Posts by Earnest

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Earnest

KalebOutWest : If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer.

Thank you for your comments. However, while you say a lot about codex Sinaiticus you do not answer the question as to why scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) altered Revelation 3:14 if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.

KalebOutWest : It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time,

It was clearly the standard reading at the time and place that the copying took place. But whether or not it was the standard reading, the question remains as to why a scribe altered the text if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.

KalebOutWest : By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.

The account of part of the manuscript being burned as rubbish comes from Constantin Tischendorf when he discovered the manuscript at the monastery in the nineteenth century. What amazing timing, that after caring for the manuscript for 1400 years Tischendorf should just happen to be there when they were going to burn it. That account is denied by the monastery and not taken seriously by scholars. It just made Tischendorf look like a hero and justified his theft of the manuscripts. Your suggestion that it was related to non-canonical books is without foundation and, frankly, absurd.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Earnest

While it has been interesting to read the many varied and learned explanations why Revelation 3:14 does not mean that Jesus is God's first creation, I was struck by the comment that "while dictionaries are valuable tools for understanding words, they often summarize meanings and do not capture the full spectrum of use in different contexts". I think that is true, and wonder how the scribe who wrote Revelation 3:14 (or his exemplar) understood the Greek of his time which he had imbibed from his mother's milk.

Codex Sinaiticus was copied by three scribes who are commonly identified as A, B and D, and Revelation was copied by scribes A and D. Scribe D was responsible for the title and most of the first column (the first five verses), while scribe A copied the rest of the book.

What do we know about scribe A? He had a theological bias and was not particularly careful about his copying.

Apart from Revelation 3:14, there is a variant at Revelation 3:16, where instead of vomiting the Laodiceans out of his mouth (σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου - referring to a human action by Jesus), he "stops their mouths" (παυϲε του ϲτοματοϲ ϲου).

At Revelation 5:13, where most manuscripts have the doxology to God and the Lamb of "the blessing and the honour and the glory and the might forever and ever”, scribe A replaces "and the might" (καὶ τὸ κράτος) with "of the Almighty" (παντοκρατοροϲ) so that the doxology reads that both God and the Lamb receive "the blessing and the honour and the glory of the Almighty”.

His treatment of sacred names is also of interest. These are names like God, Jesus, Lord which are abbreviated to indicate special attention should be given to them. He always contracts God (94x), Lord (25x), Spirit (22x), Jesus (9x), Christ (3x), David (3x) and Jerusalem (2x). In the case of Man (18/25) and Heaven (40/50), most are contracted, while Son is contracted 2/5.

In fact, codex Sinaiticus is unique in the number of corrections made to it. On the just over 800 preserved pages there are more than 23,000 places where the text has been altered. Most of these corrections are orthographical, in other words they involve spellings or graphical improvements. Even so, it does seem to show a certain freedom of speech displayed (primarily) by scribe A.

So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?

9

Lithuania Rejecting Elevated Religious Recognition of WTS?

by blondie in

jw
friends

here is an article about wts/jws regarding religious recognition in lithuania.

it says it may not be granted at the level the wts applied for partly based on rejecting unarmed alternative service rather than being "drafted.

" can you read it and tell me you come to the same conclusion?

Earnest

Lithuanian Radio and Television (LRT) reported this decision on 6th June here, translated here, which confirms Bitter Winter's account.

There was a case In Lithuania in 2015 involving a JW, a conscientious objector by the name of Stanislav Teliatnikov, who requested exemption from conscription or deferment of his call up until the time when Lithuania enacted a law providing for "genuine alternative civilian service". This request was rejected and the appeal was denied by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court in 2019. Teliatnikov appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as reported by LRT.

In 2022 the European Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regarding the provision of alternative service it held that it "was not a real alternative, as it was part of the military superstructure, with draftees referred to as 'military conscripts' throughout the regulations. States needed to establish alternatives outside of military command structures." The court case can be accessed here, with a summary here.

9

Lithuania Rejecting Elevated Religious Recognition of WTS?

by blondie in

jw
friends

here is an article about wts/jws regarding religious recognition in lithuania.

it says it may not be granted at the level the wts applied for partly based on rejecting unarmed alternative service rather than being "drafted.

" can you read it and tell me you come to the same conclusion?

Earnest

blondie, the article states :

The Ministry of Justice regarded the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ principle of conscientious objection, i.e., their refusal based on their interpretation of Biblical principles both of armed military service and non-armed alternative service managed by the military authorities, as contrary to the Constitutional obligation to defend the country in case of foreign armed attack.

While JWs can accept alternative service if their conscience allows it, this only includes civilian alternative service. The May 1996 Watchtower which discusses alternative service says :

In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as nonmilitary national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience.

19

So a JW can date an unbelieving person...

by silentbuddha in

but the entire congregation is not to be informed or mark the person.

the only repercussions are that the individual who is aware of it can decide to "mark" them and not go to the local club or bar with the individual, but they are still obligated to go door to door in the ministry with them, and even speak to them at the kn as if nothing is wrong and not feel obligated to tell anyone else?

this is crazy.. so they are also basically saying that a person can carry on a romantic (but none sexual) relationship with an unbeliever and still go out in service and participate in meetings?

