Is the Holy Spirit male or neuter? / Είναι το Άγιο Πνεύμα αρσενικό ή ουδέτερο;

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit (רוה—a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality. [...] But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.


Σε κανένα σημείο του κειμένου της ΚΔ δεν επιβεβαιώνεται σαφώς ή έστω πιθανότατα η προσωπικότητα του Αγίου Πνεύματος διαμέσου της ελληνικής γραμματικής. Η βάση για αυτό το δόγμα θα πρέπει να στηριχτεί αλλού. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι στην ΚΔ το Πνεύμα είναι ένα αντικείμενο, όχι περισσότερο απ' ό,τι στην ΠΔ το Πνεύμα (רוה—ουσιαστικό θηλυκού γένους) είναι θηλυκό! Ο γραμματικός τύπος είναι αυτό και μόνο: γραμματικός. Οι συμβάσεις της γλώσσας δεν ανταποκρίνονται κατ' ανάγκην στην πραγματικότητα. [...] Αλλά αν η γραμματική δεν μπορεί δικαιολογημένα να υποστηρίξει την προσωπικότητα του Πνεύματος, τότε πιθανώς χρειάζεται να επανεξετάσουμε το υπόλοιπο της βάσης μας για αυτή τη θεολογική δέσμευση.

* Daniel B. Wallace,

"Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit"

[Η Ελληνική Γραμματική και η Προσωπικότητα του Αγίου Πνεύματος],

Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003) 97-125.

[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Did Qumran expect two Messiahs? /Ανέμενε το Κουμράν δύο Μεσσίες;

It has long been held that the Qumran community expected not one but two Messiahs. This assumption has often been accompanied by the act of translating the Hebrew term māšîahi in Qumran literature as "Messiah" (with or without the capital "m") rather than as "anointed." The Qumran texts themselves do not necessarily support this viewpoint. A careful examination of the most important literature reveals that the multiple messiahship of Qumran is a creation of modern scholars, not a fact required by the texts themselves.

Επί μακρόν επικράτησε η άποψη ότι η κοινότητα του Κουμράν ανέμενε όχι έναν αλλά δύο Μεσσίες. Αυτή η υπόθεση συχνά συνοδεύτηκε από την πρακτική της μετάφρασης του εβραϊκού όρου māšîahi της κουμρανικής γραμματείας ως «Μεσσίας» (με ή χωρίς κεφαλαίο «μ») παρά ως «χρισμένος». Τα κουμρανικά κείμενα καθαυτά δεν υποστηρίζουν κατ' ανάγκην αυτή την άποψη. Μια προσεκτική εξέταση των πιο σημαντικών κειμένων αποκαλύπτει ότι η πολλαπλή μεσσιανικότητα του Κουμράν είναι δημιούργημα των σύγχρονων λογίων και όχι γεγονός που συνάγεται οπωσδήποτε από τα κείμενα καθαυτά.

* L. D. Hurst,
"Did Qumran Expect Two Messiahs?",
Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999) 157-180.
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

The so-called Hebrew & Alexandrian Bible canons being challenged & the Greek speaking Jews of Palestine /Οι επιλεγόμενοι Ιουδαϊκός & Αλεξανδρινός βιβλικός κανόνας εν αμφιβόλω & οι ελληνόφωνοι Ιουδαίοι της Παλαιστίνης

4Q LXXLev^b

The Alexandrian canon hypothesis in modern canonical studies was proposed by J. S. Semler (1771).²⁴ Divorcing himself from the dogmatic Protestant position that the Old Testament had always been the books of the Hebrew canon, Semler proposed that Hellenistic Jews of Egypt had a different canon than those in Palestine. Alexandrian Jews and Jews of the Diaspora were a third party that accepted the books of the Apocrypha in their canon. Semler believed that these books were composed in Greek in Alexandria. Like Augustine, Semler believed that the Jewish translators of the Law into Greek were inspired, which gave authority to the enlarged Greek canon. His hypothesis came to be generally accepted in the nineteenth century (Sundberg 1964:7-40). Since Semler, scholarly research has produced no additional evidence supporting the Alexandrian canon hypothesis.

This consensus about the Hebrew and Alexandrian canons began to be challenged in 1957 with the presentation by this writer of a doctoral thesis to the Faculty of Harvard University with the title, The Old Testament of the Early Church.²⁵ These were the days when the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls were still fresh. I was attracted by the circumstance that scrolls and scroll fragments of books we now call Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha as well as other, often previously unknown, non-sectarian religious writings were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Copies of the Hebrew canonical writings and sectarian writings of the apparently Essene (?)²⁶ inhabitants of Qumran were also found. This appeared strikingly similar to the circumstance in early Christianity as observed above. The resultant thesis challenged the Old Testament canon consensus at two points: Was there really an Alexandrian canon? Was the Hebrew or Jewish canon in Palestine completed (as a de facto canon) before the first century C.E.?

Critique of the Alexandrian canon consisted chiefly in bringing attention to previous scholarly findings that completely undercut the foundations upon which the Alexandrian canon rested. But notice had not been taken as to the effect these had upon the Alexandrian canon hypothesis. The bases upon which the Alexandrian canon had been proposed had simply been forgotten.

Socio-political studies placed the venue for the composition of apocryphal writings in Palestine rather then in Alexandria (Smith 1900; Grant 1923 and 1924, Pfeiffer 1949:63; and Torrey 1945:108). Linguistic analysis of the extra-canonical Jewish literature came to show that most of that literature, rather than having been written in Greek in Alexandria, was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic in Palestine (Sundberg 1964:62). A Hebrew text of Ben Sira was found in a Geniza in Cairo (Kahle 1960).

The Hellenistic element in Palestinian Judaism is now generally recognized, which was not the case three or four decades ago. S. Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine (1942) and E. R. Goodenough's Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (1953) were ground-breaking and not immediately generally accepted. Goodenough (1953:1.8-13) told us that Greek names are nearly as common as Hebrew and Aramaic names combined on first century C.E. Jewish tombs in Palestine and that names of Jews preserved on ossuaries from the period of the Maccabees to 135 C.E. are one third Greek (Goodenough 1953:1.111-132). One inscription from pre-70 C.E. Jerusalem, records the building and dedication of a synagogue "for the reading of the Law and for the teaching of the Commandments." The inscription is in Greek and the name of the builder is Greek. Goodenough (1953:1.8-13) believed that the Law was read in Greek in that synagogue. By the third century C.E. Greek was the predominant language for Jews in Palestine. Goodenough (1953:1.80)²⁷ says that, ". . . Greek inscriptions in Palestinian synagogues show that the placing of Hellenized Judaism, as Alexandrian, over against Palestinian Judaism is unwarranted." Thus, it appears that a significant portion of the Palestinian Jewish population was bi-lingual: Aramaic (and Hebrew as a learned language) and Greek.

Lieberman (1942:15) points out the evidence for the use of Greek in the rabbinic materials and notes an "overwhelming number of Greek words" in the Talmudic literature. More impressive than direct reference to Jews using Greek is the inclusion of Greek words, phrases and proverbs in the sayings of the Jewish preachers (Lieberman 1942:30).²⁸ Lieberman refutes the claim that these were embellishments by preachers to dazzle their ignorant hearers with high-sounding phrases. Rather, he argues, the preacher spoke to the people in their language and style and, thus, this Greek usage reflects the common understanding and usage of the time (Lieberman 1942:37-67).

* Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.,
"The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited",
in Thomas J. Sienkewicz and James E. Betts (eds.),
Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel, 
Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois, 1997.
[English/Αγγλικά, HTML]
*

Fighting for religious freedom in Turkey / Αγώνες για θρησκευτική ελευθερία στην Τουρκία

Bülent Arınç, 13 October 2011,
'Symposium on Religion and State Relations',
hosted by Doğuş University, Turkey.

