.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Samuele Bacchiocchi:

From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?

Από το Σάββατο στην Κυριακή: Πώς Προέκυψε η Αλλαγή;


«The change from Sabbath to Sunday did not come about at the beginning of Christianity by the authority of Christ or the Apostles who allegedly chose the first day of the week as the new Christian Sabbath to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Rather the change began about a century after Christ's death during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian (about A. D. 135), as a result of an interplay of political, social, pagan and religious factors to be mentioned shortly. Essentially, it was the necessity to avoid the repressive anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in A. D. 135 by Emperor Hadrian that caused the Bishop of Rome to pioneer the change from Sabbath to Sunday and from Passover to Easter-Sunday. These changes were designed to show the Christian separation and differentiation from the Jews at a time when Jewish religious practices were outlawed by the Roman government.

The implications of this conclusion is that the change from Saturday to Sunday was not merely a change of names or numbers, but a change of meaning, authority, and experience.»
«Η αλλαγή από το Σάββατο στην Κυριακή δεν προέκυψε στην αρχή της Χριστιανοσύνης με την εξουσία του Χριστού ή των Αποστόλων οι οποίοι υποτίθεται ότι επέλεξαν την πρώτη μέρα της εβδομάδας ως το νέο χριστιανικό Σάββατο για τον εορτασμό της ανάστασης του Χριστού. Μάλλον η αλλαγή ξεκίνησε περίπου έναν αιώνα μετά το θάνατο του Χριστού κατά τη διάρκεια της διακυβέρνησης του Ρωμαίου Αυτοκράτορα Αδριανού (περ. 135 μ.Χ.), ως αποτέλεσμα αλληλεπίδρασης πολιτικών, κοινωνικών, παγανιστικών και θρησκευτικών παραγόντων για να αναφερθούμε εν συντομία. Κατ' ουσίαν, ήταν η ανάγκη να αποφευχθεί η καταπιεστική αντιϊουδαϊκή και αντισαββατική νομοθεσία που θεσπίστηκε το 135 μ.Χ. από τον Αυτοκράτορα Αδριανό που οδήγησε τον Επίσκοπο Ρώμης να καινοτομίσει αλλάζοντας το Σάββατο σε Κυριακή και το ιουδαϊκό Πάσχα σε χριστιανικό Πάσχα-Κυριακή. Οι αλλαγές αυτές αποσκοπούσαν στην ανάδειξη του διαχωρισμού και της διαφορετικότητας των Χριστιανών από τους Ιουδαίους σε μια περίοδο κατά την οποία οι ιουδαϊκές θρησκευτικές πρακτικές είχαν τεθεί εκτός νόμου από τη ρωμαϊκή κυβέρνηση.

Από το συμπέρασμα αυτό συνάγεται ότι η αλλαγή από το Σάββατο στην Κυριακή δεν ήταν απλώς μια αλλαγή σε ονόματα ή αριθμούς, αλλά μια αλλαγή νοήματος, εξουσίας και εμπειρίας».


* Samuele Bacchiocchi, *
«From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?»
Από το Σάββατο στην Κυριακή: Πώς Προέκυψε η Αλλαγή;»],
Endtime Issues
No./Αρ. 64, 1 March/Μάρτιος 2001,
pp./σσ. 5, 6.
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Daniel Johansson:

"Paradoxical" & "ambiguous" conclusions
concerning Mark's use of the title κύριος /

"Παράδοξα"¨και "διφορούμενα" συμπεράσματα
αναφορικά με τη χρήση του τίτλου κύριος από το Μάρκο


«Mark has a similar purpose with his linking of Ps. 110.1 to Deut. 6.4, but instead of splitting ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ between two persons, Mark brings in an OT text which portrays two κύριοι. Furthermore, he puts all emphasis on κύριος. This reinforces the complex view of κύριος found throughout Mark; there is one κύριος, and yet two figures, God and Jesus, share this name and title. The one title κύριος appears to guarantee the oneness of the κύριος. This, in Mark’s view, does not compromise monotheism, but certainly reinterprets monotheism so that Jesus is included on the divine side of the God–creation divide. [...]

As noted above, Joel Marcus has observed that in Mark ‘the relation between Jesus and the κύριος ... subtly combines a recognition of the separateness of the two figures with a recognition of their inseparability’ ([The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark)] 1993: 39). The present article has demonstrated that this observation is correct overall with regard to the relation between Jesus and God, but it has also shown that some qualifications are necessary. First, we should speak of the relation between Jesus and God rather than Jesus and the κύριος. Second, the distinction between Jesus and the κύριος is not as neat as Marcus argues. Contrary to his view, Mark actually identifies Jesus with κύριος (1.3) and throughout his narrative, by means of his ambiguous use of κύριος, links both God and Jesus to the κύριος title. Third, there is an overlap of identity between God and Jesus achieved by means of κύριος, which serves to unite God and Jesus. The ‘inseparability’ is realized precisely through their shared identity as κύριος. Yet, at the same time, Mark maintains a clear distinction. Throughout most of the narrative two figures are linked to κύριος, and Mark never calls Jesus ‘God’ and ‘Father’. These are reserved for the God of Israel and separate Jesus from God.

Mark thus articulates a sophisticated κύριος Christology in which the early Christian confession ‘Jesus is Lord’ (cf. Rom. 10.9; 1 Cor. 12.3; Phil. 2.11) is presupposed. [...] For Mark, the confession links Jesus to God so that Jesus shares the identity of being κύριος with God. In this he agrees with Paul and Luke. The exclusive divinity of the God of Israel is maintained, but not to the exclusion of Jesus. If we ask who the κύριος in the Gospel of Mark is, the paradoxical answer is: God and Jesus.»


* Daniel Johansson,
«Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark»,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010 33: 101-124.
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X10380130.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Estimations of Genesis' date of Creation /

Εκτιμόμενοι υπολογισμοί
της χρονολογίας της Δημιουργίας κατά τη Γένεση



Differences in the elapsed times
between early events in the Septuagint and Massoretic texts,
from Creation to the arrival of Abraham in Canaan.
/
Διαφορές στα μεσοδιαστήματα
μεταξύ των πρώιμων γεγονότων στα κείμενα της Εβδομήκοντα και του Μασοριτικού,
από τη Δημιουργία μέχρι την άφιξη του Αβραάμ στη Χαναάν.



