Annual meeting. Greek scholars please help!

by DATA-DOG 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Below is a statement from GB member Gerrit Losch. Notice what is said about the FDS. Is this true? If not, why not? I will be off work soon and will try to check into this.

  Gerrit Losch- Which Channel Is Jehovah Using?Mt 24:45-47 and Lu 12, uses the definite article 'ho' with reference to F&DS. Therefore is composite and does not apply to individual anointed ones nor to GC. Other references in bible refer to individuals being slaves and stewards, but not THE slave/steward. Old thought was that F&DS were anointed at any given time from 33CE to now. However through the middle ages, no distinct knowledge as to who they were. Also because at 33 there were no GC we believed the 'domestics' had to be individual anointed. Is the F&DS 1900 yrs old? No! [The lecture to Gilead and branch schools about this has now been deleted]. When you look at the context of Matt 24 all the events described are in the last days and the GT. The 'coming' referred to is the GT. Hence the F&DS only appeared and was appointed as such in the last days!
• 

  raymond frantz

  THis is the original GREEK text : "Τις αρα εστιν ο πιστος και φρονιμος δουλος ...."

  'O (=is the definitive article) πιστος (=faithful ) δουλος (=slave)

  Just because there is an "o" in front of the faithful and discreet slave that doesn't mean that this is a specific group or singular person at a specific time .Greek language commonly uses "o" for male adjuctives or nouns .For example :

  O μαθητης πρεπει να ακουει τον δασκαλο (=The student should listen to the teacher) By using "o" in front of student that doesn't mean that the student is a specific person or group of people at a specific point of time , it shows that ,if you claim to be a student you then have to listen to your teacher.

  Matthew 24:45-47 is a parable not a prophecy .99% off all scholars and Christian Churchs regarded as a parable .The slave can be any Christian that demonstates the attributes presented in the verse i.e. faithful and discreet .

  The current GB of Jehovah's Witnesses lack any interpratational integrity when it comes to the the Bible ,use your own research and understanding.
• 

  Bobcat

  Although I'm no Greek scholar (but I play one on TV), but:

  This much is true:

  "Mt 24:45-47 and Lu 12, uses the definite article 'ho' with reference to F&DS."

  I don't see how the definite article requires this conclusion:

  "Therefore is composite and does not apply to individual anointed ones nor to GC."

  Rather than the article before "slave," what really directs the meaning is the opening phrase, tis ara estin (Who really is, who then is). Both parables (Lu 12 and Mt 24) begin with this.

  Concerning ara (#686), AMG's Greek-English Dictionary says, "As an inferential particle ara means 'therefore,' 'then,' 'now,' 'consequently,' marking a transition to what naturally follows from the words preceding."

  Leading up to the parable in Luke 12, Jesus tells his disciples (using plural pronouns) to seek first the kingdom (vv.32-34), and to be hard working slaves who are constantly watching for their master's return (vv.35-40). Peter then asks if Jesus is saying this to them or to all (v.41). Jesus' response is the parable of the F&DS. (Which, if you are familiar with the gospel accounts, it is not uncommon for Jesus to answer a question with a question. Many examples could be cited here.)

  The setting in Matthew 24 is just a few weeks later in time. Verses 43, 44 are almost identical with Luke 12:35-40. Again using plural 2nd person pronouns. Then Jesus gives the gist of the parable that he gave in Luke 12.

  The material in Luke 12:35-40 and Matthew 24:43, 44 is directed to a plural group. Especially in Luke, though, with Peter's question of who it applies to, the parable of the F&DS uses a singular example, and naturally would help each listener to determine if it applied to him. In a sense, it takes a plural or group discussion and focuses it on the individual.

  Also giving meaning to whom the parable applies is the principle Jesus cites at the end of the parable in Luke. Verse 48 says, "Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than the usual of him."

  Based on this principle, the application of the parable would seem to be for "everyone to whom much was given," and 'the one whom [the master] puts in charge of much.'

  How would any of this context make any sense at all, if Jesus is describing a handful of men some 1900 years in the future?

  I will say this also. Whenever the Society quotes the parable, they rarely, if ever, include the context. That practice is most useful if you want to make some implausible application. Context's have a habit of getting in the way.

  Hope this helps

  Take Care
• 

  raymond frantz

  It's so messed up that nothing that comes out of their lying mouths makes any sense
• 

  Leolaia

  That argument doesn't follow. As in English, the definite article pertains to the identifiability of the noun; it doesn't indicate whether the noun is internally a composite or not. An individual can be identifiable as well as a class. The NT is filled with hundreds of references to ho Khristos "the Christ". Those references have unique reference to a single individual, Jesus. It can also refer to groups or classes, such as ho dikaioi "the righteous" (Matthew 25:37) or ho ponèroi "the wicked" (13:49). The quote above states: "Other references in bible refer to individuals being slaves and stewards, but not THE slave/steward". I'm not sure what this is supposed to even mean. Slave/steward is a relational term, one is the slave/steward for someone else (the master), so individuals mentioned in the Bible as slaves and stewards are THE slave/steward for someone. Moses was "the servant of the Lord (ho doulos kuriou)" (2 Kings 18:12 LXX), David was "the servant of Saul (ho doulos Saoul)" (1 Samuel 29:3 LXX), etc.; note the definite article in these examples. The Society seems to take "the slave" to be a title (like ho Khristos "the Christ", which has unique reference), and that is what contrasts with other references to slaves or stewards in the Bible, but the expression is definitely not used as a title in the actual parable. The parable refers to the steward in relational terms as the one whom his master (ho kurios) has given responsibility over certain household duties.