Samuelsson: A description of Jesus' crucifixion /Περιγραφή της σταύρωσης του Ιησού

* Gunnar Samuelsson,
Crucifixion in Antiquity
[Η Σταύρωση στην Αρχαιότητα],
Mohr Siebeck, 2011,
p./σ. 296.

Jesus as the representative of God's name on earth /Ο Ιησούς ως αντιπρόσωπος του ονόματος του Θεού στη γη

“It is probable that Jesus’ identity was very early associated with the angel of YHWH who is superior to all angels in that he represents God’s name on earth.”


«Είναι πιθανότατο ότι η ταυτότητα του Ιησού συσχετίστηκε από πολύ νωρίς με τον άγγελο του ΓΧΒΧ ο οποίος είναι ανώτερος από όλους τους άλλους αγγέλους καθώς αυτός αντιπροσωπεύει το όνομα του Θεού στη γη».

Alan F. Segal,
“Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and Their Environment”
[Ουράνια Ανάληψη στον Ελληνιστικό Ιουδαϊσμό, στον Πρώιμο Χριστιανισμό και στο Περιβάλλον τους],
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) 23.2:1371.

The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament? /Το Τετραγράμματο στην Καινή Διαθήκη;

Papyrus Fouad 266

Another fact worth noting is that as late as the third century some scribes who copied the Greek manuscripts did not use the Greek word κύριος for the Tetragram, but transcribed the Aramaic characters יהוה (Yahweh) into Greek as ΠΙΠΙ (PIPI). It is possible that they did not recognize the peculiar-looking Aramaic letters in the Old Testament exemplar they were using. For at the beginning of the fifth century Jerome tells us that "certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the [Aramaic and Greek] characters, when they would find [יהוה] in Greek books, were accustomed to pronounce PIPI." On the other hand, this could have been a means of simply assigning these unique Aramaic characters a special Greek form in order to perpetuate their distinctiveness for Christians. It has been suggested that Origen in the third century or Eusebius in the fourth may have made the change into Greek.

This whole issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider the possibility that the New Testament autographs, written almost entirely by Jewish Christians (the possible exception being Luke-Acts), may have preserved the Jewish custom and retained the divine name in Aramaic script in quotations from the Old Testament. Thus they may have followed the lead of some Jewish authors who used one script for the divine name when they quoted Scripture and another when they themselves referred to God. Similarly, it was customary at Qumran to use the Tetragram freely when one was either copying or introducing Scripture quotations into a commentary, but to use El ("God") in original material written for a commentary.

Having references to Yahweh clearly indicated would be of enormous help, for any verses that refer to "the Lord" are unclear as to whether Christ or God (Yahweh) is meant. For example, Peter's quotation (in Acts 2:34) of David, "The Lord said to my Lord," is unclear until the Hebrew original (Ps. 110:1) is read: "Yahweh says to my Adonai." Such verses that quote the Old Testament would be clearer if YHWH (the Tetragram) were used in the New Testament.

Ένα άλλο αξιοπρόσεκτο γεγονός είναι ότι μέχρι και τον τρίτο αιώνα κάποιοι γραμματείς που αντέγραφαν τα ελληνικά χειρόγραφα δεν χρησιμοποιούσαν την ελληνική λέξη κύριος για το Τετραγράμματο, αλλά μετέγραφαν τους αραμαϊκούς χαρακτήρες יהוה (Ιαχβέ) στα Ελληνικά ως ΠΙΠΙ. Πιθανόν δεν αναγνώριζαν την ιδιαίτερη μορφή των αραμαϊκών γραμμάτων στα υποδείγματα της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης που χρησιμοποιούσαν. Διότι στις αρχές του πέμπτου αιώνα ο Ιερώνυμος αναφέρει ότι "κάποιοι αδαείς, εξαιτίας της ομοιότητας των [αραμαϊκών και ελληνικών] χαρακτήρων, όταν βρουν [το יהוה] στα ελληνικά βιβλία, συνηθίζουν να το προφέρουν ΠΙΠΙ". Από την άλλη πλευρά, αυτό θα μπορούσε να αποτελεί απλώς μέσο για να προσδίδεται ελληνική μορφή σε αυτούς τους μοναδικούς αραμαϊκούς χαρακτήρες έτσι ώστε να διαιωνιστεί ο ιδιαίτερος χαρακτήρας τους για τους χριστιανούς. Έχει προταθεί ότι ο Ωριγένης τον τρίτο αιώνα ή ο Ευσέβιος τον τέταρτο αιώνα μπορεί να έκαναν τη μετατροπή στα Ελληνικά.

Όλο αυτό το ζήτημα γίνεται ακόμη πιο συναρπαστικό όταν εξετάσουμε την πιθανότητα σύμφωνα με την οποία τα αυτόγραφα της Καινής Διαθήκης, γραμμένα εξολοκλήρου από Ιουδαιοχριστιανούς (με πιθανή εξαίρεση τον Λουκά και τις Πράξεις), μπορεί να διαφύλαξαν το ιουδαϊκό έθιμο και να διατήρησαν το θεϊκό όνομα στην αραμαϊκή γραφή σε παραθέσεις από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη. Έτσι μπορεί να ακολούθησαν το υπόδειγμα ορισμένων ιουδαίων συγγραφέων που χρησιμοποιούσαν το ένα είδος γραφής για το θεϊκό όνομα όταν παρέθεταν από τις Γραφές και το άλλο είδος όταν οι ίδιοι τους αναφέρονταν στον Θεό. Παρόμοια, ήταν συνηθισμένο στο Κουμράν να χρησιμοποιούν το Τετραγράμματο ελεύθερα είτε όταν κάποιος αντέγραφε είτε όταν εισήγαγε γραφικές περικοπές σε ένα σχολιολόγιο, αλλά να χρησιμοποιούν το Ελ ("Θεός") στο πρωτότυπο υλικό που έγραφαν σε ένα σχολιολόγιο.

Παραπομπές στις οποίες ο Ιαχβέ δηλώνεται ξεκάθαρα θα αποτελούσαν τεράστια βοήθεια, διότι όσα εδάφια αναφέρονται στον "Κύριο" είναι ασαφές ως προς το αν εννοείται ο Χριστός ή ο Θεός (Ιαχβέ). Για παράδειγμα, η παράθεση από τον Πέτρο (στις Πράξεις 2:34) του Δαβίδ: "Είπε ο Κύριος στον Κύριό μου", είναι ασαφής μέχρι να διαβαστεί το εβραϊκό πρωτότυπο (Ψαλ. 110:1): "Ο Ιαχβέ είπε στον Αδονάι μου". Τέτοια εδάφια που παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη θα ήταν πιο σαφή αν το ΙΧΒΧ (το Τετραγράμματο) χρησιμοποιούνταν στην Καινή Διαθήκη.

* John McRay,
Archaeology and the New Testament
[Η Αρχαιολογία και η Καινή Διαθήκη],
Baker Book House, 1991/2008,
p./σ. 371.

Ο ελληνοχριστιανικός αντισημιτισμός κατά τον Κοραή /Greek Christian antisemitism according to Korais

*

«Εις πολλά μέρη της Ελλάδος, την μεγάλην εβδομάδα, και εξαιρέτως την παρασκευήν του πάθους, αν εφαίνετο κανείς Ιουδαίος εις τον δρόμον, έτρεχε κίνδυνον εμπτυσμάτων, ραπισμών και καμμίαν φοράν και της ζωής αυτής».

