Habakkuk Series (Part II)
Related MediaThis sermon was given on July 16th, 2006. The transcript will be posted when it is available.
Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)
Redeeming The Da Vinci Code
Redeeming The Da Vinci Code Product Descriptions Redeeming The Da Vinci Code: Decoding the Truth (DVD, approx. 60 minutes)![]() decoding_the_truth_explores_the_primary_questions_about_christianity_raised_by_the_conspiracy_theory_espoused_by_the_novel/movie._it_is_hosted_and_narrated_by_kerby_anderson,_national_director_for_probe_ministries_and_frequent_host_of_the_point_of_view_radio_program._it_features_interviews_with_darrell_bock,_ph.d.,_professor_of_new_testament_at_dallas_theological_seminary_and_author_of_the_book,_breaking_the_da_vinci_code,_and_john_hannah,_ph.d.,_professor_of_historical_theology_at_dallas_theological_seminary._this_dvd_focuses_on_five_major_assertions_raised_by_the_characters_in_dan_brown's_novel:
this_dvd_is_packaged_with_the_small_group_leader_kit._it_is_also_suitable_to_show_in_a_seekers_group_or_as_a_give_away_to_non-christians._for_that_purpose,_it_is_also_packaged_in_a_single_dvd_case_which_may_be_purchased_in_bulk_at_a_highly_discounted_price. Redeeming The Da Vinci Code: Declaring the Truth (DVD, approx. 60 minutes)![]() declaring_the_truth_takes_the_information_learned_from_decoding_the_truth_and_turns_it_into_a_natural_tool_for_sharing_the_real_truth_about_jesus_christ_with_family,_friends,_neighbors_and_co-workers._it_is_hosted_by_r._larry_moyer,_president_of_evantell_and_author_of_free_and_clear:_understanding_and_communicating_god's_offer_of_eternal_life._this_dvd_combines_proven_sharing_principles_with_specific_instruction_of_how_to_move_from_any_of_the_assertions_of_the_da_vinci_code_into_a_confident,_clear_presentation_of_the_good_news_of_salvation_through_jesus_christ._the_novel/movie_opens_the_door_to_a_discussion_about_jesus_christ._this_dvd_will_help_you_effectively_use_this_wonderful_opportunity._it_features_interviews_with_well_known_christian_leaders/speakers_as_well_as_lay_people_who_are_learning_to_share_their_faith_effectively. Redeeming The Da Vinci Code: Facilitator GuidesEach DVD has a companion Facilitator Guide providing all the information needed to facilitate a small group study using the DVD. Each session includes introductory exercises and follow up discussion questions. ![]() The Decoding the Truth Facilitator Guide includes material for the following sessions: 1. Introduction to The Da Vinci Code / The Secret Gospels
The Declaring the Truth Facilitator Guide addresses the two final sessions: ![]() 5. Moving From The Da Vinci Code to a True Knowledge of Jesus
The Facilitator Guide provides all the information needed to facilitate a small group study using the DVDs provided in the Leaders Kit. Each session includes introductory exercises and follow up discussion questions. The guide includes material for the following sessions:
Redeeming The Da Vinci Code: Student GuideThe Student Guide is available as a PDF file on the Declaring the Truth DVD and may also be downloaded from our website at www.probe.org. This guide provides a framework for taking notes on the DVD content and group discussion. Sufficient detail is included to be a useful tool for the student in reviewing the session and interacting with others who have questions. Redeeming The Da Vinci Code: Pocket Guide![]() The novel/movie introduces over 20 different questionable historical assertions to support its conspiracy theory. The Pocket Guide provides a concise description of each one of these comparing the assertions of the book with the results of current historical research. It is small enough to slip into a Bible, purse or glove compartment, but comprehensive enough to respond to most questions that may be raised by the novel/movie. Click here to see an evaluation copy. Knowing the Truth (Evangelism Tract)![]() The movie and the training from Redeeming The Da Vinci Code have moved your conversation with a friend from discounting Christianity to seriously considering the claims of Christ. This tract is specifically designed to aid you in moving through a clear presentation of the gospel. It is also suitable to give to some one who is still asking questions but wants to know the significance of finding the answers. The Da Vinci Code: The Quest for Answers by Josh McDowell (paperback, 128 pages)![]() The Da Vinci Code: The Quest for Answers is aimed specifically at questions raised by the movie. It is an easy-to-read, positive book that will equip youth and adults with rock-solid answers. |
Theological Fallacies: Coherence Fallacy
Coherence fallacy
Thinking that having good exegesis automatically makes good theology
Discuss this article here
Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of” the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called "authorial intent hermeneutic" or "historical-grammatical interpretation"). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).
Having said that, it is important to realize that good exegesis does not automatically produce good theology. Exegesis deals primarily with temporal meaning, theology, on the other hand, deals with eternal implications. Exegesis provides what it meant then, theology provides what it means for all time. Exegesis shows what an individual author had to say in the context in which he was writing, theology synthesizes this with the rest of Scripture attempting to understand what God was saying in relation to the completed revelation. In other words, exegesis looks at the trees, theology looks at the forest.
Evangelicals believe in what is called the dual authorship of Scripture, believing that the Bible is the product of God (being theopneustos “God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16) who fully utilized man in all ways to produce an inspired text. While this utilization of man makes solid exegesis indispensable for theology, we cannot get so caught up in temporal exegesis that we do not see this in relation to the coherent whole. If God is the ultimate author of Scripture, there must be an underlying coherent purpose in which the text lies. This assumption of coherence leads one to the next steps in interpretation.
The first is the discovery of the broader theological teaching in which the present passage fits in the progress of revelation. This is often described as the “canonical context.” It asks the question “How much did the individual author know at the time of his writing and how does this help to understand the teaching at hand?” This assumes that not all authors have complete revelation. In other words, some authors knew more about God’s ultimate purpose than others. No one would disagree that Paul had a greater understanding of, for example, the Gospel, the grace of God, nature of the Trinity, and the universal sinfulness of man than did Moses who wrote 2500 years earlier or Abraham who lived 4500 years earlier. This does no injustice to the teachings of Moses or Abraham, it simply recognizes that prophets, while inspired, were not omniscient. They simply had the information that was necessary for their part in the revelatory whole. As the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” The Bible is true without conveying “omniscience” upon the individual authors. Therefore, when we exegete a particular author, we must understand that he can provide us with a teaching that is true and limited at the same time. Its truth adds to the fuller truth of that which is revealed elsewhere in the canon. This canonical approach to interpretation can be neglected by well intentioned exegetes who may have the tendency to focus only on the value of the immediate argument or teaching at hand, and thereby commit the coherence fallacy.
Another important hermeneutical concept that can be neglected by exegetes is called the analogy of Scripture. Simply put the analogy of Scripture means “the Scripture interprets Scripture.” It is often used synonymously with the canonical approach concept, but is distinct in that it is a way in which the canonical approach is accomplished. The canonical approach deals with a hermeneutical philosophy that the different books of Scripture fall somewhere within a coherent whole that creates a theological system, while the analogy of Scripture seeks to interpret the part based upon the whole. For example, we read of the curse upon the snake in Eden:
“And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring's heel.” (Gen 3:15)
Concerning this passage a good exegete would tell you that the text does not tell us, based upon authorial intent hermeneutics, who the snake was or what the curse meant. Moses himself probably had no idea of the full implications of this passage. To the Israelites residing in the land of Canaan who initially received this account, having no other revelation to compare this event to, it probably amounted to an obscure hope. Understanding this would be necessary for our understanding of the situation of the time and is vital to proper exegesis of the passage. But we cannot stop there. With the assumption that this passage is a part of a canonical whole superintended by God, we would take the next step in our interpretive process and seek to find if there is further revelation about this curse throughout the rest of Scripture that helps clarify and advance what, if left alone, is obscurity. Later in Scripture we are told that the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:7-9 and the overriding theme of the consistent enmity that Satan enacts with humanity) and his defeat, being “attacked on the head,” was enacted at the cross and will be fully realized in the eschaton (Lk. 10:18; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8).
It is an unfortunate thing when we get so bogged down in the meaning of the text, trying to understand what the text meant, and lose sight of the big picture question “What does it mean?” Often, we can become such good exegetes that we forget to put the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent whole. Vanhoozer continues concerning this, “Recognizing Scripture’s divine authorship ultimately requires us to the read the biblical text as one book. As with any action, we can adequately identify what has been done in Scripture only by considering its action as a whole. The divine intention must come to light when God’s communicative acts are described in canonical context” (ibid.).
This fallacy often incarnates itself in the form of a more specific fallacy called the “proof-text fallacy.” One form of the proof-text fallacy simply strings together many out-of-context passages in an attempt to confirm a theological mandate or teaching. This is often committed by those who are committed to the inspiration of Scripture, but fail to recognize the role that man plays in the immediate intent behind Scripture. The second type of proof-texting, and the one that concerns our present purpose, comes from those who neglect the implications of inspiration, focusing on the author at hand. In other words, it can be committed by exegetes focused only on the authorial intent of the immediate text. This proof-text fallacy essentially takes one portion of Scripture and uses it as an autonomous proof-text for a dogmatic assertion. This can be illustrated by the infamous statement of James in James 2:24:
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Someone might say that this passage teaches that justification is not by faith alone, but by works as well. If interpreted outside of the canonical whole, this passage could be used to support this teaching. But when its canonical context is considered, we find that such a conclusion is based upon hasty autonomous proof-texting that does not take into consideration the broader theological teaching of the whole of Scripture. Among others, Paul seems to state just the opposite in many of his letters. Most specifically and clearly this is seen in his letter to the Romans.
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28)
Understanding that the Jews did not separate between any so-called moral Law and the Mosaic Law (Matt. 22:37-40), one would be hard pressed to distinguish between the “works” that James was speaking of and the “works of the Law” that Paul was speaking of; they are one and the same. In other words, Paul could have just as well said that we are justified by faith apart from (choris, “without relation to”) works period! But he used the Law to illustrate the most virtuous embodiment of works that was known to the Jewish people. Using the analogy of Scripture, the canonical process, in conjunction with an authorial intent hermeneutic, these passages can be reconciled. First we must recognize the purpose of the writing. Paul’s purpose is clearly stated in the prologue to his letter. He sought to give a clear presentation of the Gospel to those who were in Rome, a city to which he had never been (Rom. 1:11-15). Knowing that Paul had never been to Rome and that his purpose was to lay out the working of Christ in a large influential metropolitan area, we understand that this was not a letter in response to any problem that he sought to correct. He was not reprimanding the Romans in any way. His passions are guided by his passion for the Gospel, not based upon any chaotic circumstance which had initiated the letter. Therefore, we would expect his writing to be more objective in argumentation. We would expect Paul to be able to systematically lay out his argument concerning the Gospel unimpeded by frustration or anger. It is because of these reasons that the book of Romans forms the greatest theological treatise in the whole of Scripture. James, on the other hand, was writing to circumstances all together different than Paul’s. James is writing in response to abuse in the church. His tone is more pastoral and his passions are based upon the desire to correct these abuses rather than give an objective presentation of the Gospel, like that of Paul. There were “brethren” to whom he was writing who were showing favoritism in the church setting (Jam. 2:1). This causes James to have a tone of frustration and often sarcasm as he writes. Angered by the fact that these people were evidently claiming that they could neglect people of the basic needs in life and still claim to have faith in Christ, he responds that faith without works is a dead faith that cannot save.
“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (Jam. 2:15-17)
Imagine people who call themselves Christians not helping those who are in need when they have every means to meet their needs, claiming “I don’t need to help this person since I am saved by faith alone and not by feeding the hungry.” That they were claiming this is evident by James’ rhetoric. Maybe they had heard Paul’s teaching on salvation by faith alone. Maybe they had heard James himself give a similar lesson. But in the process, this doctrine was abused and misapplied to the point where James explicitly says that salvation is not by faith alone using Abraham as an illustration (note: the same Abraham that Paul used to illustrate the opposite in Romans 4!).
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
As was said before, if this passage in James were taken out of the canonical context, we could go either way with it. But, understanding the clear and more objective teachings of Paul, we understand this passage in a different light. We see that James, frustratingly writes to people who are abusing the true doctrine of justification by faith alone in order to justify their sin. The entire context presents James as one who believes that true faith will always produce works. He says in verse 18, “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works;’ show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” So, his purpose is not to objectively lay out the Gospel message of salvation, but the practical message of what true faith will accomplish, which is a changed life. Knowing this, it is understandable why James would seemingly counter Paul saying that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I am a pastor, and I can see the need for such an exhortation. If the situation presented itself where my people where neglecting the needs of others claiming the doctrine of justification by faith alone as an excuse, I would have every right and obligation to question the validity of their faith. I might even go so far as to tell the people, like James, “You think your faith saves you? Well let me tell you, faith does not count if it does not produce works, because the kind of faith God gives will always produces works. You think you are justified by faith alone? You are not!” The context would determine the meaning. In the broader “canonical” context of my life, others would know very well that I believe in justification by faith alone. They would know this from other teachings that I had given them over the years. But this perspective that I add through my frustrated exhortation would be that true faith always works, and the type of faith that you claim to have alone will not save. Knowing the whole of my teaching and doing an “analogy of Michael” would explain perfectly well what I meant and there would be no contradiction, just different emphasis and perspective based upon the situation. In short, a canonical approach to Scripture helps us to understand that the Bible teaches, as the saying goes, that justification is by faith alone, but the faith that saves will not be alone. But we could never come to this theological big picture conclusion if we did not employ both the authorial intent hermeneutic along with the canonical approach to Scripture. That is why this type of autonomous proof-texting is so dangerous. We must understand that the divine authorship of Scripture demands a systematic coherency.
This coherency fallacy is understandable for those who reject the divine inspiration of Scripture since they do not believe that God was superintending the writing of Scripture, but it is inexcusable for those who believe that God is the ultimate author of the entirety of Scripture. That is why it is so important to keep the big picture in front of you at all times. To help avoid this fallacy, I would suggest keeping up with a “thru the Bible in a year” program (without losing interest after month three!) at the same time as studying individual books exegetically. This will force you to synthesize what is being said with what has been said and what will be said no matter what book you are studying. It will help you to see the beautiful tapestry of Scripture at that same time as struggling through the inherent tensions that exist. In short, never sacrifice good exegesis, but spend more time thinking about the implications of your interpretation in relation to the rest of God’s word and his world before formulating a dogmatic theology upon one exegeted text. We need to see studying less as reading the part and more as thinking about the whole in order to avoid this first fallacy.
Discuss this article here
Related Topics: Introduction to Theology, Inspiration
الإنجيل بحسب بارت
Related Mediaمُراجعة لكتاب بارت إيرمان سوء إقتباس يسوع: القصة وراء من غيّر الكتاب المقدس و لماذا
دانيال ب. والاس
ترجمة و تقديم و تعليق
فادى أليكساندر
مقدمة من المُترجم
بارت د. ايرمان
كتاب:سوء إقتباس يسوع: القصة وراء من غيّر الكتاب المقدس و لماذا غيره Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible And Why، كتبه العالم الأميركى بارت د. ايرمان Bart D. Ehrman، فى عام 2005. بارت د. ايرمان هو رئيس قسم الدراسات الدينية بجامعة شمال كارولينا. و يُعتبر عالم مُتخصص فى النقد النصى للعهد الجديد. له العديد من الكتب المُتخصصة فى النقد النصى، و قد شارك فى تحرير أحد أهم الكتب القياسية فى النقد النصى فى عصرنا الحديث[1]. يتميز ايرمان ايضاً فى نقده لتاريخ المسيحيين الأوائل، و له العديد من الكتب المتميزة فى هذا المجال، تماماً كما يُوجد له كتب فى نفس المجال تعتمد بشكل جوهرى على رؤيته الخاصة للبيانات التاريخية. نستطيع ان نضع كل ما كتب ايرمان فى جانب، و كتابه:العهد الجديد: مقدمة تاريخية للكتابات المسيحية الأولى فى جانب آخر. يُعتبر هذا الكتاب مُلخص لما توصل له العلم الحديث حول النقد العلمى المتوازن لكتب العهد الجديد، فى البيانات التى يضعها، بعيداً عن إستنتاجاته الشخصية.
بشكل عام، ايرمان كاتب ساحر فى كتاباته. اسلوبه جميل و فاتن أدبياً. حينما تقرأ له تستطيع ان تفهم كيف يُمكنك أن تحصل على مؤيدين من خلال صياغة المعلومة. وهى نفس المعلومة التى قد تجعلك مُناهض له!
بحلول الشهر القادم، أكون قضيت سنتين فى قراءة كتب ايرمان و دراسة فكره. فكتابه سوء إقتباس يسوع، قد هز أرجاء الدنيا! كان يجب أن أنتبه لسبب هذه الضجة. حسناً، ما الذى قد يُحدِث كل هذه الضجة؟ ما الذى قد يقوله رجل يجعله يصير بطل المُتشككين حول الكتاب المقدس؟
قررت ان اقرأ الكتاب كاملاً....و قرأته...ثلاث مرات!
سوء إقتباس يسوع
سوء إقتباس يسوع، هو كتاب يهدف الى تقديم النقد النصى للعهد الجديد الى العامة. و هو فى أغلبه، مقدمة رائعة، بل أكثر من رائعة، للنقد النصى للعهد الجديد. لكن دائماً ما تبرز المشكلة حينما يختلط البرهان بكيفية تفسير البرهان. او فى بعض الأحيان، حينما يُقَدم تفسير البرهان دون البرهان نفسه. خلال مُراجعة والاس، ستقرأ مُلخص للكتاب. لكن ما يهمنى الآن هو إيضاح بعض النقاط الواجبة لفهم سياق فكر ايرمان و بالتالى فهم فكر والاس فى رده.
أهم أعمال ايرمان و الذى يعتبره هو نفسه أنه أهم أعماله العلمية حول نص العهد الجديد، هو كتابه:الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس. يحتج ايرمان فى هذا الكتاب بشكل عام و بحسب ما أوضحه هو بأن:النُساخ قاموا أحياناً، بتغيير كلمات نصوصهم المقدسة لجعلهم أكثر وضوحاً أرثوذكسياً، و لمنع المسيحيين الذين إعتنقوا أفكار منحرفة من سوء إستخدامها[2]، النُساخ الأرثوذكس الأوليين فى القرن الثانى و الثالث، قاموا فى بعض الأحيان بتعديل نصوص كتابهم المقدس بهدف جعلهم أكثر إتفاقاً مع الآراء الكريستولوجية الخاصة بالحزب الذى إنتصر فيما بعد فى نيقية و خلقيدونية[3].
فى سبيل إرساء قضيته هذه، يضع ايرمان فصولاً تُناقش إنتقال النص فى ضوء عقائد كل من: التبنويين[4]، الإنفصاليين[5]، الدوسيتيين[6]، مُعتنقى فكر الآب المتألم[7]. ايرمان لا يرى أن مُعتنقى هذه الأنظمة الإيمانية هم من غيروا النص، بل المواجهة الأرثوذكسية هى التى غيرت النص. كمثال: هناك نص تم إستخدامه من قِبل المؤيدين لأحد هذه الأنظمة لأجل تأييد قضيته؛ فقام النُساخ بتغيير النص الى شكل آخر، ليس فقط لئلا يستطيع أحد هؤلاء إستخدامه مرة أخرى؛ بل بتغييره الى شكل آخر يُدعم الإيمان الأرثوذكسى.
هذه هى قضية ايرمان بالتحديد؛ التعامل اللاهوتى مع النص. ليس هذا هو مجال مناقشة أمثلة ايرمان فى تدعيم قضيته؛ لكن القضية بشكل عام حقيقية. لقد تعامل النُساخ الأرثوذكس مع النص لاهوتياً، لكن ما هو مدى و كم هذا التعامل؟ هذا التفاعل تم كما قال ايرمان:أحياناً. أى انه نسبة نادرة جداً، و هذا حقيقى. فى الوقت نفسه، هذا التعامل ليس شاملاً؛ فلا يوجد أثر لتعامل لاهوتى شامل و متغلغل للنص. قد نرى ناسخاً غير نصاً ما لتأييد لاهوت المسيح. لكنه فى النهاية فعل هذا لتأييد لاهوت المسيح، و ليس لإختراع لاهوت المسيح. سواء كان هذا التأييد موجود أم لا، فهذا لا يمس من قريب أو بعيد لاهوت المسيح. لأن بفعله هذا قد أيد و ليس إخترع!
سوء إقتباس يسوع مبنى بشكل رئيسى على الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس. و المشكلة الرئيسية فى سوء إقتباس يسوع، ليس أن ما يذكره غير حقيقى، لكنه لا يذكر الصورة كاملةً ابداً. فما معنى ذكر أن عدد الإختلافات بين مخطوطات العهد الجديد أكبر من عدد كلمات العهد الجديد نفسه، دون التأكيد على أن السواد الأعظم من هذه الإختلافات لا معنى له؟ بكلمات أخرى، السواد الأعظم من هذه الإختلافات هو لا شىء[8]! حسناً، لقد قال ايرمان هذا ثلاث مرات، لكن ليس بنفس القوة، مما يترك الإنطباع لدى القارىء بأن حال نص العهد الجديد هو حالة مزرية لا أمل فيها Hopeless Case!
دانيال ب. والاس
دانيال ب. والاس Daniel B. Wallace، هو أستاذ دراسات العهد الجديد، بمعهد دالاس اللاهوتى، و مؤسس و مدير مركز دراسة مخطوطات العهد الجديد، فى دالاس، بولاية تكساس، فى الولايات المتحدة. بالإضافة الى ذلك، والاس أحد أكبر سلطات العالم فى اليونانية القديمة، و كتابه:النحو اليونانى فيما بعد الأساسيات Greek Grammer Beyond The Basics، هو أهم كتاب مُعاصر على الإطلاق فى إحتراف اليونانية. بشكل او بآخر، والاس هو المُختار من المجتمع الإنجيلى العلمى لمواجهة ايرمان. كتب مقالات عديدة نُشِرت فى الكتب و المجلات اللاهوتية، فى الرد على كتاب سوء اقتباس يسوع. كذلك دارت مناظرة بينه و بين ايرمان فى ابريل من عام 2008. العديد من البرامج التلفزيونية المسيحية إستضافت والاس للرد على ايرمان. يُعتبر والاس هو العالم الوحيد من بين علماء النقد النصى، الذى يعمل على إكتشاف المخطوطات الجديدة. يجول بلاد العالم بحثاً عن الجديد من المخطوطات. فى عام 2006، كتب والاس رده الأول على ايرمان، ثم قام بتنقيحه و إضافة المزيد له لاحقاً و الذى نُشِر فى مجلة الجمعية اللاهوتية الإنجيلية. هذا الرد المُنقح هو الذى ستقرأه الآن. ثم فى نفس العام، نُشِر كتاب إعادة إكتشاف يسوع، و الذى قام والاس بالكتابة فيه عن النقد النصى للعهد الجديد، حيث قدّم النقد النصى للعامة بإسلوب علمى موزون، و هو الكتاب الذى ستقرأه بالعربية قريباً. و فى عام 2007، ظهر كتاب خلع يسوع عن عرشه، الذى قام بتأليفه والاس و بوك، و قد خصص والاس الفصل الأول منه للرد على ايرمان فى نحو أربعين صفحة، و هو ما أعمل على ترجمته الآن. و فى نفس العام، قام لى ستروبل بإجراء حوار مع والاس، ليكون مادة الفصل الثانى من كتابه القضية ليسوع الحقيقى. بالإضافة لذلك، فمع بداية العام القادم، سيصدر كتاب به إحتجاجات ايرمان و والاس كما دارت فى مناظرتهما.
الرد الإنجيلى
لم يكن دانيال والاس فقط هو من تفاعل مع كتاب ايرمان، فهناك العديد من العلماء الذين تفاعلوا مع ما كتبه، مثل: بين ويزرينجتون، هارلود جرينلى، كريج ايفانز، جيمس وايت، بيتر ويليامز، تيموثى جونز، و آخرين غيرهم. لكن ما إجتمع عليه جميع هؤلاء العلماء؛ أنه ولا قراءة نصية تُهدد أى عقيدة مسيحية رئيسية. الغريب فى ذلك، أن ايرمان نفسه أكد ذلك؛ مما جعلنى فى قمة الحيرة حول مشكلة ايرمان مع نص العهد الجديد. لكن بعد عامين من القراءة، قراءة سوء إقتباس يسوع و غيره، و قراءة كل الردود الإنجيلية عليه تقريباً، بل و حتى حوارات شخصية مع ايرمان، لا استطيع تخيل مشكلة أخرى غير وجود الإختلاف النصى فى حد ذاته. بشكل او بآخر، يبدو أن مشكلة إيرمان مع نص العهد الجديد، هو وجود إختلاف نصى بين المخطوطات بشكل عام. ايرمان من أشد المُدافعين عن مفهوم النص الأصلى، و هذه الإشكالية الحديثة جداً جداً، لا تمثل له اى مشكلة. لذا، فالرد الإنجيلى على ايرمان يعتمد بالتحديد على بيان كيفية نشأة الخلافات النصية، ماهيتها، طبيعتها، اهميتها، و مدى تأثيرها على العقيدة.
و هناك قاعدة محورية يجب فهمها بشكل رئيسى؛ أن ايرمان لم يأتى بشىء جديد لا نعرفه من قبل، و ان جميع البيانات واحدة بين أيدى جميع العلماء. لكن المشكلة الرئيسية تكمن فى كيفية تفسير هذه البيانات، بأفضل شكل ممكن. لذلك، أهدف بهذه الترجمة؛ تقديم تفسير آخر لنفس البيانات التى طرحها ايرمان. كما سيوضح والاس تباعاً، فكل الإحتمالات لما تُخلق متساوية، و كل التفسيرات لا تحتمل نفس درجة المساواة فى منطقيتها. إذا كنت أميناً فى بحثك، فعليك أن تنظر الى البرهان، الى الدليل المتوفر بين أيديك، ثم تحاول تفسيره بأفضل شكل ممكن، و فى أدق سياق تاريخى معقول.
حول الترجمة
القارىء المتابع لدانيال والاس، يعرف جيداً ان لهجته هى لهجة أميريكة خالصة. و فى أثناء الترجمة، حاولت على قدر المُستطاع ان تكون ترجمة حرفية تامة، توضح المعنى دون الإخلال بحرفيتها. الشق الخاص بمعالجة المشكلة النصية فى يوحنا 1 : 18، قد يبدو مُعقداً للغاية و صعب فهمه، و ذلك لأنه يتعامل بعمق مع النحو اليونانى. لقد تمت هذه الترجمة بإذن خاص من العالم دانيال ب. والاس، و من مدير موقع bible.org، ديف اوستين. نُشِرت هذه الترجمة على موقع مؤسسة الدراسات الكتابية bible.org، بالإضافة الى نشرها فى معهد دالاس اللاهوتى بالولايات المتحدة. لهذا أُقدِم شكر خاص لذلك العالم الأمين، والاس، الذى تبنى قضيتنا، و بنعمة المسيح، حصل لأجلنا على تصريحات من دور النشر المختلفة، بترجمة كافة أعماله للعربية. أرجو صلاواتكم ليُعيننى الرب على هذه المهمة الضخمة، و التى تحققت الخطوة الأولى منها، بنشر هذه المراجعة[9].
أُصلى ان يكون هذا العمل سبب رجاء و ثبات فى المسيح، لك...
فادى اليكساندر
14 – 5 - 2009
الإنجيل بحسب بارت
مُراجعة لكتاب بارت إيرمان سوء إقتباس يسوع: القصة وراء من غيّر الكتاب المقدس و لماذا[10]
إن كتاب عن النقد النصى، هو فجوة حقيقية، لأغلب طُلاب العهد الجديد. إن كتاب يحتوى على تفاصيل مملة لا يُمكن ان يكون ضمن الكتب الأكثر مبيعاً. لكن منذ نشره فى 1 نوفمبر 2005، فإن كتاب سوء إقتباس يسوع[11] كان يصعد أعلى و أعلى نحو قمة آمازون. و منذ أن ظهر بارت إيرمان، أحد نُقاد النص الرئيسيين فى أميركا الشمالية، فى برنامجين فى شبكة NPR (برنامج ديانا ريم و الهواء النقى مع تيرى جروس) فى نفس الإسبوع، فقد أصبح ضمن أعلى خمسين كتاب مبيعاً فى آمازون. فى خلال ثلاثة شهور، بِيع منه أكثر من مئة ألف نسخة. حينما ظهر حوار نيلى توكر مع إيرمان فى واشنطن بوست فى 5 مارس من هذه السنة، إرتفعت مبيعات كتاب إيرمان الى الأعلى. الأستاذ توكر تكلم عن إيرمان بوصفه:عالم متزمت حدّق فى أصول المسيحية، حتى انه فقد إيمانه[12]. بعد تسعة أيام، كان إيرمان ضيف برنامج جون ستيوارت، اللقاء اليومى. قال ستيوارت أن رؤية الكتاب المقدس كشىء تم إفساده بحرية من قِبل النُساخ الأرثوذوكس جعلت الكتاب المقدس:أكثر متعة...على الأغلب أكثر إلهية فى بعض النواحى. أنهى ستيوارت الحوار قائلاً:انا حقيقى اهنئك، أنه كتاب فى قمة الروعة. فى خلال 48 ساعة، إنطلق سوء إقتباس يسوع فى مقدمة آمازون، حتى لو كان ذلك لمجرد دقيقة واحدة. بعد شهرين، كان الكتاب يُحلق مُترفعاً، باقياً ضمن أعلى 25 كتاباً مبيعاً. لقد:أصبح واحد من أعلى الكتب مبيعاً التى لا مثيل لها فى السنة[13]. ليس سيئاً لكتاب أكاديمى حول موضوع مُمل!
لما كل هذه الضجة؟ حسناً، لهدف واحد، ان يسوع يُباع. لكنه ليس يسوع الكتاب المقدس. يسوع الذى يُباع هو الذى يروق للرجل بعد الحديث Postmodern man. و بكتاب عُنوِن:سوء إقتباس يسوع: القصة وراء من غير الكتاب المقدس و لماذا، فإنه قد وصل بالفعل الى طريق المُستمعين عن طريق ضخه الأمل؛ بأن هناك دليل طازج أن يسوع الكتابى مُلفق. بشكل يدعو للسخرية، ولا واحدة من القراءات التى ناقشها إيرمان، تضمن أقوال ليسوع. الكتاب ببساطة لا يُقدم ما وعد به العنوان. إيرمان فضّل فُقِد فى الإنتقال، لكن الناشر إعتقد ان كتاب كهذا قد يُفهم على انه يتعامل مع سباق للسيارات! رغم ان إيرمان لم يختر العنوان الناتج، إلا انها كانت ضربة مُوفقة فى النشر.
على نحو أكثر أهمية، هذا الكتاب يُباع لأنه يروق للمُتشكك الذى يريد أسباب لئلا يؤمن، الذى يعتقد ان الكتاب المقدس هو كتاب خرافات. إنه شىء أن يُقال أن القصص الموجودة بالكتاب المقدس هى أساطير، و شىء آخر واضح ان يُقال أن العديد منهم قد أُضيف فى قرون لاحقة. رغم ان إيرمان لا يقول هذا بوضوح، فإنه يترك الإنطباع بأن الشكل الأصلى للعهد الجديد كان بالأحرى مُختلفاً عما تقرأه المخطوطات الآن.
تبعاً لإيرمان، هذا هو أول كتاب عن النقد النصى للعهد الجديد - فرع من المعرفة موجود منذ ما يقرب من 300 عام - للمُستمعين العامة[14]. لكن، و بشكل ملحوظ، إيرمان لم يُحصى الكتب العديدة التى كتبها مُؤيدى نُسخة الملك جيمس فقط، او الكتب التى تتفاعل معهم. يبدو أن إيرمان يعنى ان كتابه هو أول كتاب حول الفرع المعرفى العام، النقد النصى للعهد الجديد، كُتِب بواسطة ناقد نصى رئيسى للقراءة العامة. هذا من المُرجح جداً أنه حقيقى.
نقد نصى 101
غالبية أجزاء سوء إقتباس يسوع، هى ببساطة نقد نصى 101. هناك سبعة فصول مع مقدمة و خاتمة. غالبية الكتاب (الفصول 1 - 4) هى بشكل رئيسى مقدمة للمجال، و هى مقدمة جيدة جداً فى ذلك. أنها تعرف القراء لعالم النشاط النسخى الساحر، عملية التقنين، و النصوص المطبوعة للعهد الجديد اليونانى. إنها تناقش المنهجية الرئيسية: الإنتقائية المعقولة. خلال هذه الأربعة فصول، تم مُناقشة قُصاصات مُختلفة، قراءات مُختلفة، إقتباسات من الآباء، مناظرات بين البروتستانت و الكاثوليك، مُطلِعاً القارىء على بعض تحديات المجال اللغزى، النقد النصى.
