασι τοῦ φθαρμένου ἤδη κατὰ τὸν Δ’ αἰῶνα ἑβραϊκοῦ - πρωτομασοριτικοῦ κειμένου τῆς Παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης σὲ κακὰ λατινικά, τὴν ὁποία ὁ ἴδιος ὁ Ἱερώνυμος γλωσσικῶς μόνο διαμόρφωσε σὲ κομψὰ λατινικά. καὶ φιλοδοξοῦσε νὰ ἐξαφανίσῃ τὴ μετάφρασι τῶν Ο’ καὶ νὰ ἐπιβάλῃ καὶ στοὺς ἑλληνογλώσσους Χριστιανοὺς μιὰ ἄλλη ἑλληνικὴ μετάφρασι τῆς Π. Διαθήκης καμωμένη ἀπὸ τὴ ΄΄δική του΄΄ λατινικὴ μετάφρασι τὴ λεγομένη σήμερα βουλγάτα (vulgata, δημοτική). ἔβαλε δὲ νὰ κάνῃ τὴν ἐκ βουλγάτας ἑλληνικὴ μετάφρασι κάποιος νεαρὸς φίλος του λεγόμενος Σωφρόνιος, γιὰ τὸν ὁποῖο λέει μὲ θαυμασμὸ καὶ λατρεία ὅτι εἶναι ἄνθρωπος ΄΄τῆς πιὸ ὑψηλῆς μορφώσεως, ποὺ ἀπὸ παιδὶ ἀκόμη συνέταξε Ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὴν Βηθλεέμ, καὶ τώρα τελευταία ἕνα περίφημο βιβλίο Περὶ ἀνατροπῆς τοῦ Σαράπιος˙ μέτεφρασε δὲ σὲ κομψὴ ἑλληνικὴ μικρὰ ἔργα μου…΄΄ (Vir. ill., 134). ὁ ἴδιος ὁ Ἱερώνυμος τροποποίησε σὲ κομψότερα λατινικὰ καὶ τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης τὴν παλιότερη λατινικὴ μετάφρασι itala, τὴν ὁποία κι ἐκτόπισε κι ἐξαφάνισε μὲ τὴ vulgata του. ἤθελε ὁπωσδήποτε ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης νὰ διαβάζῃ τὴ Βίβλο μόνο ἀπὸ τὸ χέρι του κι ἀπὸ τὸ φίλτρο τῆς κομψότητός του τῆς νοημοσύνης του καὶ τῆς ἀντιλήψεώς του˙ ἀκόμη καὶ οἱ ὁμιλοῦντες ὡς μητρικὴ γλῶσσα τους τὴν ἑλληνικὴ τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ πρωτοτύπου τῆς Κ. Διαθήκης. φιλοδοξία κι αὐτή! τὴν Κ. Διαθήκη ὁ Ἱερώνυμος μετέφρασε λαθεμένα σὲ πάρα πολλὰ σημεῖα της, ἐπειδὴ δὲν ἤξερε καλὰ ἑλληνικά, τόσο καλὰ ὅσο τὰ ἑλληνικὰ τῶν ἀνωνύμων μεταφραστῶν τῆς itala, ὅπως τὸ ἀπέδειξα αὐτὸ στὴ διδακτορικὴ διατριβή μου ΄΄Ἱερωνύμου De viris illustribus΄΄, στὴν ὁποία ἐπισυνάπτω καὶ μιὰ ἀπὸ χειρογράφων κριτική μου ἔκδοσι αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργου του καὶ νεοελληνική μου μετάφρασι. κι ἐδῶ εἰδικὰ στὸ Ἰα 3, 6 μετέφρασε λαθεμένα τὸ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας ὡς universitasiniquitatis, καὶ ὅπως σ̉ ὅλες τὶς ἄλλες περιπτώσεις τῶν μεταφραστικῶν σφαλμάτων του, πῆρε κι ἐδῶ στὸ λαιμό του ὅλο τὸν παπικὸ κόσμο καὶ μέσῳ αὐτοῦ κι ὅλο τὸν προτεσταντικὸ κι ἀγγλικανικὸ καί γε τὸν ΄΄ὀρθόδοξο΄΄. διότι φυσικὰ οἱ Ἕλληνες μεταφρασταί, καθηγηταὶ τῶν πανεπιστημίων καὶ ἄλλοι θεολόγοι, τὸ λάθος αὐτὸ τοῦ Ἱερωνύμου παίρνουν ἀπὸ τοὺς Εὐρωπαίους κι Ἀμερικανοὺς προτεστάντες δασκάλους των ὅπως καὶ πολλὰ ἄλλα.