–Αδαμάντιος Κοραής / Adamantios Korais,
Σημειώσεις εις το προσωρινόν πολίτευμα της Ελλάδος του 1822 έτους,
Έκδοσις Θ. Βολίδου, Αθήναι 1933,
σ. 14, υποσημ. (1).
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]

The riddle of the day /Ο γρίφος της ημέρας

P.Oxy.L 3522 Job/Ιώβ 42:11-12: A Paleo-hebrew Tetragrammaton in the LXXdated in the 1st cent. CE /Παλαιοεβραϊκό Τετραγράμματο στην Ο'χρονολογούμενο τον 1ο αι. ΚΧ

P.Oxy.L 3522
LXX Job 42:11-12
ed. P. J. Parsons

---

Publication date	1983
Date	First century
Provenance	Oxyrhynchus
Location	Papyrology Rooms, Sackler Library, Oxford
Genre	Religion: Narrative
Format	Roll
Material	Papyrus

---

Images

Low resolution	High resolution

---

Frame a.01	Images Low resolution High resolution
	See The Oxyrhynchus Papyri for a transcription.

* Source/Πηγή: papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/

The "Shiloh" of Gen. 49:10–12 again. A case study comparison between the available ancient texts & translations /Ο "Σηλώ" του Γεν. 49:10–12 και πάλι. Συγκριτική μελέτη περίπτωσης μεταξύ των διαθέσιμων αρχαίων κειμένων και μεταφράσεων

Gen. 49:10–12

Masoretic Text:
A sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until Shiloh comes,
and the obedience of the peoples is his.
He shall bind his donkey to a vine
and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
He shall be more sparkling of eyes than wine
and whiter of teeth than milk.

Samaritanus:
A sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a ruler’s staff from between his standards,
until Shiloh comes,
and the obedience of the peoples is his.
Bound is his donkey to a vine
and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
His eyes shall sparkle more than wine
and his teeth shall be whiter than milk.

Septuagint and Theodotion:
A ruler shall not depart from Judah,
nor a leader from between his hips,
until what was set aside for him comes,
and he is the expectation of the peoples.
He shall bind his young animal to a vine
and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
More joy inspiring are his eyes than wine
and whiter his teeth than milk.

4Q Genesis Peshera (= 4Q252), fragment 1, column V55:
The sceptre shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah.
While Israel has the dominion,
There [will not] be cut off someone who sits on the throne of David.
For “the staff ” is the covenant of royalty
[and the thous]ands of Israel are “the standards”.
Until the Messiah of righteousness comes, the branch of David.
For to him and to his descendents has been given the covenant of
the kingship of his people for everlasting generations,
which he upheld [. . .] the Law with the men of the Community,
for [. . .] it is the assembly of the
men of [. . .] [. . .] He gives

Aquila and Symmachus:
A sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a commander 56 from between his feet,
until he comes,
and the alliance of the peoples is his.
He shall bind his young animal to a vine
and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
Bright are his eyes more than wine
and whiter his teeth than milk.

Peshitta:
A sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a leader from his court house,
until the one to whom it belongs comes.
The peoples await him.
He shall bind his donkey to a vine
and his donkey’s colt to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
His eyes shall sparkle more than wine
and his teeth shall be whiter than milk.

Vulgate:
A sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a leader from his hips,
until the one who must be sent comes;
He shall be the expectation of the peoples.
He shall bind his young to a vine
and his she-ass, O my son, to a choice vine.
He shall wash his garments in wine
and his robe in the blood of grapes.
More beautiful are his eyes than wine
and his teeth whiter than milk.

Targum Onqelos:
The ruler shall never depart from the House of Judah,
nor the scribe from his children’s children for evermore,
until the Messiah comes,
to whom belongs the kingdom,
and him shall the nations obey.
He shall lead Israel round about his city;
the people shall build his Temple;
the righteous shall be round about him;
and they that carry out the Law shall be with him in study.
Let his raiment, be of fine purple, and his garment all woolen,
crimson, and of bright sparkling colours.
His mountains shall be red with his vineyards;
his vats shall be dripping with wine;
his valleys shall be white with grain and with flocks of sheep.

Targum Neofiti I:
Kings shall not cease from among those of the house of Judah,
and neither (shall) scribes teaching the Law, from his son’s sons,
until the time King Messiah shall come,
to whom the kingship belongs;
to him shall all the kingdoms be subject.
How beautiful is King Messiah,
who is to rise from among those of the house of Judah.
He girds his loins and goes forth to battle against those who hate him;
and he kills kings with rulers,
and makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain
and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors.
His garments are rolled in blood;
he is like a presser of grapes.
How beautiful are the eyes of King Messiah,
more than pure wine,
lest he see with them the revealing of nakedness
or the shedding of innocent blood.
His teeth are more pure than milk,
lest he eatwith them things that are stolen or robbed.
The mountains shall become red from his vines
and the vats from wine;
and the hills will become white from the abundance of grain and flocks of sheep.

Targum Jerushalmi I:
Kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah,
nor scribes teacing the Law, from his descendents,
until the time the King Messiah comes,
the youngest of his sons,
because of whom the people will pine away.
How beautiful is King Messiah,
who is to arise from among those of the house of Judah.
He girds his loins and comes down
arranging battle lines against his enemies
and slaying kings together with rulers;
and there is no king or ruler who can withstand him.
He makes the mountains red with the blood of their dead,
his garments are rolled in blood;
he is like a presser of grapes.
How beautiful are the eyes of the King Messiah,
like pure wine,
for they have not seen the uncovering of nakedness,
or the shedding of innocent blood.
His teeth are whiter than milk,
because he has not eaten what has been robbed or taken by force.
His mountains and his press shall be red from wine,
and his hills white from the harvest and from the flocks.

Targum Jerushalmi II:
Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah,
nor scholars and and teachers of the Torah from his children’s children,
until such time that the King Messiah comes,
whose is the kingdom,
and unto whom all the kingdoms of the earth will be subjugated.
How beautiful is the King Messiah,
who will arise from the house of Judah!
He girds his loins and goes out to battle against those who hate him,
and he kills kings and rulers;
he reddens the mountains from the blood of their slain,
and he whitens his valleys form the fat of their mighty ones;
his garments roll in the blood,
and he is like one who presses grapes.
How beautiful to behold are the eyes of the King Messiah,
they are purer than wine,
from [avoidance of ] seeing through them the uncovering of nakedness,
and the spilling of innocent blood;
his teeth are whiter than milk
from [avoidance of] eating with them
[the fruit of ] violence and robbery;
his mountains will be red with grapes,
and his press, from wine;
his hills will be white from abundance of grain and flocks of sheep.

* T.C. Vriezen & A.S. van der Woude,
Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Literature
[Αρχαία Ισραηλιτική και Πρωτοϊουδαϊκή Γραμματεία],
transl. by Brian Doyle,
pp./σσ. 91-95.

"Other ancient authorities read...": Α "false and insidious" editorial practice /"Άλλες αρχαίες αυθεντίες αναγράφουν...": Μια "εσφαλμένη και ύπουλη" εκδοτική πρακτική

Many other passages could be mentioned, such as the famous "Comma Johanneum" of 1 John 5:7-8. But for anyone who has read this far, a glance at the data in the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland²⁶ (which is exhaustive for this passage) should make any further comment unnecessary to demonstrate the secondary nature of this addition and the impossibility of its being at all related to the original form of the text of 1 John. There is an abundance of still further instances of textual variation which are noted in modern versions and which would well be worth further investigation. Many are mentioned, for example, in the Revised Standard Version. It is most unfortunate that the latest editions have standardized the introductory formula for textual footnotes to the form "Other ancient authorities read." Granted that strictly speaking this formula may be quite accurate, because even the latest manuscript of the Majority text, i.e., the Byzantine Imperial text, written as recently as the sixteenth century, may qualify as an "ancient authority" from the perspective of the twentieth century. Yet such an egalitarian representation of the manuscript tradition (although certainly contrary to the intention of those responsible for the new edition of the Revised Standard Version) must give the impression to readers of the version who are not specialists in textual criticism that the variant readings in the notes are of equal value with those in the text — and nothing could be more false and insidious!