الفصل الأول بدايات الكتاب المقدس المسيحى، ينصب حول لماذا كُتِبت كتب العهد الجديد، كيف تم إستلامهم، و متى تم قبولهم ككتاب مقدس.
الفصل الثانى نُساخ الكتابات المسيحية الأولى يتعامل مع التغييرات النسخية للنص، كلاً من العمدية و العفوية. هنا يخلط إيرمان المعلومات النقد نصية بتفسيره الخاص، و هو تفسير لا يُشاركه فيه بأى شكل كل نُقاد النص، ولا حتى غالبيتهم. فى الجوهر، فهو يرسم صورة كئيبة جداً للنشاط النسخى[15]، تاركاً القارىء غير الحذر ان يفترض أنه لا يوجد لدينا فرصة لإعادة تكوين الكلمات الأصلية للعهد الجديد.
الفصل الثالث نصوص العهد الجديد، و الفصل الرابع البحث عن الأصول، يأخذنا من إيرازموس و اول عهد جديد يونانى منشور، الى نص ويستكوت و هورت. تمت مُناقشة العلماء الرئيسيين من القرن السادس عشر حتى التاسع عشر. هذا هو أكثر ما فى الكتاب موضوعية و يعطى القراءة سحراً. لكن حتى هنا، إيرمان يُدخِل وجهة نظره بإختياره للمادة. كمثال، فى مناقشة الدور الذى قام به بينجل فى تاريخ النقد النصى (ص 109 - 112)، إيرمان يُعطى هذا العالم المُحافظ الألمانى ثناء عالى كعالم: فهو كان مُفسر حريص جداً للنص الكتابى (ص 109)، بينجل درس كل شىء بكثافة (ص 111). يتحدث إيرمان ايضاً عن التقدمات الخارقة التى لبينجل فى النقد النصى (ص 111 - 112)، لكنه لا يذكر أنه كان أول عالم هام يتكلم بوضوح عن عقيدة أرثوذكسية القراءات. هذا إهمال غريب، لأنه على الجانب الأول، فإن إيرمان يعرف جيداً هذه الحقيقة، لأنه فى الإصدار الرابع لـ نص العهد الجديد، الذى يؤلفه الآن بروس ميتزجر و بارت إيرمان[16]، و الذى ظهر قبل سوء إقتباس يسوع بشهور فقط، يُلاحظ الكاتبان:بطاقة مميزة و مثابرة، بينجل دبّر بمشقة، كل الإصدارات، المخطوطات، و الترجمات القديمة المتوفرة له. بعد دراسة طويلة، وصل الى الإستنتاج؛ أن القراءات المُختلفة أقل فى عددها من المُتوقع، و أنهم لا يؤثرون على اى بند من العقيدة الإنجيلية[17]. على الجانب الآخر، يذكر إيرمان بدلاً من ذلك، ج. ج. فيتشتين، أحد مُعاصرى بينجل، الذى حينما كان فى عمره الرقيق، العشرين، إفترض أن هذه القراءات:لا يُوجد لها أى تأثير مُضِعف على سلامة الكتب المقدسة، و كونها جديرة بالثقة[18]، لكن بعد سنين لاحقة، و بعد دراسة حريصة للنص، فيتشتين غير وجهات نظره بعد أن بدأ فى التفكير جدياً حول قناعاته اللاهوتية[19]. أنه من المغرى أن نُفكر بأن إيرمان قد يكون رأى توازى بينه و بين فيتشتين: كما كان فيتشتين، إيرمان بدأ حياته كإنجيلى حينما كان فى الكلية، لكنه غير آراؤه حول النص و اللاهوت فى سنوات نضوجه[20]. لكن النموذج الذى يُقدمه بينجل - عالم وقور يصل لإستنتاجات مُختلفة بوضوح - قد تم التغاضى عنه صراحةً.
ما أُهِمل ايضاً بغرابة كان مُحرك تشيندورف لعمله الذى لا يكل فى إكتشاف المخطوطات و نشر إصدار نقدى للنص اليونانى مع آداة نصية Critical Apparatus كاملة. تشيندورف معروف بشكل واسع، كأكثر ناقد نصى كادح فى كل الأزمنة. و ما حركه كان رغبته لإعادة تكوين أقدم شكل للنص - و هو النص الذى آمن أنه يُدافع عن المسيحية الأرثوذكسية ضد التشككية الهيجيلة لـ ف. س. باؤر و تابعيه. لا شىء من كل هذا تم ذكره فى سوء إقتباس يسوع.
بجانب الإنتقائية فى إختيار العلماء و آرائهم، فهذه الأربعة فصول تتضمنان إهمالين غريبين. اولاً، لا يوجد اى مناقشة للمخطوطات المتنوعة تقريباً. يبدو على الأغلب، أن البرهان الخارجى ليس هو ما يبدأ به إيرمان. و ما أبعد من ذلك، فإنه كلما قام بتنوير قراؤه من العامة ثقافياً حول هذا المجال المعرفى، فكونه لم يُعطهم التفاصيل حول أى مخطوطات هى أكثر جدارة بالثقة، المخطوطات الأقدم..إلخ، فإن هذا يسمح له بالتحكم فى إلقاء المعلومات. لقد اُحبِطت كثيراً فى دراستى المُتمعنة للكتاب، لأنه يتكلم عن قراءات مختلفة دون ان يُقدم الكثير، هذا اذا قدم اساساً، اى من البيانات المُدعمة لهم. حتى فى الفصل الثالث نصوص العهد الجديد: الإصدارات، المخطوطات، و الإختلافات، هناك مُناقشة ثانوية للمخطوطات، وبلا مُناقشة خاصة لكل مخطوطة على حِدة. فى الصفحتين اللتين تتعاملان خصيصاً مع المخطوطات، يتحدث إيرمان عن عددهم، طبيعتهم، و القراءات فقط[21].
ثانياً، إيرمان يُبالغ فى نوعية القراءات بينما يكاد لا يتحدث عن عددهم. يقول:هناك قراءات فى مخطوطاتنا أكثر من كلمات العهد الجديد[22]. فى مكان آخر يقول أن عدد القراءات مُرتفع جداً لدرجة 400000 قراءة[23]. هذا حقيقى فعلاً، لكنه مُضللاً. أى شخص يُدرِس النقد النصى للعهد الجديد، يعرف ان هذه الحقيقة هى فقط جزء من الصورة، و أنها إذا تُرِكت هكذا امام القارىء بلا شرح، فإنها تُقدِم صورة مُشوهة. فى الوقت الذى ينكشف فيه ان الغالبية العظمى من هذه الخلافات غير هامة - تتضمن إختلافات فى التهجئة لا يُمكن حتى ترجمتها، ادوات تعريف للأسماء العلم، تغيير ترتيب الكلمات، و ما الى ذلك - و أن أقلية صغيرة جداً من القراءات، تغير معنى النص، فإن الصورة الكاملة تظهر فى الجوهر. فعلياً، مجرد 1 % من القراءات النصية لها معنى و قابلة للتطبيق[24]. لكن الإنطباع الذى يعطيه إيرمان احياناً خلال الكتاب - و يُكرره فى حواراته[25] - هو إنعدام الثقة بالجملة حول الكلمات الأصلية[26]، و هى رؤية متطرفة بعيداً عما يتقبله هو[27].
يُمكننا شرح الأمور بهذه الطريقة. هناك تقريباً 138000 كلمة فى العهد الجديد اليونانى. الإختلافات فى المخطوطات، الترجمات، الآباء، تُكون نحو ثلاث أضعاف هذا الرقم. للوهلة الأولى، فهذه كمية مُدهشة. لكن فى ضوء الإحتماليات، فهى، عملياً، تافهة. كمثال، تأمل الطرق التى يُمكن ان نقول بها يسوع يُحِب بولس باليونانية:
1. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον
2. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον
3. ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον
4. ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον
5. Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
6. τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
7. Παῦλον ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
8. τὸν Παῦλον ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
9. ἀγαπᾷ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον
10. ἀγαπᾷ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον
11. ἀγαπᾷὁ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον
12. ἀγαπᾷὁ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον
13. ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς
14. ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς
15. ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς
16. ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς
هذه الخلافات تُمثل فقط جزء من الإحتمالات. كمثال، إذا إستخدمت الجملة φιλεῖ بدلاً من ἀγαπᾷ، او اذا بدأت بأداة ربط مثل δεv, καιv أو μέν، فالخلافات المُمكنة ستنمو مُضاعفةً. بالإضافة الى عامل المرادفات كذلك (مثل κύριος بدلاً من ᾿Ιησοῦς)، إختلافات التهجئة، و الكلمات الإضافية (مثل Χριστός، أو ἅγιος مع Παῦλος)، و هكذا، قائمة الإختلافات الممكنة التى لا تؤثر على جوهر العبارة، تتزايد للمئات. إذا كانت عبارة بسيطة كهذه يسوع يُحِب بولس يُمكن ان يُوجد لها قراءات غير هامة كثيرة جداً، فإن مجرد 400000 قراءة ضمن مخطوطات العهد الجديد، يبدو كأنه كمية مُهملة[28].
لكن هذه الإنتقادات هى إعتراضات ثانوية. فلا يُوجد شىء حقيقى مُزلزل فى أول اربعة فصول. على العكس، ففى المقدمة نرى مُحرِك إيرمان، و آخر ثلاث فصول تكشف أجندته. فى هذه الأماكن خاصةً، فإنه مستفز و مُبالغ جداً و لا يتبع قواعده المنطقية. بقية مُراجعتنا سوف تُركز على هذه المادة.
خلفية ايرمان الإنجيلية
فى المقدمة، يتحدث ايرمان عن خلفيته الإنجيلية (ثلاث سنوات بمعهد مودى الكتابى، سنتين فى كلية ويتون حيث تعلم اليونانى)، ثم ماجستير فى اللاهوت و دكتوراه فى الفلسفة فى معهد برينستون. لقد كان فى برينستون حيث بدأ ايرمان فى رفض بعض ما تعلمه فى تنشأته الإنجيلية، خاصةً أنه تصارع مع تفاصيل نص العهد الجديد. فهو يُشير الى ان دراسة مخطوطات العهد الجديد، خلقت شكوكاً فى عقله:لقد كنت دائم العودة الى سؤالى الرئيسى: كيف يُمكن ان يُساعدنا القول بأن الكتاب المقدس هو كلمة الله المعصومة، إذا كنا فى الحقيقة لا نمتلك تلك الكلمات التى أوحاها الله معصومةً، بل بدلاً من ذلك، الكلمات التى نسخها النُساخ، بعض الأحيان بشكل صحيح و بعض الأحيان (أحيان كثيرة!) بشكل خاطىء؟[29] هذا سؤال ممتاز، و قد تم إبرازه بشكل جلى فى سوء إقتباس يسوع، بشكل مُكرر خلال الكتاب. للأسف، ايرمان، حقيقةً، لم يقضى وقتاً أطول متصارعاً مع مباشرةً.
بينما كان فى برنامج الماجستير، أخذ كورس عن انجيل مرقس، من الأستاذ كولين ستورى. لأجل بحث الفصل الدراسى، كتب عن مشكلة حديث يسوع عن دخول داود للمعبد:حينما كان آبياثار رئيس الكهنة (مرقس 2 : 26). المشكلة المُحيرة المعروفة الممثلة إشكالاً للعصمة، لأنه تبعاً لـ 1 صم 21، كان أخيمالك والد آبياثار هو الكاهن حينما دخل داود المعبد. لكن ايرمان كان مُصمم ان يقوم بعمل ما رآه المعنى الواضح للنص، بهدف إنقاذ العصمة. يُخبر ايرمان قراؤه عن تعليق الأستاذ ستورى حول البحث:دخل بإستقامة بداخلى. لقد كتب: ربما مرقس قد إرتكب خطأ[30]. هذه كانت لحظة حاسمة فى رحلة ايرمان الروحية. حينما إستنتج ايرمان ان مرقس قد يكون اخطأ، إنفتحت الحواجز على مصراعيها[31]. ثم بدأ فى الشك فى الموثوقية التاريخية للكثير من النصوص الكتابية الأخرى، مما أدى الى تغير زلزالى فى فهمه للكتاب المقدس. يقول ايرمان:الكتاب المقدس بدأ فى الظهور إلىّ ككتاب بشرى جداً...لقد كان هذا كتاب بشرى من البداية للنهاية[32].
ما يعوقنى بشكل جدير بالمُلاحظة فى كل هذا، هو كيف ان ايرمان يربط العصمة بالموثوقية التاريخية للكتاب المقدس. لقد كانت مسألة كل شىء او لا شىء بالنسبة له. لايزال يرى الأشياء كسوداء او بيضاء، فهو يختتم شهادته بهذه الكلمات:انها نقلة جزرية من قراءة الكتاب المقدس كالطبعة الزرقاء المعصومة لإيماننا، حياتنا، و مستقبلنا، لرؤيته ككتاب بشرى جداً...هذه النقلة هى التى انتهيت لها فى فكرى الخاص، و التى أُسلِم بها تماماً الآن[33]. يبدو أنه لا يوجد اى خلفية متوسطة فى رؤيته للنص. بإختصار، يبدو ان ايرمان يتمسك بما أسميه النظرة الدومينية للعقيدة. حينما تسقط واحدة، كلهم جميعاً يسقطون. سوف نعود لهذا الموضوع فى الخاتمة.
الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس
الفصول 5، 6، و 7 هى قلب الكتاب. و هنا يُناقش ايرمان النتائج التى توصل لها فى تحقيقاته فى عمله الرئيسى، الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس[34]. فصله الإستنتاجى يختتم بالنقطة التى يسوقها فى هذا المقطع:أنه من الخطأ القول، كما يفعل البعض، ان التغييرات فى نصنا لا تحمل اى شهادة لما يعنيه النص، او الإستنتاجات اللاهوتية التى يتوصل لها منهم. فى الحقيقة، لقد رأينا ان العكس هو القضية[35].
لنتوقف لنُلاحظ نقطتين لاهوتيتين متزمتتين تم تأكيدهما فى سوء إقتباس يسوع: الأولى كما ذكرنا سابقاً، هى ان الحديث عن عصمة الكتاب المقدس لا صلة له لأننا لا نمتلك الوثائق الأصلية؛ و الثانية أن القراءات فى المخطوطات تُغير اللاهوت الأساسى للعهد الجديد.
المُغالطة المنطقية فى رفض عصمة الأصول
رغم ان ايرمان لم يُطور إحتجاجه الأول، فإنه يستحق الرد. نحتاج ان نبدأ بالتفريق الحريص بين الوحى الفعلى و العصمة. الوحى يرتبط بكلمات الكتاب المقدس، بينما العصمة ترتبط بحقيقة العبارة. الإنجيليين الأميركيين يؤمنون بشكل عام، أن النص الأصلى فقط هو المُوحى به. لكن هذا لا يعنى أن النُسخ لا يُمكن ان تكون معصومة. فعلياً، فهناك عبارات لا علاقة لها بالكتاب المقدس و يُمكن ان تكون معصومة. اذا انا قلت:انا متزوج، و لدىّ اربعة ابناء، كلبين، و قطة، فهذه عبارة معصومة. هى عبارة غير مُوحى بها، ولا علاقة لها بالكتاب المقدس تماماً، لكنها حقيقية. و بالمثل، سواء قال بولس لنا سلام او ليكن لنا سلام فى رومية 5 : 1، فإن كلا العبارتين حقيقيتين (رغم ان كل منهما لها معنى مختلف)، رغم ان واحدة فقط هى المُوحى بها. الإنتباه لهذا التمييز فى العقل اثناء الإهتمام بالقراءات النصية للعهد الجديد، سوف يوضح الأمور.
بغض النظر عما يعتقده الفرد عن عقيدة العصمة، فإن الإحتجاج ضدها بناء على الأصول الغير معروفة هو مُغالطة منطقية. و هذا لسببين. اولاً، نحن لدينا نص العهد الجديد فى مكان ما من المخطوطات. لا يوجد اى حاجة للتخمين، إلا ربما لمكان واحد او إثنين[36]. ثانياً، النص الذى تقدمه لنا القراءات القابلة للتطبيق، ليس أكثر صعوبةً للعصمة من مُشكلات أخرى موجودة بينما النص مُحكم. لنكن واثقين الآن أنه هناك فى القراءات النصية بعض التحديات للعصمة. هذا لا يُمكن انكاره. لكن ببساطة، هناك مشكلات أكبر تواجهنا حينما نأتى لموضوعات وجوه العصمة.
و هكذا، اذا كان التنقيح الحدسى غير ضرورى، و اذا كان لا يُوجد قراءة قابلة للتطبيق يُمكن ان تُسجل صورة على شاشة الرادار المُسمى مشكلات العصمة، فإن عدم إمتلاك الأصول هو نقطة موضع نقاش لهذه العقيدة. إنها بالتأكيد ليست نقطة موضع نقاش للوحى الفعلى بل للعصمة[37].
عقائد اساسية تأثرت بالقراءات النصية؟
نقطة ايرمان الثانية اللاهوتية تحتل الدرجة المركزية فى كتابه. تبعاً لذلك، فهى ستحتل بقية هذه المراجعة.
فى الفصلين الخامس و السادس، يُناقش ايرمان عدة نصوص تتضمن قراءات يُزعم انها تؤثر على العقائد اللاهوتية الجوهرية. يُلخص نتيجة تحقيقاته فى فصله الختامى كما يلى:فى بعض الأحيان، معنى النص فى خطر، مُعتمداً على كيفية حل الفرد المشكلة النصية: هل كان يسوع رجل غاضب (مرقس 1 : 41)؟ هل كان مهتاج كليةً فى مواجهة الموت (عب 2 : 8 - 9)؟ هل أخبر تلاميذه انهم يقدرون على شرب السم دون ان يؤذيهم (مرقس 16 : 9 - 20)؟ هل أفلت زانية من بين مُقتنصيها بلا شىء سوى تحذير مُعتدل (يو 7 : 53 - 8 : 11)؟ هل علّم العهد الجديد بوضوح عن عقيدة الثالوث (1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8)؟ هل سُمى يسوع فعلاً الإله الوحيد فى يوحنا 1 : 18؟ هل يُوضح العهد الجديد ان حتى ابن الله نفسه لا يعرف متى سوف تكون النهاية (متى 24 : 36)؟ الاسئلة تأتى كثيراً، و كلهم مرتبطين بكيفية حل الفرد للصعوبات الموجودة بالتقليد المخطوطى كما تسلمناه[38].
من الواضح ان تلخيص كهذا مقصود به التركيز على المقاطع الإشكالية الرئيسية التى ناقشها ايرمان. هكذا، و تبعاً للقاعدة الرابينية المعروفة جداً:من الأعلى للأسفل a maiore ad [39]minus او الإحتجاج من الأكبر الى الأقل، فسوف نُخاطب هذه السبعة نصوص فقط.
المشكلة مع النصوص الإشكالية
ثلاثة من هذه المقاطع اعتبرهم علماء العهد الجديد غير اصليين - من ضمنهم غالبية علماء العهد الجديد الإنجيليين - لأكثر من قرن (مرقس 16 : 9 - 20، يوحنا 7 : 53 - 8 : 11، و 1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8)[40]. رغم ذلك فإن ايرمان يكتب و كأن استئصال هذه النصوص يُمكن ان يُهدد قناعاتنا اللاهوتية. القضية صعبة جداً. (سوء نؤجل مناقشة أحد هذه النصوص، 1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8، للنهاية).
آخر إثنى عشر عدداً فى مرقس و قصة الزانية
فى نفس الوقت، فإن ايرمان يُشير الى موضوع صحيح. إن اى مراجعة عملية لأى ترجمة إنجليزية اليوم، تكشف ان الخاتمة الأطول لمرقس و قصة الزانية، موجودين فى أماكنهم المُعتادة. هكذا، ليس فقط نُسخة الملك جيمس و نُسخة الملك جيمس الجديدة بهم المقاطع (كما يُمكن ان يُتوقع)، لكن كذلك النُسخة الأميركية القياسية، النُسخة المُنقحة القياسية، النُسخة المنقحة القياسية الجديدة، النسخة الدولية الحديثة، النسخة الدولية الحديثة اليوم، الكتاب المقدس الأميركى القياسى الجديد، النسخة الإنجليزية القياسية، النسخة الإنجليزية اليوم، الكتاب المقدس الاميركى الجديد، الكتاب المقدس اليهودى الجديد، الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة. رغم ذلك، فالعلماء الذين أصدروا هذه الترجمات، لا يعهدون لأصالة هذه النصوص. الأسباب بسيطة بما فيه الكفاية: انهم غير موجودين فى أقدم و أفضل المخطوطات، و برهانهم الداخلى ضد أصالتهم بلا جدال. لماذا هم إذن مازالوا فى هذه الكتب المقدسة؟
الإجابة لهذا السؤال متنوعة. يبدو للبعض ان بقائهم فى الكتب المقدسة بسبب تقليد الجبن. يبدو ان هناك اسباب وجيهة لذلك. الأساس المنطقى نموذجياً هو أنه لا أحد سيشترى نسخة اذا لا يوجد بها هذه المقاطع الشهيرة. و اذا لم يشتريها أحد، فإنها لن تؤثر على المسيحيين. بعض الترجمات وضعت قصة الزانية بسبب تفويض من السلطات البابوية بإعتبارها مقطع من الكتاب المقدس. الكتاب المقدس الإنجليزى الحديث و الكتاب المقدس الإنجليزى المُنقح وضعوها فى نهاية الأناجيل، بدلاً من مكانها التقليدى. النُسخة الدولية الجديدة اليوم و الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة وضعوا كلاً من النصين بخط أصغر بين أقواس. بالتأكيد الشكل الأصغر يجعلهما من الصعب قراءتهما من قِبل الوعاظ. الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة تضع مُناقشة مُطولة حول عدم أصالة هذه الأعداد. غالبية الترجمات تذكر ان هذه القصص غير موجودة فى أقدم المخطوطات، لكن تعليق كهذا نادراً ما يُلاحظه القراء اليوم. كيف نعرف هذا؟ من موجات الصدمة التى قام بها كتاب ايرمان. فى الإذاعة، التليفزيون، الحوارات الصحفية مع ايرمان، قصة المرأة التى أُمسِكت فى الزنا هى دائماً اول نص يُقدم على انه غير أصيل، و هذا التقديم مُعَد لتنبيه المستمعين.
إطلاع العامة على الأسرار العلمية حول نص الكتاب المقدس ليس جديداً. إدوارد جيبون، فى كتابه الأعلى مبيعاً ذى الستة أجزاء، سقوط و إنحدار الإمبراطورية الرومانية، دوّن ان الفاصلة اليوحناوية، او الصيغة الثالوثية فى 1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8، ليست أصلية[41]. و هذا قد صدم العامة فى بريطانيا فى القرن الثامن عشر، لأن كتابهم المقدس الوحيد هو النُسخة المُرخصة، التى احتوت على الصيغة. آخرين قد قاموا بهذا قبله، لكن فقط فى الدوائر الدراسية و الأكاديمية. جيبون قام بهذا للعامة، بلغة مُزعجة[42]. لكن مع صدور النُسخة المُنقحة فى عام 1885، لم يعد هناك أثر للفاصلة. أما اليوم، فإن النص لا يُطبع فى الترجمات الحديثة، و بصعوبة يُمكن ان يجذب اى عين له.
ايرمان تبع قافلة جيبون بتعريض العامة لعدم أصالة مرقس 16 : 9 - 20 و يوحنا 7 : 53 - 8 : 11. لكن المشكلة هنا مختلفة قليلاً. النص الثانى يتمتع بعواطف قوية. لقد كان مقطعى المُفضل الغير موجود بالكتاب المقدس لسنوات. انا حتى استطيع ان أعظ حوله كقصة تاريخية حقيقية، حتى بعد ان رفضت أصوليته الأدبية - القانونية. و نحن نعلم بالوُعاظ الذين لا يستطيعون الكف عنه رغم انهم ايضاً لديهم شكوك حوله. لكن هناك مشكلتين فى هذه الطريقة لفهم الموضوع. اولاً، حول شعبية النصين، فإن يوحنا 8 هو المُفضل بشكل ساحق، رغم ذلك فإن ترخيصات إعتماده الخارجية هى اسوء بشكل هام من مرقس 16. هذا التناقض مرعب. شىء ما ناقص فى معاهدنا اللاهوتية حينما تكون مشاعر الفرد هى الحكم فى المشكلات النصية. ثانياً، قصة الزانية من المُرجح جداً انها غير حقيقية تاريخياً. من المُحتمل ان تكون قصة كُوِنت من قصتين أخريتين مُختلفتين[43]. هكذا، العذر بأن الفرد يستطيع المناداة بها لأنها قصة حدثت حقيقةً واضح انه غير صحيح.
بإستعادة الأحداث الماضية، فإن إبقاء هاتين القصتين فى كتبنا المقدسة بدلاً من إحالتهم للهوامش، يبدو و كأنه قنبلة، تنتظر فقط الإنفجار. كل ما فعله ايرمان هو انه اشعل الفتيل. درس واحد يجب ان نتعلمه من سوء اقتباس يسوع، أن اولئك الذين فى الخدمة يجب ان يعبروا الفجوة بين الكنيسة و الأكاديمية. يجب علينا ان نُعلِم المؤمنين. بدلاً من محاولة عزل عامة الناس عن الدراسة النقدية، يجب ان نُدرعهم. يجب ان يكونوا مُستعدين لوابل النيران، لأنه قادم لا محالة[44]. الصمت المُتعمد للكنيسة لأجل ملء مقاعد أكثر فى الكنيسة سوف يقود جوهرياً الى الإرتداد عن المسيح. يجب ان نشكر ايرمان لأنه أعطانا انذار أيقظنا.
هذا لا يعنى ان كل شىء كتبه ايرمان فى هذا الكتاب من هذا النوع. لكن هذه الثلاث نصوص رأى ايرمان فيها صحيح. يجب ان نؤكد مرة أخرى: هذه النصوص لا تُغير اى عقيدة رئيسية، ولا أى ايمان مركزى. العلماء الإنجيليين نفوا أصالتهم لأكثر من قرن دون زحزحة نقطة واحدة من الأرثوذكسية.
مع ذلك، فإن الأربعة مشكلات النصية المتبقية تذكر قصة مختلفة. ايرمان يستند الى واحد من إثنين: اما تفسير او دليل، يعتبره غالبية العلماء فى أفضل وضع، مشكوك به.
عبرانيين 2 : 8 - 9
الترجمات مُوحدة تقريباً فى معالجتهم للشق الثانى من عب 2 : 9. الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة كممثلة عنهم تقرأ:الذى يجب ان يتذوق الموت بنعمة الله لصالح كل واحد. ايرمان يقترح ان بنعمة الله χάριτι θεου' هى قراءة ثانوية. بدلاً من ذلك، فهو يحتج لصالح قراءة بعيداً عن الله او χωρὶς θεοῦ، بإعتبارها ما كتبه الكاتب الأصلى. هناك ثلاث مخطوطات فقط بهم هذه القراءة، و كلهم من القرن العاشر و ما يليه. لكن المخطوطة 1739 واحدة منهم، و هى منسوخة عن مخطوطة قديمة و مقبولة. قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ ناقشها العديد من الآباء، و موجودة فى مخطوطة واحدة للفلجاتا، و بعض مخطوطات البشيتا[45]. الكثير من العلماء يعتبرون هذا دليل تافه بلا ضجة. حتى لو أنهم يكرهون معالجة البرهان الداخلى تماماً، فهذا يرجع الى انه ضعيف الأساس، فقراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ هى القراءة الأصعب لهذا فهى تحتاج لشرح، حيث ان النُساخ كانوا يميلون بالأكثر الى تخفيف صياغة النص. لكن بالمثل، فإن الإقتباسات الآبائية العديدة تحتاج ايضاً الى شرح. لكن اذا كانت القراءة غير مُتعمدة، فقانون القراءة الأصعب لا يُمكن تفعيله، فالقراءة الأصعب ستكون قراءة بلا معنى، لأنها خُلِقت بلا هدف. رغم ان قراءة χωρίς من الواضح انها القراءة الأصعب[46]، فمن الممكن ان يتم تفسيرها كتغيير عفوى. من المُرجح جداً انها نشأت نتيجة زلة نسخية[47]، حيث يكون ناسخ غافل خلط بين χωρίς وχάριτι، او انها تعليق هامشى وضعه ناسخ مُفكرِاً فى نص 1 كو 15 : 27 المُشابه لـ عب 2 : 8 فى إقتباس مز 8 : 6، فى قوله بإخضاع الله لكل شىء للمسيح[48].
دون الدخول فى تفاصيل دفاع ايرمان عن قراءة χωρίς، فيجب ان نوضح أربعة اشياء. اولاً، أنه يغالى فى قضيته بإفتراضه ان رؤيته صحيحة بلا شك. بعد ثلاث صفحات من مناقشة هذا النص فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس، يُقر بحكمه قائلاً:على الرغم من البرهان الخارجى، فالنص الأصلى لـ عب 2 : 9 من المُؤكد انه قال بموت يسوع بعيداً عن الله[49]. مازال يرى الأشياء أما سوداء او بيضاء. ثانياً، وجهات نظر ايرمان النقد نصية تقترب بخطورة من منهجية الإنتقائية القاسية[50]. يبدو ان البرهان الخارجى يعنى شىء اقل و اقل بكثير مما يبدو انه يريده لأنه يريد ان يرى فساداً لاهوتياً فى النص.
ثالثاً، حتى لو كان هو واثقاً من قراره، فمعلمه الخاص، بروس ميتزجر، غير واثق. بعد سنة من نشر كتاب الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ظهر الإصدار الثانى من كتاب ميتزجر تعليق نصى. لجنة جمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة لاتزال مستمرة فى تفضيل قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ، لكن هذه المرة بتحديث قناعتهم حول أصوليتها، الى التدريج الأول A[51]. أخيراً، حتى بإفتراض ان قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ هى الصحيحة، فإيرمان لم يوضح كيف ان هذا الإختلاف يُمكنه أن يؤثر على تفسير كتاب كامل فى العهد الجديد[52]. و يحتج قائلاً:القراءة الأقل ثبوتاً فى الشواهد هى المتناسقة بالأكثر مع لاهوت الرسالة الى العبرانيين[53]. ثم يُضيف ان الكاتب:أكد، تكراراً، أن يسوع مات كإنسان تام، موت العار، بعيداً عن الملكوت من حيث أتى، ملكوت الله. كنتيجة لذلك، فإن ذبيحته قُبِلت ككفارة تامة عن الخطية. أكثر من ذلك، فالله لم يتعرض لآلامه هذه و لم يفعل اى شىء ليُخففها عنه. لقد مات يسوع بعيداً عن الله[54]. اذا كانت هذه صورة يسوع فى الرسالة الى العبرانيين، فكيف تغير القراءة التى يُفضلها ايرمان هذه الصورة؟ فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، يقول ايرمان:النص فى عب 5 : 7 يتكلم عن يسوع فى مواجهة الموت، متوسلاً لله بصراخ و دموع شديدة[55]. لكن ان يُقال بأن هذا النص يتحدث عن يسوع فى مواجهة الموت فهذا كلام غير واضح بالمرة، ولا ايرمان قد دافع عن رؤيته. بل أكثر من ذلك، انه يبنى على هذه النقطة فى فصله الختامى لكتابه سوء اقتباس يسوع - رغم انه لم يُرسى نقطته ابداً - حينما يسأل:هل كان (يسوع) مُهتاج تماماً فى مواجهة الموت؟[56]. بل انه يذهب الى ابعد من ذلك فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى. انا لا استطيع ان افهم كيف ان ايرمان يزعم أن كاتب الرسالة الى العبرانيين يبدو عالماً بـ تقاليد الآلام حيث كان يسوع مرعوباً فى مواجهة الموت[57] إلا بربط ثلاث نقاط، كل واحدة فيهم مشكوك بها - قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ فى عب 2 : 9، رؤية عب 5 : 7 كنص يشير بشكل رئيسى الى موت المسيح و ان صلاواته كانت عن نفسه[58]، ثم إعتبار صراخه العظيم كأنه يعكس حالته المرعوبة. يبدو ان ايرمان يبنى قضيته على فرضية مترابطة، و هى أساس ضعيف جداً كأفضل تقدير.