Frequency histogram of 156 estimated ages of the Earth,
drawn from data published by William Hales (1809, vol. 1 pp. 211-214).
These various estimates were based largely, though not exclusively, on Biblical sources,
and ranged in date of origin from 94 CE to 1800 CE.
Histogram peaks at 4000 BCE and 5500 BCE
reflect clusters of concentration on the Massoretic and Septuagint texts.
/
Ιστόγραμμα συχνότητας 156 εκτιμόμεμων υπολογισμών της ηλικίας της γης,
με βάση τα δεδομένα που εκδόθηκαν από τον William Hales (1809, τόμ. 1 σσ. 211-214).
Αυτοί οι ποικίλοι εκτιμόμενοι υπολογισμοί στηρίχτηκαν κυρίως, μολονότι όχι αποκλειστικά, σε Βιβλικές πηγές,
και η χρονολογία τους ξεκινάει από το 94 ΚΧ ως το 1800 ΚΧ.
Οι κορυφές του ιστογράμματος στο 4000 ΠΚΧ και στο 5500 ΠΚΧ.
αντικατοπτρίζουν συγκεντρωτικά σμήνη βάσει των κειμένων της Εβδομήκοντα και του Μασοριτικού.



Before the hills in order stood:
the beginning of the geology of time in England
JOHN G. C. M. FULLER
2 Oak Tree Close, Rodmell Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 5SS, UK

Abstract: That order should govern the nature of the world is an idea not confined to England, though the history of science in this country demonstrates again and again that a conception of Divine Order lay at its heart. To people of earlier days, want of order implied confusion, displacement, derangement, time out of joint, even the presence of malevolent power - 'when the planets in evil mixture to disorder wander'. The divine scheme revealed by scripture was a frame and support for Earth science. It told an indisputable story of an ordered beginning, a diluvial reordering, and a future end in dissolution. It was a story backed by secular law, and no thinking person could have been unaware of it. Yet 'when' and 'how' were legitimate questions, answered in detail by hexaemeron writers. It is an educational curiosity in England that a particular Biblical chronology drawn up in 1650 accompanied scriptures printed for use in schools until 1885 - a matter of consequence to the history of all geological thought in this country.


* John G. C. M. Fuller,
«Before the hills in order stood: the beginning of the geology of time in England»,
in/στο
Cherry Lewis & Simon J. Knell,
The Age of the Earth: From 4004 BC to 2002 AD,
Geological Society Special Publication, No. 190, Geological Society of London, 2001,
pp./σσ. 15-23

Health care & religious beliefs /

Ιατρική περίθαλψη & θρησκευτικές πεποιθήσεις




* Dr. Harjot K. Singh
(Chair Spiritual Care Advisory Committee, Alberta Health Services - Calgary and area),
Alberta Health Services, May/Μάιος 2009.

[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Free Bible study textbook series /

Δωρεάν σειρά εγχειριδίων Γραφικής μελέτης



Bible Study Textbook Series

Many of you are familiar with the Bible Study Textbook Series (The Old Green Commentaries).  These were very popular several years back and many of you have requested copies of these timeless treasures.  Because reprint cost are so high we have chosen not to reprint but instead, we are offering them electronically for free. These commentaries are being made available for your personal use. Feel free to download them to your computer.  These files are very large and may take a while even with high speed and DSL services. If using dial up service please be aware the your download times may be extensive and you may encounter problems during the download. If you have problems downloading these files you want toconsider using a download manager.
Thank you for your interest in College Press.
Free Download of Adobe Reader      


Genesis Vol. 1
Genesis Vol. 2 
Genesis Vol. 3
Genesis Vol. 4
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua, Judges, Ruth
I & II Samuel
I & II Chronicles
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
Psalm I
Psalm II
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
Isaiah I
Isaiah II
Isaiah III  
Daniel
Minor Prophets I
Minor Prophets II 
Eternal Spirit Vol. I
Eternal Spirit Vol. II
Literature of the OT
New Testament Evidences
Christian Doctrine Vol. 1
Christian Doctrine Vol. 2
Christian Doctrine Vol. 3 & 4
Learning from Jesus
New Testament History
New Testament Vol. I
New Testament Vol. II
Matthew Vol I
Matthew Vol II
Matthew Vol III
Matthew Vol IV
Mark
Luke-Applebury
Luke-Butler
John Vol I 
John Vol II  
Acts
Romans
I & II Corinthians-Applebury
I Corinthians - Butler
II Corinthians - Butler
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon
I and II Thessalonians
Timothy and Titus
Hebrews
James and Jude
I and II Peter
I, II, III John
Revelation-Tomlinson
Revelation-Strauss





































* Reproduction source / Πηγή αναπαραγωγής: collegepress.com

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Sabbatai Ṣevi's house at the Izmir Agora /

Το σπίτι του Σαμπατάι Τσεβί στην Αγορά της Σμύρνης



Sabbatai Zevi's house at Izmir Agora /
Το σπίτι του Σαμπατάι Ζεβί στην Αγορά της Σμύρνης

Source / Πηγή: dailymotion.com

Luther, sola scriptura
& the "undermining of both ecclesiastical authority
and the institutions of the State" /

Ο Λούθηρος, η θέση του sola scriptura
& η "υπονόμευση τόσο της εκκλησιαστικής εξουσίας
όσο και των θεσμών του Κράτους"


«Once one takes Luther’s Bible and other Reformation Bibles as a starting point for modern translation history (as indeed Berman [Antoine Berman, “La Traduction et la lettre, ou l’auberge du lointain,” in Les Tours de Babel: Essais sur la traduction (Mauvezin:Trans-Europ-Repress, 1985), 87–91] and others do), it becomes clear that domesticating translations cannot be seen categorically as instruments of hegemonic nationalism. On the contrary, the vernacular Bibles of the sixteenth century—Luther’s and William Tyndale’s most prominently—were perceived as undermining both ecclesiastical authority and the institutions of the State; thus, a 1530 royal proclamation of Henry VIII prohibited the possession of any copy of “the New Testament or the Old translated into English,” because such translations were propagated “to stir and incense [the people] to sedition and disobedience against their princes, sovereigns, and heads.” Luther’s principle of sola scriptura, from this point of view, was a challenge not only to Rome, but indeed potentially to any authority external to an individual reader—that Luther himself repeatedly denied that he was encouraging political foment hardly alters the subversive power of this principle.»