Πολλές άλλες περικοπές θα μπορούσαν να αναφερθούν, όπως το περιβόητο "Κόμμα Ιωάννου" του 1 Ιωάννη 5:7-8. Αλλά για τον καθένα που έχει διαβάσει ως αυτό το σημείο, μια ματιά στις πληροφορίες του κριτικού μηχανισμού του Nestle-Aland²⁶ (το οποίο είναι εκτενέστατο για αυτή την περικοπή) καθιστά περιττό κάθε επιπλέον σχόλιο για να γίνει φανερή η δευτερεύουσα φύση αυτής της προσθήκης και η απιθανότητα οποιασδήποτε σχέσης της με την αρχική μορφή  του κειμένου της 1 Ιωάννη. Αφθονούν αρκετές άλλες περιπτώσεις κειμενικών παραλλαγών οι οποίες σημειώνονται στις σύγχρονες μεταφράσεις και οι οποίες αξίζουν μεγαλύτερης διερεύνησης. Πολλές αναφέρονται, για παράδειγμα, στην Αναθεωρημένη Στερεότυπη Μετάφραση. Είναι ατυχέστατο ότι οι πιο πρόσφατες εκδόσεις παγίωσαν την εισαγωγική στερεότυπη διατύπωση για τις υποσημειώσεις του κειμένου στη μορφή "Άλλες αρχαίες αυθεντίες αναγράφουν". Δεδομένου ότι μιλώντας αυστηρά αυτή η στερεότυπη διατύπωση  μπορεί να είναι αρκετά ακριβής, επειδή ακόμη και το πιο πρόσφατο χειρόγραφο του Πλειοψηφιακού κειμένου [Majority text], δηλ., του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκρατορικού κειμένου, του οποίου η συγγραφή του ανάγεται στον δέκατο έκτο αιώνα, είναι δυνατόν να προσδιορίζεται ως "αρχαία αυθεντία" από την προοπτική του εικοστού αιώνα. Εντούτοις μια τέτοια ισοπεδωτική αναπαράσταση της χειρογραφικής παράδοσης (μολονότι είναι σίγουρα αντίθετη στις προθέσεις των υπευθύνων για τη νέα έκδοση της Αναθεωρημένης Στερεότυπης Μετάφρασης) δίνει την εντύπωση στους αναγνώστες που δεν είναι ειδικοί στην κειμενική κριτική ότι οι ποικίλες γραφές που αναφέρονται στις υποσημειώσεις είναι ίσης αξίας με εκείνες που βρίσκονται στο κείμενο — κάτι εντελώς εσφαλμένο και ύπουλο!

* Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland,

The text of the New Testament: An introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism

[Το κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης: Εισαγωγή στις κριτικές εκδόσεις και στη θεωρία και πρακτική της σύγχρονης κριτικής κειμένου],

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995,

p./σ. 311.

Sabbatai Ṣevi, the Ottomans & the rivalry between Jews & Orthodox Christians /Ο Σαμπατάι Τσεβί, οι Οθωμανοί & ο ανταγωνισμός μεταξύ Εβραίων & Ορθόδοξων χριστιανών

Shabbatai Tzevi’s messianic calling could not have come at a worse time for the Jewish elite in Istanbul. It confirmed for the Ottomans that Jews were untrustworthy and helped convince them to turn to the Jews’ rivals, Orthodox Christians, as the two groups struggled for positions of power and influence. Jews appeared to be a volatile and untrustworthy group because they so wholeheartedly endorsed Shabbatai Tzevi. Their actions threatened to undermine the social order and directly challenged the sultan’s uncontested rule when he was facing serious military and fi nancial problems, including the siege of Venetian Crete, a fact noted by a late Ottoman historian. Shabbatai Tzevi’s attempt to dethrone the sultan and his inciting Jews to sedition worsened already negative palace opinion of Jews. The decade of the 1660s was thus a crucial turning point for the fortunes of Istanbul Jewry. Shabbatai Tzevi’s mission to the city, initially met with such hope and even cockiness on the part of some Jews who felt their persecutors would soon taste their just reward, ended with most of the rabbi’s original followers in despair and many eventually converted to Islam. It benefited Orthodox Christian physicians, translators, diplomats, and advisors, to whom Ottomans would thereafter entrust their lives and political affairs.

Due to the dissemination of prophecies concerning Shabbatai Tzevi, many Jews in Istanbul expected a “quick transfer of the sultan’s power” to the rabbi. Especially those from Iberia believed Shabbatai Tzevi would dethrone the sultan and crown himself king sometime in the autumn of 1665 or winter of 1666: “Jews printed prophecies of rescue from the tyranny of the Turk, and leading the Grand Signior [the sultan] himself captive in Chains.” He referred to himself as “the High King, above all the kings of the Earth,” and told the Jews not to fear, “for you shall have Dominion over the Nations.” According to the Frenchman Chevalier De La Croix, Jews expected “the imminent establishment of the kingdom of Israel” and the subsequent “fall of the Crescent and of all the royal crowns in Christendom.” Christians such as the Armenian historian and priest Arakel of Tabriz feared the Jews would then destroy other peoples. A French Catholic priest wrote that Jews threatened Christians “with dire disaster if we failed to join them as soon as possible, and of our own good and free will walked in front of the king who would rule over them, acknowledging his kingdom and submitting to the religion and the laws which he would establish in the world.” As a result of this fervor, Jews exhibited a “peculiar atmosphere of feverish expectation” that was a “psychological and social reality.”

* Marc David Baer,

Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe

[Τιμημένος με τη Δόξα του Ισλάμ: Μεταστροφή και Κατάκτηση στην Οθωμανική Ευρώπη],

Oxford University Press, 2011

p./σ. 123.

Ante 2000 BCE Babylonian origin of "Yahweh": A Delitzsch's Babel-und-Bibel controversy product /Η προ του 2000 ΠΚΧ βαβυλωνιακή προέλευση του "Ιαχβέ": Παράγωγο της διαμάχης Babel-und-Bibel του Delitzsch

*
Friedrich Delitzsch,
Babel and Bible Three Lectures
on the Significance of Assyriological research for Religion,
The Open courtpublishing company, 1906,
pp./σσ. 150-153.
[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

Aleppo Codex / Κώδικας Aleppo (Χαλεπίου) by/υπό David Marcus in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception

aleppocodex.org

Aleppo Codex. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest extant manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible and is dated to 930 CE. For hundreds of years the Codex had been in the possession of the Jewish community in the Mustaribah synagogue of Aleppo, Syria, where it was brought from Cairo in the 15th century. In 1947, during the riots against the Jews of Aleppo following the United Nations decision to partition Palestine, the synagogue was torched and the manuscript was thought to have perished in the fire. Most of it, however, was saved, and the remaining parts were brought to Jerusalem where they reside today in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum. Of the estimated 480 folios of the original manuscript, 294, or about three-fifths of the original contents, have survived. Most of the Torah and portions of the Writings are missing. The parts that remain are Deut 28 : 17 to the end of the book, Joshua, Judges, and most of Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel and most of Jeremiah and the Twelve, Chronicles, Job, Proverbs, Ruth and parts of Psalms and Canticles. No copies of the Codex are extant because the Aleppo community, being very protective of the Codex, seldom allowed scholars access and forbade photographs for scholarly purposes. Nevertheless, photographs do exist of two pages of the missing parts, one of Gen 26 : 34–27 : 30, and the other of Deut 4 : 38–6 : 3 containing the Ten Commandments (Goshen-Gottstein 1966). A hitherto missing page from Chronicles (Beit-Arié) and a fragment of Exodus (Ofer 1989), which were picked up by rescuers searching among the charred ruins of the synagogue, have emerged, leading to speculation that other missing parts might have survived.