مرقس 1 : 41
فى الإصحاح الأول من انجيل مرقس، يقترب أبرص من يسوع و يساله ان يشفيه:اذا أردت، تستطيع ان تشفينى (مرقس 1 : 40). إجابة يسوع بحسب نص نيستل آلاند هى كالتالى: καὶ… σπλαγχνισθει…Vς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦἥψατο καὶ… λέγει αὐτῳÇ· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι (و تحرك يسوع برفق، و مد يده و لمسه، و قال له:أنا اريد، ابرأ).
بدلاً من σπλαγχνισθει…vς (تحرك برفق)، شواهد غربية قليلة[59] تقرأ ὀργισθείς (أصبح غاضباً). مُحرك يسوع لهذا الشفاء يبقى موضع جدال. رغم ان نص العهد الجديد لجمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة الإصدار الرابع، يضع σπλαγχνισθει…vς، فإن عدد متزايد من المفسرين بدأوا فى الإحتجاج لأصالة ὀργισθείς. فى كتاب أُعِد لتكريم جيرالد هاوثوم فى عام 2003، قام ايرمان بإحتجاج مؤثر لصالح أصالتها[60]. قبل ذلك بأربعة سنوات، قام مارك بروكتور برسالة الدكتوراه الخاصة به فى الدفاع عن [61]ὀργισθεί. لقد وجدت هذه القراءة طريقها الى نص ترجمة النُسخة الدولية الحديثة اليوم، و قد أُستُضِيفت بجدية فى الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة. لن نتعرض للإحتجاجات هنا. عند هذه المشكلة، فأنا اميل للتفكير فى اصالتها. لأجل الإحتجاج، دعونا نفترض ان قراءة الغاضب هى الأصلية، ما الذى يمكن ان تخبرنا اياه و لم نكن نعرفه عن يسوع قبلاً؟
يقول ايرمان لو ان مرقس كتب عن غضب يسوع فى هذا المقطع، فإن هذا يُغير من صورة يسوع فى انجيل مرقس على نحو هام. فى الحقيقة، هذه المشكلة النصية هى مثاله الرئيسى فى الفصل الخامس الأصول التى تهم، و هو فصل، طرحه الرئيسى هو بعض القراءات التى تؤثر على تفسير كتاب كامل من العهد الجديد[62]. هذا الطرح هو مبالغة بشكل عام، و بالأخص لإنجيل مرقس. فى مرقس 3 : 5 ، قِيل عن يسوع انه اصبح غاضباً، و هى كلمات لا شك فى أصالتها فى انجيل مرقس. و فى مرقس 10 : 14 كان ساخطاً فى وجه تلاميذه.
بكل تأكيد، ايرمان يعلم هذا. فى الحقيقة، انه يحتج ضمنياً فى تكريم هاوثوم أن غضب يسوع فى مرقس 1 : 41 يُلائم تماماً الصورة التى يرسمها مرقس ليسوع فى اماكن اخرى. فهو يقول كمثال:لقد وصف مرقس يسوع كغاضب، و هذا قد ادى الى استياء النُساخ، على الأقل فى هذة العبارة. هذا لا يجب ان يكون مفاجىء؛ فبعيداً عن فهم كامل لصورة مرقس عن يسوع، فإن غضب يسوع صعب فهمه[63]. بل ان ايرمان يذكر ما يراه قاعدة رئيسية فى انجيل مرقس باكمله:ان يسوع يغضب اذا شك أحدهم فى سلطته او قدرته على الشفاء، او رغبته فى الشفاء[64]. الآن، و لأجل الإحتجاج، دعونا نفترض انه ليس فقط قرار ايرمان النصى صحيح، بل تفسيره ايضاً لـ ὀργισθείς فى مرقس 1 : 41 صحيح ايضاً، ليس فقط فى ذلك المقطع، بل فى الشكل العام لتقديم مرقس ليسوع[65]. اذا كان كذلك، فكيف أن غضب يسوع فى مرقس 1 : 41 يؤثر على تفسير كتاب كامل من العهد الجديد؟
بحسب تفسير ايرمان الخاص، فإن إستخدام ὀργισθείς فقط يقوى الصورة التى نراها ليسوع فى هذا الإنجيل عن طريق جعل هذه الصورة أكثر تماسكاً مع بقية النصوص التى تتحدث عن غضبه. اذا كانت هذه القراءة هى العرض الأول لإيرمان فى الفصل الخامس، فهى تعطى عكس النتائج المرجوة بجدية، لأنها تقوم بالقليل او لا شىء لتغيير الصورة الكاملة ليسوع التى يعرضها مرقس. اذن، فهذا هو موقف آخر حيث نجد ان إستنتاجات ايرمان اللاهوتية أكثر إثارة مما يقوله الدليل.
متى 24 : 36
فى موعظته على جبل الزيتون، يتكلم يسوع عن ميعاد مجيئه الثانى. و هو يعترف بأنه لا يعرف متى يكون هذا بشكل ملحوظ. فى غالبية الترجمات الحديثة لمتى 24 : 36، نقرأ النص يقول:لكن عن هذا اليوم و هذه الساعة، فلا أحد يعرفهما. ولا الملائكة الذين فى السماوات، ولا الإبن، إلا الآب وحده. لكن العديد من المخطوطات و منهم بعض المخطوطات القديمة و المهمة، تفتقد قوله οὐδὲὁ υἱός. سواء كان القول ولا الإبن أصلى ام لا، فهذا أمر مشكوك به[66]. و مع ذلك، يتكلم ايرمان مرة أخرى عن الموضوع بثقة[67]. غير ان أهمية هذه القراءة للطرح الخاص بسوء إقتباس يسوع من الصعب فهمه. يُشير ايرمان الى متى 24 : 36 فى خاتمته، ليُحقق إحتجاجه بأن القراءات النصية تغير العقائد الأساسية[68]. مناقشته الأولية لهذا المقطع تترك هذا الإنطباع ايضاً بكل تأكيد[69]. لكن اذا كان لا يقصد ذلك، فإنه يكتب بشكل أكثر إستثارة مما هو مطلوب، مُضللاً بذلك قراؤه. و اذا كان يعنى ذلك حقاً، فإنه يُبالغ فى قضيته.
ما هو غير مشكوك به هو الصياغة الموازية فى مرقس 13 : 32:لكن عن هذا اليوم او هذه الساعة، فلا أحد يعرفهما. ولا الملائكة الذين فى السماوات، ولا الإبن، إلا الآب[70]. و هكذا، لا يعود هناك اى شك أن يسوع تحدث عن جهله النبوى فى موعظته على جبل الزيتون. تبعاً لذلك، فأى موضوعات عقائدية فى خطر هنا؟ بكل بساطة، لا يستطيع اى فرد ان يذكر ان صياغة مت 24 : 36 يمكن ان تغير القناعات اللاهوتية الأساسية لأى فرد عن يسوع، حيث ان هذا الرأى مذكور ايضاً فى مرقس. ولا مرة فى كتابه سوء اقتباس يسوع، يذكر ايرمان نص مرقس 13 : 32، رغم انه يُناقش بوضوح متى 24 : 36 ست مرات على الأقل، مما يبدو كأن هذه القراءة تصطدم مع فهمنا الرئيسى ليسوع[71]. لكن هل تغيير الصياغة يُغير يُغير من فهمنا لرؤية متى ليسوع؟ حتى هذا غير صحيح. حتى لو ان مت 24 : 36 إفتقد فى أصله لـ ولا الإبن، تبقى الحقيقة بكون الآب وحده (εἰ μὴὁ πατὴρ μόνος) يعلم هذه المعلومة، مما يُفيد بجهل الإبن لها بالتأكيد (و قوله وحده موجود فقط فى مت 24 : 36، و ليس فى مرقس 13 : 32). مرة أخرى، هذه تفاصيل هامة غير مذكورة فى سوء اقتباس يسوع او حتى فى الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس.
يوحنا 1 : 18
يُحاجج ايرمان بأن القراءة الأصلية فى الشق الثانى من يوحنا 1 : 18، هى الإبن و ليس الله. لكنه يذهب فى ذلك الى ما هو بعد الدليل بإقرار أنه لو كانت قراءة الله هى الأصلية، فإن النص فى هذه الحالة يقول عن يسوع:الإله الوحيد. و المشكلة مع هذه الترجمة بحسب ايرمان هى:المُصطلح الإله الوحيد يجب ان يُشير الى الله الآب نفسه، و إلا لن يكون وحيداً. و لكن اذا كان المُصطلح يُشير للآب، فكيف يُمكن إستخدامه عن الإبن؟[72]. قام ايرمان بتعقيد إحتجاجه النحوى الغير موجود فى سوء اقتباس يسوع، لكنه الموجود بالتفصيل فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس، قائلاً:
الحيلة المُشتركة بين اولئك الذين يؤيدون قراءة μονογενὴς θεός، لكنهم يدركون ان ترجمتها كـ الإله الوحيد هو عملياً مستحيل فى السياق اليوحناوى، هى فهم الصفة جوهرياً، و بإعراب النصف الثانى من يوحنا 1 : 18 كسلسلة من البدلات، و بذلك بدلاً من ترجمته:الإله الوحيد الذى فى حضن الآب، يُترجم النص:الواحد الوحيد، الذى هو نفسه الله، الذى فى حضن الآب. هناك شىء جذاب حول هذا الإقتراح. فهو يشرح ما الذى قد يكون عناه النص للقارىء اليوحناوى و بذلك يفضلون للنص ذو الشواهد النصية الأعلى. و مع هذا، فهذا الحل غير معقول....انه من الحقيقى ان μονογενής قد أُستُخدِم فى اماكن أخرى جوهرياً (الواحد الوحيد كما فى عدد 14)؛ فى الحقيقة فكل الصفات يُمكن إستخدامها جوهرياً. لكن كل أنصار هذا الرأى لم يستطيعوا تمييز أنه لم يُستخدم بهذه الطريقة حينما تبعه، مباشرةً، إسم يتفق معه فى جنسه، عدده، حالته. بالفعل على المرء ان يُؤكد على النقطة الإعرابية: متى تم إستخدام اى صفة جوهرياً حينما سبقه إسم مُباشرةً بنفس التصريف؟ لا يوجد قارىء يونانى يُمكن ان يعرب تركيب كهذا كسلسلة من الإستخدامات الجوهرية، ولا يوجد كاتب يونانى قد يقع فى عدم إنسجام كهذا. بحسب علمى، لا يوجد أحد أعطى مثالاً لهذا الامر خارج عن هذا النص. النتيجة هى ان أخذ التعبير μονογενὴς θεός كإستخدامين جوهريين بشكل مُركب، هو تركيب مُستحيل تقريباً، حيث ان إعراب إرتباطهم كـ إسم - صفة يخلق معنى مُستحيل[73].
إحتجاج ايرمان يفترض أن μονογενής لا يُمكن ان تُستخدم جوهرياً بشكل طبيعى، رغم انها أستُخدِمت كذلك فى عدد 14 كما يقر هو. هناك عدة إنتقادات يُمكن ان تُوجه لإحتجاجه هذا، لكن الرئيسى بينهم هو هذا: جعله للموقف النحوى مُطلقاً هو غير صحيح. هناك بالفعل أمثلة حيث نجد صفة وُضِعت بجانب إسم ذو نفس التوافق النحوى، و قد تم توظيفهم وصفياً و جوهرياً فى نفس الوقت[74].
يوحنا 6 : 7 : καὶἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολόςἐστιν. هنا فإن كلمة διάβολος تم توظيفها كإسم، رغم انها صفة. و εἷς، الصفة الضميرية، هى الفاعل المُرتبط بـ διάβολος التى تم توظيفها فى حالة الرفع المُتضمن.
رومية 1 : 30 : καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖςὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνουςἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς (مشوهى السمعة، كارهى الله، المتغرطس، المتكبر، المُتبجح، مُخترعى الشر، غير مُطيعى الوالدين - الصفات الحقيقية هى المائلة).
غلاطية 3 : 9 : τῷ πιστῷ᾿Αβραάμ (مع ابراهيم المؤمن كما ترجمها الكتاب المقدس الأميركى القياسى الجديد، و النُسخة المُنقحة القياسية الجديد تترجمها ابراهيم الذى آمن، و النُسخة الدولية الحديثة تترجمها ابراهيم رجل الإيمان. بغض النظر عن كيفية ترجمتها، فأننا لدينا هنا صفة بين أداة تعريف و إسم تم توظيفه جوهرياً، كـ بدل للإسم.
افسس 2 : 20 : ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ᾿Ιησοῦ (المسيح يسوع الذى هو نفسه حجر الزاوية الرئيسى): رغم ان ἀκρογωνιαῖος هى صفة، فإنه يبدو انها قد تم توظيفها هنا جوهرياً (رغم انها من الممكن ان تكون صفة ضمنية، و هى كما أعتقد فى حالة إضافة ضمنية). هناك من يُصنفها كصفة و هناك من يصنفها كإسم. لهذا فهى من الممكن ان تكون مشابهة لـ μονογενής فى تطورها.
1 تى 1 : 9 δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις (الناموس لم يُوجد للرجل المستقيم، لكن لأولئك الذين بلا ناموس و الثائرين، للذين بلا إله و الخطاة، للغير مقدسين و الدنسين، للذين يقتلون آبائهم و امهاتهم، للقتلة): هذا النص يُظهر بوضوح أن ايرمان غالى فى قضيته، لأن βεβήλοις لا تُعدل πατρολῴαις، لكنها أُستُخدِمت جوهرياً، كما فى المُصطلحات الوصفية الخمس السابقة.
1 بط 1 : 1 ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις (المُختار، المقيمون وقتياً): هذا النص تم تفسيره بطرق متنوعة، لكن نقطتنا ببساطة هى انه من الممكن ان يلائم مُخطط يوحنا 1 : 18. لذا فهو من نفس نوعية النصوص التى قال عنها ايرمان:لا أحد قد وضع مثال شبيه خارج هذا المقطع.
2 بط 2 : 5 : ἐφείσατο ἀλλὰὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα (لا يصفح عن العالم، لكنه أبقى ثامن، نوح، كارز بالصلاح). الصفة ثامن هى بدل لنوح، لأنها لو عدلت نوح، فالنفاذ سيكون:نوح ثامن كما لو ان هناك سبعة نوح آخرين![75]
فى ضوء هذه الأمثلة (التى تمثل جزء بسيط هو الموجود فى العهد الجديد)، فإننا نستطيع الرد مُباشرة على سؤال ايرمان:متى تم إستخدام اى صفة جوهرياً حينما سبقه إسم مُباشرةً بنفس التصريف؟. مُلاحظته بأنه:لا يوجد قارىء يونانى يُمكن ان يعرب تركيب كهذا كسلسلة من الإستخدامات الجوهرية، ولا يوجد كاتب يونانى قد يقع فى عدم إنسجام كهذا، لا تثبت ببساطة امام البرهان. و نحن قد نظرنا فى عينات بسيطة من العهد الجديد. فإذا كان مؤلفى العهد الجديد إستطاعوا وضع تعابير كهذه، فإن هذا الغحتجاج الداخلى ضد قراءة μονογενὴς θεός يفقد وزنه المعتبر.
نأتى الآن الى السؤال حول هل هناك مفاتيح سياقية كافية بأن μονογενής قد تم توظيفها فى الحقيقة جوهرياً. لقد قام ايرمان بالفعل بتزويدنا بهم: اولاً، فى يوحنا، من غير الممكن ان نُفكر فى الكلمة كونه الإله الوحيد فى يو 1 : 18(بحيث يكون هو الوحيد فى حالة الألوهية دون الآب)، و قد رأينا ان هذه المنزلة أُزيلت منه تكراراً فى بقية الإنجيل. هكذا، فإننا بإفتراض أصولية قراءة μονογενὴς θεός، فإننا فى الحقيقة نجد أنفسنا محمولين الى المعنى الذى يعتبره ايرمان غير ملائم نحوياً لكنه ضرورى سياقياً:الواحد الوحيد، الذى هو نفسه الله. ثانياً، إستخدام μονογενής كجوهر فى العدد 14[76]، هو اقوى إحتجاج سياقى لإستخدامه مرة اخرى جوهرياً بعد أربعة أعداد. لكن بعد ذلك مباشرة، يضع ايرمان إحتجاجه النحوى، مُخفياً تحديه و كأنه يغلق غطاء التابوت على قوة الترابط مع العدد 14. لكن اذا كان الإحتجاج النحوى لن ينصر قضيته، إذن فإن فالإستخدام الجوهرى لـ μονογενής فى عدد 14، يقف فى النهاية كمفتاح سياقى هام. فعلياً، ففى ضوء الإستخدام المعروف ليونانية الكتاب المقدس، يجب علينا ان نتوقع إستخدام μονογενής جوهرياً بما يتضمن البنوة فى يو 1 : 18.
الآن، فبما أن إهتمامنا هنا هو مواجهة معنى μονογενὴςθεός اذا كانت أصلية، بدلاً من الإحتجاج لأصالتها، فهناك دليل كافى لبرهنة قوة ترجمتها بـ:الواحد الوحيد، الذى هو نفسه الله، كتعليق مناسب لهذه القراءة. كلاً من البرهان الداخلى و الخارجى يقفان لصالحها، و الشىء الوحيد الذى يمكن ان يُخفقها، هو تفسيرها بأنها كانت قراءة سابيلية[77]. لكن الأساس لهذا التفسير هو الإفتراض النحوى الذى برهننا على انه لا وزن له. نستنتج من ذلك أن كلاً من القراءتين μονογενὴς υἱός و μονογενὴς θεός يتفقان مع الإيمان المُستقيم، فلا تغير لاهوتى مُزلزل قد يحدث اذا فضل اى فرد أحدهما على الأخرى. رغم ان بعض الترجمات الحديثة رجحت إحتجاج ايرمان هنا (مثل كتاب هولمان المقدس المسيحى القياسى)، فإن الإحتجاج ليس خالى من الثغرات. اذا أختبرنا اى قراءة منهما بحرص، فالإثنان سيظهران فى إطار التعليم المُستقيم.
يكفى القول بأن قراءة الله هى الأصلية هنا، فإنه ليس من اللازم ترجمة العبارة:الإله الوحيد، و كأن هذا يوحى بأن يسوع وحده هو الله. بدلاً من ذلك، فإن الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديث تترجمها (و أنظر ايضاً النسخة الدولية الحديثة و النسخة المنقحة القياسية الحديثة):لا أحد قد رأى الله. الواحد الوحيد، الذى هو نفسه الله، الذى فى أقرب مرافقة للآب، قد أظهر الله.
بكلمات أخرى، فكرة ان القراءات فى مخطوطات العهد الجديد قد تغير من لاهوت العهد الجديد، مُغالى فيها جداً[78]. للأسف، فرغم ان ايرمان عالم حريص، فإن معالجته للتغيرات اللاهوتية الرئيسية فى نص العهد الجديد، تميل الى السقوط تحت واحد من نقدين: إما أن قراراته النصية خاطئة، او ان تفسيراته خاطئة. هذه الغنتقادات قد وُجهِت لعمله الأول، الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس، و الذى قد أُخذ منه سوء اقتباس يسوع بشكل مُكثف. كمثال، فقد قال جوردون فى حول هذا العمل:للأسف، ايرمان غالباً ما يحول الإمكانية المجردة الى الإحتمالية، ثم يُحول الإحتمالية الى تأكيد، فى الوقت الذى يوجد هناك أسباب قابلة للتطبيق مساوية للفساد الموجود[79]. لكن الإستنتاجات التى وضعها ايرمان فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس، مازالت موجودة فى كتابه سوء اقتباس يسوع، دون اى ادراك لبعض الإنتقادات العديدة الموجودة لعمله الأول[80]. فلكتاب خُصِص للعامة، فكان يجب عليه ان يُميز بدقة فى مناقشته، خاصةً مع الوزن اللاهوتى الذى يقول بأنه معه فى قضيته. أنه يعطى الإنطباع بأنه يشجع البسطاء فى المجتمع المسيحى ان يرتعبوا من البيانات الذين هم غير مُؤهلين للتعامل معها. مراراً و تكراراً فى هذا الكتاب، تُوجد عبارات مُتهِمة لا يستطيع الشخص الغير مُدرب ان يتفحصها. هذا الإقتراب يشبه بالأكثر عقلية تُثير المخاوف، أكثر مما يستطيع ان يقدمه أستاذ و مُعلم ناضج. و عن الدليل، فإنه يكفى ان نقول بأن القراءات النصية الهامة التى تغير العقائد الجوهرية للعهد الجديد، لم يتم إنتاجها بعد.
لكن ايرمان يعتقد أن هذه القراءات موجودة. حينما ناقش آراء فيتشتين عن نص العهد الجديد، قال إيرمان أن:فيتشتين بدأ بالتفكير بجدية حول قناعاته اللاهوتية، ثم أصبح آلفاً مشكلة أن العهد الجديد نادراً ما يُسمى يسوع الله، هذا إن أسماه كذلك[81]. بشكل ملحوظ جداً، يبدو ان ايرمان يضع هذا الإستنتاج ليس مُمثلاً عن فيتشتين فقط، و إنما عن نفسه ايضاً. بقدر ما إبتعد فيتشتين عن النص المُستلم مُتجهاً ناحية النص النقدى، فإن إحتجاجاته على إلوهية المسيح كانت لا أساس لها، لأن إلوهية المسيح تُرى بالفعل أوضح فى النص اليونانى النقدى أكثر من النص المُستلم[82]. رغم ان ايرمان لا يُناقش غالبية النصوص الذى يعتقد أنها زائفة، إلا انه قد ناقشها فى كتابه الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس (خاصةً ص 264 - 273). لكن المناقشة ليس كاملة و تشتمل على متناقضات داخلية. بإختصار، لم يقم بإخراج قضيته. إلوهية المسيح تبقى غير مُشوشة عن طريق أى قراءة تطبيقية.
1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8
اخيراً، و عن 1 يوحنا 5 : 7 - 8، فعملياً ولا ترجمة حديثة للكتاب المقدس تحتوى على الصيغة الثالوثية، إذ أن العلماء أدركوا لقرون أنها إضافة متأخرة. مخطوطات قليلة جداً فقط و متأخرة تحتوى على هذه الأعداد. بل إن الفرد يتعجب لماذا تمت مناقشة هذا النص فى كتاب ايرمان. السبب الوحيد الذى يبدو لذلك هو إشعال الشكوك. هذا المقطع دخل الى كتبنا المقدسة عن طريق ضغط سياسى، و ظهر لأول مرة فى عام 1522، رغم ان العلماء فى ذلك الوقت و الآن عرفوا بأنه غير أصلى. الكنيسة الأولى لم تكن على علم بهذا النص، لكن مجمع القسطنطينية فى عام 381، أكد على الثالوث بوضوح! كيف يُمكنهم ان يقوموا بذلك دون إلإستفادة من نص لم يدخل للعهد الجديد اليونانى الا بعد ألفية أخرى؟ بيان مجمع القسطنطينية لم يُكتب من فراغ: لقد وضعت الكنيسة الأولى ما وجدته فى العهد الجديد فى صياغات لاهوتية.
يجب ان نفرق هنا بين أمرين هامين: ليس لأن نص واحد لا يُؤكد عقيدة عزيزة علينا، أن هذا يعنى بان هذه العقيدة غير موجودة فى العهد الجديد. فى هذه الحالة، فإن اى فرد فاهم للمناظرات الآبائية الغنية حول الإلوهية، يعرف أن الكنيسة الأولى وصلت لفهمها عن طريق فحص بيانات العهد الجديد. الصيغة الثالوثية الموجود فى المخطوطات المتأخرة فى 1 يوحنا 5 : 7 لخصت فقط ما وجدوه، و ليس أنها أسست إيضاحاتهم.
الخاتمة
إجمالاً، كتاب ايرمان الأخير لا يُخيب الآمال فى ميزان الإستفزاز. لكنه فشل فى تحقيق الجوهر الحقيقى لخلافه الأولى. ألتمس عذرك حينما أُشين نقطتين رعويتين هنا.
اولاً، إلتماسى لكل علماء الكتاب المقدس أن ينتبهوا لمسئوليتهم بجدية عن رعاية شعب الله. العلماء يحملون مهمة مقدسة؛ ألا يُرعبوا القراء العوام بموضوعات لا يفهمونها. بل حتى المعلمين اللاأدريين يحملون هذه المسئولية. للأسف، فإن الرجل البسيط العادى سوف يترك كتاب سوء إقتباس يسوع من بين يديه، و هو يحمل شكوكاً أكبر عن صياغة و تعاليم العهد الجديد أكثر من أى ناقد نصى. المعلم الناصح لا يعتمد فقط على تقديم المعلومة لطلابه، لكنه يعرف ايضاً كيف يوصل المادة بما لا يسمح للعاطفة ان تُعيِق العقل. ما يدعو للسخرية هو أن سوء اقتباس يسوع من المُفترض انه كله عن العقل و الدليل، لكنه خلق الكثير من الرعب و الذعر، تماماً كشفرة دافينشى. هل هذا هو التأثير التعليمى الذى كان يريده ايرمان؟ أستطيع ان أفترض انه يعرف نوعية رد الفعل الذى سيلاقيه من هذا الكتاب، لأنه لم يُغير الإنطباع فى كل حواراته. يبدو ان كونه مُستفز و عرضة للفهم الخاطىء، أهم بكثير له من أن يكون أميناً حتى لو ان ما سيكتبه سيكون مملاً. لكن المُعلم الجيد لن يُنتج فيلماً كرتونياً[83].
ثانياً، و هو ما أخبره دائماً لطُلابى كل سنة؛ أنه من الضرورى لهم أن يُطاردوا الحقيقة، بدلاً من حماية مواقفهم المُسبقة. و يجب ان يكون لديهم تصنيف عقيدى، يُميز بين الإعتقادات الجوهرية و الإعتقادات الثانوية. حينما يضعون عقائد ثانوية كالعصمة و الوحى الفعلى فى الجوهر، إذن فحينما يبدأ الإيمان بهذه العقيدة فى التآكل، فإنه يُحدث تأثير لعبة الدومينو: إذا سقط الواحد، يسقط الكل. أعتقد ان شىء ما كهذا قد حدث لبارت ايرمان. شهادته فى سوء اقتباس يسوع ناقش فيها العصمة كالمحرك الأول لكل دراساته. لكن بتعليق عفوى من أحد اساتذته المُحافظين فى برينستون على بحثه يتضمن بأنه من المحتمل أن الكتاب المقدس غير معصوم، فإن ايمان ايرمان بدأ فى الإنهيار. كارت دومينو أسقط التالى، الى ان أصبح:لاأدرى سعيد بإعتدال. قد اكون مخطىء حول رحلة ايرمان الروحية، لكنى عرفت الكثير من الطُلاب الذين ذهبوا فى هذا الإتجاه. ما يدعو للسخرية ان اولئك الذين يجعلون بحثهم النقدى فى نص الكتاب المقدس، فى المقدمة، بمواقف مُسبقة حول الكتاب المقدس، دائماً ما يتكلمون عن زلة منحدرة، بربطهم لكل القناعات اللاهوتية بالعصمة. نظرتهم هى انه بزوال العصمة، فكل شىء ينهار. لكنى أقول انه اذا صعدت العصمة الى مكان أرقى بكونها عقيدة أولية، فإن هذه هى الزلة المنحدرة. لكن اذا نظر الطلاب للعقائد كدوائر متراكزة، بحيث تكون العقائد الرئيسية فى المركز، فإن العقائد الثانوية اذا واجهت اى تحدى، لا يكون لهذا أثر هام على المركز. بكلمات أخرى، المجتمع الإنجيلى سيستمر فى ولادة علماء ليبراليين، حتى نتعلم كيف ان نميز بشكل دقيق أكثر عهود إيماننا، حتى نتعلم كيف نرى المسيح هو مركز حياتنا، و أن الكتاب المقدس يُشير له. اذا كانت نقطة إنطلاقنا هى تقبل حقائق مُسبقة حول طبيعة الكتاب المقدس، بدلاً من تقبل يسوع المسيح كرب و ملك، فسوف نكون على هذه الزلة المنحدرة، و سوف نأخذ الكثير معنا الى الأسفل.
انا حزين على ما حدث لأحد اصدقائى الشخصيين، رجل عرفته و أحببته - و مازلت أحبه - لأكثر من ربع قرن. أنه أمر لا يفرحنى ان أضع هذه المراجعة. لكن من مكانى هنا، يبدو ان عقلية ايرمان السوداء او البيضاء كمتزمت، لم تتأثر رغم ما خاضه خلال سنين و تجارب الحياة و التعليم، حتى حينما ذهب الى الجانب الآخر فى المجال اللاهوتى. مازال يرى الأمور بلا تمييز دقيق كافى، إنه يغالى فى قضيته، و هو مُحصن بآمان مُعتقداً أن آراؤه الخاصة صحيحة. بارت ايرمان واحد من نُقاد النص اللامعين و المُبدعين الذين عرفتهم، لكن نزعاته قوية جداً لدرجة انه لا يستطيع ان يعترف بها فى بعض الأحيان[84]. قبل ان يظهر سوء اقتباس يسوع بشهور قليلة، ظهر الإصدار الرابع لكتاب ميتزجر نص العهد الجديد. الثلاثة إصدارات الأولى كتبهم ميتزجر وحده، و حملوا العنوان: نص العهد الجديد: إنتقاله، فساده، إعادة تكوينه. اما الإصدار الرابع الذى يشترك فى تأليفه ايرمان الآن، يجعل من هذا العنوان يبدو مُخادعاً. قارىء سوء اقتباس يسوع قد يُفكر بأن العنوان الفرعى لكتاب ميتزجر فى إصداره الرابع، يجب ان يكون ببساطة: إنتقاله و فساده[85].
إنتهى
التعليق على المُراجعة
ملاحظات
كانت هذه هى مُراجعة عالم و ناقد نصى شهير، على كتاب سوء إقتباس يسوع. و قبل التعليق عليه، هناك بعض الملاحظات التى آشار لها والاس و يجب إيضاحها:
· ف. س. باؤر: هو أحد الباحثين فى التاريخ الكنسى فى النصف الأول من القرن العشرين، و كان مُهتماً بالصراع الأرثوذكسى – الهرطوقى بالتحديد. وصل فى ختام أبحاثه الى أننا لا نستطيع الإستمرار فى فهم الأرثوذكسية كالغالبية العظمى من المسيحيين، و بأن الأرثوذكسية لم تكن سوى إحدى الفرق المتنازعة مع بقية الفرق المسيحية.
· الطريقة الدومينية: هو تعبير يقصد به دان والاس لعبة الدومينو، و يقصد من وراء التشبيه أنه بوضع الإعتقاد بوحى و عصمة الكتاب المقدس فى مركز العقائد التى يؤمن بها الفرد، فإنه بإنهيار هذا الإعتقاد، ينهار كل شىء بالتبيعة. تماماً كلعبة الدومينو. فإذا سقط كارت واحد، يسقط البقية. سأستفيض فى شرح هذا الموضوع بعد قليل.
· إعادة إستكشاف يسوع: هو كتاب نُشِر فى عام 2006، تأليف كوموزسويسكى، سوير، و والاس، بهدف البحث عن صورة المسيح الحقيقية فى التاريخ، و الرد على النقد المُوجه للإيمان المسيحى فى مجالات: موثوقية الأناجيل التاريخية، نص العهد الجديد[86]، قانونية أسفار العهد الجديد، لاهوت المسيح فى القرون الأولى، مدى تشابه المسيحية بالوثنيات. حصلنا بنعمة الرب على إذن من الناشر بترجمته للعربية، و جارى بالفعل ترجمته و نشره بواسطة خُدام الرب فى كندا.
تقييم
الإطار العام للرد الإنجيلى بشكل عام و رد دانيال والاس بشكل خاص، هو التأكيد الدائم على إنعدام التأثير النصى على العقائد المسيحية الرئيسية. و فى كتابات والاس الدفاعية فى مواجهة هجوم ايرمان؛ يبرز لدينا نقطة فى غاية الخطورة، و هى ثابتة فى الغرب، و لكن لا وجود لها فى الفكر الشرقى تماماً: التعامل مع كتب العهد الجديد كوثائق تاريخية. هذا سيتطلب تفصيل.