Earnest

Vienne, a person cannot be disfellowshipped for "continuing a relationship with an unbeliever" unless they are not scripturally free to marry. In that case, Shepherd the Flock of God, April 2024, Chapter 12, 17 (2) states

Continuing to date or to pursue a romantic relationship with a person though one or both are not legally or Scripturally free to remarry, doing so despite repeated counsel and generally after a warning talk to the congregation, would warrant judicial action.—Gal. 5:19; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15

25

Do we have "original" indipendent documents proving that Rutherford was an alcoholic?

by psyco in

i was wondering if you could prove with "original" independent documents that rutherford was an alcoholic.... .

i read penton, but since he is a former jw he could not be considered an independent source.... .

Earnest

The Olin Moyle Trial can be accessed here, and while Moyle accuses Rutherford of being pro-liquor in his letter (Exhibit 4), he doesn't accuse him of being drunk.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Earnest

slimboyfat, in your post above you quoted from the book King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (p.203) which says :

In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.

Part of that evidence is Revelation 10:1 which refers to "a strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire", who had an opened scroll (cp. Revelation 5:5,9).

Did the scribe of codex Sinaiticus understand that Revelation 10:1 referred to Jesus a.k.a. the Son of Man?

Whereas the reading should be "and a rainbow was upon his head..." (και hη ιρις επι της κεφαλης αυτου...), the scribe of codex Sinaiticus changed this to read "and hair was on his head..." (καὶ hἡ θρὶξ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ...).

Juan Hernández writes regarding this (p.110), that

It is likely that the replacement of ‘rainbow’ with ‘hair’ is a harmonization to Revelation [1:13-15], where the glorified Son of Man is also described as having ‘hair’, αἱ τρίχες. The fact that various characteristics of the Strong Angel already echo those of the Son of Man increases the likelihood that the change is meant to draw the two even closer. To this we might add that there was already an exegetical tradition in place that equated the two figures. Victorinus of Pettau (in the third century) and Tyconius (in the fourth) assert that the Strong Angel was in fact the Son of Man.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Earnest

KalebOutWest : The verse [Revelation 3:14] has not been altered. We have the original reading.

As the OP is referring to the codex Sinaiticus, it is quite clear the verse has been altered. I show below the Greek and English text of Nestle-Aland 28 and codex Sinaiticus for comparison.

Revelation 3:14

Sinaiticus

και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψο ταδε λεγει hο αμη και hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και hο αληθινοϲ και hη αρχη τηϲ εκκληϲιαϲ του θυ

And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, and the faithful and true witness, and the beginning of the church of God;

NA28

και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικεια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψον ταδε λεγει hο αμην hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και αληθινοϲ hη αρχη τηϲ κτιϲεωϲ του θεου

And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God;

Whether the "original" (by which I presume you mean NA28 or ECM) reading was harmed or not, is not the point. The point is why the copyist of the fourth century manuscript changed the text from "the beginning of the creation by God" to "the beginning of the church of God". This cannot be explained by a slip of the pen or skipping a line whilst copying. It is a deliberate alteration of the text. You can see in the Greek text there is no similarity between κτιϲεωϲ and εκκληϲιαϲ. And the noteworthy thing is that the correctors (of which there were several) failed to correct it for three hundred years, that is until the seventh century.

KalebOutWest : Besides, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text whatsoever. The dogma was set in 325 CE at the Council of Nicea.

Of course, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text as it offers no support for it. On the contrary. But the fact that Arius asserted that the Son was the beginning of all creatures, using the same wording as Revelation 3:14, indicates that he was familiar with the expression.

Revelation was known and used long before the Council of Nicaea. Justin Martyr (c.100-165) shows a clear knowledge of it in his discussion of the ‘Millenium of Peace’ (see his Dialogue with Trypho 81.4). The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, relating to the persecution of Christians in Gaul about 177, quotes from Revelation 22. Also, parts of it are found in several papyri prior to the fourth century: P. Chester Beatty 3 (P47) originally contained the whole of Revelation and dates to the late 3rd century. P98, containing parts of the first chapter, is dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The book must obviously have been recognised some time before then to end up in Egypt in the second/third century.

Whether or not it was included in some official canon is irrelevant. Quite clearly the copyist who wrote codex Sinaiticus thought it important enough to include it and considered 3:14 to be influential enough to have to change it.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Earnest

Interesting, slim. In Bart Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" he discusses Hernandez's dissertation on Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse and says :

Among his significant conclusions, Hernandez argues that Codex Sinaiticus reflects an anti-Arian tendency in the book of Revelation. Passages that refer to Christ as a creature (3:14), portray him as an angel (10:1), or attribute to him creaturely functions (3:16) are altered in this witness.

Certainly, if the Greek readers in the fourth century didn't think 3:14 referred to the first creature, why would they alter it?

4

Sex Abuse & Jehovah’s Witnesses: Survivors Share Stories in The Witnesses, a New Oxygen Series

by Tahoe in

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/news/sex-abuse-jehovah-witnesses-survivors-192755261.html.

Earnest

This "New Oxygen Series" was in February 2020. It was reported here at the time.