The manuscript is written on parchment in square script in dark brown ink. Each page measures 25.4 by 33 cm, and the text is arranged in three columns per page. In the poetic sections of Job, Proverbs and Psalms, the text is written in two columns per page. As is customary for Tiberian manuscripts, the Masorah parva is written on the sides and between the columns, and the Masorah magna is written in the top and bottom margins. The brown coloring and deterioration of many pages of the Codex are due to a fungus rather than, as was previously thought, to the fire. In 1986, the Codex underwent extensive restoration efforts, and over the course of ten years in the conservation laboratory of the Israel Museum, pieces of tape and spots of dirt were removed, and the ink was reinforced in the places where it had begun to disintegrate (Ofer 2002).

The Aleppo Codex is the finest exemplar of the Tiberian Masoretic school. It was produced under the direction of the master Tiberian Masorete Aaron ben Asher, who added the vowels, accents and the Masoretic notes. On the basis of comparison with similar manuscripts it has been demonstrated that the text of the Aleppo Codex is not only superior to any other manuscript of its type, but that it is the only manuscript of the entire Bible in which the correspondence between its text and masoretic notations is nearly perfect. The reputation of the perfection of the Codex led to its gaining the title Ha-Keter, “The Crown,” meaning that it was the authoritative Codex. The Codex served as a model for the writing of other codices, and even the Codex Leningradensis (B19a), the basis for the Biblia Hebraica series (BHK, BHS and now BHQ  ), was corrected to bring it in line with this master codex. The renowned rabbinic authority Maimonides (1138–1204) both consulted this work to write his own Torah and declared it to be a model codex to be emulated, especially with regard to the division of paragraphs and to the layout of the Song of the Sea in Exod 15 and the Song of Moses in Deut 32 (Goshen-Gottstein 1979).

The extant portions of the Codex have been published in facsimile form (Goshen-Gottstein 1976), and are available free of charge in electronic form on the Aleppo Codex Website. The Codex is the basis for the critical Hebrew Bible edition being produced by the Hebrew University Bible Project (Goshen-Gottstein 1995). To date, three volumes have appeared in this series (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) and a fourth, the Twelve (minor prophets), is in production. The Codex has also served as the basis for several printed editions (Breuer; Cohen), and it has also been printed in a three-column format, emulating the Codex itself (Ben-Zvi). For these editions, the missing parts have been supplemented on the basis of reports of the privileged few who were permitted to examine the Codex, on the basis of the Masorah of the extant portions, and on the basis of comparison with comparable manuscripts such as Leningrad B19a, British Library Or 4445, Sassoon 507, and Sassoon 1053.

Bibliography

Primary

Aleppo Codex Website at http://aleppocodex.org.

Ben-Zvi, N. (ed.), Keter Yerushalayim: Jerusalem Crown (ed. N. Ben-Zvi; Jerusalem 2002).

Breuer, N., Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim (Jerusalem 1977–2004).

Cohen, M. (ed.), Miqraot Gedolot ‘Haketer’ (Ramat Gan 1992 continuing).

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. (ed.), The Aleppo Codex (Jerusalem 1976).

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. et al. (eds.), The Hebrew University Bible Project (Jerusalem 1995 continuing).

Secondary

Beit-Arié, M., “A Lost Leaf from the Aleppo Codex,” Tarb. 51 (1982) 171–74. [Heb.]

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., “A Recovered Part of the Aleppo Codex,” Textus 5 (1966) 53–59.

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., “The Aleppo Codex and the Rise of the Massoretic Bible Text,” BA 42/3 (1979) 145–63.

Ofer, Y., “A Fragment of Exodus from the Missing Part of the Aleppo Codex,” Pe ʾamim 41 (1989) 41–48. [Heb.]

Ofer, Y., “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,” in Companion Volume to the Keter Yerushalayim: Jerusalem Crown (ed. M. Glatzer; Jerusalem 2002) 25–50.

* David Marcus, "Aleppo Codex"
[Κώδικας Aleppo (Χαλεπίου)],
Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception,

Volume 1 (Aaron – Aniconism)

Edited by: Klauck, Hans-Josef; Leppin, Volker; McGinn, Bernard; Seow, Choon-Leong; Spieckermann, Hermann; Walfish, Barry Dov; Ziolkowski, Eric J.

de Gruyter (Berlin, New York) 2009,
pp. 728-730 [DOI: 10.1515/EBR.aleppocodex].

Ο Παναγιώτης Νικούσιος & η ερμηνεία του Τετραγράμματου /Panayotis Nikousios & the explication of the Tetragrammaton

* Γιώργος Κουτζακιώτης,

Αναμένοντας το τέλος του κόσμου τον 17ο αιώνα:
Ο Εβραίος Μεσσίας και ο Μέγας Διερμηνέας,

Ινστιτούτο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών / Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Αθήνα 2011,

σ. 172.

/

George Koutzakiotis,

Awaiting the End of the World in the 17th Century:
The Jewish Messiah and the Great Interpreter,

Institute for Neohellenic Research / National Hellenic Research Foundation Athens 2011,

p. 172.

Κ. Δημαράς,
Ιστορία της Νεοελληνικής Λογοτεχνίας
Από τις πρώτες ρίζες ως την εποχή μας
(1949/2000, εκδ. Γνώση),
σ. 81.

[english]

Hermes Trismegistus, Cyril of Alexandria & the trinitarian doctrine / Ο Ερμής ο Τρισμέγιστος,ο Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας & το τριαδικό δόγμα

Ὁ δὲ τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς [Hermes Trismegistus] οὕτω πώς φησι· «Θεὸν νοῆσαι μὲν χαλεπόν, φράσαι δὲ ἀδύνατον ᾧ καὶ νοῆσαι δυνάτον· τὸ γὰρ ἀσώματον σώματι σημῆναι ἀδύνατον, καὶ τὸ τέλειον τῷ ἀτελεῖ καταλαμβάνεσθαι οὐ δυνατόν, καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον τῷ ὀλιγοχρονίῳ συγγενέσθαι δύσκολον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀεὶ ἔστι, τὸ δὲ παρέρχεται, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀληθές ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ φαντασίας  σκιάζεται. Ὅσῳ οὖν τὸ ἀσθενέστερον τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ κρείττονος διέστηκε, τοσούτῳ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀθανάτου. Εἴ τις οὖν ἀσώματος ὀφθαλμός, ἐξερχέσθω τοῦ σώματος ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν τοῦ καλοῦ, καὶ ἀναπτήτω, καὶ αἰωρηθήτω, μὴ σχῆμα, μὴ σῶμα, μὴ ἰδέας ζητῶν θεάσασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον τὸ τούτων ποιητικόν, τὸ ἥσυχον, τὸ γαληνόν, τὸ ἑδραῖον, τὸ ἄτρεπτον, τὸ αὐτὸ πάντα καὶ μόνον, τὸ ἕν, τὸ αὐτὸ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τὸ ἑαυτῷ ὅμοιον, ὃ μήτε ἄλλῳ ὅμοιόν ἐστι, μήτε ἑαυτῷ ἀνόμοιον.» Καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτός· «Μηδὲν οὖν περὶ ἐκείνου πώποτε τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου ἀγαθοῦ ἐννοούμενος ἀδύνατον εἴπῃς· ἡπᾶσα γὰρ δύναμις αὐτός ἐστι, μηδὲ ἔν τινι αὐτὸν διανοηθῇς εἶναι, μηδὲ πάλιν κατεκτός τινος· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀπέραντος ὢν πάντων ἐστὶ πέρας, καὶ ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἐμπεριεχόμενος πάντα ἐμπεριέχει. Ἐπεὶ τίς διαφορά ἐστι τῶν σωμάτων πρὸς τὸ ἀσώματον, καὶ τῶν γενητῶν πρὸς τὸ ἀγένητον, καὶ τῶν ἀνάγκῃ ὑποκειμένων πρὸς τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, ἢ τῶν ἐπιγείων πρὸς τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τῶν φθαρτῶν πρὸς τὰ ἀΐδια; οὐχ ὅτι τὸ μὲν αὐτεξούσιόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀνάγκῃ ὑποκείμενον, τὰ δὲ κάτω ἀτελῆ ὄντα φθαρτά ἐστιν;»

– Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας / Cyril of Alexandria,
Κατά Ιουλιανού / Contra Julianum (Against Julian) 1:43.15-44.11.

Ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τῆς βασιλείας Σεσώστριος ἦν Ἑρμῆς ὁ τρισμέγιστος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, ἀνὴρ φοβερὸς ἐν σοφίᾳ· ὅστις ἔφρασεν τρεῖς μεγίστας δυνάμεις εἶναι τὸ τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου καὶ δημιουργοῦ θεοῦ ὄνομα, μίαν δὲ θεότητα εἶπεν εἶναι. διὸ καὶ ἐκλήθη ἀπὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς. ἐμφέρεται γὰρ ἐν διαφόροις αὐτοῦ λόγοις πρὸς Ἀσκληπιὸν εἰρηκὼς περὶ θεοῦ φύσεως ταῦτα· „εἰ μὴ πρόνοιά τις ἦν τοῦ πάντων κυρίου ὥστε μοι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἀποκαλύψαι, οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς τοιοῦτος ἔρως κατεῖχεν, ἵνα περὶ  τούτου ζητήσητε· οὐ γὰρ ἐφικτόν ἐστιν εἰς ἀμυήτους τοιαῦτα μυστήρια παρέχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ νοῒ ἀκούσατε. ἓν μόνον ἦν φῶς νοερὸν πρὸ φωτὸς νοεροῦ, καὶ ἦν ἀεὶ νοῦς νοὸς φωτεινός, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ ἡ τούτου ἑνότης, ἀεὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὢν ἀεὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νοῒ καὶ φωτὶ καὶ πνεύματι ἅπαντα περιέχει. ἐκτὸς τούτου οὐ θεός, οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐ δαίμων, οὐκ οὐσία τις ἄλλη. πάντων γὰρ κύριος καὶ πατὴρ καὶ θεός, καὶ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτόν ἐστιν. ὁ γὰρ λόγος αὐτοῦ προελθὼν παντέλειος ὢν καὶ γόνιμος καὶ δημιουργός, ἐν γονίμῳ φύσει πεσὼν ἐν γονίμῳ ὕδατι ἔγκυον τὸ ὕδωρ ἐποίησεν. καὶ ταῦτα εἰρηκὼς ηὔξατο λέγων, „Οὐρανὸν ὁρκίζω σε, θεοῦ μεγάλου σοφὸν ἔργον· ἵλεως ἔσο. ὁρκίζω σε φωνὴν πατρός, ἣν ἐφθέγξατο πρώτην, ἡνίκα κόσμον ἅπαντα ἐστηρίξατο βουλῇ· φωνὴν πατρός, ἣν ἐφθέγξατο πρώτην τὸν μονογενῆ λόγον αὐτοῦ.“ Ταῦτα καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Ἰουλιανοῦ βασιλέως ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου Κυρίλλου συνταχθεῖσιν ἐμφέρεται πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν σαφεστέραν ὅτι καὶ ὁ τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς ἀγνοῶν τὸ μέλλον τριάδα ὁμοούσιον ὡμολόγησεν.

– Πασχάλιο χρονικό (7ος αι.) / Chronicon Paschale (7th cent.) 85:8-86:13.

ἐπὶ τούτου Ἑρμῆν φασὶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ  θαυμαστὸν ἄνδρα γνωσθῆναι καὶ φοβερὸν ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ· ὃς ἔφρασε τρεῖς μεγίστας εἶναι δυνάμεις τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ, μίαν θεότητα εἶναι εἶπε· διὸ καὶ τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς κατωνόμασται. ὃς οὕτω πρός τινα Ἀσκληπιὸν αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν ἔφη “ἦν φῶς νοερὸν πρὸ φωτὸς νοεροῦ, καὶ ἦν ἀεὶ νοῦς νοῦ αἴτιον, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ ἡ τούτου ἑνότης. ἀεὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ὢν ἀεὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νοῒ καὶ φωτὶ καὶ πνεύματι πάντα περιέχει. ἐκτὸς τούτου οὐ θεός, οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐ δαίμων, οὐκ οὐσία τις ἄλλη· πάντων γὰρ κύριος καὶ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ· καὶ πάντα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστίν. ὁ γὰρ λόγος αὐτοῦ προελθὼν παντέλειος καὶ γόνιμος καὶ δημιουργός, ἐν γονίμῳ φύσει πεσών, ἐν γονίμῳ ὕδατι, ἔγκυον τὸ ὕδωρ ἐποίησεν.” οὕτως εἰπὼν ὁ Ἑρμῆς ηὔξατο “ὁρκίζω σε, οὐρανοῦ μεγάλου ἐργάτα, ὁρκίζω σε, φωνὴ πατρός, ἣν ἐφθέγξατο πρώτην τὸν μονογενῆ λόγον αὐτοῦ, ἵλεως ἔσο.” τῶν φωνῶν τούτων καὶ ὁ ἱερὸς Κύριλλος ἐμνήσθη εἰπὼν ὅτι καὶ ὁ τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς τριάδα ὡμολόγει.

– Γεώργιος Κεδρηνός / George Cedrene,
Σύνοψις Ιστοριών / Compendium historiarum 1:36.15-37.10.

 Ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ προειρημένου Σώστρου ἦν Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, ἀνὴρ φοβερὸς ἐν σοφίᾳ· ὃς ἔφρασε τρεῖς μεγίστας ὑποστάσεις εἶναι τὸ τοῦ ἀῤῥήτου καὶ δημιουργοῦ ὄνομα, μίαν δὲ θεότητα εἶπε· διὸ καὶ ἐκλήθη ἀπὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων Τρισμέγιστος Ἑρμῆς. ἐμφέρεται γὰρ ἐν διαφόροις αὐτοῦ λόγοις πρὸς Ἀσκληπιὸν εἰρηκὼς περὶ θεοῦ φύσεως ταῦτα. εἰ μὴ πρόνοιά τις ἦν τοῦ πάντων κυρίου ὥστε μοι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἀποκαλύψαι, οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς τοιοῦτος ἔρως κατεῖχεν, ἵνα περὶ τούτου ζητήσητε· οὐ γὰρ ἐφικτόν ἐστιν εἰς ἀμυήτους τοιαῦτα μυστήρια παρέχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ νοῒ ἀκούσατε. ἓν μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ φῶς νοερὸν πρὸ φωτὸς νοεροῦ· καὶ ἦν ἀεὶ νοῦς νοὸς φωτεινός, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ ἡ τούτου ἑνότης, ἀεὶ ἐν αὑτῷ ὢν ἀεὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ νοῒ καὶ φωτὶ καὶ πνεύματι πάντα περιέχει. ἐκτὸς τούτου οὐ θεός, οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐ δαίμων, οὐκ οὐσία τις ἄλλη· πάντων γὰρ κύριος καὶ θεός, καὶ πάντα ὑπ’ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν.

– Ιωάννης Μαλάλας / John Malalas,
Χρονογραφία / Chronographia 26:10-27:4.