كتب العهد الجديد هى وثائق تاريخية ترجع للقرن الأول. فالفكرة الرئيسية هى أنك تستطيع ان تؤمن بما تُورده هذه الأناجيل من أخبار و أحداث، دون ان تكون مُلزماً بالإيمان بعصمة هذه الوثائق او حتى وحيها. تحرى مصداقية و موثوقية الأحداث التاريخية الواردة فى اسفار العهد الجديد، لا يحتاج منك سوى تفعيل النقد التاريخى فقط. هذا الخيار مُتاح لنا، لأن مركز إيماننا هو المسيح، و ليس الكتاب المقدس. فحتى اذا تعاملت مع هذا الكتاب على أنه كتاب بشرى خالص، فإن هذا لن يهدم شهادته التاريخية الجديرة بالإحترام لحياة و تعليم و أعمال المسيح. كما قال أحد علماء المملكة المتحدة ذات مرة:نحن نعامل الكتاب المقدس كأى كتاب، لنثبت أنه ليس كأى كتاب.فعلى غير المسيحى أن يتخلص من نزعاته المُسبقة فى نقد الكتاب المقدس، و على المسيحى كذلك أن يتخلص من نزعاته المُسبقة فى نقد الكتاب المقدس. أحدهم يقول هذا كتاب فاسد لا يصلح لشىء، و الآخر يقول بل إنه كتاب معصوم مُنزل من السماوات! يجب التخلص من هذه التوجهات قبل البدء فى نقد الكتاب المقدس و الإيمان المسيحى.
رسالة
إن أكثر ما شدنى فى مُراجعة والاس، هو قوله: درس واحد يجب ان نتعلمه من سوء اقتباس يسوع، أن اولئك الذين فى الخدمة يجب ان يعبروا الفجوة بين الكنيسة و الأكاديمية. يجب علينا ان نُعلِم المؤمنين. بدلاً من محاولة عزل عامة الناس عن الدراسة النقدية، يجب ان نُدرعهم. يجب ان يكونوا مُستعدين لوابل النيران، لأنه قادم لا محالة. الصمت المُتعمد للكنيسة لأجل ملء مقاعد أكثر فى الكنيسة سوف يقود جوهرياً الى الإرتداد عن المسيح. يجب ان نشكر ايرمان لأنه أعطانا انذار أيقظنا.
و أنتهز هذه الفرصة لتوجيه نفس هذه الرسالة للخدام المُؤتمنين على رعاية الشعب المسيحى فى الشرق الأوسط: بدلاً من محاولة عزل عامة الناس عن الدراسة النقدية، يجب ان نُدرعهم. يجب ان يكونوا مُستعدين لوابل النيران، لأنه قادم لا محالة. إذا لم نستعد بالدراسة الجادة و العلم الحديث، ستأكلنا هذه النيران كما تأكل القش. اذا لم ننشر العلم بالدليل و البرهان فى كل مكان فى أرجاء الكنائس العربية، فلن نفلح فى حربنا ضد الباطل. إيماننا المسيحى ثابت، ولا يوجد أى شىء فى التعامل النقدى التاريخى مع الكتاب المقدس، يُهدد إيماننا. لقد بُنِى إيماننا على كم وافر من الدليل، يُشير الى ترجيح كفة المسيحية الأرثوذكسية التاريخية. لا يجب ان نخاف النقد، بل أن نتفحصه و ندرسه. حينما شك توما فى يسوع، لم يغضب يسوع منه. بكل وداعة، دعاه الى ان يمس يديه و جنبه...دعاه ليتفحص البرهان! دعونا نضع التساؤلات، و نبحث عن الإجابة. دعونا نتفحص البرهان الوثائقى لكتبة الأناجيل، البرهان التاريخى لمدى مصداقية قيامة الرب من الموت، البرهان النصى لمدى موثوقية نص العهد الجديد. لنتفحص البرهان الذى يقدمه لنا الكتاب المقدس عن نفسه، لنرى هل يستطيع الصمود أمام النقد أم لا. هذه هى مهمة رعاة الكنائس الناطقة بالعربية، و خاصةً فى بلادنا مصر.
ليُساعدنا الرب، آمين.
فادى اليكساندر
14 – 5 - 2009
[1]The Text Of The New Testament In Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Edited By Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes, Eerdmans Publishing 1995.
[2]Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture, P. xi
[3]Ibid, P. 275
[4] المؤمنين بأن الآب تبنى يسوع، و أن يسوع أصبح إبناً لله عن طريق تبنى الله له فى المعمودية أو فى قيامته.
[5] المؤمنين بأن يسوع و المسيح هم شخصين و ليسا واحداً. أبرزهم الغنوسيين، حيث نرى فى فكرهم أن يسوع هو الإنسان و المسيح هو الإله.
[6] المؤمنين بأن المسيح كان إلهاً فقط و أنما كان له جسد هيولى و ليس جسد مادى.
[7] أحد تفرعات السابيلية. إنطلاقاً من الإيمان السابيلى بأن الثلاث أقانيم ما هم الا ظهورات لشخص واحد، فإن الذى تألم على الصليب هو الآب و ليس الإبن. ركز هؤلاء على أن الآب هو الذى تألم، لذلك لُقبوا بهذا اللقب.
[8] كما عبّر والاس فى مداخلته الأولى فى مناظرته مع ايرمان، فى ابريل 2008.
[9] تمت كتابة هذه المقدمة و التعليق الختامى بموافقة دان والاس، و قد قمت بإطلاعه على مُلخص لكل منهما.
[10] شكراً لداريل ل. بوك، بويست م. فانينج، مايكل و. هولمز، و. هول هاريس، و ويليام ف. وارين لنظرهم فى المُسودة الأولى لهذا المقال و تقديم مُداخلاتهم.
[11]San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005
[12] نيلى توكر:كتاب بارت: فى الكتاب الأعلى مبيعاً سوء إقتباس يسوع، الكاتب اللاأدرى بارت ايرمان ينتقد الأناجيل التى جعلت الغير مؤمن يخرج منه، واشنطن بوست، 5 مارس 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html
[13] توكر، كتاب بارت.
[14] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 15
[15] أنظر خاصةً، ص 59 – 60.
[16] بروس م. ميتزجر و بارت د. ايرمان، نص العهد الجديد: إنتقاله، فساده، إعادة تكوينه، اكسفورد: OUP 2005.
[17] ميتزجر و إيرمان، نص العهد الجديد، ص 158 (الخط المائل مُضاف). هذا يقف فى تناقض مُباشر مع تقييم ايرمان فى الخاتمة (ص 207)، المُقتبس بالأعلى.
[18] الإقتباس من إيرمان، سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 112
[19] السابق، ص 114
[20] أنظر سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 1 – 15، حيث يؤرخ ايرمان رحلته الروحية.
[21] فى الفصل الخامس الأصول التى تهم، يُناقِش ايرمان منهج النقد النصى. و هو هنا يُكرس نحو ثلاث صفحات للبرهان الخارجى (ص 128 - 131)، لكنه لا يذكر أى مخطوطات منفردة.
[22] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 90. هذه الجملة مُفضلة له، لأنه يذكرها فى حواراته، سواء المنشورة او فى الإذاعة.
[23] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 89.
[24] لمنُاقشة حول طبيعة القراءات النصية، أنظر: ج. إد كوموسزويسكى، م. جيمس سوير، دانيال ب. والاس، إعادة إستكشاف يسوع: ما الذى لم تخبرك به شفرة دافينشى و التخمينات الروائية الأخرى (جراند رابيدز: كريجل، مايو 2006). هذا الكتاب سيظهر فى يونيو 2006. القسم الذى يخاطب النقد النصى، يتكون من خمسة فصول، و يُسمى مُفسَد سياسياً؟ تلطيخ نصوص العهد الجديد القديمة.
[25] يقول ايرمان:حينما أتكلم عن مئات و آلاف الإختلافات، فإنه حقيقى أن الكثير منهم غير هام. لكنه ايضاً حقيقى ان الكثير منهم هام جداً لتفسير الكتاب المقدس (ايرمان فى حواره مع جيرى كرينتز Charlotte Observer، 17 ديسمبر 2005 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/living/religion/13428511.htm). فى نفس الحوار حينما سُئِل ايرمان:إذا كنا لا نملك النصوص الأصلية للعهد الجديد - ولا حتى نُسخ عن نُسخ عن نُسخ عن الأصول - فما الذى نملكه؟ فأجاب ايرمان:لدينا نُسخ صُنِعت مئات السنين لاحقاً، فى أغلب الحالات، مئات من السنين لاحقاً. و هذه النُسخ مُختلفة من واحدة للأخرى. فى برنامج The Diane Rehm (الإذاعة العامة الوطنية)، 8 ديسمبر 2005، قال ايرمان:هناك إختلافات بين مخطوطاتنا أكثر من عدد كلمات العهد الجديد.
[26] لاحظ التالى:مخطوطاتنا...مليئة بالأخطاء (ص 57)، ليس فقط أننا لا نمتلك الأصول، بل أننا لا نملك النُسخ الأولى عن الأصول. أننا لا نمتلك نُسخ عن نُسخ عن الأصول، او نُسخ عن نُسخ عن نُسخ عن الأصول. ما نمتلكه هو نُسخ صُنِعت متأخراً، متأخراً جداً...و هذه النُسخ تختلف من واحدة لأخرى، فى آلاف كثيرة من المواضع، لدرجة أننا لا نعرف حتى ما هو عدد الإختلافات (ص 10)، الأخطاء تتضاعف و تتكرر، بعض الأحيان يتم تصحيحهم، و بعض الأحيان يتم مُضاعفتهم. و هكذا، الى قرون (ص 57)، يُمكننا ان نتكلم للأبد عن مواضع مُحددة حيث تغيرت نصوص العهد الجديد، سواء عفوياً او عمدياً. كما بينت، الأمثلة ليست بالمئات، بل بالآلاف (ص 98)؛ و فى مناقشة آداة جون ميل النصية فى 1707، يوضح ايرمان:مما سبّب الصدمة و الرعب للعديد من قراؤه، آداة ميل عزلت نحو ثلاثين ألف مكان للإختلاف ضمن الشواهد المتوفرة...ميل لم يكن شاملاً فى تقديمه للبيانات التى جمعها. فى الحقيقة، فقد وجد أكثر من ثلاثين ألف موضع للإختلاف (ص 84)، يختلف العلماء على نحو هام فى تقديراتهم، البعض يقول ان هناك 200000 قراءة معروفة، و البعض يقول ان هناك 300000، و البعض يقول ان هناك 400000 قراءة او أكثر! أننا لا نعرف بالتأكيد، لأنه على الرغم من التطورات المؤثرة فى تكنولوجيا الحاسوبات، لا أحد استطاع حتى الآن ان يُحصِيهم جميعهم (ص 89)، ثم يختتم مُناقشته لمرقس 16 : 9 - 20 و يوحنا 7 : 53 - 8 : 11، أطول مشكلتين نصيتين فى العهد الجديد، بقوله أن هذين النصين:يُمثلان إثنين فقط من بين آلاف المواضع تغيرت فى المخطوطات بواسطة النُساخ (ص 68). القول بأن هاتين المشكلتين النصيتين هما مُمثلتان لبقية المشكلات النصية، هو مبالغة فادحة: ثانى أكبر مشكلة (حذف / إضافة) قابلة للتطبيق، تتضمن عددين فقط. يُضيف ايرمان:رغم ان غالبية التغييرات ليست بهذا الحجم، فهناك الكثير من التغييرات الهامة (و الكثير الأكثر غير هام)... (ص 69). لكن حتى هذا مُضلِل. فبقوله:غالبية التغييرات، ايرمان يعنى كل التغييرات الأخرى.
[27] كمثال، يفتتح الفصل السابع بهذه الكلمات:أنه من الآمن تقريباً القول بأن نسخ النصوص المسيحية الأولى كانت عملية مُحافظة. النُساخ...كانوا حريصين على الحفاظ على التقليد النصى الذين كانوا ينقلونه. كان إهتمامهم الجوهرى ألا يُعدِلوا التقليد، لكن أن يحفظوه لهم و لمن سيتبعهم. غالبية النُساخ، بلا شك، حاولوا القيام بعمل أمين فى التأكد من أن النص الذى أنتجوه، كان هو نفس النص الذى ورثوه (ص 177)، من الخطأ...إفتراض ان التغييرات التى تم عملها فى كلمات النص، كانت فقط من قِبل نُساخ ذوى رغبات شخصية. فى الحقيقة، غالبية التغييرات الموجودة فى المخطوطات المسيحية الأولى لا تمت بصلة للاهوت او الأيدولوجية. بل إن أغلب التغييرات هى نتيجة أخطاء بسيطة و نقية: إنزلاقات القلم، الحذف العفوى، الإضافات غير المُتعمدة، الكلمات المُستهجاة خطأ، اخطاء تصنيف او آخر (ص 55)، لنكن متأكدين، من بين مئات الآلاف من التغييرات الموجودة فى مخطوطاتنا، فإن غالبيتهم غير هام بالمرة... (ص 207 - 208). هذه الأمور المُسَلم بها يبدو و كأنها قد أنتُزِعت منه، لأن هذه الحقائق تقف على النقيض من اجندته. فى هذا الموقف، يُضيف - مُسرعاً - قائلاً:من الخطأ القول - كما يفعل البعض بعض الأحيان - أن تلك التغييرات فى نصنا، لا تحمل اى شهادة حقيقية حول ما الذى تعنيه النصوص او عن الإستنتاجات اللاهوتية التى يصل لها الفرد منهم (ص 207 - 208). ثم يُقِدم خاتمته بمقولته الواضحة:كلما درست التقليد المخطوطى للعهد الجديد أكثر، كلما أدركت أكثر كيف ان النص تم تبديله جزرياً عبر السنين، بيد النُساخ... (ص 207). لكن هذا زعم آخر بلا تمييز دقيق كافى. نعم، النُساخ غيروا النص، لكن الغالبية العظمى لهذه التغييرات غير هامة. و الغالبية العظمى من البقية سهل تحديدها. احياناً يمتلك الفرد الإحساس بأنه ايرمان العالم الأمين هو الذى يُضيف تلك الحقائق، و اللاهوتى الليبرالى ايرمان الذى يجعل هذه الحقائق ثانوية.
[28] هذا الشرح مأخوذ من: دانيال ب. والاس إعداد الأساس: النقد النصى للعهد الجديد فى: تفسير نص العهد الجديد: مقدمة لعلم و فن التفسير (تكريماً لهارلود و. هوينر)، تنقيح داريل ل. بوك و بويست م. فانينج (ويتون: طريق الصليب)، وشيك النشر: 2006. شىء آخر يُمكن ان يُذكر حول فجوة ايرمان عن المخطوطات. ايرمان يبدو انه يقترب تدريجياً من منهجية الأولية الداخلية. يحتج لقراءات عديدة ترتكز على برهان خارجى ذو صبغة ضئيلة. هذا يبدو غريباً لأنه قبل شهور من صدور سوء اقتباس يسوع، الإصدار الرابع من كتاب بروس ميتزجر نص العهد الجديد تم نشره، بتأليف مُشترك هذه المرة مع بارت ايرمان. لكن فى هذا الكتاب، المؤلفان يتكلمان بشكل أهم عن البرهان الخارجى، أكثر مما قام به ايرمان فى سوء اقتباس يسوع.
[29] سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص7.
[30] السابق، ص 9. لمعالجة مشكلة مرقس 2 : 26، انظر دانيال ب. والاس: مرقس 2 : 26 و مشكلة آبياثار، الإجتماع المحلى للجمعية اللاهوتية الإنجيلية، 13 مارس 2004، متوفر فى: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3839
[31] السابق.
[32] السابق، ص 11
[33] السابق، ص 13
[34] الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية الأولى على نص العهد الجديد، اكسفورد 1993.
[35] السابق، ص 208.
[36] المُلاحظة الخامسة من ص 281 (الفصل 8) هل ما نملكه الآن هو ما كتبوه آنذاك؟ فى إعادة إستكشاف يسوع تقول:هناك مكانين فى العهد الجديد حيث كان التنقيح الحدسى مطلوباً. فى أع 16 : 12، النقد اليونانى النقدى القياسى يضع قراءة غير موجودة فى اى مخطوطة يونانية. لكن حتى هنا، بعض أعضاء لجنة جمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة رفضوا التنقيح، مُحتجين ان هناك مخطوطات معينة بها القراءة الأصلية. الفرق بين القراءتين هو حرف واحد (انظر المناقشة فى بروس م. ميتزجر: تعليق نصى على العهد الجديد اليونانى، الإصدار الثانى، شتوجارت: جمعية الكتاب المقدس الألمانية، 1994، ص 393 - 395، الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة، ملاحظة النقد النصى عن أعمال 16 : 12). و كذلك فى الرؤيا 21 : 17، النص اليونانى القياسى يتبع حدس قام به ويستكوت و هورت، رغم ان المشكلة النصية لم يتم إيرادها فى نص جمعيات الكتاب المقدس المتحدة او نص نيستل آلاند. هذا الحدس هو مجرد إختلاف تهجئة لا يُغير معنى النص.
[37] لمناقشة هذا الموضوع، أنظر دانيال ب. والاس: العصمة عن الخطأ و نص العهد الجديد: دراسة منطق وجهة النظر اللاأدرية، نُشِر فى يناير 2006 فى:
http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784441&ct=1799301
[38] سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 208
[39] أنظر هيرمان ل. ستراك، مقدمة للتلمود و المدراش (آثينيم، نيويورك: المعبد 1978)، ص 94 - 96، لمزيد عن هذه القاعدة التفسيرية المعروفة بـ كال واهومير Kal Wa-homer
[40] المناقشة المنفتحة للإشكال النصى فى الثلاث مقاطع يُمكن إيجادها فى هوامش هذه النصوص فى الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة.
[41] ادوارد جيبون، تاريخ إنحدار و سقوط الإمبراطورية الرومانية، ستة اجزاء، فيلادلفيا: جون د. موريس 1900، الجزء الثالث، ص 703 - 705.
[42] جيمس بينتلى، اسرار جبل سيناء: قصة المخطوطة السينائية (لندن، اوربيس 1985)، ص 29.
[43] أنظر بارت د. ايرمان، يسوع و الزانية، مجلة دراسات العهد الجديد اللاهوتية، العدد 34 لعام 1988، ص 24 - 44.
[44] لأجل هذا، إعادة استكشاف يسوع قد كُتِب. رغم انه كُتِب على مستوى شعبى، فهو مُدعم بالبحث العلمى الجاد.
[45] يقول ايرمان أن القراءة تقع فى وثيقتين من القرن العاشر (سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 145)، و هو يقصد مخطوطتين يونانيتين فقط، 0234 (0121b)، و نص 1739. هذه المخطوطات مرتبطة ببعضها و ربما تُمثل نموذج أصلى مُشترك. القراءة موجودة ايضاً فى نص المُصحح الثالث للمخطوطة 427 (و من الواضح انها تصحيح متأخر فى مخطوطة من القرن الحادى عشر)، بالإضافة الى مخطوطة من الفلجاتا، مخطوطات من السيريانية البشيتا، النص اليونانى و اللاتينى لأوريجانيوس، مخطوطات أخرى تبعاً لاوريجانيوس، ثيؤودور، النساطرة تبعاً لعمل منسوب لأوكيمنيوس، ثيؤودوريت، امبروسيوس، مخطوطات أخرى تبعاً لجيروم، فيجيليوس، فلوجينتيوس. ايرمان يُشير الى البرهان الآبائى، مُحققاً إحتجاج هام:اوريجانيوس يُخبرنا ان هذه القراءة كانت قراءة غالبية المخطوطات فى زمنه (السابق).
[46] لكن هذا ليس ضرورى. يُمكن ان يكون هناك إحتجاج بأن قراءة χάριτι θεοῦ هى القراءة الأصعب، حيث ان بكاء يسوع لترك الآب له على الصليب، و التى يقتبس فيها يسوع مز 22 : 1، تنعكس فى قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ، بينما الموت بنعمة الله غير واضح.
[47] و هو ما يذهب اليه ميتزجر، الإصدار الثانى، ص 595. القرائتين بالخط الكبير: caritiqu و cwrisqu.
[48] السابق. لمناقشة مماثلة، أنظر ف. ف. بروس، الرسالة الى العبرانيين، إصدار مُنقح، سلسلة التفسير العالمى الحديث للعهد الجديد، جراند رابيدز: دار نشر ايردمانز 1990، ص 70 - 71. فكرة التعليق الهامشى هى كالتالى، فى عب 2 : 8 يقتبس الكاتب مز 8 : 6 مُضيفاً:فى إخضاعه لكل شىء له، لم يترك شىء خارج عن تحكمه. فى 1 كو 15 : 27، الذى يقتبس مز 8 : 6 ايضاً، يُضيف بولس ان الله مُستثنى من كل الأشياء الخاضعة للمسيح. يحتج ميتزجر انه من المُرجح جداً، ان هذا التعليق الهامشى قد أُضيف بواسطة ناسخ ليشرح أن كل شىء فى عدد 7 لا تشتمل على الله؛ فيما إعتقد ناسخ لاحق بشكل خاطىء أن التعليق هو تصحيح لـ χάριτι θεοῦ، فأدخله للنص فى عدد 9 (تعليق نصى، ص 595). لأفضل معالجات هذه المشكلة فى الكتب التفسيرية، أنظر هانز فريدريك ويس، الرسالة الى العبرانيين (جوتينجين: 1991)، ص 200 - 202؛ و بروس، الرسالة الى العبرانيين، ص 70 - 71. يقول ايرمان ان هذا الإحتجاج غير مُرجح بسبب مكان χωρίς فى النص فى عدد 9، بدلاً من ان تكون ملاحظة إضافية فى العدد 8 حيث يجب ان تُوجد القراءة. لكن الحقيقة ان هذا التفسير الذى يفترض وجود مخطوطة واحدة خاطئة إنحدرت منها الشواهد القليلة التى تحتوى على القراءة، هو مُبالغ فيه جداً. أشياء أعجب من هذا حدثت فى المخطوطات. يُضيف ايرمان أن التعبير χωρίς هو الأقل إستخداماً فى العهد الجديد، لهذا فالنُساخ سوف يميلوا لتغييره الى التعبير الأكثر إستخداماً χάριτι. لكن فى الرسالة الى العبرانيين فالتعبير χωρίς مذكور مرتين، تماماً كما التعبير χάρις، كما يذكر ايرمان (الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 148). غير ذلك، فرغم انه من المُؤكد ان النُساخ دائماً ما يُغيرون الكلمات الغير مُعتادة الى الكلمات المُعتادة (السابق، ص 147)، فإنه لا يوجد اى شىء غير مُعتاد على الإطلاق فى التعبير χωρίς. فهو يقع 41 مرة فى العهد الجديد، و 13 مرة فى الرسالة الى العبرانيين. هذا يعود بنا مرة أخرى الى قانون القراءة الأصعب. يحتج ايرمان كذلك على ان قراءة χωρίς، هى بالفعل القراءة الأصعب هنا. لكن فى كتابهما المُشترك، نص العهد الجديد، يقول ايرمان و ميتزجر:من الواضح ان قائمة القراءة الأكثر صعوبة هى قائمة نسبية، و هناك نقطة أحياناً نصل لها حينما يكون هناك قراءة نحكم عليها بأنها صعبة جداً لدرجة أنها من الممكن ان تكون قد نتجت عن خطأ عفوى فى النقل (ص 303). العديد من العلماء بما فيهم ميتزجر، يقولون اننا وصلنا لهذه النقطة فى عب 2 : 9.
[49] الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 149
[50] انا لا اعنى بهذا تفضيله المجرد لقراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ. (ففى النهاية، جونثر زنتز، المُعتبر جداً بانه إنتقائى معقول لامع و ذو عقل واقعى، يعتبر قراءة χωρὶς θεοῦ هى الأصلية: نص الرسائل، بحث حول المجموعة البولسية، لندن 1953، ص 34 - 35. لكن انا اُشير هنا الى اجندة ايرمان الكاملة فى إستغلال بيانات الآداة النصية لصالح الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، غير مُعتبراً البرهان للقراءات البديلة. بهذه الأجندة، يبدو ان ايرمان يميل الى الإحتجاج لقراءات مُحددة ذات دعم خارجى بسيط.
[51] مقدمة هذا الإصدار كُتِبت فى 30 سبتمبر من عام 1993. تم التعريف بميتزجر فى كتاب الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، على انه قرأ اجزاء من مخطوطة الكتاب (ص 7 من المقدمة)، و قد تم إكمال الكتاب فى فبراير 1993 (السابق، ص 8 من المقدمة). اذا كان ميتزجر قد قرأ القسم الخاص بـ عب 2 : 9، فهو يُختلف بقوة مع ايرمان. فيبقى الخيار، أنه لم يرى هذا الجزء من مخطوطة الكتاب. اذا كان هذا صحيح، فيجب ان يتعجب الفرد؛ لماذا لا يريد ايرمان ان يعرف مداخلة ميتزجر، حيث انه يعرف بالفعل من الإصدار الأول لكتاب تعليق نصى، أن ميتزجر لا يرى قراءة χάριτι مُرجحة للأصالة (حيث كانت تحمل التدريج الثانى B آنذاك).
[52] سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 132
[53] الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 148
[54] السابق، 149
[55] السابق
[56] سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 208
[57] الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 144
[58] سياق النص فى عب 5، يتكلم عن المسيح بوصفه الكاهن الأعلى؛ و العدد 6 يضع المرحلة التى يتم فيها ربط كهنوت المسيح بكهنوت ملكى صادق؛ و عدد 7 يربط صلاته بـ ايام جسده و ليس فقط آلامه. لذلك ليس من غير المعقول ان نجد صلاواته هى صلاوات لشعبه. كل هذا يُشير الى ان وجهة نظر النص فى عب 5 : 7 أكثر من مجرد آلام. البيان الوحيد فى هذا النص الذى من الممكن ان يربط بين الصلاوات و الآلام هو الذى صلى به المسيح القادر ان يخلصه من الموت. لكن اذا كانت الصلاوات عن محنة المسيح فقط على الصليب، إذن فقراءة χωρίς فى عب 2 : 9 قد تم دحضها، لأن فى عب 5 : 7، فإن الرب قد سُمِع له لأجل تقواه. كيف يُمكن ان يكون سُمِع له اذا كان مات بعيداً عن الله؟ التفسيرات الخاصة بـ عب 5 : 7 هى بشكل ما مُعقدة، و لا تُثمر بإجابات هينة. أنظر ويليام ل. لين، عبرانين 1 - 8، تفسير الكلمة الكتابى (دالاس: الكلمة 1991)، ص 119 - 120.
[59] بيزا، اللاتينية القديمة: a d ff2 r1، الدياتسرون.
[60] بارت د. ايرمان، ابرص بين يديى يسوع غاضب، فى: يونانية العهد الجديد و التفسير، مقالات لتكريم جيرالد ف. هاوثورن (جرامد رابيدز: دار ايردمانز، 2003)، ص 77 - 98.
[61] مارك أ. بروكتور، النص الغربى فى مرقس 1 : 41، قضية يسوع الغاضب، (رسالة دكتوراه، جامعة بايلور، 1999). رغم ان مقال ايرمان ظهر بعد اربعة سنوات من رسالة بروكتور، فإن ايرمان لا يذكر عمل بروكتور.
[62] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 132
[63] ايرمان، ابرص بين يديى يسوع غاضب، ص 95
[64] السابق، ص 94. انظر ايضاً ص 87 حيث يقول:يسوع غضب فى عدة اماكن فى انجيل مرقس؛ و ما هو ممتع هو مُلاحظة ان كل قصة تذكر غضب يسوع، تتضمن قدرة يسوع لعمل أفعال إعجازية شفائية.