  It was common parabolic style to refer to the main characters in the parable in definite terms (since parables dramatize certain situations rather than have generic reference as in aphorisms and proverbs). So for instance the parable of the sower begins: "The sower (ho speiròn) went out to sow, etc." (Matthew 13:3); one could instead say "A sower went out to sow" (as some translations put it in English), but the definite article is used. Another example can be found in the parable of the thief in the immediately preceding verses: "But know this that if the householder (ho oikodespotès) had known in what part of night the thief (ho kleptès) would be coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house get broken into". There are many other examples in parables and this is commonly understood as reflecting underlying Semitic diction in the original oral Aramaic form of the parables (specifically, the emphatic state). As Joachim Jeremias noted: "The usage is characteristic of Semitic imagery. Already we find in the OT the use of the definite article with an indefinite meaning often in parables and pictorial narratives. In such cases the Semite thinks pictorially and has an image in his mind of a concrete instance, though he may be speaking of a general phenomenon" (The Parables of Jesus, 1972, p. 11). There is also of course the fact that the first mention of the slave in the parable was in a question concerning identification, which also promotes the use of the definite. The parable of the sower could have been phrased similarly: "Who is the sower who went to sow his field? He was scattering the seed and some fell along the path, etc." (But the focus of that parable was not whom the sower represents but the different eventualities that could occur)
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Thanks!

  Raymond,

  Thanks for the student/ teacher anology. Of course it makes sense. I know the GB are wrong, I was trying to realize if they had ANY legitimate grounds for their claim. Seems like the same old lies to people who are not allowed to study greek.

  Leolaia,

  I will have to read your comment a few times. It is way over this farmboy's head.

  Bobcat,

  Your comment is much appreciated as well. I will be reading it again too.
• 

  Vidqun

  In connection with the use of article in the NT, BDAG says: “In its individualizing use it focuses attention on a single thing or single concept, as already known or otherwise more definitely limited: things and pers. that are unique in kind.”

  In our case the following would apply: “In its generic use it singles out an individual who is typical of a class, rather than the class itself. So also in parables and allegories. The generic art. in Gk. is often rendered in Engl. by the indef. art. or omitted entirely.” So the GB would become a class of its own. They take on a huge responsibility.

  Interestingly, they do not comment on the hypothetical third class condition of the follow-up verses. In both Matt 24:45-51 and Luke 12:42-46, the eschatological disqualification of the servant is a distinct possibility because of misconduct, with dire consequences for the servant.
• 

  Bobcat

  Leolaia:

  Thanks for illustrating that use of the article. Very interesting.

  Vidqun:

  Good point on the conditional phrasing. In the parable, the F&DS was "faithful and discreet" enough to get the 'promotion,' so to speak, to the food department. His being F&D was what led to the promotion. But that certainly wasn't the end of his performance being judged. If he started mistreating his fellow slaves, like denying them medical treatment, or beating them verbally, like calling them mentally diseased . . .
• 

  Wonderment

  Gerrit Losch: - Which Channel Is Jehovah Using? Mt 24:45-47 and Lu 12, uses the definite article 'ho' with reference to F&DS. Therefore is composite and does not apply to individual anointed ones nor to GC.

  In the illustration of Mt 24:45-51, "the evil slave" (NWT) also carries the Greek article: ho kakos doulos = "the bad slave." If we use Gerrit Losch's reasoning, then, "the evil slave" would be "a composite" of criminal leaders with no application whatsoever to individual wicked ones failing to keep up with Christ's orders.

  Some Catholics explain "the faithful and prudent servant" as representative of Church leaders. But they don't deny a further application to other individuals serving others in their surroundings.

  The "faithful and wise servant" may represent all true disciples serving other disciples (Lk 12:48), just as "the evil slave" represents all those who engage in wickedness, take advantage of others, and are found lax in following Jesus' commands.

  A Bible commentary explains: "The word for ‘master’ is elsewhere translated ‘Lord,’ so that the present master represents the Lord Jesus; and the slave represents a disciple of his. ‘Faithful and prudent’ describes the slave as a true disciple and indicates that it's wise to be faithful in carrying out the master's--that is, Jesus' --orders. The present order to give fellow domestic slaves their food on schedule teaches that disciples, particularly those in leadership, should treat their fellow disciples well. (In the Roman Empire of the first century, masters often put one of their slaves in charge of the household.) The ‘coming’ of the master represents the second coming of the Lord Jesus as the Son of Man. The good fortune of the slave, whom the master, on coming finds doing his job faithfully--that good fortune consists in a promotion, that is, in being put in charge over all the master's possessions. In other words, Jesus will richly reward his disciple who treats other disciples well." (Robert H. Gundry)

  Gerrit Losch's explanations sounds as a desperate attempt to draw further loyalty and respect to the Governing Body in order to keep control of WT followers.
• 

  Phizzy

  I am too a "farm boy" with regard to Greek and N.T language, so I bow to superior beings on here, but my reading of the parable has always been that Jesus was not introducing two characters to us, a F&D slave and an Evil slave, but was showing two eventualities that individuals could choose, by being ever on the watch for his return they would prove to be F&D, if they went off carousing because of Jesus' delay they would prove to be "evil" and deserving of being "sawn asunder" which is the basic meaning of what the NWT blandly translates as "severely punish".

  So, am I right in thinking that the parable is not introducing two characters, and so their would be no Evil Slave Class if you could actually do the making it into a prophecy thing ?

  So those who claim to follow Christ, or even as the GB does, claim to serve here on earth in his stead, either turn out to be faithful or evil.