«Εφόσον θεωρηθούν η Βίβλος του Λούθηρου και οι εκδόσεις της Βίβλου κατά την Μεταρρύθμιση ως σημείο έναρξης της σύγχρονης μεταφραστικής ιστορίας (όπως κάνουν πράγματι ο Berman [Antoine Berman, “La Traduction et la lettre, ou l’auberge du lointain,” στο Les Tours de Babel: Essais sur la traduction (Mauvezin:Trans-Europ-Repress, 1985), 87–91] και άλλοι), καθίσταται σαφές ότι οι εκλαϊκευμένες μεταφράσεις δεν θα μπορούσαν να θεωρηθούν κατηγορηματικά ως όργανα του ηγεμονεύοντος εθνικισμού. Αντίθετα μάλιστα, οι εκδόσεις της Βίβλου στην καθομιλούμενη του δέκατου έκτου αιώνα—με πιο εξέχουσες του Λούθηρου και του Ουίλιαμ Τίντειλ—αντιμετωπίστηκαν ως υπονομευτικές τόσο για την εκκλησιαστική εξουσία όσο και για τους θεσμούς του Κράτους· ως συνέπεια, μια βασιλική διακήρυξη του Ερίκου Η' απαγόρευε την κατοχή κάθε αντιγράφου "της Καινής Διαθήκης ή της Παλαιάς που μεταφράστηκε στα Αγγλικά", επειδή τέτοιες μεταφράσεις διασπείρονται "για να διεγείρουν και να εξαγριώσουν [το λαό] σε εξέγερση και ανυπακοή κατά των αρχόντων, των ηγεμόνων και των ηγετών". Η αρχή του Λούθηρου της sola scriptura [μεταφρ. "η Γραφή και μόνο"], από αυτή την άποψη, ήταν πρόκληση όχι μόνο για τη Ρώμη, αλλά στην πραγματικότητα δυνητικά για κάθε εξουσία εξωγενή του εκάστοτε αναγνώστη—το ότι ο Λούθηρος επανειλημμένα αρνούνταν ότι ενθάρρυνε την πολιτική υποδαύλιση δύσκολα αλλάζει τη δύναμη υπονόμευσης αυτής της αρχής».



* Naomi Seidman,
Faithful Renderings: Jewish–Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation
[Συνεπείς Αποδόσεις: Η Ιουδαιοχριστιανική Διαφορά και οι Πολιτικές Μετάφρασης],
The University of Chicago Press, 2006
p./σ. 119.

Μιλτιάδης Κωνσταντίνου:
Δείγμα του διαθέσιμου ψηφιακού υλικού
στον επίσημο ιστότοπό του καθηγητή /

Miltiades Konstantinou:
A sample of the digital material
available at professor's official web site


 




Μιλτιάδης Κωνσταντίνου:
Βιογραφικό
[μη επικαιροποιημένο]










* Στοιχεία Βιβλικής Εβραϊκής Γλώσσας

* Η Παλαιά Διαθήκη ως Βίβλος τής Εκκλησίας

* Ο κανόνας τής Παλαιάς Διαθήκης

 



* Πτώση και σωτηρία

* Ειδωλολατρία στον βιβλικό Ισραήλ

Ο θεσμός της ιεροσύνης στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Ιστορία και Θεολογία στο έργο του Χρονικογράφου

Γλωσσική ανάλυση του Ψαλμού α΄

 


Old Testament Canon and Text in the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church

[Ελληνικά/Greek & English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

 

Friday, September 24, 2010

Simon Magus:
Was he a Gnostic leader? /

Σίμων ο Μάγος:
Ήταν Γνωστικός ηγέτης;


Benozzo Gozzoli,
Fall of Simon Magus (1461-1462) /
Η Πτώση του Σίμωνα Μάγου (1461-1462)


«In a sharp criticism of Salles-Dabadie's analysis [“Recherches sur Simon le Mage, I: L'Apophasis megalè”, 1969], which he regards as characterized by naïveté, Beyschlag [Karlmann Beyschlag, “Zur Simon-Magus Frage”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 68 [1971]: 395-426] holds that Simon's teaching is not Gnosticism. The latter moreover rejects as misguided the recent attempts to resurrect Simon's reputation as an early Gnostic or as a representative of pre-Christian Gnosticism, and reconfirms Cerfaux's [Lucien Cerfaux, “La gnose simonienne, in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 6-7. 2 vols. (Gembloux, 1954), I, 206 ff.; Ludemann, Untersuchungen, pp. 81 ff] earlier judgment. The historical Simon is the magician portrayed in Acts and not the arch-Gnostic depicted by the Church Fathers. The patristic Simon represents a development which is dependent upon the Christian Gnosticism of the second century.»
«Σε οξεία κριτική της ανάλυσης του Salles-Dabadie [“Recherches sur Simon le Mage, I: L'Apophasis megalè”, 1969], για την οποία θεωρεί ότι χαρακτηρίζεται από αδαημοσύνη, ο Beyschlag [Karlmann Beyschlag, “Zur Simon-Magus Frage”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 68 [1971]: 395-426] είναι της άποψης ότι η διδασκαλία του Σίμωνα δεν είναι Γνωστικισμός. Ο ίδιος επιπλέον απορρίπτει ως παροδηγημένες τις πρόσφατες απόπειρες αναβίωσης της φήμης του Σίμωνα ως πρώιμου Γνωστικού ή ως αντιπροσώπου του προχριστιανικού Γνωστικισμού και επανεπιβεβαιώνει την προγενέστερη θέση του Cerfaux [Lucien Cerfaux, “La gnose simonienne”, στο Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 6-7. 2 τόμ. (Gembloux, 1954), I, 206 κ.εξ.· Ludemann, Untersuchungen, σσ. 81 κ.εξ.]. Ο ιστορικός Σίμων είναι ο μάγος που περιγράφεται στις Πράξεις και όχι ο αρχιγνωστικός όπως απεικονίζεται από τους εκκλησιαστικούς πατέρες. Ο πατερικός Σίμων αντιπροσωπεύει μια εξέλιξη η οποία εξαρτάται από τον χριστιανικό Γνωστικισμό του δεύτερου αιώνα».


* Edwin M. Yamauchi,
Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences
[Προχριστιανικός Γνωστικισμός: Διερεύνηση των Προταθέντων Τεκμηρίων],
Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003,
p./σ. 65.

lao Sabaoth
and Zeus-Jupiter (lat. Iove/Iovis) Sabazius /

Ο Ιαώ Σαβαώθ
και ο Δίας-Ιούπιτερ (λατ. Ιόβε/Ιόβις) Σαβάζιος


«It has been suggested that the first reference to the Jews in Italy, the expulsion of Jewish missionaries from Rome in 139 B.C.E., maybe taken as proof that some syncretistic Jews from Asia Minor responded positively to the pagan concept of theocrasy and propagated in Rome a syncretistic cult of Jupiter Sabazius. However, the evidence for this is anything but unequivocal. The only witness is Valerius Maximus (beginning of the first century C.E.), whose full text is not preserved but has come down to us only in two epitomes, one by Iulius Paris (fourth century C.E.?) and one by Ianuarius Nepotianus (fourth-fifth century C.E.?). According to Paris' epitome, "Cn. Cornelius Hispalus, praetor peregrinus in the year of the consulate of P. Popilius Laenas and L. Calpurnius,... compelled the Jews, who attempted to infect the Roman customs with the cult of Jupiter Sabazius (qui Sabazi Iovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant), to return to their homes."