[65] غير انه هناك روابط ضعيفة فى إحتجاجه بشكل عام. أولاً، لم يقم بتقديم أدلة كافية أنه فى كل موقف يظهر يسوع غاضباً، يكون ذلك فى معجزة شفاء. هل قصة وضع يسوع يده على الأطفال هى بالفعل قصة شفاء (مر 10 : 13 - 16)؟ ليس واضحاً بالضبط ما هو المرض الذى شُفى منه هؤلاء الأطفال. قوله بأن وضع اليد يعنى بالضرورة شفاء او على الأقل إنتقال قوة إلهية، فى هذا الموضع، هو إفتراض كسيح (ابرص بين يدى يسوع غاضب، ص 88). على العكس، فهناك الكثير مما يُمكن إثباته، فنص مرقس 10 : 16 يقول ان يسوع:إحتضن الأطفال و وضع يده عليهم و باركهم. إن عدم رؤية حنان و رقة يسوع فى نص كهذا هو أمر مُبهم. إذن، فحتى لو كانت هذه قصة شفاء، فهى بالرغم من ذلك توضح حنان يسوع فى فعل الشفاء، هذا الحنان الذى يقول ايرمان انه لم يقع ابداً فى قصص الشفاء فى مرقس. ثانياً، أنه يزعم ان شفاء يسوع لحماة بطرس فى مرقس 1 : 30 - 31 ليس فعلاً حانى، قائلاً:أكثر من مُلاحظ عنيد لاحظ...أنه بعد ان شفاها قامت لتُعد لهم العشاء (السابق، ص 91، المُلاحظة 16). لكن بالتأكيد جملة ايرمان - و المُكررة فى شوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 138 - ببساطة هو تعليق صحيح سياسياً، يعنى به ان شفاء يسوع لإمرأة كى تقوم بدور الخادمة، لا يمكن ان يكون بسبب حنوه. أليست نقطتنا الآن هى ان المرأة قد شُفيِت تماماً، و أستعادت قوتها كاملة، لدرجة انها عادت لتقوم بمهامها الطبيعية ليسوع و تلاميذه؟ يبدو ان حادثة إقامة ابنة حاكم المجمع مشابهة لها، حيث انها بعد ان عادت للحياة، يُخبرنا مرقس ان:الفتاة قد قامت مرة واحدة و بدأت تسير هنا و هناك (مرقس 5 : 42). ثالثاً، فى أكثر من قصة شفاء فى الأناجيل الإزائية - من ضمنهم شفاء حماة بطرس - فإننا نرى تلميحات قوية لحنان يسوع حينما يمسك بيد الشخص. فى مت 9 : 25، مر 1 : 31، 5 : 41، 9 : 27، و لوقا 8 : 54، فى كل مرة يُستخدم التعبير κρατήσας/ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρός. يُستخدم التعبير κράτησεν مع مفعول به مُباشر مجرور، بدلاً من مفعول به مُباشر منصوب، فى هذه النصوص. حينما يُستخدم هذا الفعل فى الأناجيل و يتبعه مفعول به مباشر منصوب، فأنه يعنى الوثاق، التمسك بـ، التشبث الواضح (انظر مت 14 : 3، 21 : 46، 22 : 6، 26 : 57، 28 : 9، مرقس 6 : 17 ، 7 : 3 - 4 - 8)، لكنه حينما يأخذ مفعول به مباشر مجرور، فإنه يعنى لمسة رقيقة و ليس قبضة قوية، و يُستخدم فقط فى سياقات أحداث الشفاء. لاحظ ترجمة التعبير κρατήσας/ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρός فى مت 9 : 25، مر 1 : 31، 5 : 41، 9 : 27، و لوقا 8 : 54، فى الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة. الذى يلفت الإنتباه فى هذه النصوص، ليس فقط انه لا فرق بين مرقس من ناحية و متى و لوقا من ناحية أخرى، لكن أن انجيل مرقس يحتوى بالفعل على مواقف أُستخدم فيها هذا التعبير أكثر من متى و لوقا مجتمعين. فكيف ان وضع اليد الرقيق هذا لا يتضمن الرأفة؟ رابعاً، عدم رؤية رأفة يسوع فى النصوص التى لا تستخدم σπλαγχνίζομαι او ما يُماثلها، كما يميل ايرمان، يقترب من مغالطة المعادلة المفاهيمية المُعجمية، و التى تقول بأن المفهوم لا يُمكن ان يُرى فى نص معين الا إذا اُستخدمت كلمة هذا المفهوم الدالة عليه. كمثال بسيط، انظر الى كلمة الرفقة فى العهد الجديد اليونانى، و هى κοινωνία. الكلمة تقع أقل من عشرين مرة، لكن لا أحد يستطيع ان يزعم بأن مفهوم الرفقة يقع بهذه الندرة. ايرمان يعرف هذا بالتأكيد، و يُحاول ان يُحاجج بأن كلمات الحنان و مفهوم الحنان غير موجودين فى قصص الشفاء الواردة فى انجيل مرقس. لكنه يترك الإنطباع بأنه بمجرد إثبات هذه النقطة مُعجمياً عن طريق إثبات عدم أصالة σπλαγχνισθείς فى مرقس 1 : 41، فإنه من السهل إنتزاع المفهوم. خامساً، إنصراف ايرمان عن كل التفاسير المُغايرة لفهمه حول لماذا غضب يسوع و ممن فى مرقس 1 : 41، انصراف متعجرف جداً. ان يقينه انه:حتى كل المثفسرين المُدركين ان النص الأصلى يوضح ان يسوع غضب، مرتبكين من الفكرة فى حد ذاتها، و يحاولون شرحها فى إتجاه آخر، بحيث ان النص لا يُصبح يقول ما يقوله (أبرص بين يديى يسوع غاضب، ص 86)، يعنى ضمناً ان تفسيره هو بكل تأكيد يجب ان يكون صحيح. (رغم ان ايرمان يذكر بشكل خاطف العديد من وجهات النظر، فإنه لا يتفاعل ابداً مع وجهة نظر بروكتور، و هو ما يعنى انه لم يكن يعرف بأمر رسالة الدكتوراه الخاصة ببروكتور حينما كتب بحثه هذا لتكريم هاوثوم. يحتج بروكتور بشكل رئيسى بأن شفاء الأبرص هو معجزة مُزدوجة، و التى تحتوى ضمناً على معجزة طرد أرواح شريرة. (قضية يسوع الغاضب، ص 312 - 316). يُلخص بروكتور إحتجاجه كما يلى:واضعين فى نظرنا الآراء العامة التى كانت موجودة فى القرن الأول حول الإرتباط بين الشياطين و المرض، لغة طرد الشياطين التى ترد فى العدد 43، تصرفات من تسكنهم الأرواح الشريرة او المُصاحبة لهم فى الأنجيل، و معالجة لوقا لما يرد فى مرقس 1 : 29 - 31، فإنه من الآمن تقريباً إفتراض أن هذا الرجل كان يسكنه ارواح شريرة، حتى لو ان مرقس لم يذكر هذا صراحةً (السابق، ص 325 - 326، المُلاحظة 6). ايرمان لا يكتفى فقط بطعن المفسرين بإساء فهم تعبير مرقس ὀργισθείς، بل انه يقول ان متى و لوقا ايضاً لم يفهما:اى شخص غير مُطلع بكثرة على انجيل مرقس خاصةً و بمُصطلحاته الخاصة...ربما لا يستطيع فهم لماذا أصبح يسوع غاضباً. متى لم يفهم بالتأكيد، ولا حتى لوقا (ابرص بين يدى يسوع غاضب، ص 98). أليس من التهور الزعم بأن متى و لوقا أسقطا ὀργισθείς لأنهما كانا جاهلان بأهداف مرقس؟ فى النهاية، هل كانا هما ايضاً غير مُطلعين بكثرة على انجيل مرقس؟ ألا يوجد هناك اى أسباب اخرى معقولة لحذفهم هذا التعبير؟ يجب ان ننتبه ايضاً الى ان كل التفاسير لا تحمل قيمة متساوية، لكن السخرية هنا هو ان ايرمان يريد ان يقول ان تفسيره هو الوحيد المقبول. فى فصله الختامى لكتاب سواء اقتباس يسوع، يقول:المعنى غير متأصل، و النص لا يقول ما يريد ان يقوله. اذا كان النص يقول ما يريد ان يقوله، إذن فكل شخص يقرأ النص بأمانة و إنفتاح سوف يوافق على ما يقوله النص (ص 216). ثم يُضيف:الطريقة الوحيدة لفهم النص هو قراءته، و الطريقة الوحيدة للقراءة هى بوضعه فى كلمات أخرى، و الطريقة الوحيدة لوضعه فى كلمات أخرى هى وجود كلمات أخرى يُوضع فيها، و الطريقة الوحيدة لإمتلاك كلمات أخرى لوضع النص فيها، هى وجود الحياة، و الطريقة الوحيدة لأن يكون هناك حياة هى الإمتلاء بالأمنيات، الرغبات الشديدة، الإحتياجات، النقائص، الإعتقادات، وجهات النظر، التوجهات العلمانية، الآراء، الترجيحات، الإستياءات، و كل الأشياء الأخرى التى تجعل من الكائن الحى موجوداً. إذن، فإن قراءة نص معين، تتطلب بالضرورة تغيير هذا النص (ص 217). قد اكون اسأت فهمه هنا، لكن هذا يُلمح الى ان ايرمان لا يمكن ان يدعى بأن تفسيره أعلى من التفاسير الأخرى، لأن التفسير نفسه يُغير النص، فإذا كان كل تفسير يُغيرس النص، فكيف اذن يُمكن ان يكون تفسير معين لنص ما أكثر شرعية من التفاسير الأخرى. حتى لو اننى اسأت فهم معنى كلامه، فنقطتى الأساسية مازالت قائمة: إنصراف ايرمان عن بقية التفاسير هو إنصراف متعجرف جداً.
[66] أنظر المناقشة فى مُلاحظة الترجمة الإنجليزية الحديثة عن هذا النص.
[67] الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 92:ليس فقط ان العبارة οὐδὲὁ υἱός موجودة فى أقدم مخطوطاتنا و أفضلها لإنجيل متى، بل أنها ضرورية ايضاً بناء على الخلفيات الداخلية.
[68] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 208 (أُقتِبس سابقاً).
[69] السابق، ص 95:النُساخ وجدوا هذا النص صعب: يسوع ابن الله نفسه، لا يعلم متى ستكون النهاية؟ كيف يُمكن هذا؟ أليس هو كلى المعرفة؟ لحل هذه المشكلة، قم بعض النُساخ ببساطة بتعديل النص، عن طريق إنتزاع الكلمات ولا حتى الإبن. و هكذا، يكون الملائكة جاهلين، لكن ابن الله ليس جاهلاً.
[70] المخطوطة X، مخطوطة واحدة للفلجاتا، و شواهد اخرى غير مُسماة (بحسب الآداة النصية لنيستل آلاند، الإصدار 27)، يُسقطون هذه الجملة هنا.
[71] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 95، 110، 204، 209، 223 الملاحظة رقم 19، ص 224 المُلاحظة رقم 16.
[72] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 162
[73] ايرمان، الإفساد الأرثوذكسى، ص 81
[74] نقد آخر لإيرمان و هو انه جزم متهوراً بأن التعبير μονογενής لا يملك نفس النفاذ المُتضمن لـ الإبن الوحيد كما فى الإبن الوحيد الذى هو الله (السابق، ص 80 - 81):ما هو صعب تقبله فى هذا الرأى هو انه لا يوجد شىء فى الكلمة μονογενής يُرجحه. ان التعبير خارج العهد الجديد يعنى ببساطة الواحد فى النوع او المُتفرد، و هو يُستخدم سواء فى الإشارة الى الأشياء الحية و الغير حية. لذلك، يجب الإستعانة بإستخدامه فى العهد الجديد. و هنا يُحتج مؤيدى هذا الرأى، بأن in situ، و هى الكلمة التى تعنىالبنوة، ترد دائماً (فى العهد الجديد) إما فى ربط صريح مع υἱός او من خلال سياق النص حينما يكون إستخدام لفظ υἱός مُسمى، ثم يُوصف بأنه μονογενής (لو 9 : 38، يو 1 : 14، عب 11 : 17). و رغم ان هذا الإحتجاج يوحى بالكثير، فإنه يحتوى على بذور دحضه: إذا كانت الكلمة μονογενής قد تم تسجيلها لتعنى إبن وحيد، فيجب ان يتعجب الفرد حول سبب عزوها للفظ υἱός، و هو عزو يخلق نوع غير مألوف من الإسهاب (الإبن الإبن الوحيد). فى ضوء الحقيقة بأن لا أصل الكلمة ولا إستخدامها العام يُفيد بمعنى كهذا، فإن هذا الحل هو عبارة عن حالة دفاع إستثنائى. مشكلة هذا الجزم هى مشكلة ثلاثية: اولاً، اذا كان فى الثلاث نصوص المعروضين بالأعلى، نجد μονογενής بهم، فى الحقيقة، نفاذ جوهرى و يتضمنون مفهوم البنوة، إذن فالإحتجاج أن هذه هى نفس الحالة فى يوحنا 1 : 18 ليس موقف الدفاع الإستثنائى، لأن هناك بالفعل شهادة واضحة فى العهد الجديد لهذا النفاذ. ثانياً، إحتجاج ايرمان يعتمد على الخروج عن يونانية الكتاب المقدس للمعنى المعيارى لمُصطلح يحتوى على فروقات بسيطة فى الكتاب المقدس. لكن بما أن μονογενής قد أُستخدمت فى الإشارة ضمنياً الى الإبن (او الطفل) و قد تم إستخدامها بشكل مُطلق (أى جوهرياً) فى العهد الجديد (عب 11 : 17) و يونانية كتابات الآباء (انظر الملاحظة رقم 62) و الترجمة السبعينية (مثل القضاة 11 : 34 حيث نجد الصفة مُستخدمة قبل الإسم الذى أُستخدم لإبنة يفتاح، و طوبيا 3 : 15 ايضاً مُشابه، و أنظر طوبيا 8 : 17)، فإن الإحتجاج لنفاذ مُبعثر قد يبدو و كأنه دفاع مُستثنى. ثالثاً، الإحتجاج الى ان النفاذ المُعجمى الضمنى يُصبح:نوعاً غير مألوف من الإسهاب، فى حين ان التضمين أُجتُزِب بوضوح فى النص، فإن هذا يتطلب تفريق دقيق قبل ان يتم إستخدامه كنوع من القاعدة المعيارية: بحسب هذا التقديم، و بتطبيقه للحالة التى بين أيدينا، فإنه يبدو لى كأنه غير حقيقى تماماً. فى النحو و الإعجام، فإن العهد الجديد ملىء بالأمثلة التى يتضافر بها مد و جزر المعنى الضمنى و الصريح، كلاهما مع الآخر. لنأخذ مثالاً: التعبير εἰσέρχομαι εἰς هو بشكل عام تعبير هيلينى، حيث نصل به عن طريق الإسهاب المُتضاعف (بمُضاعفة حرف الجر) الى المعنى. هذا التعبير موجود أكثر من 80 مرة فى العهد الجديد، رغم هذا فهو لا يعنى تعالى إلى إلى! لكنه يعنى نفس ما يعنيه التعبير ἔρχομαι εἰς، و هى العبارة التى تقع أكثر من 70 مرة فى العهد الجديد. هناك من الامثلة الإنجليزية ما يعنى ذلك ايضاً: فى الحديث العامى دائماً ما نسمع تعبير:دواسة الأقدام (هل هناك انواع اخرى من الدواسات غير تلك التى للأقدام؟).
[75] بالإضافة الى الأمثلة التى ذكرتها، فهناك طالب فى برنامج الدكتوراه فى معهد دالاس، و هو ستراتون لادويج، قد وجد من العهد الجديد أمثلة أخرى فى: لوقا 14 : 13، 18 : 11، أمثال 2 : 5. كذلك فقد وجد حالات موازية غير دقيقة بالضبط. أنظر رسالته للماجستير: فحص أرثوذوكسية القراءات فى ضوء كتاب بارت ايرمان الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس (رسالة ماجستير فى اللاهوت، معهد دالاس، 2000).
[76] نظرة سريعة على قاموس لامب المُعجم اليونانى الآبائى، يكشف أن الغستخدام الجوهرى لهذه الصفة كان مُعتاداً، ص 881، التعريف 7، المُصطلح قد أُستخدم تماماً عند حشد من الكُتاب الآبائيين.
[77] كذلك، فإن ايرمان لم يكن واضحاً فى إحتجاجه بأن قراءة μονογενὴς θεός هى قراءة لمقاومة التبنويين. فإذا كان تفسيره لمعنى النص صحيح، فإنها تبدو كقراءة سابيلية أكثر منها أرثوذكسية. لكن بما أنها متأصلة بصلابة فى التقليد السكندرى، فيبدو انها تعود الى نموذج أصلى يسبق ظهور جذور الهرطقة السابيلية. بكلمات أخرى، فإن المحركات لخلق القراءة، بحسب تفسير ايرمان، قد تم تعكيرها.
[78] لقضية أن العهد الجديد يتحدث بوضوح عن إلوهية المسيح، انظر كوموسزويسكى، سوير، و والاس: إعادة إستكشاف يسوع.
[79] جوردون د. فى، مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذوكسى للكتاب المقدس، فى المراجعة النقدية للكتب الدينية، العدد الثامن (1995)، ص 204.
[80] انظر:
ج. ك. إليوت: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى مجلة العهد الجديد، العدد 36، الجزء 4 (1994)، ص 405 - 406.
مايكل و. هولمز: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى مجلة المراجعة الدينية، العدد 20، الجزء 3 (1994)، ص 237.
جوردون د. فى: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى المُراجعة النقدية للكتب الدينية، العدد 8 (1995)، ص 203 - 206.
بروس م. ميتزجر: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى مجلة معهد برينستون، العدد 15، الجزء الثانى (1994)، ص 210 - 212.
ديفيد س. باركر: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى مجلة الدراسات اللاهوتية، العدد 45، الجزء الثانى (1994)، ص 704 - 708.
ج. ن. بريدشال: مراجعة للإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس: تأثير الصراعات الكريستولوجية على نص العهد الجديد، بارت د. ايرمان، فى مجلة اللاهوت، العدد 97 (1994)، ص 460 - 462.
إيفو تام: قراءات لاهوتية كريستولوجية فى التقليد القديم للعهد الجديد؟ (رسالة ماجستير، جامعة مونستر).
ستراتون لادويج: فحص أرثوذوكسية القراءات فى ضوء كتاب بارت ايرمان الإفساد الأرثوذكسى للكتاب المقدس (رسالة ماجستير فى اللاهوت، معهد دالاس، 2000).
[81] سوء إقتباس يسوع، ص 114.
[82] انظر كمثال، د. أ. كارسون، مناظرة نُسخة الملك جيمس (جراند رابيدز: دار بيكر، 1979)، ص 64.
[83] رغم ان كتاب ايرمان سوء اقتباس يسوع هو اول مقدمة عامية للنقد النصى للعهد الجديد، ففى ربيع 2006 سوف يصدر كتاب ثانى يتعامل مع هذه الموضوعات (و مع موضوعات أخرى). أنظر، كوموسزويسكى، سوير، والاس، إعادة إستكشاف يسوع، لمعالجة موزونة للبيانات.
[84] تم تذكيرى بنظرة مارتن هينجل الثاقبة حول الخطر الموازى بين التزمت الدفاعى الغير نقدى العقيم و الجهل النقدى الغير أقل عقماً لليبرالية الراديكالية. فى النهاية، فطرق فهم الموضوعات واحدة، و الفرق الوحيد هو المواقف المُسبقة. (مارتن هينجل، دراسات فى الكريستولوجية الأولى، ادرينبرج، دار نشر T & T Clark، 1995، ص 57 - 58). أنا لا أقول ان ايرمان منهم، لكنه لم يعد يبدو كليبرالى حقيقى الذى تشوق لأن يكون ذات يوم.
[85] يجب مُلاحظة ان سوء اقتباس يسوع تم إهداؤه الى بروس ميتزجر، الذى يصفه ميتزجر كـ:الخبير الرئيسى فى العالم فى مجال (النقد النصى للعهد الجديد) (سوء اقتباس يسوع، ص 7). غير ان ميتزجر يختلف بشكل رئيسى مع طرح ايرمان فى هذا الكتاب.
[86] لعل من يقرأ الفصول الخاصة بالنقد النصى فى هذا الكتاب و يُقارنها بسوء إقتباس يسوع؛ يُدرك سريعاً الفرق بين الدليل و تفسير الدليل. المعلومات الواردة فى الكتابين واحدة، و لكن الإنطباع الذى يتركه كلاهما مُختلف تماماً...تماماً!
Related Topics: Textual Criticism
About Choose The Life
Related Media
Something is happening, there is a new movement emerging in the land. And I don’t use the word movement carelessly, I use it with precision. A movement is a series of activities by people with the same concern that converge to create energy toward a common goal. At first it may be isolated pockets of passion, but God anoints it and He starts connecting the kindred spirited people and it grows like a tsunami. It seems like a fast growing segment of church leaders are ready to take the plunge. The growing superficiality of the Church and of leaders’ lives has finally created desperation. There is a call going out, “ Dive, Dive, lets go deep with God.” The academy calls it spiritual formation, others spiritual direction, practioners refer to it as discipleship. Leaders are traveling to and fro in order to conduct summitry about it. A spate of new literature is coming onto the market; it just seems like the evangelical world is tired of religious activity without transformation. There is an ache located deep in the hearts of many; the evangelical soul is very close to rejecting success that doesn’t matter. It has finally occurred to many of us that the great commission has more to do with depth than strategy. As Dallas Willard has written, “ The way to get as many people as possible into heaven is to get heaven into as many people as you can.”1 Let there be no misunderstanding, this is about the great commission, we are to make disciples of all nations2, and we are to do so with power.3 Spiritual depth for spiritual depth’s sake is as much a heresy as self-denial is when we fail to take up our cross4.
There are a number of ways to talk about this movement of God. It is a clarion call to choose the life. Definite article, not just life, but also a certain kind of life, a special order or society. It is an intentional decision to follow Jesus as a submissive disciple. We don’t drift or accidentally stumble into a life of discipleship; this choice doesn’t come automatically with the salvation package. It is a life that must be chosen, and frankly, the majority of Christians have not made that choice because it hasn’t been taught as normative. There are two segments to my presentation:
1. The need for the life
2. The call to the life
1. The need for the life
There has never been a time when Christians and Churches have needed depth more. American culture is a fertile breeding ground for the superficial. The Church’s need for significance and meaning can be easily satisfied with bodies, bucks, and buildings. But as mentioned above, these traditional benchmarks of success are breaking down. Evangelical church attendance is still stalled or in decline, followers of Jesus don’t seem to have distinctive lives. The watching world doesn’t see any compelling reason to attend church. In fact many people who do attend church are searching for a compelling reason to continue.
Religious activity without transformation
My pastoral experience tells me there is something wrong. It has troubled me for years, but particularly in the last four. It is the feeling and the fact that we are engaged in a routine of religious activity that is not working. We put so much effort into our weekend services, bible studies, small groups, and outreach events. Yet it doesn’t work because we are missing transformation.
The spiritual formation concept comes from Paul’s word in Galatians. “ My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.” 5
All of us have a spirit that is formed or shaped by forces around us. The problem seems to be that many influences apart from the transformational power of the scriptures and the Holy Spirit have shaped our spirits. Because of this the life most disciples have followed has been one of attending, serving, and giving. These are wonderful things and are evidence of sincerity of heart, but the acceptance of these activities as enough has led to generations of believers whose lives are a mile wide and one inch deep. This in turn has led to a church that lacks passion, perseverance, and a commitment to reach the world around them.
George Barna’s research tells us the reason many people have chosen not to invest in a life of serious discipleship.
1. Lack of passion
2. Too busy
3. Satisfied with process or activity without regard to product
4. Satisfied with good activity that doesn’t challenge to transformation.
Barna concluded in his study of the Church and its commitment to making disciples “ I will argue that unless we embrace a comprehensive and far reaching commitment to radical change in how we conduct our lives and our ministries, we are doomed to minimal results.” 6
We have now reached that point so eloquently spoken by George Orwell, “ We have now sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” And what is that obvious duty? It is to consider the command to make disciples the first duty of the Church. It is for church leaders to choose spiritual formation as their primary work. But what does this mean? In order to answer the question we must ask what did it mean at the time of Christ to be a disciple?
There were several characteristics that made a person a disciple.
1. The person would make an intentional choice to follow a teacher. Luke 6:39,40
2. The student would choose his own Rabbi. Jesus was unique in that He chose His disciples John 15:16
3. The disciple would submit to his Rabbi’s interpretation of scripture and way of life. I Corinthians 4:14-16
4. The teacher would teach the student everything he knew Luke 6:40
5. The student would eventually graduate to Rabbi John 15:15 From servant/slave to friend. This would then require the new Rabbi to repeat the process with others.
Choosing the life of discipleship was very much like joining a special order or group. There were rites of passage and it was to be a life of submission to spiritual authority. This is why I have stated that our discipleship hasn’t been working, it has been too program oriented and frankly too superficial to really change people. The new movement is attempting to restore the original intent to the Church’s work beginning with the leaders. So how would this look in today’s world? What distinctive would be a follower of Jesus have?
Definition of a disciple: “ A disciple is a follower of a person or cause who has decided to attach himself to another person in mutual submission in order to become capable of doing what that person does or what that person is. It is the intention to join with at least one other kindred spirit to break through obedience barriers, to learn everything you can and experience transformation.
This is radical in that it makes it impossible for a person to keep an arms length relationship to Christ and others. The majority of church people become genuine believers, but the only transformation they experience is forgiveness of sins and membership in the body of Christ. They only know Christ as savior, but they don’t experience Him as teacher or leader. Therefore, their lives are tragically stalled out and they don’t reach the pinnacle of a high impact life that comes from the spiritual depths. A soul that has been deeply crafted by the disciplines of the Spirit of God. The belief that being baptized and attending church will make you a full throttle disciple of Jesus is to misunderstand the teaching of the New Testament. “ Finding forgiveness for our sins and taking his yoke upon us and learn[ing] of him, the idea that these two things can be separated” as A.W. Tozer said, “is a modern heresy.” 7
The Church’s cardiovascular system is clogged with immature disciples who agree with all we’ve said but don’t act. The Church is up to its eyeballs in agreement, but only standing ankle deep in behavioral change. This is primarily a leadership issue; leaders are not modeling spiritual formation as the first and most important task of the Church. Again, spiritual greatness in our culture is all about size, size of the churches, and size of book sales, size of crowds at special events. The church is drunk on the wine of success and size; it is time for an intervention, to challenge our addiction and to do the right thing.
2. The Call to the life
The need is obvious, and so is the call. “Then he said to them all”… “ If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet lose or forfeit his very self.” 8
Some have contended that this call to follow Jesus was not intended for everyone. This is based on the fact that Jesus was talking to just the twelve. It very well may be true that he was speaking only with a few, but his statement is unequivocal—it applies to everyone and that is clear by his use of the words “if anyone.” This is not elitist, in Luke 14:25-35 his language is even stronger concerning commitment level. The call to follow Jesus as our leader is to be normative. The abnormal is the halfhearted disciple who limits his commitment because of a lack of trust in God’s ability to lead. There are four dimensions to the call that will clarify the essence of transformational discipleship.
1. Anyone can do it
The challenge of the transformational discipleship movement is how can this growing interest actually spread and diffuse into the churches? It all begins with understanding the words “if” and “anyone” “if” indicates that it is not automatic, that a choice is required. Every converted person much subsequently chooses to live a certain kind of life. As already stated, we don’t just amble our way into a discipleship life. It is a clear and intentional choice to follow Jesus as our leader and to live under spiritual authority embodied in another person or persons.
“Anyone” means that it is for everyone and that means the truck driver that hasn’t read a book in thirty years, the housewife with four children under foot, the knowledgeable elder who thinks he knows it all and the teenage boy who just recently made a decision to accept Christ. Following Jesus as a disciple requires a clear decision, and it is not out of the reach of the common person. There is a stereotype for a person interested in spiritual formation. Since the term comes out of the academic world, this stereotype includes spending long hours in prayer, journaling your prayers and thoughts, and reading ancient mystics named Theresa, Blasé, and Henri, mediating and memorizing scripture. Doing it for hours and loving it, doing it for years and it flows out of you. Yes there are people like that, but to play into such stereotypes will hurt the cause. There must be a way for the non-contemplative common man to practice the disciplines and experience transformation that is not laden with the academy.
The other stereotype comes from the classic discipleship literature. It has been heavily influenced by the para church movement in groups like Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ and others. The classic discipleship literature has been task oriented. Engineers and athletes have been drawn to it. It tends to be linear with steps and methods. It works real well for task-oriented people who are looking for results. So discipleship took on a program approach, a regime to finish, a project to do and a goal to be reached. This has tended to cut out people with non-linear learning styles or those who are repulsed by task oriented programs. Have I painted with a broad brush, of course I have. But to be successful, we need to blend the best of both the spiritual formation movement and the classic discipleship movement. Either one alone will be dashed on the sharp rocks of real life. Following Jesus in a serious fashion is for everyone and it must go beyond temperaments, learning styles, and contemplative types. We must find the principles.
2. Self-denial is essential
Jesus names the issue, “if anyone would come after me” to follow Jesus means we have to give up something. That something is any part of self that makes it impossible to say yes to Him. Self-denial for self-denial’s sake is useless, but to follow him is a clear decision. The proof that so many baby disciples or carnal disciples are not following Jesus is that they are bored. Churches are filled with bored people, I would venture to say many more men than women are bored. They are being told that a good Christian attends regularly, commits a good chuck of cash annually, and serves on a committee or task force. Joining a bible study or fellowship group would also be a good idea. This is what I meant earlier; there is routine religious activity that is not working. We are skating right over transformation, we can see it just below the ice, but we can’t seem to get at it. It is because the ice needs to be broken, so we can start working on those things that really matter to the soul of every person. So many people feel they are following Jesus, yet you can’t follow Jesus and be bored. Were Peter and John bored, were the apostles yawning their way to martyrdom, was the Apostle Paul holding on until retirement? Following Jesus is the most thrilling, difficult, threatening, fulfilling, passionate experience any person can know.
I remember in the Spirit of the Disciplines Dallas Willard speaking of the high cost of non-discipleship. I have written and taught that concept for years now. The cost to the church and to human lives in not following Jesus is incalculable and tragic. When I think of giving up something for Jesus, the parable of the pearl in Matthew 13: 45 comes to mind. “ The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.”
Only a fool would decide not to follow Jesus. When we find him we are willing to give up everything to have him. That is the reason I am convinced that Christian leaders have failed those under their care. They are under challenged, under trained and under used. If they only understood the value in following Jesus, very few with the life of God resident in them would ever say no. We must rescue the normal call to follow Jesus from the grip of the enemy who has used stereotype to keep people away. We must find a way to have them stop saying, “that is too hard, that isn’t for me”, and start saying “I would be a fool not to follow him and to give up anything that would get in the way.”
3. Take up your mission [daily]
The only reason that self-denial is essential is so we can take up our mission. We say no to self in order to say yes to God. Sacrifice comes from love; I get great doses of joy from making sacrifices for those I love. Buying a needy friend a car or loaning them what they need, it brings delight to the soul. A serious problem facing the Church is the majority of the people don’t know what their mission is. The cross was Christ’s mission and is symbolic of ours. It is only however when we are following Jesus, saying no to self in order to say yes to God, that he introduces us to our unique mission in life. Therefore, we have too many Christians always wondering what they should do, going to seminars and seeking counsel, trying to find a mission off the path of obedience. It is only on the path of obedience that we find it. It may take much self-denial, many mistakes, many troubled and painful moments, but it is always there for the serious follower. The word daily is not incidental; it is integral to the process of spiritual formation. Every day we make the decision again, “ will I follow him today” Because each day has new and sometimes requirements that we fear. This is the reason for attachment to another person. We don’t follow Jesus alone; we follow him together in submission to his will and to the others around us.
4. Gaining your soul
When we answer the call to the Society of Jesus, that special order of disciples who follow him seriously, there are great rewards. There is a joy knowing that our lives are a bull’s eye with God. John 15:11 there are the comforting words that every servant want to hear, “ Well done, my good faithful servant.” There are the inspiring words of Paul near the end of his life, “ For I am already being poured out like a drink offering and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge will award to me on that day\9 That is every disciple’s dream, to live a life that has great meaning and fulfillment. But that life does not come to those who drift about as immature converts. It belongs only to those who choose the life, the life of transformational discipleship.
God is rising up men and women all over America who are hungry for God. Leaders who want to be the revolutionaries that Christ intended us to be when He told us to make disciples of the world, to teach them everything that Christ commanded. But first we must teach ourselves what Christ commanded. First we must commit to allowing Him to form our spirits. First we must make it the most important and exclusive task of all. When passion and power return to the church populace, then the revolution can begin.
To begin the Journey click here.
1 Willard, Dallas Renovation of the heart , Navpress , Page 239
2 Matthew 28:18-20 The depth has no meaning unless it leads to obedience to what Christ has commanded
3 Acts 1:8 After the Holy Spirit comes on the Church, then the mandate can be carried out.
4 Luke 9:23 the only reason to say no to self is in order to say yes to God.
5 Galatians 4:19
6 Barna, George Growing True Disciples Water Books page 10
7 Willard, Dallas Renovation of the Heart , Navpress 2002 page 242
8 Luke 9:23-25
9 2 Timothy 4:6-8
Related Topics: Spiritual Life, Spiritual Formation
The Imperatival Participle in the New Testament
Related MediaEditor’s note: Travis Williams was one of my interns for the 2005–06 school year at Dallas Seminary. He read this paper at the Evangelical Theological Society’s Southwestern Regional meeting on March 24, 2006. It interacts quite well with the primary and secondary literature, and unravels the mystery of the imperatival participle in the New Testament. Happy reading!
Daniel B. Wallace
I. Introduction
One of the more neglected and therefore misunderstood grammatical functions in the New Testament (NT) is the imperatival participle. On a brief perusal of some of the major Greek grammars, one will come to discover that the usage is normally given merely a few passing comments and is often relegated to a place of insignificance. Whether this is due to the rarity with which it occurs or simply because of its seeming lack of exegetical importance, few have ventured into serious study on this grammatical anomaly. Even among those who have taken up the challenge, the results are somewhat inconclusive. While this is not to deny the benefit that has been gained from previous efforts, there has yet to be any kind of closure on the matter in the way of a definitive work on the subject. For this reason, the usage remains somewhat enigmatic and as a result often miscommunicated. While such a fact may appear to be only a minute detail in the overall scope of biblical studies, we would caution against approaching any aspect of Scripture with the slightest hint of flippancy. In fact, the admonition of D. A. Carson rings true in this instance. He warns: “Make a mistake in the interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s plays, falsely scan a piece of Spenserian verse, and there is unlikely to be an entailment of eternal consequence; but we cannot lightly accept a similar laxity in the interpretation of Scripture. We are dealing with God’s thoughts: we are obligated to make the greatest pains to understand them truly and to explain them clearly.”2 The goal of this paper is to do just that. And while we are not so naïve to think that this paper will bring resolution to all of the unresolved questions surrounding this syntactical category, it is our hope that it will add something of benefit to the discussion.
Our attempt to flesh out the significance of the participle’s imperatival function consists of a four-fold objective. A separate section will be devoted to each. We will begin by examining the matter of validity, an issue that serves as a precursor to any discussion on the subject. Due to the fact that the usage is shrouded in obscurity some have questioned its legitimacy. For this reason, our first objective will be to determine whether it is proper to regard the imperatival participle as a valid syntactical category. If validity can be established, we will turn our attention to a second question—development. Throughout the history of discussion, there have been numerous theories pertaining to how participle came to take on an imperatival force. Our second intention is to test each proposal in light of the available data and to construct a history of origins through our own diachronic examination of the evidence. After establishing where the function came from, we will shift our focus to more pragmatic issues. Our third objective is related to how the usage is located. Often it seems as if one is left to his or her own inclinations to determine if a particular participle is a genuinely imperatival. Rarely are guidelines laid down to help direct the interpreter. Thus, we will attempt to remedy this problem by assembling principles to aid in the process of location. Finally, having discussed validity, development, and identification, the final objective will be to determine the meaning carried by the function. While most assume a difference in the semantics between the participle and the finite imperative, this assumption must be tested in order to ascertain exactly what is being communicated by the participial form.
But before entering into the specifics of this syntactical category we must first set the groundwork by defining exactly what is being discussed, looking into how the subject has been treated in the past, and suggesting a few modifications with regard to previous studies.
A. Defining of Terms
To fully grasp the issues at hand, it is imperative (no pun intended) that the form and function being analyzed is clearly articulated. The first matter that must be addressed is the definition of terms. In identifying the function there are three primary points of recognition: contextual, grammatical, and semantic. For our purposes, an “imperatival participle”3 is a participle which (a) appears where a finite imperative might have been expected, (b) is grammatically independent of any finite verb (i.e., neither modifying any preceding or following finite form and apart from the elision of any periphrastic phrase),4 and (c) which carries an imperatival force. Thus, the imperatival usage is a specific function of the participle, while the form remains unchanged.