       Ἡ μετάφρασι τοῦ χωρίου εἶναι ἁπλούστατη. κόσμος ἀπὸ τὸν Ὅμηρο μέχρι τὴν ἅλωσι τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ἐπὶ 25 αἰῶνες, λέγεται στὴν ἑλληνικὴ γλῶσσα ἡ εὐταξία (Ὅμηρος, Κ 472˙ Μ 85˙ γ 138) καὶ τὸ κόσμημα ἢ καὶ τὸ σύνολο τῶν κοσμημάτων (Ὅμηρος, Δ 145˙ Ξ 187˙ Βίβλος, Γε 2, 1˙ Ἰε 2, 12)˙ στὴν Π. Διαθήκη 30 φορὲς καὶ μόνο αὐτὴ ἡ σημασία, κόσμημα. ὁ μαθηματικὸς καὶ ἀστρονόμος Πυθαγόρας τὸν F’ π.Χ. αἰῶνα εἶπε πρῶτος κόσμον τὸν πανόμορφο ἔναστρο οὐρανό, δηλαδὴ τὸ σύμπαν (Διογένης Λαέρτιος 8, 48. Βίβλος, Δε 4, 19). καὶ στὴν Κ. Διαθήκη πρῶτα λέγεται κόσμος ἡ ὑφήλιος (Μθ 4, 8˙ Λκ 12, 30) κι ἔπειτα ὁ κοσμάκης, ἡ ἀνθρωπότης, ὁ λαός, ὁ ὄχλος (Μθ 13, 38˙ 18, 7˙ Ἰω 1, 10˙ Ῥω 3, 6). καὶ οἱ πέντε σημασίες, ὁμηρικὲς πυθαγόρειες βιβλικές, συνεχίζουν νὰ ὑπάρχουν μέχρι σήμερα (οἱ δυὸ ὁμηρικὲς μόνο στὴν καθαρεύουσα). ὑπάρχουν ὅμως τοῦ κόσμος - κόσμημα καὶ σήμερα στὴ δημοτικὴ παράγωγα ἐνεργά, ὅπως τὰ κοσμῶ κόσμημα διακοσμῶ διάκοσμος διακόσμησι διακοσμητὴς κλπ., ὥστε τὸ κόσμος ὡς κόσμημα νὰ μὴν εἶναι κι ἄγνωστο, καὶ μάλιστα στοὺς βιβλικούς, ὅταν στὴν Π. Διαθήκη, ὅπως εἶπα, αὐτὴ εἶναι ἡ μόνη σημασία ποὺ ἔχει ἡ λέξι, ἐπαναλαμβανόμενη 30 φορές, ὑπάρχουν δὲ καὶ πλεῖστοι ἀκόμη ἄνθρωποι ποὺ καταλαβαίνουν τὴν καθαρεύουσα 100%, οἱ δὲ προεκτεθειμένοι μεταφρασταὶ κι ἑρμηνευταί, ὅσοι ζοῦν, τὴν καταλαβαίνουν ἁπαξάπαντες, ἀφοῦ ὅλοι τους τὶς πρῶτες ἐργασίες των τὶς ἔχουν γράψει σὲ καθαρεύουσα. ἐδῶ λοιπὸν στὸ χωρίο αὐτὸ τοῦ Ἰακώβου ἡ λέξι κόσμος λέγεται μὲ τὴ σημασία κόσμημα. ἡ φράσι τοῦ ἀποστόλου σημαίνει˙ ΄΄Ἡ γλῶσσα εἶναι φωτιά (φλόγα, φλόγινη γλῶσσα), τὸ κόσμημα τῆς ἀδικίας΄΄˙ ὅπως λέμε ἀλλιῶς ΄΄τὸ κερασάκι τῆς τούρτας΄΄, ἂν ὡς τούρτα ἐννοήσουμε τὴν ἀδικία, ΄΄τὸ ἀποκορύφωμα τῆς ἀδικίας΄΄. θέλει νὰ πῇ ὁ ἀπόστολος ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀδικοπραγεῖ μὲν καὶ μὲ τὰ χέρια του καὶ μὲ τὸ βλέμμα του καὶ μὲ ἄλλα μέλη του, ἀλλὰ κυρίως ἀδικοπραγεῖ μὲ τὴ γλῶσσα του, μὲ τὸ λόγο του, ψευδόμενος καὶ λοιδορώντας καὶ βλασφημώντας καὶ συκοφαντώντας. ἡ γλῶσσα κόκκαλα δὲν ἔχει (ὅπως ἡ γροθιὰ καὶ τὸ πόδι ποὺ λακτίζει), καὶ κόκκαλα τσακίζει. δὲν χρειάζεται καμμιὰ ἀπολύτως ἀρχαιομάθεια καὶ λοιπὴ ἐπιστημονικὴ κατάρτισι, γιὰ νὰ καταλάβῃ κανεὶς αὐτὸ τὸ χωρίο˙ χρειάζεται μόνο κοινὴ λογική, μέσος βαθμὸς ἀντιλήψεως.