Sabazius was a Phrygian god whose orgiastic cult came to Athens as early as the fifth century B.C.E. and who is very well attested in the imperial period. He was identified with Dionysus and, in Asia Minor, with Zeus-Jupiter. The equation of the Jewish God with Jupiter Sabazius no doubt was facilitated by the similarity of "Sabazius" with either "Sabaoth" or "Sabbath," and those who are in favor of a Jewish syncretistic cult point to Asia Minor as the fertile soil of Jewish-pagan blends and to the possibility that the expulsion of the "heterodox Jews" from Rome was arranged by Simeon the Maccabee's delegation to Rome, which allegedly visited Rome in 139 B.C.E. This is, however, mere conjecture, and especially the latter argument is invalidated for chronological reasons. It seems most likely, then, that the "Jupiter Sabazius" is either a corruption of "lao Sabaoth" by Valerius Maximus' source (or by the epitomist Iulius Paris or his medieval copyists respectively) or another piece of evidence for the pagan attempt to identify the Jewish God with Jupiter, the highest God of the Roman pantheon. From a historical point of view it is more probable that the Jews tried to introduce their "original" Jewish cult in Rome and that later on, either by Valerius Maximus or by his source, this cult was identified with the one of Jupiter Sabazius.»

* Peter Schäfer,
Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World
[Ιουδαιοφοβία: Τρόποι συμπεριφοράς προς τους Ιουδαίους στον Αρχαίο Κόσμο]
Harvard University Press, 1997,
p./σ. 51.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Festinger's theory of "cognitive dissonance":
Two case studies from Sociology of Religion
denounce it as inadequate /

Η θεωρία του Φέστινγκερ περί "γνωστικής ασυμφωνίας":
Δύο μελέτες περίπτωσης της Κοινωνιολογίας της Θρησκείας
την καταδεικνύουν ανεπαρκή


COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

«The subject of prophetic failure is critical to an understanding of the development of any messianic faith. With this in mind, it is worth drawing on the theory of cognitive dissonance. In ‘‘When Prophecy Fails’’ (1956), Leon Festinger [and others] presented the salient features of this theory: The individual attempts to maintain his faith. If a person believes in something fervently; if he is committed to this faith and it has led him to take irreversible steps; then when confronted with irrefutable evidence that his faith is mistaken, the believer will only strengthen further his faith, making a renewed effort to convince and convert others to adopt his own worldview. Therefore, according to the theory, crisis of faith that results from prophetic failure may paradoxically lead to the strengthening of religious faith rather than to its dilution. While in logical terms the failure of the prophecy might be expected to weaken its justification, a diametrically opposite phenomenon sometimes develops, characterized by a strengthening of faith and religious practice in an attempt to set the messianic process back on course.

The difference between expectations and experience generates cognitive tension. According to Festinger, the dissonance creates discomfort, thus producing pressure to reduce it. To this end, individuals must either change their beliefs, opinions, or behavior; secure new information that mitigates the dissonance; or forget or belittle the importance of the information that embodies an internal contradiction. In order to succeed in this, the believers must receive support from either their psychological or their social environment. Without such support, the chances are that the effort to moderate the dissonance will prove unsuccessful. Thus prophetic failure increases the believers’ devotion and their proselytizing efforts. In some cases it is easier to cope with dissonance than to admit that a belief has failed. Accordingly, believers will not abandon their faith, but at the same time they cannot deny that it has failed to materialize. The believer must thus secure new information that corroborates their faith. This information lies in the determination that if more people can be convinced that their beliefs are correct, then clearly these beliefs indeed are correct.»
(Motti Inbari, «When Prophecy Fails? The Theology of the Oslo Process—Rabbinical Responses to a Crisis of Faith», pp. 306, 307.)


* George Chryssides,
«How Prophecy Succeeds: The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Prophetic Expectations»
Πώς Πετυχαίνει η Προφητεία: Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά και Προφητικές Προσδοκίες»],
International Journal for the Study of New Religions 1.1 (2010): 27–48, Equinox Publishing,
ISSN 2041-9511 (print), ISSN 2041-952X (online),
doi:10.1558/ijsnr.v1i1.27.

Abstract
Leon Festinger’s notion of prophecy as prediction that is liable to failure has been widely accepted in religious studies. The author argues that this understanding of prophecy is not shared by biblical scholars or by the Watch Tower Society. This article explores in detail the various calculations that the Society has used in devising its views on the last days, and how these have changed over time. Four periods of development are identified: (1) the era of founder-leader Charles Taze Russell; (2) the early Rutherford period; (3) a changed chronological system in 1935; and (4) the Society’s present-day understanding. Discussion is given to the key dates of 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975, and to the Society’s changed understanding of the ‘generation that would not pass’ until the fulfilment of prophecy. It is argued that, although there have been failures in prophetic speculation, the changing views and dates of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are more largely attributable to changed understandings of biblical chronology than to failed predictions. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecy serves more as a way of discerning a divine plan in human history than a means to predicting the future.
Σύνοψη
Η αντίληψη του Leon Festinger περί προφητείας ως πρόρρησης που υπόκειται σε αποτυχία έχει γίνει ευρέως αποδεκτή στις θρησκευτικές μελέτες. Ο συγγραφέας υποστηρίζει ότι αυτή την κατανόηση της έννοιας της προφητείας δεν την συμμερίζονται Βιβλικοί λόγιοι ή η Εταιρία Σκοπιά. Αυτό το άρθρο διερευνά λεπτομερώς τους διάφορους υπολογισμούς που έχει χρησιμοποιήσει η Εταιρία για να διαμορφώσει τις θέσεις της περί των τελευταίων ημερών και τον τρόπο με τον οποίο έχουν αλλάξει στο πέρασμα του χρόνου. Τέσσερις περίοδοι ανάπτυξης προσδιορίζονται: (1) η εποχή του ιδρυτή-ηγέτη Καρόλου Τέηζ Ρώσσελ· (2) η πρώιμη περίοδος του Ρόδερφορντ· (3) ένα τροποποιημένο χρονολογικό σύστημα το 1935· και (4) η σημερινή κατανόηση της Εταιρίας. Εξετάζονται οι καίριες χρονολογίες 1914, 1918, 1925 και 1975 και η τροποποιημένη κατανόηση της Εταιρίας για τη "γενιά που δεν θα παρέλθει" μέχρι να εκπληρωθεί η προφητεία. Υποστηρίζεται ότι, μολονότι υπήρξαν αποτυχίες στις προφητικές εικασίες, οι τροποποιημένες απόψεις και χρονολογίες των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά αποδίδονται σε τροποποιημένες κατανοήσεις της Βιβλικής χρονολόγησης μάλλον παρά σε αποτυχημένες προρρήσεις. Για τους Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά η προφητεία λειτουργεί περισσότερο ως μέσο για την διάκριση του θεϊκού σχεδίου στην ανθρώπινη ιστορία μάλλον παρά ως μέσο για να γίνει πρόρρηση του μέλλοντος.