B. History of Study
Having defined exactly what will be discussed, our attention turns to how the topic has been treated throughout the history of discussion. One of the first major treatments of the subject reached Western scholarship through G. B. Winer’s monumental grammar Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als sichere Grundlage der neutestamentlichen Exegese bearbeitet.5 Of the twenty pages devoted to the participle, one-fourth were given to a refutation of the idea that the form could carry an imperatival force apart from another finite verb. While allowing for the usage among later Byzantine writers,6 his treatment attempted to point out the fallaciousness of viewing the function as a valid NT category. Chastising interpreters for assuming the usage, Winer attempted to show that such instances can rather be explained either through a connection with a finite verb in close proximity, or through the author’s state of exuberance that carries him away in his thought (i.e., anacoluthon).7 Thus, the entirety of his study was centered around one question—validity.
Between the time of Winer and the efforts of those who followed, a significant discovery was made that changed the way grammarians viewed not only the participle, but Greek grammar in general. With the publication of his Bibelstudien (“Bible Studies”) (1895), Adolph Deissmann revolutionized the study of the NT. By demonstrating the commonality between the NT and the papyri, Deissmann rendered all previous lexical works obsolete. But “what Deissmann did for lexicography, [James H.] Moulton did for grammar.”8 Through his own study of these ancient texts, Moulton set forth the first challenge to the conclusions of Winer. In his Prolegomena (1906) he maintained the validity of the function based on parallels from the papyri.9 This understanding shifted the paradigm in such a way that all other treatments after him, whether viewing his arguments in a positive or negative light, have been in agreement at this point (e.g., Robertson, BDF, Zerwick, Moule).10
However, not only did Moulton change the direction of the study by essentially establishing the imperatival participle as a legitimate syntactical category, he also made significant contribution to an area that he had been given much thought to that point—the development of the usage. He was the first to suggest genuine Hellenistic development. This view held sway for nearly half a century.
It was not until the work of David Daube (1946) that the conclusions of Moulton were questioned.11 While in agreement with Moulton on the issue of validity, Daube and Moulton split company on the issue of development. As a result of his study of Tannaitic Hebrew, Daube proposed that the usage arose out of a Semitic influence rather than Greek. Noting the parallels in the Mishnah, Daube viewed the participles as “rules of a secondary, derivative, and less absolute than biblical injunctions.”12 This view quickly became the favorite of commentators and grammarians alike.13 It was at this point that questions of legitimacy had faded, and issues of origin and development had taken center stage.
Shortly after the publication of Daube’s article, a response was offered by H. G. Meecham. In an attempt to salvage the view of development proposed by Moulton, Meecham offered further evidence from the papyri to show that the usage, while rare, was a genuine Hellenistic development. But the few extra examples provided from the papyri were not the most significant contribution of his efforts. Rather, his work was the first to suggest any kind of formal method by which the syntactical usage could be identified. Such a system was a welcome arrival considering that in treatments leading up to his study there had been little consensus regarding which passages constituted genuine examples. While subsequent discussions have attempted to supplement these rules (e.g., Thurén), most have used Meecham’s work as the paradigm from which to work.
The first to actually offer a full-scale critique of Daube’s effort was A. P. Salom (1963).14 His study showed that the correspondence between the NT and Tannaitic sources was not as precise as Daube had suspected. Salom upheld the idea that the imperatival participle was a genuine Hellenistic development as he brought in further papyri evidence for support. It was this work that served to shift the paradigm again, only this time back the position of Moulton.
Still, little attention had been given to the area of semantics. This all changed, however, in the early 90s. Three works appeared all within the span of about two years. In his study of the rhetorical practices of 1 Peter (1990), Lauri Thurén concluded that the meaning of the function was ambiguous and that it was chosen as a way of communicating two ideas at once (both a declarative and imperatival sense).15 A year later, two separate treatments of the imperatival clusters in Romans 12 concluded in another direction. Michael Thompson and Neva Miller both proposed that the participial form was used to convey a milder, less direct exhortation. It is this idea that is assumed most often by those who deal with the subject.16
It is at this point that the discussion has seemed to stall out. Perhaps this is due to obscurity of the usage. Or, perhaps most feel that every aspect of the study has been adequately covered. While a consensus seems to have been reached in relation to the legitimacy of the function,17 there is still debate as to how it came about. Furthermore, the guidelines normally used for identification and the more recent views on semantics have not been adequately proven. For this reason, the door remains opens for fresh progress.
C. Modifying Previous Studies
As is obvious from this brief survey, much has been gained from studies that have been undertaken in the past. Yet, what must be understood is that the discussion has not reached its final conclusion. Although it seems as if a consensus is drawing near in some areas, the answers that have been reached are far from complete. If further progress is to continue, a few minor modifications must be made. There are three areas in particular that need addressed.18
1. Methodology
The first area in need of slight modification is the methodology with which the study is approached. The mistake that many have fallen into has been a failure to differentiate between the validity of the imperatival function and the means by which it developed. When the topic is addressed, the various views are often divided up into three categories: (a) those who deny the validity of the function, attributing it instead to anacoluthon or connection with a finite verb (e.g., Winer); (b) those who see a Semitic influence (e.g., Daube); and (c) those who understand the function to be a natural Hellenistic development (e.g., Moulton).19 The problem with this schema is that it mixes two of the levels on which the subject needs to be addressed. The first of these levels begins with the question of validity. It answers the question, “Is the imperatival function a legitimate category within the sphere of the NT?” On this level proponents of both (b) and (c) would be in agreement, while those holding to view (a) would not. Where the former would part company would be at the second level, namely, the means by which the usage developed. By placing (a), (b), and (c) on the same level as parallel theories, it has only helped to confuse the matter.
2. Absence of Definitive Guidelines
A further impasse that has in some sense stalled understanding of the imperatival participle has been the absence of any definitive guidelines by which to identify this grammatical anomaly. For the most part interpreters are left to rely primarily on their own judgment to identify a participle as imperatival. Even where work has been done, improvements could be made. For instance, there has yet to be an attempt to differentiate between types of rules (e.g., grammatical, semantic, contextual, etc.) or to set forth a hierarchical structure to rank the rules in order of importance.
3. Neglect of Semantics
A final place where improvement could be made is in the area of semantics. The importance of this aspect cannot be overstated. If and how semantics differ from the finite imperative has a major impact on how certain passages of Scripture, and even certain books, are interpreted. To properly understand what an author intends to communicate through the participle, the interpreter must not only grasp the usage’s denotative value (i.e., most basic idea communicated by the form) but also its connotative value (i.e., additional sense[s] associated with communicative idea). Even among those who have ventured into this area, little consensus has been reached. For this reason, more effort needs to be focused on finding solutions to this topic of uncertainty.
II. Validity of the Imperatival Participle in the NT
At its most basic level, any treatment of the imperatival participle must begin with the question of validity. Before one assesses the semantic value or exegetical applicability, the legitimacy of the usage must first be established. The issue centers primarily around the existence of a distinct functional category designated as the ‘imperatival participle.’ The matter in question is whether or not the participle can appear where a finite imperative might have been expected, standing independent of any finite verb (i.e., neither modifying any preceding or following finite form and apart from the elision of any periphrastic phrase) while performing an imperatival function. It is this question that we will attempt to answer.
A. The Participle and the Expression of Command
In the NT, there are two ways in which the participle can be used to express a command. First, it can occur in periphrastic constructions.20 “Periphrasis with the participle consists essentially of a participle used in connection with another verb-form [in this case an imperative] in such a way that the two function together as a unit, as a verb-phrase which is equivalent or nearly equivalent to a simple (or ‘monolectic’) verb.”21 Thus, the construction is a round-about way of expressing the imperatival idea that is present in single finite verb. Normally the participle is connected with the imperatival form of either eijmiv (Matt 5:25; Luke 19:17) or givnomai(2 Cor 6:14). The second way in which the participle can be used in a volitional manner is its function in an attendant circumstance construction. Here it is semantically dependent upon a finite verb (in this case an imperative). However, it is translated as if it were coordinate with the main verb, deriving its “mood” (semantically) from that of the imperative.22 While the participle semantically receives less emphasis than the finite form, it does serve as a necessary prerequisite for the verb’s fulfillment, and in this way functions as a demand to be followed (Matt 2:13; Luke 5:14). All will acknowledge the fact that the participle can and does function in these roles in the NT. However, the matter in dispute is whether or not the form can carry an imperatival force while being independent of another finite verb.
B. Examining the Textual Evidence
1. Evidence from the Koine Period
a. Non-literary Papyri
A crucial element in the search for validity is the evidence provided by the non-literary papyri. The significance of these texts lies in the fact that the function’s presence or absence speaks volumes for the legitimacy of the category during the Koine period. In the absence of any specific examples, the case would suffer a damaging blow. However, if it can be established within the concomitant literature, any NT examples move beyond a dubious status to one of likely possibility. This, in fact, is exactly what one finds in an appraisal of the pertinent data. In the papyri both types of independent functions (i.e., independent proper and imperatival) are present. While the frequency with which they occur is somewhat slim, their presence cannot be denied.
(1) Independent Proper Usage
The first type of independent verbal function that shows up in the non-literary papyri is the independent proper usage. In these instances the participle appears where a finite verb might have been expected, functioning independent of any finite form while carrying a declarative force. In this way any sense of dependence is lost, and the participle functions as the main verbal idea in the sentence. Examples of this type of function include:
P.Teb. 14.12-14 (114 B.C.): tw'n ou shmainomevnwi &Hra'ti /parhggelkovte" ejnwvpi[on]th'[i] id /tou' uJpokeimevnou mhnoV" ejn Ptolemaiv (“I gave notice in person to the said H. on the 14th of the current month at P.”)
P.Oxy 2351.58-61 (A.D. 112): ejaVn deV ajdwsitikw'si ejn th'/ ajpodovsi tw'n / prokeimevnwn wJ" ejpavnw dedhvlwtai e~xon- / to" tw'/ Fatrh'/ ejntoV" tou' crovnou eJtevroi" / metamisqoi'n kaiV ejkpravssein aujtouV"(“If the lesses fail to give satisfaction in payment of the said amount as set forth above, it shall be lawful for P. with the said period to relet the land to others and to extract from them…”)
P.Teb. 42.5-8 (114 B.C.): hjdikhmevno" kaq’uJper- / bolhVn uJp[oV] JArmiuvsio" sunallagmatogravfou / th'" aujth'", oJ gaVr ejgk[a]louvmeno" ejn toV aujto / suneivpanto" Qra/kivda/ jApollwnivou(“I have been exceedingly unfairly treated by H., the writer of contracts of the said village. The accused conspired together with T. son of A.”)23
At this stage it is important to point out the significance of the independent proper usage within the papyri evidence. While discussion of further independent usages may seem somewhat irrelevant and unrelated to the topic at hand, by establishing the independent category in general, both functions are validated. If the independent proper usage is established (the validity which most will acknowledge), the imperatival function should logically follow. The reason, as Porter has demonstrated, is because the question becomes not an issue of validity but an issue of pragmatics.24 If, as the above examples display, the participle can be used independent of any finite verb, then the matter in question becomes whether the range of usage can be stretched to include an imperatival force. Since, grammatically, there is nothing that would hinder such a usage, and since the imperatival force is merely a small step from a declarative sense, those independent functions of the participle that appear to carry an imperatival force should be viewed as such. And it is to this function that we now turn.
(2) Imperatival Usage
While the independent proper usage is important, the presence of the imperatival function is crucial for establishing the use’s validity in the NT. Within the papyri, two types of imperatival uses have been suggested: formulaic and non-formulaic. In the case of the former, the participle appears in set formulaic phrases that normally occur at the closing of a letter. On the other hand, the latter are found outside of any type of set phrase and are often used in conjunction with other finite forms.
(i) Formulaic Usage
The first of two types of imperatival constructions present in the papyri is the formulaic usage. This is the more controversial usage and the one that is often afforded the least amount of credibility. Normally occurring at the end of a letter, the phrase ejpimelovmenoi i{vn’uJgiaivnte: e~rrwsqe (“Take care of yourselves that you should be fit; Keep well”) (or something similar) was often used as a friendly conclusion. A few illustrations of this function include the following:
P.Grenf. I 35.7-9 (99 B.C.): eJautw'n deV ejpimelov- / menoi i{vn’uJgiaivnhte: e~smen ejn Ptolemai>di: / e~rrwsqe(“take care of yourselves so that you might be well. We are in P. Keep well”)
P.Teb. 12:12-13 (114 B.C.): taV a~lla sautou' ejpime[lovmeno"] / i{vn’uJg[i]aivnh/": e~rrw[s]o(“for the rest take care of your health. Keep well”)25
These types of constructions were often used as a conventional Hellenistic formula with which one might close a composition. Due to its place at the end of a letter the phrase was capable of both expansion and modification. In fact, Barrett notes that, “it was both possible and fashionable to expand the concluding formula of a letter with more or less conventional phrases which were commonly thrown into participial form.”26 A similar conclusion was reached by Daube, who argues that, “A formula for ending letters is a very special case. Even if the ejpimelovmenoi used in finishing letters should at some date have become so detached from its governing verb that it assumed the character of a real imperative…, this would not entitle us to infer that, in Hellenistic speech, the participle might quite generally stand for the imperative.”27 This point is well taken. Therefore, it would be unwise to build a case for the function’s validity on such a prescribed usage.
(ii) Non-formulaic Usage
The second type of imperatival function is the non-formulaic usage. This particular construction is the more important of the two when it comes to establishing legitimacy. While it is possible to argue that the imperatival force found in the previous examples is due to the carelessness afforded to the grammar of the closing formula, the same objection cannot be raised in non-formulaic instances. Here the participle is used outside of any set phrases or forms. Although the presence of this function was rare in the papyri,28 the legitimacy of the usage cannot be denied. A few examples of this type of construction include:
P.Teb. 59.8-11 (99 B.C.): ejn oi" ejaVn prosdevhsqev / mou ejpitavssontev" moi proqu- / movteron diaV toV a~nwqen fobei'sqai / kaiV sevbesqai toV iJerovn (“so, whatever you may require, command my services, because of old I revere and worship the temple”)
P.Petrie II 19. 1-9 (3rd cent. B.C): ajxiw' / se metaV dehvsew" kaiV iJketeiva" ou{vne- / ka tou' qeou' kaiV tou' kalw'" e~conte" / douV" taV pistaV Mhzavkwi mhqevn me / eijrhkevnai soi kaq’aujtou' mhdevpote / a~topon o{vper kaiV ajlhqinoVn e~stin kaiV / wJ" a~n tou'to poihvshi" ajxiwvsa" aujtoVn /me]tapevmyasqaiv me kaiV divesqai / ajpoV th'" fulakh'"(“I request of you with requests and prayers on account of the god indeed who is good, give faithful assurances to M. that I never said anything inappropriate to you against him on account of what is true and if you do this, request of him to send for me and to release me from prison”)
P.Hib. 78.6-13 (244-43 B.C.): e~ti ou kaiV nu'n / ejpimelev" soi e~stw ajpoluv- / ein aujtouV" th'" nu'n eij" jAla- / bavstrwn povlin leitourgiva" / diaV toV mhV ejkpes[ei']n aujtoi'" toV / nu'n leitourgh'sai, kaiV ejaVn / ejk tou' jOxurugcivtou ejpilev- / gwntai Zwivlon ajpoluvsa"(“now, therefore, let there be concern by you to release them from service now in the city of A. because it does not fall to them to serve now, and if they might choose from the O., release Z.”)29
b. Apostolic Fathers
Apart from the papyri, a further corpus from which to draw evidence is the Apostolic Fathers. Although the fathers are a considerably smaller collection, even here independent uses of the participle can be found.30 In fact, both the independent proper and imperatival functions are represented. The following examples include both:
Barn. 6:11 |
ejpeiV ou\n ajnakainivsa" hJma" ejn th'/ ajfevsei tw'n aJmartiw'n, ejpoivsen hJma" a~llon tuvpon, wJ" paidivwn e~cein thVn yuchvn, wJ" a~n dhV ajnaplavssonto" aujtou' hJma" |
So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us to be another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were recreating us | |
Diogn. 2:1 |
~Age dhv, kaqavra" seautoVn ajpoV pavntwn tw'n prokatecovntwn sou thVn diavnoian logismw'n, kaiV thVn ajpatw'savn se sunhvqeian ajposkeuasavmeno", kaiV genovmeno" w{vsper ejx ajrch'" kainoV" a~nqrwpo", wJ" a~n kaiV lovgou kainou', kaqavper kaiV aujtoV" wJmolovghsa", ajkroathV" ejsovmeno" |
Come, then, cleanse your mind from all of its prejudices and lay aside the custom that deceives you, and become a new man, as it were, from the beginning, as if you were the hearer of a new message, even as you yourself admit31 |
2. Evidence from the Classical Period
Aside from what has been found in the Koine material, the second era from which to collect evidence is Classical Greek. Just as with the papyri, examples of the function from the Classical authors provide a firm foundation upon which to build a case for validity. What is more, any traces of the use that pre-date the Koine era add substantial weight to the argument. This is due to the fact that it moves the function beyond the idiosyncrasies of the NT authors and toward a usage whose evolutionary progress was begun centuries earlier. A few examples from the Classical period include the following:
Herodotus 1.82 |
Lakedaimovnioi deV taV eJnantiVa touvtwn e~qento novmon: ouj gaVr komw'nte" proV touvtou ajpoV touvtou koma'n |
And the Lacedaemonians made a contrary law that ever after they should wear their hair long; for till now they had not so worn it | |
Thucydides 1.25 |
ou~te gaVr ejn panhguvresi tai'" koinai'" didovnte" gevra taV nomizovmena |
For neither at their common festival gatherings would they concede the customary privileges32 |
C. Analyzing the Grammatical Arguments
Having looked into the textual evidence in favor of viewing the imperatival function as a valid NT category, we now focus our attention on the contribution made by grammatical arguments.
1. Arguments in Favor of Validity
a. Comparative Functions
Comparatively, the participle’s imperatival function corresponds both to the use of the infinitive as well as other participial functions. (a) A somewhat less controversial and more widely accepted category is the imperatival infinitive. Here, just as in the case of the participle, the verbal element of the infinitive is stressed to the neglect of its noun side. In this way the form appears where an imperative might have been expected and carries the same volitional force. Although quite rare (Rom 12:15; Phil 3:16), most do not object to the validity of this usage. The acceptance of such a similar piece of language (the infinitive being an indeclinable verbal noun, and the participle a declinable verbal adjective) would lead us to question why the participle’s imperatival function would not be greeted with the same reception. (b) A second piece of comparative evidence is the genitive absolute. As Robertson has pointed out, due to the commonality of the genitive absolute and the participle’s function in indirect discourse, “[i]t would seem but a simple step to use the participle…in an independent sentence without direct dependence on a verb.”33
b. Nature of the Participle
A second point is that the very nature of the participle would seem to allow for the imperatival usage. The participle, in its simplest definition, is a declinable verbal adjective. As such, it participates in some verbal features (e.g., tense and voice) and some adjectival (e.g., case, number, gender). On occasions the adjectival side is stressed to the neglect of the verbal. In this case the participle functions just like an adjective, either modifying a substantive (i.e., attributive) or making an assertion about it (i.e., predicate). Conversely, why could the reverse not be true? That is, could we not assume that the participle’s very nature would allow it to stress the verbal side to the neglect of the adjectival, thus functioning like a finite verb?
c. Evidence from Comparative Languages
Finally, if the imperatival function were to be established, it would not be a peculiarity found exclusively in Greek. In Latin, the second plural middle indicative is actually a participle that has taken upon itself verbal inflection. This fact likely points to a prehistoric stage in the language in which the participle was used as indicative. Aside from this, the form sequimini (= eJpovmenoi) “not only established itself in the present, but even produced analogy-formations in [the] future and imperfect, and in the subjunctive.”34 Furthermore, in Indo-Germanic languages there is a noticeable similarity between the participle and the third person plural indicative: bheronti (ferunt, fevrousi, Gothic bairand) vs. bheront- (ferens, fevrwn, bairands).35
2. Arguments Against Validity
a. Lack of Evidence Outside the NT
The first of two proposals against the function’s legitimacy is the claim that there is a lack of evidence outside the NT. If this argument could be sustained, it would go a long way to impede the progress of any attempt to establish legitimacy. The imperatival position would have to be re-evaluated in order to determine whether or not the usage was a mere anomaly that has simply been misunderstood by interpreters. Even those who argue for validity admit the rarity with which it occurs. It could be that the few examples posed in the NT are merely a result of mistaken identity.
The problem with this type of argument is that it was originally posed by one whose time pre-dated the discovery of the papyri (i.e., Winer). Even though some continued to espouse this view even after the fact (e.g., Mayser), the evidence seems to speak for itself. To ignore or attempt to explain away the testimony of the examples produced (whether it be declarative or imperatival) is more or less an attempt to maintain one’s convictions at all costs.
b. Alternate Explanations
The second argument against viewing the imperatival function as a valid category is the notion that all examples can be explained either through anacoluthon or ellipsis. This was the primary methodological course taken by Mayser who attempted to explain away the legitimacy of the function in the papyri. In fact, Mayser’s treatment was so highly regarded by Barrett that he boldly states, “No one who has read through Mayser’s pages on the anacoluthic use of the participle will find it difficult to ascribe the few possible cases of the imperatival participle [in the papyri] to this cause.”36
While some may find such an argument appealing, there are two reasons why such a thesis should be rejected. First, anacoluthon assumes a kind of mental lapse on the part of the author that is impossible to apply in every instance. Many of the NT examples appear where no such strain can be posed. Second, the historical survey of the function’s development (below) will show that ellipsis had no part in the formation. From the beginning the participle was employed in coordination with finite forms due to the elasticity of its verbal element. Thus, to argue for the ellipsis of any type of finite form is to misunderstand the history of development.
D. Conclusion
The question of validity is foundational for any study of the imperatival participle. Before pragmatic issues can be debated, one must begin by establishing that what he or she is working with has been properly understood. If one intends to argue for the presence of an unusual syntactical category, there must be ample and undisputed evidence to show that what is being dealt with is more than just the product of the interpreter’s own imagination. Although there have been a handful of dissenters over the years, the consensus that has prevailed among interpreters has been that the imperatival participle is in fact a valid NT category. Our own examination of the evidence has upheld the majority decision, maintaining that there are instances both in the papyri and in the extra-biblical literature where the participle stands independent of any finite verb while carrying an imperatival force. Even the best arguments from those who deny the legitimacy do little in the way of casting doubt on this notion. Now that the function’s validity has been established, the next matter that needs investigation (and one that has caused much greater debate) is how it developed.
III. Development of the Imperatival Participle
If, as we have argued above, the imperatival usage is a legitimate category, the most natural follow-up question would be, “How did it develop?” or “Where did it come from?” Therefore, the goal of this section will be to determine the timeframe in which the development took place as well as the impetus that led to such a process. Throughout the history of discussion the answer to the question of development has taken one of two directions. In the early stages of research it was assumed that the function arose naturally out of the Hellenistic language. However, the in middle of the 20th century this thesis was challenged and for the most part replaced for a time with understanding that the use owed its establishment to Semitic influence. Today proponents remain divided on both sides. Thus, it is out intent to test each of the major development theories in order to determine which offers the best explanation of the available data. If none sufficiently accounts for what is found in the Greek literature, a new model might have to be proposed.
A. Semitic Influence
1. Delineation of the Semitic Position
As the issue of the function’s development has been contemplated, a view that is has been held by numerous interpreters is one that assumes the primary impetus behind the function as being a Semitic usage. While there are numerous interpreters who have held to such a view,37 the seminal work in this area was done by David Daube.38 With reference to the occurrence in the NT, he suggested that, “the participles in question may be due to Hebrew or (though less probably) Aramaic influences.”39 According to Daube, the imperatival function of the participle closely resembles a similar phenomenon found in Tannaitic Hebrew.40 While absent in Classical (or Biblical) Hebrew,41 a common feature present both in the Mishnah and Tosefta is the use of the participle with a volitional force.42 This function commonly appears in codes of conduct as well as certain religious precepts. Herein the reader/hearer is told what he or she ought to do (i.e., what is appropriate). Due to its very nature, the form is limited to specific areas of employment. In particular, there were two types of situations to which Daube restricts the usage. First, the imperatival participle is “never used in a command addressed to a specific person on a specific occasion.” Furthermore, it “cannot be indiscriminately employed even for every kind of rule.” That is, it is never found “in an absolute, unquestioned and unquestionable law.”43
2. Critique of the Semitic Position
a. Evidence from the Papyri
For Daube, a dilemma is posed by the existence of the imperatival function in any extra-biblical material. In order for his view to be correct, this particular usage cannot pre-date the Tannaitic sources (oral or written) in literature that has been unaffected by a Semitic influence. That is, if one were to discover the use in secular literature from the Koine period (e.g., non-literary papyri), then independent development must be posited, and Daube’s thesis would crumble. It was for this reason that he thought it crucial to explain away any and all examples from the papyri. However, his efforts were unsuccessful.
As shown above, there is solid evidence in the papyri both for the formulaic and non-formulaic usages. The presence of both constructions rules out any attempt to explain away the function by attributing it to a conventional concluding formula at the end of letters. Many of the examples set forth appear in the heart of compositions apart from any hint of formulaic affinity. Furthermore, the existence and validity of independent proper participles corroborates the legitimacy of the papyri evidence. That is, since there is merely a pragmatic difference between the imperatival and independent proper functions, and since the independent proper usage in the papyri is not debated, it would seem that the imperatival function should be confirmed as well. This is a point that Daube neither refuted nor even acknowledged. It is possible that the fact simply slipped past the periphery of his awareness, but it would be difficult to substantiate since Moulton’s treatment of the independent proper usage in the papyri appeared on the same page as his discussion of the imperatival function. Either way the point is an injurious blow to his theory.
b. Lack of Functional Correspondence
As noted above, one of the primary concentrations of Daube’s study was an unyielding attempt at disproving the legitimacy of the evidence afforded by the non-literary papyri. However, at one point in his treatment a concession is made: “Even if the evidence from the papyri were valid in itself, it would yet be inapplicable to the cases from the New Testament that it is sought to explain.”44 The reasoning behind such a statement is what Daube saw to be an insurmountable dissimilarity between the usage in the papyri and the in NT.45 However, under closer examination he appears to be mistaken on both accounts. First, the Semitic view does rest heavily on the evidence from the papyri. If there are any traces of an imperatival usage (or independent proper) within the secular literature of the Koine period, then some type of independent Hellenistic development must be acknowledged, especially if these sources pre-date the biblical account. Nevertheless, even if a theory of independence is adopted, one question is still left unanswered, “Where were the biblical authors drawing from?” When surveying the possibilities, those writers who employed the function could have simply been conforming their style to a certain pattern which they had grown accustomed as a result of their Jewish upbringing. On the other hand, they might have been utilizing a function of the participle that was present, although rare, in the vernacular of that day. To decide which scenario is most probable, a comparison must be made of each type of usage (e.g., non-literary papyri vs. NT and Tannaitic vs. NT). Through this assessment the second point of Daube’s argument (i.e., the dissimilarity between the papyri and the NT evidence) will be shown to be incorrect as well.
A major problem with Daube’s proposal is the lack of correspondence between the function in the Tannaitic tradition and in the NT.46 At least two areas of dissimilarity are substantial: (1) Whereas Tannaitic participles are used exclusively in rules or codes of conduct, thus eliminating any type of command addressed to a specific person on a specific occasion, imperatival participles in the NT appear outside the Haustafeln and are employed as directives for particular courses of action (2 Cor 8:24).47 (2) Semantically, imperatival participles found in the NT can carry the same volitional force as that of a finite imperative. As such, the author is able to impose his will upon his readers.48 However, this is not the case in Tannaitic Hebrew where the participle functions in a general or gnomic sense, indicating what should be done or what ought to be carried out. Had the NT writers been attempting to capture this obligatory sense, the most natural translation would have the impersonal verb dei'or ejavw.49
Unlike the dissimilarity that exists between the function in the NT and in Tannaitic literature, the evidence from the papyri lines up fairly closely to what we find in the biblical record. Although numerous similarities could be suggested (e.g., use in a conditional sentence, paratactic coordination, etc.), there are two primary characteristics that establish the common origin of both the papyri and NT functions: (1) In both the participle can be used to address a specific situation in which it provides either a command or prohibition for a particular circumstance. (2) In both places the participle functions like an imperative in that each can convey not simply what should be done, but what must be done. In this way the function moves past the realm of suggestion into the realm of volition where the author imposes his will on his audience.50
c. Difficulty of Establishing Dependence
A further problem from which the Semitic position suffers is the fact that dependence is difficult to demonstrate. In fact, proof of dependence is the key omission in Daube’s proposal. Although he details the participial function in Tannaitic literature and describes the imperatival function of certain participles in the NT, the two are never linked together in any concrete manner. His discussion merely points out similarities between the two, similarities, which in many cases are not all that similar. A better conclusion is that since there is nothing about the essential character of the participle that would rule out its natural development within either the Hebrew or Greek language, independent development should be suggested.
d. Date of Tannaitic Literature
A point that is often brought up against the Semitic position, especially against the thesis of Daube, is that the Tannaitic sources post-date the writings of the NT.51 The recent consensus within Rabbinic scholarship is that the Mishnah, which is the earliest rabbinic material, was not complied into its final product until ca. A.D. 200.52 In response to this, some have argued that the conservative nature of the oral tradition authorizes the retracting of the timeframe to a period prior to the Christian era,53 not to mention the fact that the use was already evident in Aramaic.54 This point is well taken, and for this reason, the argument is not given as great a priority in the hierarchy of critique. However, the objection remains and will remain because of the previous argument.
e. Familiarity of Audiences
A final argument against Semitic development is the lack of familiarity that NT audiences would have had with such a usage. If the imperatival function was a nuance taken from Tannaitic Hebrew, and therefore foreign to those unfamiliar to Rabbinic sources, how were Gentile audiences like those in Rome or those in Asia Minor expected to pick up on such an obscure linguistic phenomenon?55
B. Hellenistic Outgrowth
A second proposal, and one that stands on the opposite side of the spectrum from the Semitic position, is that the imperatival participle was a natural development out of the Hellenistic language. In particular, two proposals have been suggested in order to explain how this development took place. The first argues that the function was an outgrowth of the form’s periphrastic usage, while the second posits an evolutionary progression from an attendant circumstance function.
1. Outgrowth of the Periphrastic Usage
a. Delineation of the Periphrastic Position
One of the first interpreters to argue for a Hellenistic outgrowth in any type of thorough manner was J. H. Moulton. For Moulton, the imperatival function could be traced back to the ellipsis of an unexpressed finite form, ejstev. Moulton’s proposal has garnered only a handful of followers over the years.56 However, this fact may say more about how few scholars have actually tackled the question of development rather than the relative quality of his proposal. If this suggestion is correct, it absolves the interpreter from attributing the phenomenon to anacoluthon, as so many have attempted.
The strongest piece of evidence in favor of the periphrastic position is the fact that imperatival adjectives often appear in the same contexts as imperatival participles (cf. Rom 12:9-19; 1 Pet 3:8f). In such cases, most would agree that the adjectives demand the unexpressed imperative ejstev, a particular usage that is for some reason not found in the NT. Along the same lines, it would only be natural for the participle to require such an imperative as well.57
b. Critique of the Periphrastic Position
(1) Methodological Flaws
One of the strongest if not the strongest piece of evidence against the periphrastic view is its failure to properly identify the initial stages in the function’s development. This was due to a key methodological flaw in Moulton’s approach: constructing the function’s developmental formation based on corresponding structures (e.g., the imperatival adjective). While the participle may seem to require a finite form, no such formulation is requirement. In fact, by tracing the participle through its use in the Greek language, it becomes evident that such an assumption is ill-founded. As we will demonstrate below, the independent usage initially developed as a result of its ambiguity and cumbersome inflection. To avoid the problems raised by the form, authors began placing the participle in paratactic coordination with finite verbs. In this way it carried the same declarative or imperatival force as the corresponding finite form. Moreover, even if this theory of development is proven incorrect, Moulton’s treatment nonetheless fails to demonstrate why such periphrastic constructions might have developed in the first place.