Καὶ ὁ παραβάτης νομίσας ἀπαίδευτον εἶναί τινα τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μάρτυρα καὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς σοφίας ἀμέτοχον, διαχλευάζων ἔφη πρὸς αὐτόν· Οὐκοῦν, ὦ ταλαίπωρε, ὁ Χριστός σου δὶς ἄρα γεγέννηται; Καὶ εἰ ἐπὶ τούτῳ κομπάζεις, εἰσὶ καὶ παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἄνδρες σοφώτατοι οὐ μόνον δὶς γεννηθέντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρίς· ὅ τε γὰρ Ἑρμῆς, ὁ Τρισμέγιστος ἐπικαλούμενος, τρίτον ἦλθεν ἐν κόσμῳ ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνούς, καθὼς αἱ ἱεραὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ θαυμάσιοι βίβλοι διαγορεύουσι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Τρισμέγιστος ὀνομάζεται. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόρας, ὁ τούτου μεταγενέστερος, καὶ αὐτὸς τρίτον ἦλθεν ἐν βίῳ· πρότερον μὲν Αἰγύπτιος γεγονὼς ναύκληρος, ἔπειτα δ’ Εὔφορβος, ὁ ὑφ’ Ὁμήρου μνημονευόμενος, ἔσχατον δὲ Πυθαγόρας, Μνησάρχου υἱός, Σάμιος. Καὶ ὁ μάρτυς καταγελάσας τῶν ληρημάτων, μᾶλλον δὲ κομψευμάτων τοῦ σοφοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀσεβῶν Ἑλλήνων μωρολογίας, ὑπονοήσας δὲ τὸν τύραννον τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννησιν διὰ τουτωνὶ τῶν ῥημάτων χλευάζειν πειρώμενον, ἔφη πρὸς αὐτὸν μετὰ πολλῆς αὐστηρίας καὶ γενναιότητος· Ἔδει τὴν ἀρχὴν μηδὲ ἀποκρίνασθαί σοι, παρανομώτατε, μηδὲ τῆς οἱασοῦν ἀπολογίας καταξιῶσαί σε, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν παρεστῶτα ὄχλον, ὅτι τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποίμνης οἱ πλείονες αὐτῶν τυγχάνουσιν, εἶπον, ὅσαπερ εἶπον, καὶ νῦν ἐπ’ ὀλίγον ἐρῶ τῆς αὐτῶν κηδόμενος σωτηρίας, ὅτι τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνωθεν καὶ πρὸ πολλῶν γενεῶν οἱ προφῆται προκατήγγειλαν καὶ πολλὰ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ τὰ μαρτύρια κἀκ τῶν παρ’ ὑμῖν χρησμῶν καὶ τῶν Σιβυλλείων γραμμάτων· Καὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως αὐτοῦ ἡ αἰτία ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ ἀνακλήσει τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκπτώσεως γέγονεν· ἐλθὼν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πᾶσαν νόσον ἀπήλασε καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν καὶ τὸ παραδοξότερον ἑνὶ ῥήματι νεκροὺς ἤγειρεν ὀδωδότας, καὶ τὸ δὴ πάντων θαυμασιώτερον· ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας παθὼν τὸ διὰ σταυροῦ πάθος ἀνέστη τριήμερος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ὑπὸ μάρτυσι πεντακοσίοις καὶ στρατιωτῶν φρουρούντων αὐτοῦ τὸν τάφον, ἵνα μὴ σχῇ χώραν ὁ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ συκοφαντῆσαι βουλόμενος, καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν ὤφθη τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ὅλαις τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέραις μετ’ αὐτῶν συναναστρεφόμενος καὶ ὁρώντων αὐτῶν καὶ βλεπόντων ἀνελήφθη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐξαποστείλας αὐτοῖς τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δωρεάν τε καὶ δύναμιν, ὥστε καὶ γλώσσαις ἀλλογενῶν ἀποφθέγγεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἔχειν χρείαν τοῦ ἑρμηνεύοντος· ἐλάλει γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὥστε καὶ τὰ πόρρω προβλέπειν καὶ προφητεύειν τὰ μέλλοντα. Οἵτινες ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν αὐτὸν πανταχοῦ, μηδὲν ἐπιφερόμενοι ἢ μόνην τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀόρατον δύναμιν, οὐκ ἀσπίδα καὶ δόρυ καὶ ξίφος κατέχοντες, ἀλλὰ γυμνοὶ καὶ ἄοπλοι καὶ πένητες πάντα τὸν κόσμον ἐζώγρησαν, νεκροὺς ἐγείροντες, λεπροὺς καθαρίζοντες, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλοντες. Καὶ ταῦτα τίνες; Ἁλιεῖς καὶ ἀγράμματοι καὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σοφίας ἀμέτοχοι. Οὓς δὲ αὐτὸς παρεισήγαγες ἐπικερτομῶν τὴν Χριστοῦ γέννησιν, ἄνδρας σοφούς τε καὶ θεολόγους, ὡς νῦν εἴρηκας, εἰ καὶ δοίημεν ἀληθὲς γενέσθαι τοῦτο τὸ παραλήρημα, τί γεννηθέντες δίς τε καὶ τρὶς καὶ τετράκις τὸν κόσμον ὠφέλησαν ἢ μέρος τι τῶν τοῦ κόσμου μικρὸν ἢ ἐλάχιστον; Τίς ἐκ τῶν βίβλων Ἑρμοῦ τε καὶ Πυθαγόρου νεκροὺς ἐξανέστησεν ἢ λεπροὺς ἐκαθάρισεν ἢ δαίμονας ἀπήλασεν, οὓς ὑμεῖς θεραπεύετε; Ἀλλ’ Ἑρμῆς μὲν ὁ Τρισμέγιστος ὑφ’ ὑμῶν προσαγορευόμενος Αἰγύπτιος γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος καὶ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίων νόμοις τραφεὶς γυναῖκά τε γήμας παῖδας ἐτέκνωσεν, ὧν τὸν πρεσβύτερον Τὰτ ὀνομάζουσι, πρὸς ὃν αὐτὸς διαλέγεται καὶ τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ λόγους ἀφοσιοῖ πρός τε τὸν ἐξ Ἐπιδαύρου Ἀσκληπιὸν τὸν προκατάρξαντα καθ’ ὑμᾶς τῆς ἰατρικῆς ἐπιστήμης, ᾧ καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεολογίαν διασαφεῖ ἔχουσαν οὕτως· «Θεὸν νοῆσαι μὲν χαλεπόν, φράσαι δὲ ἀδύνατον· ἔστι γὰρ τρισυπόστατος, ἀνερμήνευτος οὐσία καὶ φύσις, οὐκ ἔχουσα παρὰ βροτοῖς ἐξομοίωσιν· οὓς δὲ θεοὺς ὀνομάζουσιν ἄνθρωποι, πολὺ τὸ μυθῶδες καὶ σφαλερὸν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπεσπάσαντο.» Καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσεως καὶ αὐτὸς ἀμυδράν τινα προφητείαν διαγορεύει, οὐκ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραίων θεολογίας ταύτην ἀπαρυσάμενος. Ἀλλὰ τί μοι τῶν σαπρῶν τε καὶ ὀδωδότων Ἑρμοῦ ῥημάτων τῶν παρ’ ὑμῖν τιμωμένων, ἤδη πρὸ πολλοῦ σεσηπότων καὶ ἀπερρυηκότων; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅσιον περὶ τῶν ζώντων ἐρωτᾶν τοὺς νεκρούς, ἔχων ἐκ τῶν θεοσόφων λογίων τοὺς ἀληθεῖς μάρτυρας, οἳ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν τε καὶ θεότητα προκατήγγειλαν.

– Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός / John of Damascus,
Μαρτύριο μεγαλομάρτυρα Αρτεμίου / Passio magni martyris Artemii 26:8-28:24.