Also/Επίσης:
* «Jehovah’s Witnesses Changing Chronology»
Η Αλλαγή Χρονολογιών των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά»],
 "They keep changing the dates". A paper presented at the CESNUR 2010 conference in Italy.   Tuesday, September 21, 2010 by George D. Chryssides.
[English/Αγγλικά, HTML]




* Motti Inbari,
«When Prophecy Fails? The Theology of the Oslo Process—Rabbinical Responses to a Crisis of Faith»
Πότε Αποτυγχάνει μια Προφητεία; Η Θεολογία των Εργασιών του Όσλο—Ραβινικές Αποκρίσεις στην Κρίση Πίστης»],
Modern Judaism (2009) 29(3): 303-325, Oxford University Press,
ISSN 0276-1114 (print), ISSN 1086-3273 (online),
doi: 10.1093/mj/kjp014.

Abstract
Secular Israeli reality presents a challenge for the religious structure
of religious Zionism, which has been obliged to re-examine its basic assumptions concerning the purpose of the State of Israel. Cognitive dissonance is a central component in understanding their attitude toward the state, and one that has far-reaching ramifications. A mystical response to stubborn reality will strengthen messianic expectations, while a realistic response will tend to retreat from these expectations.The article sought to expose additional features of the ways in which religious thought has coped with the secular world, examining the role of messianism as an activist phenomenon that continues to this day.



Σημείωση: Η αγγλική φράση "cognitive dissonance"
τείνει να παγιωθεί στα Ελληνικά ως "γνωστική ασυμφωνία
".
Ελπίζοντας να μην ξεπεραστούν τα όρια της λεξιπλασίας,
θα πρότεινα την απόδοση της φράσης ως "νοητική διαπάλη",
ή ακριβέστερα
"νοητική ενδοδιαπάλη",
(ίσως και
"νοητική διάσταση/αντινομία";).

The Greek Old Calendarist Movement /

Το Ελληνικό Κίνημα των Παλαιοημερολογιτών


«In 1920, the Patriarchate of Constantinople issued the “Encyclical of 1920,” which the Old Calendarists would later qualify as the first promulgation of an “ecumenical ecclesiology of dialogue and union based on ecumenical precepts.” Bishop Ambrose of the Holy Synod in Resistance explains the motivation of the Constantinople Patriarchate toward ecumenism by its desire to recover Istanbul as Greek territory, exploiting the occupation of Constantinople by the Entente powers that continued from 1918 to 1922. In 1924, the Greek Church adopted the Gregorian Calendar as its festal calendar, thus abandoning the traditional Julian Calendar. This move was followed by the Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches, as well as by the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, while the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches and the Jerusalem Patriarchate continued to use the Julian Calendar. The change of the festal calendar exhausted Greek society, which, even without it, was disturbed by the massive immigration of Ottoman Greeks and confrontation between the monarchists and republicans.

Monks from Mount Athos, which continued to use the Julian Calendar, initiated the Old Calendarist movement in Greece, which attracted bishops and priests, too. Before long, they began to theorize their position, arguing that what they stood against was not just the Gregorian Calendar but the ecumenist tendencies of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the official Orthodox world. The Old Calendarist movement became a formidable critic of the World Council of Churches, which church leaders agreed to establish in 1937.

By 1934, the Old Calendarists had organized over eight hundred communities throughout Greece. During the same 1930s, however, the Old Calendarist movement split around the issue of whether the Greek State Church was still holding grace and mysteries. The radical wing, the so-called Matthewites, denied this. The differences in the understanding of the official state church continue to be a stumbling block hindering the Greek Old Calendarists’ unification. There are four groups of Old Calendarists in Greece today. The Greek government, supporting the state church, continued to suppress the Old Calendarists until the 1950s. Having realized that this policy only destabilized the political situation of the country, the Greece government not only tolerated the Old Calendarists, but also recognized their sacraments (for example, marriage) as being effective in civil law, which is quite important under the state-church system. The Old Calendarist movement also emerged in Romania and Bulgaria, where the calendar reform took place.

In the 1970s, the Greek Old Calendarist movement significantly discredited itself by endless splitting and mutual accusations. For example, in 1976, they lost the traditional communion with the ROCA that they had had since 1934. The situation began to change in 1985, when Cyprian, abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, Attika (20 km from Athens), founded the Holy Synod in Resistance. Cyprian consolidated a moderate ecclesiology that argues for the validity of the liturgies and mysteries performed by the Greek State Church and that the Old Calendarists only “walled” themselves in against the official state church to resist ecumenism and that, therefore, their movement is by no means a schism. Cyprian's Holy Synod established communion with the Old Calendarists in Romania and Bulgaria, resumed communion with the ROCA (lost in 1976), and, what is perhaps most important, began to attract sympathizers in official Orthodoxy, such as the Jerusalem Patriarch, clerics of the ROC, and the Serbian OC.

Since the State Church of Greece does not have communion with the Holy Synod under Cyprian, the South Ossetian clerics’ assertion that the Cyprianists are an “inseparable part of the Greece Church.” is not correct. On the other hand, relations between the official State Church of Greece and the Cyprianists are much more complex than ROC leaders often construe. First, as already noted, the Greek state recognizes the sacraments conducted by the churches under the Holy Synod in Resistance as effective in civil law. Second, numerous bishops, clerics, and flocks, formally belonging to the state church, sympathize with the Old Calendarists and participate in authentic and traditionalist liturgies conducted by the Holy Synod in Resistance. It is strange that ROC leaders do not seem to know that the Cyprianists are pro-Russian by nature, because of their anti-ecumenism. They supported South Ossetia in the August war of 2008, when the whole mass media in the West (including Greece) were mobilized to support Saakashvili. A living example of the Cyprianists’ pro-Russianness is Vassilios Gaitanis, professor of Philosophy and Orthodoxy of the University of Athens, who kindly guided me to the Sunday prayers of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili. Professor Gaitanis wrote a dissertation on Dostoevsky's theology and is a hereditary fan of the Lada (an automobile produced by the Triatti Automobile Factory of Russia). He named his daughter Matrona after a Russian popular saint, and even desires that a Russian become the Patriarch of Constantinople to prevent the evils of ecumenism and dependence on Turkey, although this seems impossible under the existing composition of the Synod of the Constantinople Church.»

* Kimitaka Matsuzato,
«South Ossetia and the Orthodox World: Official Churches, the Greek Old Calendarist Movement, and the So-called Alan Diocese»,
Journal of Church and State,  2010, Volume/Τόμος 52, Issue/Τεύχος 2,
doi: 10.1093/jcs/csq063,
pp./σσ. 271-297.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

The Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited /

Η Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ Αναθεωρούμενη


למשומדים אל תהי תקוה
ומלכות זדון מהרה תעקר בימינו
והנצרים והמינים כרגע יאבדו
ימחו מספר החיים
ועם צדיקים אל יכתבו
ברוך אתה יי
מכניע זדים

For those doomed to destruction may there be no hope
and may the dominion of arrogance be quickly uprooted in our days
and may the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed in a moment
and may they be blotted out of the book of life
and may they not be inscribed with the righteous.
Blessed are you, O Lord,
who subdues the arrogant.