(2) Rarity of Imperative Periphrasis
A second problem, as Fanning has pointed out, is that imperative periphrastic expressions of this sort are very rare.58 In the NT, there are only two examples (possibly three – Eph 5:5), both appearing in the second person singular (Matt 5:25; Luke 19:17). In addition to this rarity, it should also be noted that in indicative periphrasis the equative verb is almost never omitted.59
(3) Contradictory Phraseology
A final point that is somehow missed by the proponents of this view is the fact that if one attempts to explain the use of the participle by supplying a finite form of eijmiv, the function moves out of the realm of independence and into an adverbial category (or more specifically, a supplementary category). Once the finite verb is assumed, the construction becomes periphrastic, and thus no longer independent. The two are mutually exclusive. Therefore, while it is possible to explain the development of the function as arising through periphrasis, when one continues to assume that the finite verb is understood (as done by many of the proponents), he/she contradicts the very point that earlier discussions were set forth to prove, namely, that the participle can function independent of any finite form.
2. Outgrowth of the Attendant Circumstance Usage
a. Delineation of the Attendant Circumstance Position
A final suggestion with reference to the development of the function is that its origins can be traced back to an outgrowth of the attendant circumstance usage. Just as in the case of the previous option, this position views the function as a natural Hellenistic development. The first to clearly delineate this view was Buist M. Fanning.60 While he is not the only scholar to hold to such a position,61 his work, unlike the treatment of many others, brought implicit ideas to the surface and spelled out a distinct evolutionary process through which the function embarked. For Fanning, the transformation from attendant circumstance participle to imperatival participle was not direct. Between these two functions a transitional stage is proposed. He describes this process as follows:
An intermediate step along the way from this [i.e., attendant circumstance] towards the independent imperatival participle can be seen in instances where a participle is dependent in this adverbial way on an imperative-like verb, but only by ‘lax agreement.’ In these the participle is construed as dependent upon another verb, but it appears in nominative plural form (since that is most common in adverbial use), even though there is nothing in the main clause with that form.62
Thus, the participle moves from a function that is totally dependent upon a finite verb (attendant circumstance) to one with less dependency (transitional) and ultimately to independence (imperatival). A few of the examples that are set forth in support of this intermediate stage include: Eph 4:1-3; Col 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:12, 15-16. From these forms, it is argued, derives the imperatival function as seen in the NT.
b. Critique of the Attendant Circumstance Position
(1) Historical Anachronism
One of the weaknesses of the attendant circumstance position is that its suggested historical development is anachronistic. As pointed out earlier, the independent function was already present, though rare, in the Classical period. While little work has been done in this area, the attendant circumstance function likely derived out of Semitic usage.63 This means that it was contemporaneous with if not antecedent to the attendant circumstance usage. But even if this thesis were to be proven incorrect, the most that could be shown would be that both existed at an early stage and thus developed independently. Therefore, it is unlikely that the imperatival participle evolved from the attendant circumstance usage.
(2) Unnecessary Transitional Forms
The second problem with the Attendant Circumstance position is that the proposed intermediate forms are unnecessary. This is due to the fact that the theory of progression that is argued for does not adequately take into account the differences between the semantic situation of the attendant circumstance and the imperatival usages. The primary difference between the two is emphasis. In the case of the former, the participle is simply the prerequisite that must take place before the action of the main verb can occur. The primary emphasis in such a passage is placed on the finite verb. On the other hand, the semantic weight of the latter is not dependent upon any other finite form for its force. When the participle is connected to finite imperatives by way of a copulative conjunction both are coordinate and therefore received the same emphasis. The distinguishing characteristic between the two functions is the presence of a coordinate conjunction. For example, the insertion of a kaiv between an attendant circumstance participle and its main verb would result the participial force being strengthened and coordination being established. Thus, it would seem that if one were to argue for the imperatival participle’s derivation out of an attendant circumstance usage, no transitional form or intermediate stage would be necessary.
(3) Invalid Transitional Forms
Not only are the proposed transitional forms unnecessary, each can be explained in a more natural way. In the case of Eph 4:2-3 Wallace has shown that the participle’s nominative case can be attributed to constructio ad sensum rather than any kind of function as an intermediary construction.64 Due to the fact that the indicative and infinitive combined to create a single imperatival idea, the participle agrees in sense to what would be a finite imperative (peripathvsate). As such it is best understood as denoting the means by which the command takes place. The same can be said for 1 Peter 2:11-12.
The third example (1 Pet 2:15-16) falls short as well. It is not that the participles in these verses fulfill any kind of imperatival function or even serve as transitional elements. These are simply adverbial participles of means that modify an implied imperatival idea (peripathvsate). Finally, with regard to the final suggestion (Col 3:16-17), nothing about the form would seem to demand any type of transitional element. While this is certainly the most difficult of the four to explain, it is not without a resolution. On the one hand, it is possible to suppose the participles are functioning independently and carrying an imperatival force. In this case they would be full-blown imperatival participles. On the other hand, it is possible to view the variation in case as an example of nominative ad sensum (cf. Col 2:2)65 and to understand the forms as adverbial modifiers of ejnoikeivtw. Either way they are not transitional forms. Therefore, what this reveals is the absence of any kind of transitional construction between attendant circumstance and imperatival participles.
(4) Lack of Structural Correspondence
A final point against the attendant circumstance position is the lack of any type of functional correspondence between the attendant circumstance, the transitional element, and the imperatival usage. Some of the more recent work that has been done on the attendant circumstance function has revealed a certain structural pattern in which the use occurs: (a) the tense of the participle is usually aorist; (b) the tense of the main verb is usually aorist; (c) the mood of the main verb is usually imperative or indicative; (d) the participle will precede the main verb–both in word order and time of event; (e) attendant circumstance participles occur frequently in narrative literature, infrequently elsewhere.66 However neither the final forms (i.e., imperatival usage) nor the transitional forms correspond in any way to such a structure. This raises the question of how a transitional form could serve as an intermediary link while giving no evidence of any real ties to the initial form.
C. Examining the Evidence
Now that we have analyzed each of the previous suggestions, our attention will turn to an examination of relevant data for constructing a developmental theory. Two pieces of evidence are pertinent for such a task. First, it is important that we understand some of the precursory matters that led to the participle’s independence. Here we will analyze the nature of the form as well as how it was perceived in popular speech. The second matter to be explored is paratactic coordination within the Classical and Koine periods. The principal question that must be answered is, “Were paratactic constructions used to connect participles with finite verbs?” As we will see below, such an investigation is crucial for determining when the form gained functional independence.
1. Precursors to Independence
The first matter to be taken into consideration when postulating a theory of development is the nature of the participle. Being a declinable verbal adjective, there are various usages in which one dimension of the form becomes more prominent than the other. At times the adjectival side comes forth more strongly, in which case it modifies (i.e., attributive) or asserts something about a substantive (i.e., predicate). What is more, the form can also function in the place of noun (i.e., substantival). In each of these cases, the verbal element is suppressed. In the same manner, it is possible for the verbal side to be emphasized over and even to the neglect of the adjectival element. In this way the participle was prime to be put into service where finite verbal forms might have been expected.
The second point that must be kept in mind is the difficulty created by the adverbial participle in common speech. In his historical survey stretching as far back as the Classical period, Jannaris notes that the participle “did not appeal to the taste and needs of popular speech because of its ambiguity and inconvenient inflection. For apart from its vagueness in regard to person, it did not even specify its own nature and meaning, but subordinated it to the context.”67 Yet, what is more, he adds, “To avoid such ambiguities as well as the mental strain involved by the frequent use of the participles, even [Attic] writers, though fond of participial construction (filomevtocoi), very often resorted to the expedient of a lengthy but clearer and easier analysis into a subordinate clause.”68 Clearly, the form’s ambiguity and inflection made it troublesome for many a native Grecian, not to mention the difficulty it caused for those to whom Greek was a second language.
2. Initial Traces of Independence
The second task that is crucial for constructing a theory of development is pinpointing the initial traces of the participle’s independence. There are three areas in particular that aid in our search. Each of these served as a precursor to the form’s actual independence. The first area in which the participle breaks away from its normal adverbial function and into an independent status is paratactic coordination. By combining two independent clauses—one whose controlling verbal idea consisted in a finite form, the other being controlled by a participle—by way of copulative conjunctions (e.g., kaiv, dev, etc.) the author presents the clauses as on par with one another.69 Such a connection would make it seem as if both the participle and finite verb convey the same semantic force (whether it be declarative or imperatival).70 This phenomenon was present both during the Koine71 and Classical72 periods. Thus, it is apparent that the paratactic coordination used by biblical authors was not a peculiarity of their own making, nor was it a recent development. The initial stages of the construction can be traced back to some of the earlier periods of the Greek language.73
A second indication of the participle’s emerging independent status was its employment in conditional sentences. In the Classical period there were times when either the protasis or apodosis of a conditional sentence was expressed by means of a participle.74 When this occurred the form would carry the force of the mood it represented, whether it be indicative or optative.
The final trace from the Classical period is its appearance in indirect discourse. Within the literature there were times when the participle would provide indirect assertions and declarations instead of the usual construction, o{vti + finite form.75 The specifics of this phenomenon are further delineated by Smyth: “After verbs signifying to know, be ignorant of, learn (not learn of), remember, forget, show, appear, prove, acknowledge, and announce, the participle represents a dependent statement, each tense [i.e., participial form] having the same force as the corresponding tense [i.e., finite form] of the indicative or optative with o{vti or wJ".”76
The results of this survey have great implications for our understanding the independent function as well as its development within the Greek language. While the existence of the independent verbal participle in Classical Greek is sometimes denied,77 its paratactic coordination with finite verbs, its use in conditional sentences, and its employment in indirect discourse reveals at least the seedlings of the independent usage, if not fully blown autonomy. If such were the case, it would mean that the participle gained independence fairly early in the history of the language.
D. Conclusion
In conclusion, historically, it appears that the formation of the participle’s imperatival function can be attributed to a somewhat simple process of renovation.78 The first step toward independence found its impetus in the very nature of the form itself. Due to the fact that it did not appeal to popular speech—as a result of its indefiniteness (i.e., lack of specificity related to person) and need for inflection—the adverbial usage began to be neglected and replaced with simpler forms. In order to avoid these ambiguities, communicators resorted to lengthier and clearer subordinate clauses to get their message across. In this restructuring of its formal duties, the participle was employed in numerous usages that corresponded to the tasks ordinarily performed by finite verbs. It was used in coordinate connection with parallel finite forms. Often it was forced to carry the weight of a verb as it was used both as a protasis and apodosis in conditional sentences. Furthermore, the form was put into use in indirect discourse, rendering its service in instances where an indicative would have been expected. Such tasks were only possible as a result of the elasticity of its range of usage (i.e., being a verbal adjective). In each of these cases the participle functioned just like its corresponding finite form, even carrying the same declarative or imperatival force. It is in these constructions, that the first glimpses of the form’s independence can be seen. This status was further legitimized as it was employed outside of these perimeters in ways that corresponded to independent finite forms. Once it moved into this position, the question of semantic force became simply a matter of pragmatics. Since the independent function had already been established, the form was available for use in either a declarative or imperatival manner. It is this usage that is picked up on by many NT writers and employed to suit their individual authorial needs.
IV. Identification of the Imperatival Participle
To this point in our study the focus has been primarily centered around the legitimacy and development of the particular syntactical category under examination. We have verified that it was in fact a valid NT category, which in turn led us to undertake a search for the process of development. While this information is beneficial on a grammatical level, the study remains incomplete if not applied to the exegetical process. While the theory of development may aid the interpreter in understanding the category, it does one little good if the function cannot be located. For this reason, we will address a pragmatic question that has been neglected thus far: “How does one actually locate an imperatival participle?” In a sense we will move from theory into practice. As mentioned above, little work has been done in order to assist in the identification process. In the absence of guiding principles one is left to his or her own inclinations to ascertain valid examples. In many cases, this has allowed authorial inclination to take precedence over solid grammatical principles. That is, it is not unusual for a participle to be labeled ‘imperatival’ simply due to the fact that the work in which it finds itself is known its for frequent employment (e.g., 1 Peter). Our efforts will be an attempt to remedy this problem by offering solid guidelines by which one can more confidently distinguish the imperatival function from other related uses.
A. Guidelines for Identification
1. Previous Suggestions
The first to propose any type of guidelines for locating imperatival participles was H. G. Meecham. In his brief Expository Times article, Meecham laid out three rules to aid interpreters in this process. He argued that for a participle to be imperatival: (1) it must be textually certain; (2) it must not be grammatically connected with any preceding or following finite verb; and (3) it cannot be due to loose apposition or anacoluthon.79 For the most part these guidelines have served as a template for all subsequent treatments.
One of the first (and really the only) to branch out from this list was Lauri Thurén. His rules were produced primarily from examples found in the epistle of 1 Peter.80 Although the guidelines of Meecham are maintained as foundational elements in his study, Thurén moves beyond his predecessor to propose more nuanced suggestions. He begins by differentiating between formal (i.e., structural) and logical indicators. Within the former, three rules are set forth: (1) it must be in the nominative case; (2) it cannot be attributive or equivalent to a noun (i.e., substantival); and (3) it cannot be part of a conditional or final clause. Within the latter, two points commend themselves as indicators: (1) it should be directly connected to the addressees; and (2) it should not have too passive of a meaning.81
2. Critique of Previous Guidelines
In the past, the guidelines presented above have served the important task of aiding the exegete in locating this grammatical obscurity. However, despite the obvious benefit provided by these directives, room for improvement still exists. In order to move the discussion forward, the older theories need to be reassessed. On a general level, two areas of weakness will be considered: (a) the lack of any type of categorical distinction between types of rules and (b) the lack of any hierarchy to set the guidelines apart from one another in terms of importance. On a more specific level, the validity of three previous guidelines will be examined.
The first general critique that could be offered is that for the most part no categorical distinction has been made between the types of rules (e.g., grammatical vs. contextual vs. semantic).82 Instead, the categories remain mixed. Although Thurén made an attempt in this direction, his efforts did not go far enough. Even where distinctions were drawn, the blending was never truly remedied. For example, under the “logical” guidelines he combines a semantic rule (it should not have too passive of a meaning) with a contextual guideline (it should be directly connected to the addressees). Therefore, in order to create the most efficient set of rules a categorical distinction must be made.
A second area in which previous approaches could be improved upon is in ranking existing guidelines by levels of importance. As it stands, each rule is equally as important in determining what constitutes an imperatival participle as any other. Yet, some type of hierarchical structure must exist. Certainly one would view the participle’s textual certainty to be more foundational than whether or not it was part of a conditional clause. Thus, in order to move the discussion forward, some type of distinction must be made.
Apart from these general observations, there are also a few specific problems that need to be addressed. In particular, Meecham’s first rule in a sense goes without saying. It serves more as guideline for interpretation in general than for locating imperatival participles. Therefore, it need not be a rule for location, since it is a foundational tenant for all exegesis. However, one further note of caution should be added to this area. The interpreter must allow for some textual variation due to one of the basic canons of textual criticism: the harder reading is to be preferred. This tenant takes into account the tendency of scribes to smooth out a text rather than to create difficulties. Thus, in this case, we would expect numerous manuscripts to contain finite verbs instead of participles (i.e., exchanging a more difficult reading for an easier one).
A second correction should also be made with regard to Thurén’s “formal” guideline number three, which disallows the participle’s function in a conditional or final clause. In actuality it is neither true of the imperative in general nor of the imperatival participle in particular. An example does exist in which the participle serves as an apodosis in a conditional sentence (Rom 12:18). Furthermore, related to its correspondence to the finite form, it should be noted that an imperative can function as the protasis of a conditional clause.83 Therefore, nothing about the function rules out the possibility that it could be part of a conditional sentence.
Finally, just as in the case of Thurén’s third rule, his second “logical” directive is neither true of the imperative mood in general nor of the imperatival participle in particular. If the participle carries the sense of an imperative, and if the imperative is often found in the passive voice, then why would we not expect to find a passive participle used as an imperative? This is in fact exactly what we find in a handful of the participles that have been determined to be imperatival (Rom 12:16; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 1:14).
3. New Proposal
As you can see there are still areas in which our understanding of the function can be improved upon. In fact, after investigating the function from every angle, the conclusion that has been reached concerning guidelines for locating its usage is this: less is more. This is due primarily to its fluidity. As we will discuss below, in many ways it corresponds directly to the imperative. The fact that it can appear in essentially any tense, number, or voice makes narrowing down the morphological idiosyncrasies somewhat difficult. Moreover, its range of usage serves to complicate the issue. Since the form can be employed to portray each of the primary imperatival forces (i.e., command, prohibition, request), and since it is capable of addressing general or specific situations, it is impossible to narrow down a particular context in which one might expect the function to appear. Not to mention the fact that its presence in authors at various ends of the literary quality spectrum complicates the matter even further.84
For this reason our approach will be two-fold. We will begin by simply listing some of the nuances of the function. Here, as proposed above, we will differentiate between the types of categories. The observations will be divided up between two levels. Each will be separated on the basis of the field to which it contributes. Within these categories the nuance will be listed according to its measure of importance. In this way we hope to show the extent to which the function can be taken. Or to put it another way, our goal is to describe what an imperative participle could look like. In the next section we will turn our investigation in another direction. The scope of our study will be narrowed in order to find the common denominator between the forms. In this way we will attempt to establish guidelines that mark off what an imperatival participle must look like.85
a. Nuances of the Imperatival Participle
(1) Grammatical (Morphological, Structural)
- As all verbal participles, it is always anarthrous.
- Just like the finite imperative, it is used in any voice (active, middle, or passive).
- It will always be in the nominative. When addressing a group, the nominative plural is employed (e.g., all NT examples), but the nominative singular is used to address an individual (e.g., papyri).
- All NT imperatival participles are in the present tense. In the papyri, it appears in the present and aorist tenses (it seems possible that it could be found in the perfect; there is an example of the independent proper participle in the perfect [P.Teb. 14:12-14]).
- It can be the apodosis both of a comparative (1 Pet 4:10) and conditional clause (Rom 12:18).
- It can be connected either to a finite imperative (1 Pet 1:14 [ajllav]; Rom 12:19 [ajllav]) or to another imperatival participle (1 Peter 3:9 [dev]) by way of a coordinate conjunction.
- It can be modified by a subordinate clause (1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7, 9; 4:8; Heb 13:5).
- It is negated by mhv (Rom 12:11, 16, 17, 19; 1 Pet 1:14).
(2) Contextual
- It appears where an imperatival idea might have been expected (i.e., where it seems that the author is imposing his will on the audience, whether in a greater [command] or lesser manner [request]).
- It often occurs in the context of general codes of conduct in which it is connected either with other imperatival participles, imperatival adjectives, or imperatives all of which being attached by way of asyndeton, creating a kind of staccato effect (Rom 12:9-19; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 4:8, 10). However, it is not limited to such a context (cf. 2 Cor 8:24).
(3) Semantic
- It can function just like an imperative in that it can convey a command (1 Pet 2:18), prohibition (Rom 12:16), or request (2 Cor 8:24).
- It can be used with a definite subject (addressed directly in the vocative) (1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7).
- It can be used to command general codes of conduct (Rom 12:9-19; Heb 13:5) or to address a specific situation (2 Cor 8:24; cf. papyri).
b. Proposed Guidelines
From these observations, a hierarchical structure can be constructed. In what follows we will compose a minimal list of characteristics that must be met in order for a participle to qualify as imperatival. Each will be listed in descending order by levels of importance.
Grammatical (Syntactic)
- It must function independent of any finite form (which excludes subordinate modification, periphrasis, anacoluthon, and formulaic usage86).87
Semantic
- It must carry an imperatival force (i.e., command, prohibition, request).
Grammatical (Morphological, Structural)
- It must be in the nominative case.
- It must be anarthrous.
B. Examination of NT Examples
Now that reliable guidelines have been constructed, we will attempt to implement these rules in the task of interpretation. Through them we will assess certain texts that are often set forth as valid NT examples. In each case we will judge whether or not such claims are accurate.
1. Valid Examples88
2 Cor 8:24 |
thVn ou\n e~ndeixin th'" ajgavph" uJmw'n kaiV hJmw'n kauchvsew" uJpeVr uJmw'n eij" aujtouV" ejndeiknuvmenoi eij" provswpon tw'n ejkklhsiw'n |
Therefore, show them openly before the churches the proof of your love and our boast in you | |
Heb 13:5 |
jAfilavrguro" oJ trovpo", ajrkouvmenoi toi'" parou'sin |
Let your way of life be free from the love of money; be content with what you have | |
1 Pet 2:18 |
oiJ oijkevtai uJpotassovmenoi ejn pantiV fovbw/ toi'" despovtai" |
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence |
2. Questionable Examples89
Rom 13:11 |
kaiV tou'to eijdovte" toVn kairovn |
And do this, because we know the time / And know this, namely the time | |
As in the case with 2 Pet 3:3, this particular phrase may be a type of formulaic usage. If so, the function would not be classified as an imperatival participle. | |
Col 3:16 |
oJ lovgo" tou' Cristou' ejnoikeivtw...didavskonte" kaiV nouqetou'nte" eJautouv" |
Let the word of Christ dwell…with the result that you teach and admonish / Let the word of Christ dwell…Teach and admonish one another | |
While the participles (nominative plural) lack of agreement with either lovgo" (nominative singular) or uJmi'n(dative plural), it is possible to view the variation in case as an example of nominative ad sensum (MHT 3:230; cf. Col 2:2). If such were the case, one would not need to posit an imperatival function. |
3. Invalid Examples90
Luke 24:47 |
kaiV khrucqh'nai...ajrxavmenoi ajpoV jIerousalhVm |
And to preach…beginning from Jerusalem | |
Against the suggestion of Moulton (MHT 1:182), it is best not to follow the punctuation of Westcott and Hort’s marginal reading: “Begin ye from Jerusalem as witnesses of these things.” First of all, such a reading creates an unusual function for a~rcw. Never it is used in the imperative in the NT, and when it is employed as a finite form it normally takes a complementary infinitive not a direct object. Second, this interpretation causes mavrture" (v. 48) to function either in some sort of a predicate nominative capacity apart from an equative verb or as a direct object in the nominative case. Overall, it is much easier to assume an adverbial function for the participle. Luke uses a similar structure elsewhere (Luke 23:5; 24:27; Acts 1:22; 8:35; 10:37; cf. also Matt 20:8; John 8:9). This is in line with the suggestion made by Robertson, who pointed out that no participle should not be taken imperativally if it can be connected to another verbal element (Grammar, 1133-1134). | |
Eph 4:2-3 |
parakalw' ou\n uJma'" ejgwV oJ devsmio" ejn kurivw/ ajxivw" peripath'sai...ajnecovmenoi ajllhvlwn ejn ajgavph/...spoudavzonte" threi'n thVn eJnovthta tou' pneuvmato" |
Therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you to walk worthy…by bearing with one another in love…by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit | |
Due to the fact that the indicative and infinitive combined to create a single imperatival idea, the participle agrees in sense to what would be a finite imperative (peripathvsate). As such the participle’s nominative case can be attributed to constructio ad sensum rather than to an imperatival function (cf. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 652). | |
1 Pet 5:6-7 |
tapeinwvqhte ou\n uJpoV thVn krataiaVn cei'ra tou' qeou'...pa'san thVn mevrimnan uJmw'n ejpirivyante" ejp’aujtovn |
Be humbled under the mighty hand of God…by casting all your worries upon him | |
While many modern versions translate it as an imperative (e.g., NIV, RSV, NSRV), the participle is more likely an adverbial modifier of tapeinwvqhte (“be humbled”). As such, it denotes the means by which this act of humbling takes place. Furthermore, it helps us to better understand what is meant by the verb: “The true Christian attitude is not negative self-abandonment or resignation, but involves as the expression of one’s self-humbling the positive entrusting of oneself and one’s troubles to God.”91 |
IV. Semantics of the Imperatival Participle
Having defended the validity of the participle’s imperatival function and having traced its development throughout the history of the language, we are now in a position to discuss issues of semantics and purpose. When the two are compared, it is evident that the former gives rise to the latter. That is, for us to determine the significance of the use’s employment, there must be something about its meaning that an author intends to communicate. Therefore, in this section we will attempt to answer the question, “What is the meaning conveyed by the function?” (a question of semantics) which, in turn, will aid us in the answering the question, “Why is the function being used?” (a question of purpose).
A tacit assumption made by most who deal with the subject is that an author’s choice of the participle reveals something about what he is intending to convey. Most interpreters assume that behind the participle lies a softer, gentler appeal. However, such an opinion has been based primarily in supposition rather than extensive grammatical analysis. In this section, we will examine such a notion in order to test its validity. Our goal will be to determine exactly what is being communicated by the participial form and how it differs from the standard imperative.
A. Previous Suggestions
One of the most neglected areas in the study of the imperatival participle has been the area of semantics and purpose. With regard to those who have tackled the issue, a common assumption seems to be shared by all: the NT authors employ the participle because the form conveys something other than what could be communicated through a finite form. The specifics of this thesis have gone in two directions. Some believe that the participle expresses a milder appeal, and therefore was used to soften the tone of address. Others have suggested that the meaning was just as elusive in the first century as it is now; thus it was employed to create intentional ambiguity.
1. Milder Appeal
Many who have dealt with the usage have come to conclude that the reason why authors employed the participle rather than the finite verb was because of their desire to communicate a softer, gentler appeal. Behind this idea lies a conception of the function’s semantic value as being similar to the imperative of request (i.e., a polite appeal which is less forceful than a imperative of command). One of the first to suggest such an idea was David Daube. In his study, Daube argues that “the participle is in its place in all admonitions to a proper conduct and even the vast majority of fixed and exact precepts; but not where a precept is an unqualified, hard, fundamental ‘must’ or ‘must not’, having absolutely nothing to do with custom.”92 In this way it expresses what should be done rather than what must be done. While the volition of the addressee is engaged, the force behind the engagement is not quite as strong.
Another similar suggestion can be found in the work of Neva Miller. Her focus centered primarily around Romans 12. After describing the caution taken by the apostle in addressing the Roman believers, and after pointing out the frequency of the participial use rather than finite verbs, she claims that the “patterning suits the apostle’s purpose to convey directions without giving direct commands.”93 For the most part Miller would agree with Daube’s thesis. She contends that, “the participial injunctions appeal to reason and the emotions more than to the will.”94 For this reason, Paul’s readers would not have felt as if he was attempting to throw his weight around; instead, they would have been open to the mutual benefits that the exhortations supplied.
Along somewhat different lines, Michael Thompson has proposed that the imperatival participles of Romans 12 are employed as a result of the unfamiliarity of the author with those to whom he is writing.95 More specifically he argues that, “the choice of participles here may be attributed to the fact that [Paul] did not know the majority of his readers. A string of imperatives such as occurs in 1 Thess. 5 might not go down as well with strangers as the more descriptive exhortations subtly conveyed by participles.”96 Behind this suggestion, just as with the two previous proposals, is the assumption that the participle carries a weaker force than the ordinary finite form, thus creating a softer and gentler form of imperative.97
2. Strategic Ambiguity
A second option concerning the semantics of the function was proposed by Lauri Thurén. In his study of 1 Peter, Thurén argues that the participial constructions were used to create intentional semantic ambiguity. Such a technique was employed as part of the author’s larger rhetorical strategy. He understands the driving force behind the letter to be a conflict of interests due to outside social pressures. On the one hand, some have reacted to the pressure by merely assimilating into the non-Christian society. On the other hand, there are those who have responded by attempting to avenge the injustice. Due to the fact that the epistle is intended for a mixed audience, the participial forms are chosen as a way of simultaneously addressing both groups. Thus, the author creates a dual meaning: “His task is to encourage some and assure them of God’s grace, but to discourage others and tell them that their new status is not self-evident and guaranteed.”98 In this way the forms “challenge the interpreter to make a choice between understanding them as encouraging utterances, which describe the addressees and their situation, or as injunctions.”99 Behind this theory lies a conception of the function’s semantic value as being mysterious or even unknown to the first century audience. It is built on the idea that the meaning could have been taken in various ways. When the overall effect of Thurén’s proposal is taken into consideration, the implications for both the participle and the interpretation of 1 Peter are immense. If the theory is substantiated all subsequent interpretations must take into account the ambiguity created by the author’s rhetorical technique.100
B. Semantic Value
If one intends to understand why an author might choose to employ the imperatival participle it is crucial to establish what the usage actually communicates. That is, we must wrestle with semantics.101 As we have seen above, those who have treated the issue in the past have all been in agreement that an author’s choice of the participle over a finite imperative correlates to the communication of a force other than what would have been conveyed through the finite form. Such a deduction would seem appropriate, even welcomed, as a result of much of the vagueness that often characterizes grammatical analysis. It was this problem over which Wallace lamented several years ago. He noted that a major obstruction within NT grammatical study was that many interpreters were satisfied with “presenting the structural phenomena of the NT in a descriptive manner (i.e., a mere tagging of structures as belonging to certain syntactical categories), while hardly raising the question of the differences in the fields of meaning that ‘synonymous’ structures [i.e., those that are structurally distinct, yet semantically equivalent] can possess.”102 Certainly each of those who have dealt with the issue has avoided falling prey to such a minimalist mentality. In fact, they are all to be commended for their attempts to move the discussion past a surface level analysis and into a more careful search for meaning. However, even now, the question of semantics has yet to be fully answered. The reason for this is that no theory has been able to adequately account for the numerous variations within the usage itself. In most cases this is due to the fact that the studies have focused on individual pericope to the neglect of those examples outside their designated areas of study.103 Therefore, to remedy this problem it is crucial that every example from the Koine period be examined in order to assess the complete range of usage. Only in this way will we be able to determine exactly what is being communicated.
Before we begin this step an important distinction must be made. In order to properly grasp the semantic value, we must differentiate between the function’s denotative and connotative values. By “denotative value” we mean the most basic or essential idea that is communicated. By “connotative value” we mean any additional sense or senses associated with what the function communicates. For example, image if someone were to be set up on a blind date. Afterwards, when asked to describe his date, the man graphically portrays her in the following manner: “she looked like she had been beaten half-to-death with an ugly-stick.” The denotative value would be the same as if he had said, “her appearance was not appealing”; both communicate the fact that the woman was unattractive. However, the connotative value of the former goes beyond that of the latter. Saying that someone “looks like they had been beaten half-to-death with an ugly stick” is much more forceful than merely stating that she is unattractive. It reveals the vehemence with which the communicator holds the person’s appearance in contempt. Thus, the denotative value is the same in both cases, but the connotative value is different—one carrying a milder sense, the other bearing a more negative one. With this distinction in mind, we now turn to an examination of the evidence.
1. Denotative Value
The first aspect to be examined is the participle’s denotative value. When all of the pertinent data is gathered and all of the examples are compared, what becomes clear is that the form’s imperatival function behaves very similar to, if not parallel with, the finite imperative. As described by Wallace, the imperative is the “mood of intention…the mood furthest removed from certainty…[the mood which] moves in the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one’s will upon another) and possibility.”104 Within the specific uses of the form, three are by far the most common: command, prohibition, and request. When compared to one another, the similarity between the participle and the finite form becomes striking. Of the 38 examples that have been collected from the Koine period, 27 are used to command a particular action.105 In each case “the intention of the communicator is to strongly direct the recipient toward the intended action.”106 With the same force, the participle is used three times to convey a prohibition (Rom 12:16, 17, 19). On the other end of the spectrum of force, the form is also capable of weakening its strength to communicate a mild request (2 Cor 8:24; P.Hib. 78.6-13; P.Pet. II 19.1-9; P.Fay. 109.10-11). As we attempt to piece this information together, the denotative value of the form becomes clear: the function is used to engage the volition of the recipients in order to direct them toward a particular action. Such direction can be communicated both in a strong or mild manner. Therefore, as far as its denotative value, the form is essentially equivalent to the finite imperative.107 What this means is that if the desire of an author would have been to give a command, set forth a prohibition, or make a request either of these two forms would have adequately communicated the idea.
2. Connotative Value
The second matter to be analyzed is the form’s connotative value. While its denotation aids our understanding of the participle’s semantics, its connotation reveals why an author might choose the participle over another synonymous form. But unlike the denotative value, the matter of the form’s connotation is somewhat more difficult to determine. The reason for this difficulty lies in the complex variation within the usage. While in the NT the imperatival function appears primarily in some of the better writers, there are instances in the papyri where it is found in very bad Greek. At times it is used when an author wants to be gentle or less direct with his audience. Yet, on the other hand, it can also be employed when the intent is to be more direct or forceful. It is true that the form shows up in moral codes, but it is also used to address particular individuals on particular occasions. Confronted by this roadblock, the next logical step might be to analyze the function within individual authors. But even this is a dead end. Among those who employ the participle most often, no set patterns are developed. Therefore, while it seems safe to say that the variation in form brings with it some type of connotative distinction, any additional sense(s) included in an author’s use of the form must be determined on a case by case basis as a result of a thorough contextual investigation.