Ἑρμῆς, ὁ Τρισμέγιστος· οὗτος ἦν Αἰγύπτιος σοφός· ἤκμαζε δὲ πρὸ τοῦ Φαραώ. ἐκέκλητο δὲ Τρισμέγιστος, διότι περὶ τριάδος ἐφθέγξατο εἰπών, ἐν τριάδι μίαν εἶναι θεότητα οὕτως· ἦν φῶς νοερὸν πρὸ φωτὸς νοεροῦ, καὶ ἦν ἀεὶ νοῦς νοὸς φωτεινός, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἡ τούτου ἑνότης· καὶ πνεῦμα πάντα περιέχον. ἐκτὸς τούτου οὐ θεός, οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐκ οὐσία τις ἄλλη. πάντων γὰρ κύριος καὶ πατὴρ καὶ θεός, καὶ πάντα ὑπ’ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ὁ γὰρ λόγος αὐτοῦ παντέλειος ὢν καὶ γόνιμος καὶ δημιουργικός, ἐν γονίμῳ φύσει παῖς ὢν καὶ γονίμῳ ὕδατι, ἔγκυον τὸ ὕδωρ ἐποίησε. καὶ ταῦτα εἰρηκὼς ηὔξατο λέγων· ὁρκίζω σε, οὐρανέ, θεοῦ μεγάλου σοφὸν ἔργον· ὁρκίζω σε φωνὴν πατρός, ἣν ἐφθέγξατο πρώτην, ἡνίκα τὸν πάντα κόσμον ἐστηρίξατο· ὁρκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ λόγου καὶ τοῦ πατρός, τοῦ περιέχοντος πάντα, ἵλεως, ἵλεως ἔσο.

– Λεξικό Σούδα / Suda, Lexicon,
"Ἑρμῆς, ὁ Τρισμέγιστος" (3038).

Jesus' God /O Θεός του Ιησού

Η αντίληψη περί Θεού. Ο Ιησούς δεν ήθελε να διαμορφώσει ένα νέο δόγμα για τον Θεό. Πίστευε στον Θεό του Ισραήλ, τον Δημιουργό και τον Κυβερνήτη, τον Νομοθέτη και τον Κριτή. Δεν όρισε την «ουσία» του Θεού, αλλά κατάφερε να φτάσει η κυριότητά του στον απόλυτο βαθμό· και αυτός ο απόλυτος βαθμός είναι η σωτηρία. Φυσιολογικά, ο Θεός έχει «ιδιότητες»· είναι δίκαιος και καλός –στην πραγματικότητα ο μόνος καλός. (Μάρκος 10:18) Αυτό, όμως, δεν αποτελεί ανάλυση της «ουσίας» του, αλλά δήλωση για τη σχέση του με τον κόσμο. Όλες οι δηλώσεις σχετικά με τον Θεό περιλαμβάνουν άμεσα τον ακροατή στον οποίο απευθύνονται: αυτός είναι Πατέρας. Είναι βέβαιο ότι αυτή η αντίληψη δεν εμφανίζεται πολύ συχνά στις αυθεντικές ρήσεις, αλλά αναπαράγει τη δομή της σχέσης με τον Θεό επαρκώς.

* Hans Conzelmann,
Jesus: the classic article from RGG expanded and updated,
English transl. J. R. Lord,
Fortress Press, 1975,
p./σ. 54.

Early Christians' grieving & mourning for the deceased in the light of the resurrection /Η θλίψη & το πένθος των πρώτων χριστιανών για τους νεκρούς υπό το φως της ανάστασης

What is especially noteworthy is not (or not just) the rigor of Paul’s feeling rule on grief but its rationale. Whereas the appeal of the philosophers was to the attainment of happiness in this life (however short or long) through the practice of reason in accordance with nature, with the control of the passions as a necessary corollary, Paul’s appeal is based on the practice of reason and emotion transformed by eschatological revelation issuing in hope. Drawing on eschatological motifs from the streams of his native Jewish tradition—especially the apocalyptic stream—but now significantly recast and historicized in relation to the recent epochal event of the death and resurrection of Jesus, Paul engages in a conversion of the emotions of the Thessalonian bereaved. It is as if the conversion of life that had begun with their transfer of allegiance to the service of “the living and true God”(1:9) had to be taken further: to the conversion of their emotions, not least emotions associated with life in the face of death. To bring this about, what Paul does is to reconstruct the event that gave rise to the emotion. Those who have died are only “asleep” (4:13, 14, 15)! What is more, those who have died are reincorporated with the living in a great eschatological drama inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Christ in time past, soon to reach its climax with his parousia in time future. In sum, if the feeling rule of severe constraint on grief appears to put Paul in the company of Stoic philosophy, the rationale he offers puts him in different company altogether: that of those whose life in the face of death is governed by resurrection hope along with its affective manifestation as joy (χαρά). To grieve and practice rites of mourning in the time-honored conventional ways would be to mix unacceptably the new with the old, thereby compromising their identity as God’s elect (cf. 1:4) and their vocation to holiness (cf. 4:1–8). Put another way, in the light of the resurrection, to grieve “like the rest” would be to behave out of time, or in a manner untimely. Thus, it would be a misrepresentation of the true, eschatological state of affairs.

* Stephen C. Barton,
"Eschatology and the Emotions in Early Christianity"
«Εσχατολογία και Συναισθήματα στην Πρώιμη Χριστιανοσύνη»,
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol./Τόμ. 130, No/Αρ. 3, Fall/Φθινόπωρο 2011,
pp./σσ. 588 (571-591).

Computational research on Bible's authorship attribution / Υπολογιστική διερεύνηση για την απόδοση συγγραφής της Βίβλου

Computer program
to reveal who wrote the Bible

One of the key features used by Bible scholars to classify different components of biblical literature is synonym choice. The underlying hypothesis is that different authorial components are likely to differ in the proportions with which alternative words from a set of synonyms (synset) are used. This hypothesis played a part in the pioneering work of Astruc (1753) on the book of Genesis – using a single synset: divine names – and has been refined by many others using broader feature sets, such as that of Carpenter and Hartford-Battersby (1900). More recently, the synonym hypothesis has been used in computational work on authorship attribution of English texts in the work of Clark and Hannon (2007) and Koppel et al. (2006). [...]

We have shown that documents can be decomposed into authorial components with very high accuracy by using a two-stage process. First, we establish a reliable partial clustering of units by using synonym choice and then we use these partial clusters as training texts for supervised learning using generic words as features.

We have considered only decompositions into two components, although our method generalizes trivially to more than two components, for example by applying it iteratively. The real challenge is to determine the correct number of components, where this information is not given. We leave this for future work.

Despite this limitation, our success on munged biblical books suggests that our method can be fruitfully applied to the Pentateuch, since the broad consensus in the field is that the Pentateuch can be divided into two main threads, known as Priestly (P) and non-Priestly (Driver 1909). (Both categories are often divided further, but these subdivisions are more controversial.) We find that our split corresponds to the expert consensus regarding P and non-P for over 90% of the verses in the Pentateuch for which such consensus exists. We have thus been able to largely recapitulate several centuries of painstaking manual labor with our automated method. We offer those instances in which we disagree with the consensus for the consideration
of scholars in the field.

In this work, we have exploited the availability of tools for identifying synonyms in biblical literature. In future work, we intend to extend our methods to texts for which such tools are unavailable.

* Moshe Koppel, Navot Akiva, Idan Dershowitz and Nachum Dershowitz,
"Unsupervised Decomposition of a Document into Authorial Components"
[«Ακαθοδήγητη Αποσύνταξη ενός Εγγράφου στα Συγγραφικά Συστατικά»],
49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies,
Portland, Oregon (Monday 20 June, 2011). *