Για όσους έχουν καταδικαστεί σε καταστροφή ας μην υπάρξει καμιά ελπίδα
και ας ξεριζωθεί η κυριαρχία της αλαζονείας το ταχύτερο στις μέρες μας
και ας καταστραφούν ακαριαία οι Ναζωραίοι και οι αιρετικοί
και ας εξαλειφθούν από το βιβλίο της ζωής
και ας μην επιγραφούν μαζί με τους δίκαιους.
Ευλογημένος είσαι εσύ, Κύριε,
που υποτάσσεις τον αλαζόνα.
(The Twelfth Benediction, commonly known as Birkat Ha-Minim, a phrase that literally (and euphemistically) means ‘the benediction of the heretics’, from the Eighteen Benedictions or ‘Amidah (‘standing prayer’), discovered in the Cairo Genizah.
Η Δωδέκατη Ευλογία, ευρύτερα γνωστή ως Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ, μια φράση που σημαίνει κυριολεκτικά (και κατ' ευφημισμόν) ‘η ευλογία των αιρετικών’, από τις Δεκαοχτώ Ευλογίες ή ‘Αμιντά (‘προσευχή σε όρθια στάση’), οι οποίες ανακαλύφθηκαν στην γκενίζα του Καΐρου.)

The Genealogy of Birkat Ha-Minim

«It is, moreover, likely that Birkat Ha-Minim can be traced back even earlier than the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods. Indeed, the very Talmudic passage that speaks of its composition at Yavneh, b. Ber. 28b–29a (see above, pp. 525–26), hints at this backdating when it says that at Rabban Gamaliel's request Simeon ha-Paquli organized the Eighteen Benedictions in order (הסדיר שמונה עשרה ברכות…על הסדר). This seems to refer to the reorganization of an existent prayer. A similar nuance may be present when the same passage says that Gamaliel sought someone לתקן ברכת המינים. The Soncino translation of Maurice Simon renders this as ‘[to] frame a benediction relating to the Minim’. But לתקן, which Simon renders here as ‘to frame’ and in the next sentence as ‘to compose’, is actually ambiguous, since it can mean either ‘to ordain’ or ‘to repair’—in the present case, either to invent or to revise a benediction. The English verb ‘to fix’ provides a perfect analogy, since it can mean either to fix something up or to ‘fix’ it for all time, i.e. to set it in stone.

In this particular case, most translations join the Soncino in opting for the nuance of ordaining or promulgating, but the implication of repairing or revising may be preferable, as is suggested by the important early passage t. Ber. 3.25. This text identifies Birkat Ha-Minim as one of several benedictions that were created by melding earlier prayer traditions:
.כולל של מינים בשל פרושין ושל גרים בשל זקנים ושל דוד בבונה ירושלם
One inserts [the benediction] of the heretics into [the benediction] of the separatists and [the benediction] of the proselytes into [the benediction] of the elders, and [the benediction] of David into [the benediction concluding], ‘Builder of Jerusalem’. (my translation)
This implies that Birkat Ha-Minim resulted from editorial activity that incorporated the cursing of the מינים into another imprecation. Lieberman, citing b. Ber. 28b, identifies the point of transition as the meeting at Yavneh.

The general point asserted by t. Ber. 3.25, that Birkat Ha-Minim is a composite benediction, is supported by internal evidence. As Philip Alexander puts it:
The motif of the arrogant kingdom actually forms the framework of the benediction: note how the concluding formula, which normally draws out the central point, refers to ‘humbling the arrogant’ and makes no mention of the minim. It is…likely that the Birkat ha-Minim is a restatement of an earlier benediction calling for the overthrow of Israel's oppressors.
An earlier form of the benediction, then, was probably directed against the pagan empire; indeed, even as late as the Amoraic period, the benediction could be called מכניע זדים (‘he who subdues the arrogant’) from its concluding eulogy. Various later versions of the saying quoted above from t. Ber. 3.25, moreover, speak of intercalating Birkat Ha-Minim not into the ‘benediction of the separatists’ but into ‘he who subdues the arrogant’. The original form of what we now call Birkat Ha-Minim, therefore, probably cursed neither the פרושין (‘separatists’) nor the מינים (‘heretics’), but rather the זדים (‘arrogant’), and was directed against the Romans. At a later stage (under Rabban Gamaliel, according to b. Ber. 28b), it was reformulated to include other targets, resulting in its present hybrid form.

Our confidence in the reliability of the Tosefta passage is increased by a look at the two other benedictions identified by t. Ber. 3.25 as having been intercalated, since these likewise reveal internal evidence of intercalation. The benediction that speaks about the building of Jerusalem is, in the recension that predominates in Jewish prayer books today, separate from the benediction that speaks about the Davidic Messiah (## 14 and 15). In Schechter's Genizah version, however, these two benedictions are melded into one, which ends with a conflated eulogy. The Thirteenth Benediction also seems to be conflated, since it concerns two different groups, pious Jews and converts to Judaism.

Our reconstruction of the tradition history of Birkat Ha-Minim is supported by the observation of Ehrlich and Langer that what they call Branch 6, the largest of the six families of Birkat Ha-Minim texts in the Genizah (24 out of 86 mss), omits entirely the segment against the minim. Ehrlich and Langer acknowledge that this shorter version of the benediction, which owes its popularity to the authority of Saadia Gaon, could be the result of Saadia's abbreviation of a longer form, but they also raise the possibility ‘that this version was itself a received early text that Rav Saadia Gaon chose to adopt for his prayer book. If so, this could be an extremely ancient text, perhaps the earliest preserved. It would then be a witness to the period before the addition of the explicit curse against the noṣerim and minim’.»


* Joel Marcus,
«Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited»
[Η Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ Αναθεωρούμενη],
New Testament Studies, Cambridge University Press,
Volume/Τόμος 55, Issue/Τεύχος 04, October/Οκτώβριος 2009,
doi:10.1017/S0028688509990063,
pp./σσ. 523-551.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Jesus is Lord:
What did it mean for the Earliest Christianity?

Ο Ιησούς είναι Κύριος:
Τι σήμαινε αυτό για την πρωιμότερη Χριστιανοσύνη;


«The history of this confession of Jesus as Lord in earliest Christianity largely revolves round the question, How significant is the application of this title to Jesus? What role or status does this confession attribute to Jesus or recognize as belonging to Jesus? The answers of earliest Christianity vary and we cannot always be sure if we are hearing them correctly. The problem is that 'lord' can denote a whole range of dignity - from a respectful form of address as to a teacher or judge to a full title for God. Where do the early Christian references to the lordship of Jesus come within this spectrum? The answer seems to be that over the first few decades of Christianity the confession of Jesus as 'Lord' moved in overt significance from the lower end of this 'spectrum of dignity' towards the upper end steadily gathering to itself increasing overtones of deity.