       Πολλὲς φορὲς κάθισα καὶ συλλογίστηκα γιατί οἱ μεταφρασταὶ τῆς Βίβλου, ὅλοι μαζὶ χωρὶς ἐξαίρεσι, ἐκτὸς ἀπὸ τὰ λάθη τους τὰ ὀφειλόμενα σὲ ἐλλιπῆ γνῶσι τῆς γλώσσης τοῦ κειμένου ποὺ μεταφράζουν καὶ γενικῶς σὲ ἔλλειψι ἐπιστημονικῆς καταρτίσεως, γιατί δὲν μποροῦν νὰ καταλάβουν καὶ χωρία πολὺ ἁπλᾶ, ποὺ ἡ κατανόησί τους καὶ ἡ σωστὴ μετάφρασί τους δὲν χρειάζεται καμμιὰ ἀρχαιομάθεια καὶ καμμιὰ ἐπιστημονικὴ κατάρτισι, ἀλλὰ μόνο ἁπλῆ σκέψι ἀκόμη καὶ ἀγραμμάτου ἀνθρώπου; ἀσφαλῶς τὰ περισσότερα βιβλικὰ χωρία, ποὺ δὲν καταλαβαίνουν, εἶναι δύσκολα, μερικὰ τσακίζουν κόκκαλα, καὶ ἡ κατανόησί τους χρειάζεται ἄριστη ἐπιστημονικὴ κατάρτισι, ἀπόλυτη γνῶσι τῆς ἀρχαίας ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης, στὴν ὁποία εἶναι γραμμένα ἡ μετάφρασι τῶν Ο’ καὶ ἡ Κ. Διαθήκη, σὲ χρονικὸ βάθος χίλια χρόνια πρὶν καὶ χίλια χρόνια μετὰ ἀπ̉ αὐτές, καὶ μιὰ ἐπίσης καλὴ γνῶσι τόσο τῆς βιβλικῆς ἑβραϊκῆς ὅσο καὶ τῆς λατινικῆς γλώσσης˙ διότι τὰ βιβλικὰ κείμενα εἶναι σὲ γλῶσσα ἀρχαία ἑλληνικὴ κατάφορτη ἀπὸ λέξεις καὶ ἐκφράσεις ἑβραϊκὲς (καὶ στὶς δυὸ Διαθῆκες) καὶ λατινικὲς (στὴ μία μόνο). οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς τὸ κατανοῆσαι καὶ μεταφράσαι τὴν Βίβλον. τὸ ὅτι ὅμως οἱ ἀποτυχημένοι μεταφρασταὶ δὲν καταλαβαίνουν ἁπλὲς φράσεις ὅπως τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ χριστοῦ (Ἑβ 11, 26), πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος (Β’ Τι 3, 16), καὶ ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας (Ἰα 3, 6) εἶναι ἀκατανόητο κι ἀφήνει κατάπληκτο κάθε λογικὸ ἄνθρωπο ἔστω κι ὀλιγογράμματο. γιατί δὲν καταλαβαίνουν τόσο ἁπλὲς φράσεις, οἱ ὁποῖες δὲν χρειάζονται καμμιὰ ἀρχαιογνωσία καὶ καμμιὰ ἀπολύτως μόρφωσι; τί ἔχουν πάθει;