According to Matthew and Luke Jesus was regularly addressed as 'Lord' during his ministry - in Matthew chiefly within the context of miracle stories (Matt. 8.2, 6, 8, 25; 9.28; 14.28, 30; etc.), in Luke chiefly in teaching contexts (Luke 9.59, 61; 10.40; 11.1; 12.41; etc.). We need not doubt that the Aramaic mari underlies the Greek kyrie (vocative) in at least some of these instances. Mar was used of the first-century BC holy man Abba Hilkiah, presumably in recognition of the charismatic powers attributed to him. Moreover, 'lord' was largely synonymous with 'teacher' at the time of Jesus, and Jesus was certainly recognized to have the authority of a rabbi or teacher (Mark 9.5, 17, 38; 10.17, 35, 51; etc.). This equivalence of 'teacher' and 'lord' is probably reflected in John 13.13f. and may well lie behind the use of kyrios in Mark 11.3 (cf. Mark 14.14). We can say therefore that the confession of Jesus as Lord was rooted within the ministry of Jesus to the extent that he was widely acknowledged to exercise the authority of a (charismatic) teacher and healer (cf. Mark 1.22, 27; 6.2; 11.28). Whether 'Lord' already had a higher significance for Jesus himself during his ministry depends on how we evaluate Mark 12.35-37. Even if it contains an authentic word of the historical Jesus (as is quite possible) it need only mean that he understood Messiah to be a figure superior to David in significance and specially favoured by Yahweh. It does not necessarily imply that he thought of Messiah as a divine figure (Psalm 110 after all probably referred originally to the king; see also p.56 n.45 below).

As a confession 'Jesus is Lord' stems primarily from the post-resurrection faith of the first Christians. It was evidently the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead which gave 'lord' the decisive nudge along the 'spectrum of dignity' towards a connotation of divinity. According to both Acts 2.36 and the hymn cited by Paul in Phil. 2.9-11, kyrios was the title given to Jesus at his resurrection/exaltation and by virtue of it. A striking confirmation of the resurrection's significance at this point is Luke's own use of the title. In his Gospel, when he is narrating some episode, he quite naturally refers to Jesus as 'the Lord'. But never do the characters in these episodes speak in this way. The first time Jesus is called 'the Lord' by one of his contemporaries is immediately after his resurrection (Luke 24.34). Similarly in the Fourth Gospel. Despite the high christology of John's presentation of the incarnate Logos (including the roll-call of titles in John 1 and Jesus' consciousness of pre-existence) kyrios is not used by Jesus' contemporaries until John 20.28, and the Evangelist himself, unlike even Luke, shows a marked reserve in his own use of the title for Jesus prior to the resurrection. In other words, what we have preserved here, as explicitly elsewhere, is the conviction that Jesus became Lord as a consequence of his resurrection and exaltation

* James D. G. Dunn,
Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity
[Ενότητα και Ποικιλία στην Καινή Διαθήκη: Διερεύνηση στον Χαρακτήρα της Πρωιμότερης Χριστιανοσύνης],
SCM Press , 2006,
pp./σσ. 53-55.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Ήταν ο Διονύσιος Σολωμός Εβραϊκής καταγωγής; (3) /

Was Dionysios Solomos of Jewish descendance? (3)





Jewish cemetery at Zakynthos (Zante) /
Εβραϊκά κοιμητήρια στη Ζάκυνθο
«Σολω(ο)μός (Πάνορμο και Ρούμελη Μυλοποτάμου) και σημ. Βενετ. Salamon. Και στη Ζάκυνθο Σαλαμόν οικ. εβρ. 1687.

Η οικογένεια των Salomon κατάγεται από το Salerno και είναι από πολύ παλιά και ευγενική γενιά. Πήγαν πρώτα στο Torcello και ύστερα ήλθαν στη Βενετία. Είχαν τίτλους ευγενείας και ήσαν μεταξύ των πατρικίων. Διάφορα οικόσημα έχουν πολλές οικογένειες των Salamon. Και εδώ παρουσιάζεται πρόβλημα.

Από το 1271 μέχρι το 1356 τουλάχιστον, οι Salamon που μαρτυρούνται στην Κρήτη είναι εβραίοι και αναφέρονται απλά χωρίς τίτλους μισέρ, ευγενέστατος, εκλαμπρότατος όπως μετά το 1580. Άλλοι ήσαν οι Salamon της Κρήτης (εβραίοι) και άλλοι της Βενετίας απ' όπου προέρχονται οι ευγενείς Salamon της Κρήτης, (ακόμη και Δούκας υπήρξε Salamon) ή μήπως πρόκειται για εβραίους που εξαγόρασαν τους τίτλους από τη Γαληνοτάτη, πράγμα πού συχνά γινόταν σε ώρες οικονομικών δυσχερειών; Για πλούσιες εισφορές των εβραίων της Κρήτης γράφει ο F. Thiriet. [...]»

* Χρυσούλα Τσικριτσή-Κατσανάκη *,
«Τα Κρητικά οικογενειακά ονόματα Γριπάρης, Κάλβος, Παλαμάς, Ροΐδης, Σολωμός, Τιπάλδος και Φώσκολος»,
Αμάλθεια, Vol./Τόμ. 9, Ιανουάριος-Μάρτιος 1978,
pp./σσ. 7-12.
[Greek/Ελληνικά, PDF]



Also: / Επίσης:
* Λεωνίδας X. Zώης, 



@

Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine:
Application to Clinical Practice

Θρησκεία, Πνευματικότητα και Ιατρική:
Εφαρμογή στην Κλινική Πρακτική



Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine:
Application to Clinical Practice
Harold G. Koenig, MD,
Duke University Medical Center and GRECC VA Medical Center, Durham, NC


«PATIENTS WANT TO BE SEEN AND TREATED AS WHOLE PERSONS, not as diseases. A whole person is someone whose being has physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Ignoring any of these aspects of humanity leaves the patient feeling incomplete and may even interfere with healing. For many patients, spirituality is an important part of wholeness, and when addressing psychosocial aspects in medicine, that part of their personhood cannot be ignored. In this article, I use spirituality and religion interchangeably, since the vast majority of Americans do not make distinctions between these concepts. Furthermore, most research linking spirituality to health has measured religious beliefs or practices.

Many seriously ill patients use religious beliefs to cope with their illnesses.1 Religious involvement is a widespread practice that predicts successful coping with physical illness.2,3 In fact, high intrinsic religiousness predicts more rapid remission of depression, an association that is particularly strong in patients whose physical function is not improving.3 More than 850 studies have now examined the relationship between religious involvement and various aspects of mental health.1 Between two thirds and three quarters of these have found that people experience better mental health and adapt more successfully to stress if they are religious.