       Δὲν μ̉ ἀπασχολοῦν οἱ μετὰ τὸ 1611 (ἀγγλικὴ μετάφρασι) μεταφρασταί, δηλαδὴ οἱ ἀπὸ τὸν Μάξιμο Καλλιουπολίτη (1638) κι ἔπειτα, οἱ ὁποῖοι, ἔχοντας γιὰ τυφλοσύρτη τοὺς τυφλοὺς προτεστάντες, ΄΄κουκιὰ ἔφαγαν, κουκιὰ μαρτυρᾶνε΄΄. ἀπὸ δῶ καὶ κάτω ἀναφέρομαι μόνο στοὺς μέχρι τὸ 1611. γιατί δὲν ἔπιασαν τὸ σωστὸ νόημα καὶ δὲν μετέφρασαν σωστὰ σὲ χωρία σὰν τὰ τρία ποὺ ἀράδιασα, ἐνῷ αὐτὰ ἦταν τόσο ἁπλᾶ; μετὰ ἀπὸ πολλὴ σκέψι κατέληξα στὸ συμπέρασμα˙ ἦταν ὅλοι τους περιωρισμένης νοημοσύνης καὶ ἀντιλήψεως˙ ἦταν τελείως ἀκατάλληλοι γιὰ τὸ ἔργο τῆς μεταφράσεως τὸ ὁποῖο ἀνέλαβαν. ἰσχύει γι̉ αὐτοὺς ἡ παροιμία ΄΄Βάλε τὸν πόλο μάγειρα νὰ σοῦ μαγειρέψῃ σπατά΄΄. δὲν ὑπάρχει ἄλλη ἐξήγησι τοῦ φαινομένου. δυστυχῶς μὲ τὴ μετάφρασι καὶ γενικώτερα τὴν ἑρμηνεία τῆς Βίβλου ἀπὸ τὸ 400 κι ἔπειτα, θέλω νὰ πῶ μετὰ τὸν Ἰωάννη τὸ Χρυσόστομο, δὲν ἀσχολήθηκαν ἄνθρωποι μὲ μυαλὸ πρώτης διαλογῆς καὶ δευτέρας καὶ τρίτης, ἀλλ̉ ἀπὸ κεῖ καὶ κάτω. μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐμφάνισι τῆς τυπογραφίας, ποὺ δρομολόγησε τὸ ἅλμα τῆς ἐπιστημονικῆς καὶ βιομηχανικῆς προόδου, καὶ ἰδίως μετὰ τὸ 1800 περίπου, οἱ λεγόμενες θετικὲς ἐπιστῆμες ἀπορρόφησαν ὅλα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ τὰ μέσα μυαλὰ καὶ κυριολεκτικῶς τὰ σάρωσαν καὶ τ̉ ἀποστράγγισαν. ἔκαναν δὲ καὶ τὰ μεγάλα μυαλὰ τὴ βλάσφημη βλακεία νὰ γυρίσουν τὴν πλάτη στὸ θεὸ καὶ τὴ Βίβλο καὶ νὰ προσηλωθοῦν καὶ νὰ κολλήσουν στὴν ὕλη σὰ μῦγες στὸ μέλι.

Κωνσταντίνος Σιαμάκης, Μελέτες 4 (2008)

John Pearson's enlightened opinion on the use of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX /Η πεφωτισμένη άποψη του John Pearson περί της χρήσης του Τετραγράμματου από την Ο'

* John Pearson,

An exposition of the Creed (1692/¹1659),

p. 146.
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία: Όταν η αποκοπή από την Εκκλησία σήμαινε θανατική ποινή /Byzantine Empire: A time that excommunication by Church meant capital punishment

Giovanni Bellini,
Head of St John the Baptist /
Το κεφάλι του Αγ. Ιωάννη του Βαπτιστή
(1468).

Ως προς τις μεθόδους εκτέλεσης της ποινής του θανάτου στο Βυζάντιο,

«τη θέση του αποκεφαλισμού με πέλεκυ ή ξίφος, που αποτελούσε τον κανόνα,

έπαιρνε όχι σπάνια η σταύρωση, η ρίψη στη θάλασσα ή σε ποταμό

μέσα σε σάκκο με φίδια και άλλα ζώα, η θηριομαχία, ο διαμελισμός από άλογα,

το γδάρσιμο με σιδερένιους όνυχες, ο ενταφιασμός (εν ζωή)».

* Σπύρος Ν. Τρωιάνος (επιμ.),
Έγκλημα και τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο,

Ίδρυμα Γουλανδρή-Χορν, 1997,

σσ. 100, 27.