An additional 350 studies have examined religious involvement and health. The majority of these have found that religious people are physically healthier, lead healthier lifestyles, and require fewer health services.1 The magnitude of the possible impact on physical health—particularly survival—may approximate that of abstaining from cigarette smoking4 or adding 7 to 14 years to life.5 However, religious practices should not replace allopathic therapies. Also, while many people find that illness spurs them to ask metaphysical questions and helps them rediscover religion, no studies have shown that people who become religious only in anticipation of health benefits will experience better health.

What does all this mean for clinical practice? While no research exists on the impact of physician-directed religious assessments or interventions, some recommendations based on clinical experience and common sense can be made. First, what should physicians not do? Physicians should not “prescribe” religious beliefs or activities for health reasons. Physicians should not impose their religious beliefs on patients or initiate prayer without knowledge of the patient’s religious background and likely appreciation of such activity. Except in rare instances, physicians should not provide in-depth religious counseling to patients, something that is best done by trained clergy.

What should physicians do? Physicians should acknowledge and respect the spiritual lives of patients, and always keep interventions patient-centered. Acknowledging the spiritual lives of patients often involves taking a spiritual history. A spiritual history is not appropriate for every patient, although for those with illness that threatens life or way of life, it probably is. A consensus panel of the American College of Physicians6 recently suggested 4 simple questions that physicians might ask seriously ill patients: (1) “Is faith (religion, spirituality) important to you in this illness?” (2) “Has faith been important to you at other times in your life?” (3) “Do you have someone to talk to about religious matters?” and (4) “Would you like to explore religious matters with someone?” Taking a spiritual history is often a powerful intervention in itself.

The physician may consider supporting the patient’s religious beliefs that aid in coping. Religious patients, whose beliefs often form the core of their system of meaning, almost always appreciate the physician’s sensitivity to these issues. The physician can thus send an important message that he or she is concerned with the whole person, a message that enhances the patient-physician relationship and may increase the therapeutic impact of medical interventions.

Should physicians pray with patients? Post and colleagues7 provide guidelines for this issue. They suggest that physicians should not pray with a patient without his or her explicit request, and further state that physician-led prayer is appropriate only when a religious professional is not available, or when the patient prefers this. Alternatively, prayer can always be led by the patient. Our calling as physicians is to cure sometimes, relieve often, comfort always. If a distressed and scared patient asks for a prayer and the physician sees that such a prayer could bring comfort, then it is difficult to justify a refusal to do so. The comfort conveyed when a physician supports the core that gives the patient’s life meaning and hope is what many patients miss in their encounters with caregivers.»

REFERENCES
1. Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson D. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000:7-14.
2. Koenig HG, Cohen H, Blazer D, Pieper C, Meador, K, Shelp F, et al. Religious coping and depression in elderly hospitalized medically ill men. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149:1693-1700.
3. Koenig HG, George L, Peterson B. Religiosity and remission from depression in medically ill older patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:536-542.
4. Koenig HG, Hays J, Larson D, et al. Does religious attendance prolong survival? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54:M370-M377.
5. Hummer R, Rogers R, Nam C, Ellison, C. Religious involvement and US adult mortality. Demography. 1999;36:273-285.
6. Lo B, Quill T, Tulsky J. Discussing palliative care with patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:744-749.
7. Post SG, Puchalski C, Larson D. Physicians and patient spirituality: professional boundaries, competency, and ethics. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:578-583.

* Harold G. Koenig,
«Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: Application to Clinical Practice»
Θρησκεία, Πνευματικότητα και Ιατρική: Εφαρμογή στην Κλινική Πρακτική»],
JAMA, October 4, 2000/4 Οκτωβρίου 2000.
2000;284(13):1708 (doi:10.1001/jama.284.13.1708), American Medical Association,
p./σ. 1708.
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Cyril of Alexandria responding to emperor Julian
on the doctrine of Trinity /

Ο Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας
αποκρίνεται στον αυτοκράτορα Ιουλιανό
σχετικά με το δόγμα της Τριάδας



«Cyril responds at length to this section of Julian's work with two main arguments. The first is that the doctrine of the three persons of the Trinity is present in OT texts. The second is that Greek philosophers have a doctrine similar to that of the Christian Trinity. For Cyril God is unattainable except through the Son. The "we" of Gen 1:26 includes the Son and Holy Spirit according to Cyril. Cyril makes similar exegetical moves with Gen 11:7, 18:3, 19:24. From Hellenistic thought Cyril quotes Plutarch and Plato on the unity of God. He then chooses texts from Porphyry, Plato, Numenius and Plotinus that assert some type of divine triad. In a text from Numenius, for example, the philosopher argues for the existence of a First God that is indivisible. Associated with this God are a second and third God who are one. From Porphyry, Cyril quoted his statement about the Platonic Good, Demiurge, and World soul — the three hypostases of God.»

«Η μακροσκελής απόκριση το Κύριλλου σε αυτό το τμήμα του έργου του Ιουλιανού περιλαμβάνει δύο κύρια επιχειρήματα. Το πρώτο είναι ότι το δόγμα των τριών προσώπων της Τριάδας υφίσταται σε αποσπάσματα της Π[αλαιάς] Δ[ιαθήκης]. Το δεύτερο είναι ότι οι Έλληνες φιλόσοφοι έχουν ένα δόγμα παρόμοιο με αυτό της χριστιανικής Τριάδας. Για τον Κύριλλο ο Θεός είναι απρόσιτος παρεκτός μέσω του Γιου. Το "εμείς" του Γένεση 1:26 περιλαμβάνει τον Γιο και το Άγιο Πνεύμα σύμφωνα με τον Κύριλλο. Ο Κύριλλος καταφεύγει σε παρόμοιους εξηγητικούς ελιγμούς με τα εδάφια Γένεση 11:7, 18:3, 19:24. Από την ελληνιστική σκέψη ο Κύριλλος παραθέτει από τον Πλούταρχο και τον Πλάτωνα περί της ενότητας του Θεού. Κατόπιν επιλέγει αποσπάσματα του Πορφύριου, του Πλάτωνα, του Νουμήνιου και του Πλωτίνου που υποστηρίζουν κάποιο τύπο θεϊκής τριάδας. Σε απόσπασμα του Νουμήνιου, για παράδειγμα, ο φιλόσοφος επιχειρηματολογεί υπέρ της ύπαρξης Πρώτου Θεού ο οποίος είναι αδιαίρετος. Με αυτό τον Θεό σχετίζεται ένας δεύτερος και ένας τρίτος Θεός οι οποίοι είναι ένας. Από τον Πορφύριο, ο Κύριλλος παρέθεσε τη δήλωσή του σχετικά με τον πλατωνικό Αγαθό, τον Δημιουργό και την Παγκόσμια ψυχή —τις τρεις υποστάσεις του Θεού».

* John Granger Cook,
The interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman paganism,
Mohr Siebeck, 2000,
p./σ. 303.