C. Exegetical Applicability
The final aspect of our study is attempting to determine how the results of our research apply to exegesis. For one who comes to this work in search of golden exegetical nuggets he or she will certainly walk away disappointed. However, if the desire of the reader is to better understand the language of the NT, and in turn, better equip him or herself in the task of interpretation, the benefits are commendable. The primary value of the study is essentially preventative in nature. Along with Carson, it is our hope that “by talking about what should not be done in exegesis, we may all desire more deeply to interpret the Word of God aright.”108 Thus, our results are intended to serve as a fence of protection guarding against any unwarranted exegetical leaps with relation to this grammatical function. The preventative character of our conclusions will serve this task in two ways. First, it will guard against attributing more to the function than an author originally intended. Errors of this type include claims such as “the participle is employed because the author intended a vividness that was not attainable through the finite imperative,” or “the author uses the participle because of his desire to be gentle and tender with his audience.” Furthermore, it will also keep the interpreter from falling prey to interesting yet erroneous notions that have led entire monographs astray (e.g., Thurén’s dissertation on the ambiguity in 1 Peter). Second, it will guard against arbitrary exegesis. More than a few interpreters have been guilty of classifying a participle as “imperatival” simply because the category exists. This danger is especially prominent in books like 1 Peter where the usage is abundant. But from our study, we have shown that authorial inclination is no longer sufficient grounds for such an interpretive tactic.
VI. Conclusion
The imperatival participle is a grammatical mystery that interpreters have wrestled with for years. While a consensus has been reached concerning many aspects of the function, a few questions still remain unanswered. The goal of this paper was to fill that void by examining the usage from every possible angle. The first matter of investigation was the usage’s validity. In our treatment, a range of texts from the papyri to the Apostolic Fathers was produced to demonstrate that the participle was in fact used independently to convey a volitional idea. Thus, its legitimacy during the Koine period was confirmed. Even the strongest objections from dissenters were not enough to dissuade us from such a conclusion.
As the discussion moved into the issue of development, we found the greatest debate among interpreters. The primary question that needed to be answered was, “How did this syntactical category develop?” Through an analysis of previous developmental theories we discovered that none adequately accounted for all of the applicable data. For this reason we undertook the task of constructing a new theory. From our investigation we proposed that the process was carried out as follows: from the beginning the participle was difficult for the common reader to grasp. Due to its indefiniteness (i.e., lack of specificity related to person) and need for inflection, it quickly began to be replaced with simpler forms even in the best Classical writers. As a result of this lack of popular appeal, its formal duties were reconstructed. The form began to be employed in numerous functions that corresponded to the tasks ordinarily performed by finite verbs (e.g., coordinate constructions, conditional sentences, and indirect discourse). In each of these cases the participle came to be used just like its corresponding finite form, even carrying the same declarative or imperatival force. This status was further legitimized as it was employed outside of these perimeters in ways the corresponded to independent finite verbs. It is at this stage that we find the imperatival function.
Moving from theory to practice, the next topic that was taken up was the matter of pragmatics. The first task was to establish reliable guidelines for locating the function. While previous attempts created a great jumping-off point, they were lacking two key elements: any type of categorical distinction between types of rules and a hierarchy to set the guidelines apart from one another in terms of importance. After offering a few corrective comments and pointing out the great variation within the usage, we noted that the most significant methodological point for constructing reliable guidelines was: less is more. For this reason we suggested four rules: Grammatical (Syntactic): it must function independent of any finite form (which excludes subordinate modification, periphasis, anacoluthon, and formulaic usage). Semantic: It must carry an imperatival force (i.e., command, prohibition, request). Grammatical (Morphological, Structural): (a) it must be in the nominative case; (b) it must be anarthrous.
The final section of our analysis was devoted to the semantics of the category. As we noted, most who have treated the subject in the past have assumed some type of distinction between the use of the participle and the use of the finite imperative. However, when that theory was tested, it came up wanting. Through an examination of the all the pertinent data, we concluded that the semantic force of the participle was very close if not identical with the finite form. However, in order to attain greater specificity and to account for the variation in forms, a distinction was made between the participle’s denotative and connotative values. Concerning the former, we argued that the form was used to engage the volition of the recipients in order to direct them toward a particular action. This injunction could be communicated in either a strong (e.g., command) or mild (e.g., request) manner. As such it carries the same semantic weight as a finite imperative. Concerning the latter, we concluded that any additional sense(s) included in an author’s use of the form must be determined on a case by case basis. This was a result of the complex variation within the usage itself.
So what is so important about an insignificant piece of Greek grammar like the imperatival participle? Is there any reason why so much time was spent pouring over something so miniscule? To these questions I believe there is an answer. It was captured best centuries ago in the words of none other than the great Martin Luther. He stated: “it becomes Christians then to make use of the Holy Scriptures as their one and only book and it is a sin and a shame not to know our own book or to understand the speech and words of our God.”109 While these words rang true back then, they ring even louder for us today. It is our hope that from this paper we have all learned a little more about an “insignificant” piece of grammar, and that understanding it, each of us would come to view even the minor pieces as significant.
1 This paper is dedicated to the memory of Stan Ballard, a man of God through whom I have learned the preciousness of Christian hope.
2 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 15.
3 To properly capture this phenomenon, the designation “imperatival participle” is employed rather than “imperative participle.” The terminological distinction is important, for it differentiates between form and function. This is a point that more than a few interpreters have missed (e.g., David Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” in The First Epistle of St. Peter by E. G. Selwyn [2nd ed; London: Macmillan, 1947], 467-488; H. G. Meecham, “The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament,” ExpTim 58 [1946-47]: 207-208; Robert L. Hamblin, “An Analysis of First Peter with Special Reference to the Greek Participle” [ThD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1960]; Lauri Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter [Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1990]). Within the latter designation, there is a subtle insinuation that the participle actually is a finite verb, as if its nature had somehow been transformed. However, no such change has taken place. The participle always remains a participle; yet it operates in various capacities. In this way, one could say that the participle is used instead of a finite verb, but never used as finite verb (Cf. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood [Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989], 374-375).
4 Not all would be in agreement with this parenthetic statement. Some argue both for independence as well as ellipsis or anacoluthon. Others have misunderstood the parenthesis, lumping the attendant circumstance usage with the imperatival function (cf. James L. Boyer, “The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 5 [1984]: 52 n. 40). We will deal with these matters in a later section.
5 The work went through six editions in Winer’s lifetime and was amplified by Gottlieb Lunemann in the seventh edition. An eighth edition was undertaken by Wilhelm Schmiedel but never completed. The work was first translated from German by W. F. Moulton in 1870. It passed through three English editions, the final of which was released in 1882: G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek (Translated by W. F. Moulton; 3rd rev. ed; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1882).
6 Winer, Treatise, 440 n. 5.
7 Ibid, 440-441.
8 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 25.
9 J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 1 (ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 180-183, 222-225. [Hereafter referred to as MHT 1]
10 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed; Nashville: Broadman, 1915), 944-946, 1132-1135; BDF, 245 [§468]; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (Translated by Joseph Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1963), 129-130 [§373-375]; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 179-180.
11 Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 467-488.
12 Charles. H. Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Rom XII.9-21,” NTS 16 (1970): 83.
13 E.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Commentary on Romans 12-13 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965), 40 n. 3; Matthew Black, Romans (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 153-154; C. K. Barrett, “The Imperatival Participle,” ExpTim 59 (1947-48): 165-166; idem, The Epistle to the Romans (2nd ed; BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 220-221.
14 A. P. Salom, “The Imperatival Use of the Participle in the New Testament,” ABR 11 (1963): 41-49.
15 Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, 4-20.
16 Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 (JSNTSupp 59; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); Neva Miller, “The Imperativals of Romans 12,” in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. David Alan Black; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 162-182.
17 Recent (i.e., 1980–present) grammars that list the imperatival participle as a legitimate syntactical category include: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 370-377; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 185-186; Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 386-388; K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson. vol. 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 82-84; Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 160; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 650-652; David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 124. Recent (i.e., 1980–present) monographs and articles include: Paul S. Karleen, “The Syntax of the Participle in the Greek New Testament” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980), 158-159; Philip Kanjurparambil, “Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9-21,” JBL 102 (1983): 285-288; James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 8 (1987): 52; Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, 4-20; Miller, “The Imperativals of Romans 12,” 162-182; Scot Snyder, “Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter: A Re-examination in the Light of Recent Scholarly Trends,” FNT 8 (1995): 187-198.
18 Another potential cause for confusion is found in the treatment of A. T. Robertson. In his discuss, he sets aside seven pages to explain and defend the validity of the function (944-946, 1132-1135). Where confusion could arise is in the fact that he argues that, “because of ellipsis or anacoluthon, the participle carries on the work of either the indicative or the imperative” (Grammar, 1133; italics mine). On the surface this may seem to contradict the function’s independent nature. Yet, while we would allow for such an interpretive option, we would be in disagreement with it. We are of the opinion that, if the function can be explained through ellipsis or anacoluthon, it ceases to be an independent usage. In the case of ellipsis, the participle would then be explained as periphrastic. On the other hand, to say that the usage is anacoluthon fails to take into account the semantics of the function. Since (as we will argue below) it was used both in the NT as well as the papyri as an alternative way of expressing an imperatival idea, there is no reason to argue that the sentence has been rendered ungrammatical. Moreover, what Robertson fails to realize is that the two options are mutually exclusive. As Turner has point out, if a copula is assumed (i.e., ellipsis), then anacoluthon is ruled out (Nigel Turner, Syntax. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3. [ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963], 343; hereafter referred to as MHT 3).
19 A possible reason for this confusion is Daube’s adamant rejection of the evidence from the papyri. In this way, both he and Winer would on the same side, arguing against the position of Moulton. (This scenario, of course, assumes that, having known about the papyri evidence, Winer would have rejected it. Ultimately, such a hypothesis cannot be substantiated.) On the surface, such a denial is what one would expect from a proponent of the position that completely discards the validity of the imperatival function (e.g., Winer). Yet, Daube’s stance flows not from his views on the function’s legitimacy but from his conclusions concerning the development of the function. For him, the imperatival function is a valid category found within the pages of the NT. However, it arose not out of Hellenism but from Semitic influence. Because this point is not often brought to the surface, it appears as if Daube and Moulton are split on a point in which they are actually in agreement.
20 MHT 3:87-88; BDF 179-180 [§353].
21 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 310.
22 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 640-645.
23 Further examples of the independent proper participle in the papyri include: P.Fay. 113.10-12 (A.D. 100); P.Fay. 114.3-5 (A.D. 100); P.Fay. 116. 3 (A.D. 104); P.Giss.Univ-Bibl 21.3-4 (2nd cent. A.D.); P.Lond.Inv No 1575.2-3 (3rd cent. A.D.); P.Lond. 234.17-20 (4th cent. A.D.); P.Gen. 55.6ff (4th cent. A.D.); P.Lond. 412.11-12 (A.D. 351); B.G.U. 1676.6-10 (2nd cent. A.D.); P.Oxy. 244.3-7 (A.D. 23); 725.47-48 (A.D. 183); P.Teb. 58.50-51 (111 B.C.).
24 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 376.
25 Further examples of the formulaic usage of the imperatival participle in the papyri include: P.Grenf. I 30.6-11 (103 B.C.); P.Par. 63.18ff (164 B.C.); Path.P. 1.11f (?); P.Teb. 19.14-15 (118 B.C.); P.Teb. 20.10 (113 B.C.); P.Lond. 42.32 (168 B.C.).
26 Barrett, “The Imperatival Participle,” 165.
27 Daube, “Participle and the Imperative in I Peter,” 468.
28 Basil G. Mandalaris, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenistic Ministry of Culture and Studies, 1973), 372-373.
29 Further examples of the non-formulaic usage of the imperatival participle in the papyri include: P.Fay. 109. 10-11 (1st cent. A.D.); P.Fay. 112.8-14 (103 B.C.); P.CairoZen. 59154.1-3 (256 B.C.); P.CairoZen. 59251.6-7bis (252 B.C.).
30 Henry B. Robison, Syntax of the Participle in the Apostolic Fathers, in the Editio Minor of Gerbhardt-Harnack-Zahn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1913), 40.
31 Further examples of the independent use of the participle in the Apostolic Fathers include: Barn. 19:1; Ign. Smyrn. 1:1.
32 Further examples of the independent use of the participle in the Classical period include: Q 307;Y 546; Thucydides 1.111; 4.16; Plato, Phaedrus 228; Plato, Phaedo 74b; Plato, Philebus, 30; Sophocles, Antigone, 404. cf. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausfürliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache: Satzlehre (4th ed; Leverkusen: Gottschalksche, 1955), 2:109.
33 Robertson, Grammar, 944.
34 MHT 1:223-224.
35 Ibid, 224.
36 Barrett, “The Imperatival Participle,” 166.
37 E.g., Barrett, “The Imperatival Participle,” 165-166; Moule, Idiom Book, 179-180; idem, “Peculiarities in the Language of II Corinthians,” in Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 158-161; Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Rom XII.9-21,” 83-94; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 329; Kanjurparambil, “Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9-21,” 285-288; Max Wilcox, “Semitisms in the New Testament,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. vol. 25, pt. 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), 1016; Miller, “The Imperativals of Romans 12,” 173-174; David Alan Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9-21,” FNT 2 (1989): 17. Cf. also Joseph Viteau, (Etude sur le grec du Nouveau Testament: le verbe, syntaxe des propositions [Paris: Emile Bouillon, 1893], 200ff) who explains it as a Hebraism from its use in the LXX.
38 Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 467-488. Although some of the proponents of the Semitic position may not agree with Daube at every point, our assessment of the position and following critique will center mainly on his work. There are two reasons for such an approach: (1) Daube was one of the first major proponents of the position (if not the first). For this reason, most who have come after him have simply accepted his conclusions without further inquiry. Thus the position has stayed somewhat stable over the years. (2) Daube is one of the only proponents to provide a thorough defense of the position. Again, this probably ties into the first point. Apparently those who have followed him agree that the view was set forth and defended adequately at its initial introduction.
39 Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 471.
40 The Tannaitic era is one of two major periods into which rabbinic writings are divided (the other being Amoraic). Its timeframe extends from ca. 50 B.C. to A.D. 200. More specifically, it stretches from the establishment of the early academies of Shammai and Hillel to the completion of the Mishnah under Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (A.D. 135-217) in the first decade of the third century A.D.
41 Notice the absence in some of the standard Classical Hebrew grammars: Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch. 2d ed. Translated by A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 355-362; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), 409-418, esp. 410; Bruce K. Waltke, and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 612-631. Cf. also Amnon Gordon, “The Development of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 8 (1982): 121-179.
42 M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 159; Miguel Perez Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (Translated by John Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137.
43 Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 474-475.
44 Ibid, 470.
45 Three points of dissimilarity are suggested by Daube (“Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 470-471): (1) In the NT the adjective is used alongside the participle, both carrying an imperatival force. Yet, in the papyri, no such adjectival use can be found. (2) The imperatival participle in the NT is only used for rules and codes of conduct, while in the papyri there are examples seemingly used as direct commands. (3) In the NT, unlike the papyri, the imperatival function is restricted to one particular context: the Haustafeln and similar types of rules.
46 Recently, Philip Kanjuparambil (“Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9-21,” 285-288) has proposed parallels between Rom 12:9-19 and The Manual of Disciple (1QS). In this way, he attempts to remedy one of the major problems that has plagued Daube’s position, namely, finding parallels that pre-date the biblical sources. But despite his efforts, Kanjuparambil’s treatment contains two major weaknesses that impede any inherent value: (1) a failure to differentiate between grammatical and contextual/exegetical comparisons; (2) the absence of any substantial evidence that the imperatival forms operate in a similar manner to those in the NT. This same omission is what stalled the work of Daube. While depicting the imperatival usage in two different traditions, there was never any conclusive proof set forth to establish dependence on the part of the biblical authors. In fact, when all the evidence was considered, the NT usage came closer to the papyri than any Hebrew sources. Kanjuparambil does not answer this problem, but simply restates the invalid assumption of Daube, namely, that both participles (i.e., those in 1QS and NT) were used for commands of a derivative nature. Thus, in essence, his work moves the discussion no further than that of Daube. Apart from this there are three major differences (acknowledged by the author himself) between the two texts that seem to make dependence unlikely: (a) While Romans is a direct exhortation in the second person, 1QS is indirect, thus placed in the third person. (b) Rom 12:9-19 is made up primarily of exhortation; on the other hand, 1QS has diverse determinations and explanations. (c) A different “spirit” animated Paul and his respective community than the one related to 1QS.
47 Although Daube mistakenly restricted the imperatival use to the Haustafeln, thereby limiting the participle’s full range of usage, a helpful corrective has been provided by Salom (“The Imperatival Use of the Participle,” 43). While acknowledging that examples exist outside the household codes, he argues that the presence of the function in merely one type of NT context would not eliminate the possibility of a genuine Hellenistic development. As proof he offers the increased use of parataxis in Hellenistic literature, a usage that is limited primarily to a certain type of narrative in the NT. Yet, none would deny that is was a natural development out of the language of Hellenism.
48 This is evident from the participles’ connection with other imperatival forms. Not only do they appear alongside finite imperatives in lists of exhortation (cf. Rom 12:9-19), they are also connected in a coordinate manner with finite forms. In each case the same volitional force is carried by both forms (cf. Rom 12:19; 1 Pet 1:14-15).
49 Salom, “The Imperatival Use of the Participle,” 44.
50 The only difference between the use in the papyri and in the NT is the fact that biblical usage is limited as to the case, number, and gender that is employed. In each instance the biblical authors use the nominative masculine plural form. However, in the papyri no such limitations are found.
51 Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), 165-168; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 373.
52 Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: An Introduction (Northvale, NJ.: Aronson, 1989), 42-53; idem, The Mishnah Before 70 (Brown Judaic Studies 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), ix; Abraham Goldberg, “The Mishnah – A Study Book of Halakha,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai. Part 1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 215; Hyam Maccoby, Early Rabbinic Writings (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. vol. 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 30.
53 Talbert, “Tradition and Redaction in Romans XII.9-21,” 93 n. 6.
54 Max Wilcox, “Semitisms in the New Testament,” 1016.
55 Bastiaan Van Elderen, Jr., “The Pauline Use of the Participle” (ThD diss., Pacific School of Religion, 1960), 154 n. 1.
56 E.g., MHT 3:343; Van Elderen, Jr., “The Pauline Use of the Participle,” 142.
57 In response to this argument three points need to be made. First, within the various imperatival forms in Romans 12 there is one instance in which the finite imperative is present alongside the adjective (Rom 12:16). The remarkable thing is that the verb is givnesqe not ejstev. Secondly, while the imperatival use of ejstev is not found in the NT, this does not mean that it was non-existent in the Koine period (cf. 1 Clem. 45:1). Third, simply because the adjective seems to demand the ellipsis of a finite imperative does not necessarily imply that the participle requires any elided form to produce a volitional force. This is the mistake made by Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 386 n. 81) who attempts to correct Moulton’s suggestion by positing the ellipsis of an imperatival participle before the adjectives. What he fails to realize is that the two forms are not inter-related as if the form and function of one dictates the form and function of the other.
58 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 386 n. 81.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 E.g., Karleen, “The Syntax of the Participle,” 158-159. Although Karleen’s work pre-dates that of Fanning, it was the latter who brought the issues to an explicit level. McKay (A New Syntax of the Verb, 82-84), like many interpreters confuses the attendant circumstance function with the imperatival. Therefore, he could be placed in this category as well.
62 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 386.
63 Cf. Cleon Rogers, Jr., “The Great Commission,” BSac 130 (1973): 258-267.
64 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 652.
65 MHT 3:230.
66 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 640-643.
67 Antonius N. Jannaris, A Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London: Macmillan, 1897), 504.
68 Ibid, 505.
69 Robertson, Grammar, 1178.
70 One objection that could be posed is this: “Does the syntactic equality found in Classical and Koine periods necessarily correlate to semantic equality?” That is, does the mere connection of a participle and a finite verb by a coordinate conjunction prove that the two ideas are semantically coordinate (thus placing the two verbal forms on the same level of force)? If the paratactic connection between the participle and other finite forms is simply a stylistic variation of hypotaxis, then this would be a damaging blow for anyone who attempts to argue for an independent function in the Classical period. Nevertheless, this objection does not hold up because it forces a Semitic style and mindset onto the language hundreds of years before the influence of the NT. While there is an overabundance of syntactically paratactic / semantically hypotactic constructions in Hebrew as well as much of the literature in the NT, one should not assume the same is true in classical Greek. When the evidence is evaluated, this is clearly not the case. In Classical literature, the participle is used in semantically paratactic constructions (e.g., Herodotus 4.185.2; Thucydides 1.25.4; 1.42.1). Thus, it would be valid to say that the participle did gain some measure of independence in the Classical period, an independence that carried on into the time of the NT.
71 In the NT there are a handful of instances where an independent proper participle is connected in a coordinate manner with a finite verb (Rom 5:11; 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 5:12; 7:5; 11:6; 2 Thess 3:8). As far as imperatival participles connected with finite imperatives, the number is somewhat less (Rom 12:19; 1 Pet 1:14-15) (cf. MHT 3:343). Imperatival participles are also connected in a coordinate manner (Rom 12:16; 1 Pet 3:9).
72 Examples of paratactic coordination from classical Greek include: Herodotus 4.185.2; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 1.3.5; 2.3.8, 17, 21; 3.3.9; 4.2.10; 5.3.30; 5.4.29; 8.2.24; Thucydides 1.25.4; 1.42.1; 1.57, 58; 4.100; Plato, Theaetetus, 144c; Demosthenes, 57.11 (cf. William E. Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language (4th ed; Oxford: James Parker, 1866), 410-410; Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, 505; J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, Accidence and Word-Formation. Vol. 2, A Grammar of New Testament Greek [ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1929], 428-429; Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik. Ed. A. Debrunner [Munich: Beck, 1950], 2:406-407; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar. Revised by G. M. Messing [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956], 477). For further examples, see Kühner-Gerth, Grammatik, 2:109.
73 BDF 245 [§468 (2)] suggests a similar idea. They postulate that the function arose out of its coordination with finite forms.
74 Examples of the protasis expressed by a participle include: Demosthenes 18.209; 21.120; Aristophanes, Nubes, 904; Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.1.2. Examples of the apodosis expressed by a participle include: Xenophon, Anabasis, 1.1.10 (cf. Smyth, Greek Grammar, 530-532; William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar [Rev. C. B. Gulick; Boston: Ginn, 1930], 300).
75 Examples of the participle’s use in indirect discourse include: Xenophon, Anabasis, 1.10.16; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 1.6.6; Lysias 4.7 (cf. Basil L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, from Homer to Demosthenes [New York: American, 1900-1911], 142-143; Smyth Greek Grammar, 470; Albert Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction [Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984], 114-115).
76 Smyth, Greek Grammar, 470.
77 E.g., Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 467; Verlyn D. Verbrugge, “The Collection and Paul’s Leadership of the Church in Corinth.” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1988), 208. Porter (Verbal Aspect, 370-371) seems to portray Moulton as oblivious to the phenomenon in classical Greek. He describes his view as follows: “the imperatival participle, while not found in classical Greek, is a phenomenon attested in Hellenistic Greek if only sporadically” (italics mine). However, Moulton’s argument never denies the function’s pre-Koine existence. In fact, he quotes from Thumb who observes the function in both classical and Hellenistic Greek (MHT 1:225). Nevertheless, the language used in the Moulton-Daube conflict (e.g., the strong insistence to validate or invalidate the evidence from the papyri) seemed to imply that both parties considered the usage a recent development.
78 Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 504-505.
79 Meecham, “The Use of the Participle for the Imperative,” 207-208.
80 A subsequent set of guidelines for 1 Peter was presented by Scot Snyder (“Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter,” 197-198). His rules include: (1) the imperatival participle is a genuine category; (2) it must stand independent of a main verb; (3) the number of imperatival participles in 1 Peter is fewer than some suppose; and (4) imperatival participles do exist in 1 Peter. While his attempt should be commended, these guidelines are somewhat less than useful. The first is not a guideline for determining imperatival participles; instead, it is the assumption upon which such a search is built. To say that the imperatival participle is a genuine category says nothing about how to pick out such an occurrence. Similarly, the third rule offers little in the way of helping one to understand what constitutes an imperatival participle; instead, it is merely a statistical observation pertaining to a certain locale. Furthermore, the final guideline is essentially the same as rule number one, only with more location specificity. The second rule is the only actual guideline for determining the characteristics of imperatival participles. However, it is not a new principle, for others have suggested the same guideline in previous treatments.
81 Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, 6-7.
82 If such a distinction were to be made it would be as follows: Grammatical (morphological, structural, etc.): (a) it must be nominative plural; (b) it cannot be attributive or equivalent to a noun (i.e., substantival); (c) it cannot be part of a conditional or final clause; and (d) it cannot be due to loose apposition or anacoluthon. Textual: the reading must be textually certain. Contextual: it should be directly connected with the addressees. Semantic: its meaning should not be too passive.
83 E.g., Matt 7:7ter; Mark 11:29; Luke 10:28; 11:9ter; John 2:19; 7:52; 16:24; Acts 16:31; Eph 5:14bis; Jas 4:7, 8, 10; Cf. James L. Boyer, “The Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 8 (1987): 38-40; Daniel B. Wallace, “ jOrgivzesqe in Ephesians 4:26: Command or Condition?” CTR 3 (1989): 367-371.
84 In the NT the usage can be found in works that are considered some of the better, more literary Greek in the NT (e.g., Hebrews, 1 Peter, Paul). On the other hand, there are traces of the function in literature that is characterized by very bad Greek as well (e.g., P.Teb. 42.5-8).
85 To understand what we are attempting in this section we will take an illustration from the animal world. Across our planet today there are numerous types of birds. Each species varies from another in areas such as wingspan, shape of beak, size of talons, etc. Thus, one way to study the animal would be to list all the various traits of each species. In this way, one would have an exhaustive list of what a bird could look like. Another way to study the bird would be to find the common denominator between every species. In this way, the study would determine the specific characteristics that distinguish a bird from other animals. Here the analysis would center around what a bird must look like.
86 As in the case of many of the examples from the papyri, the participle was used to carry an imperatival force in the closing form of a letter. However, as point out above, since conventional phrases were often thrown into participial forms in closing formulas, the use does not seem to be equivalent with non-formulaic instances elsewhere. Thus, it will be excluded from our list of valid examples.
87 Although the frequency with which the statement is employed has made it almost cliché, Robertson’s word of caution still rings true as the most important guideline for locating an imperatival participle: “In general it may be said that no participle should be explained in this way that can properly be connected with a finite verb” (Robertson, Grammar, 1133-1134; a similar point is made in an earlier discussion: “This use of the participle should not be appealed to if the principal verb is present in the immediate context” [946]).
88 Further examples of the imperatival participle in the NT include: Rom 12:9-19 (17 times); 1 Pet 1:14; 3:1, 7, 9; 4:8, 10.
89 Further instances of questionable examples include: 2 Pet 3:3.
90 Further instances of invalid examples include: 2 Cor 6:3-10; 9:11, 13; Eph 3:17; 5:16, 19-21, 22; Phil 1:30; 2:3; Col 2:2; 3:16; 1 Pet 1:22; 2:12; 3:15-16.
91 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), 208.
92 Daube, “Participle and Imperative in I Peter,” 475-476.
93 Miller, “The Imperativals of Romans 12,” 173.
94 Ibid, 174.
95 Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13 (JSNTSupp 59; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
96 Ibid, 90 n. 2.
97 Thompson’s position, namely, that unfamiliarity is the reason for the employment of the participle, suffers from three problems: (1) It fails to note the kind of language used by the apostle throughout the rest of the epistle. In the book of Romans, Paul uses the finite imperative 39 times (excluding quotations and closing salutations) (Rom 6:11, 12, 13bis, 19; 11:18, 20bis, 22; 12:2bis, 14ter, 16, 19, 20bis, 21bis; 13:1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14bis; 14:1, 3bis, 5, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22; 15:2, 7; 16:17). Thus, there does not appear to be any hint of hesitancy on the part of the apostle to employ a more forceful construction. (2) The letter to the Colossians is evidence that Paul was not afraid of offering commands to a congregation whose members he had not known personally. There the finite imperative is used a total of 28 times (excluding salutations and quotations). Furthermore, in some cases where this type of softer directive might have been called for, the imperative is applied (compare Col 3:18, 19, 22 with 1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7). (3) The imperatival participle is used in situations where both the author and recipients are well acquainted with one another (2 Cor 8:24). As such, the lack of familiarity between the author and his audience does not seem to an adequate explanation to the problem.
98 Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, 125.
99 Ibid, 28.
100 However, if such an approach is to be followed, it will have to be grounded in something other than the ambiguity created by imperatival participles. Thurén’s position, while interesting, falls short of convincing as a result of his failure to demonstrate his thesis outside of 1 Peter. While it may be possible to construe the evidence in order to support such a theory within an individual epistle, no such success can be achieved when the reading is carried over into the rest of the NT corpus.
101 By semantics we are referring to “meaning as it is conveyed by language, specifically by the particular forms of language [in this case, participles which appear where finite imperatives might have been expected]” (Porter, Idioms, 313). A more precise definition has been offered by Joseph D. Fantin: “semantic meaning is the meaning which a grammatical form brings to the communication process unaffected by context or lexical content” (“The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach,” [PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003], 163).
102 Daniel B. Wallace, “The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament,” GTJ 6 (1985): 92.
103 This strategy contains both positive and negative aspects. Positively, it allows the interpreter the opportunity to analyze the function on its own merits, without any preconceptions of how it works in other places. In this way it becomes easier to pick up on a particular nuance intended by an individual author. On the other hand, it would be wrong to think that a function could be separated from its use outside a given pericope. Only through an examination of all known examples can one gain an understand of the function’s range of usage. Furthermore, and along with this, any methodology which assumes that significant deductions can be drawn concerning the semantics of a given structure without a sufficient database from which to draw is seriously flawed (cf. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 1).
104 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 485.
105 Rom 12:9-19 (14 times); Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 1:14; 2:18; 3:1, 7, 9; 4:8, 10; P.Teb. 59.8-11; P.Fay. 112.8-14; P.CairoZen. 59154.1-3; P.CairoZen. 59251.6-7bis; Diogn. 2.1ter.
106 Fantin, “The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament,” 178.
107 This is verified in two ways: (1) Historically, the imperatival function arose as a natural Hellenistic development (as argued above). As a part of this development the participle performed many of the duties of a finite form (e.g., protasis, apodosis, indirect discourse, etc.). Thus, from the beginning it carried the full weight of its verbal dimension. (2) Structurally, the use of imperatival participles in paratactic coordination and synonymous parallelism with finite imperatives reveals a comparable force explicit in both forms. This thesis is further corroborated by McKay’s work on the aspect of imperatival constructions. He notes that, “when a participle replaces an imperative or jussive subjunctive it preserves the aspect the verb would have had in that mood” (“Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” NovT 27 [1985]: 224. For further information on the aspect of imperatival constructions, see J. P. Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” Acta Classica 2 [1959]: 43-57; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 335-361; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 325-388; Dave Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions,” FNT 9 [1996]: 21-35). Although he confuses the imperatival function with attendant circumstance, his analysis still contains benefit.
108 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 15.
109 Martin Luther, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. W. Brandt and H. Lehman (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962), 364.
Related Topics: Grammar
We Have A Redeemer Review of 'Hotel Rwanda'
Related MediaThe Rwandan Genocide was the organized murder of up to one million Rwandans in 1994. It is commonly portrayed as an eruption of ethnic conflict in which militias of the Hutu ethnic majority, with the connivance of the Hutu-dominated government, attempted to carry out an ethnic cleansing of the minority Tutsis, and of Hutu moderates who opposed the genocide. Other explanations focus on the role of political elites in mobilizing and arming supporters. Despite warnings before and intelligence during the genocide about the scale of the violence, the United Nations declined to take positive action.
From Wikipedia (Rwandan_Genocide)
Hotel Rwanda (2004) is a movie about the tremendous genocide that happened in just 3 months in 1994. Don Cheadle portrays Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel general manager who saves more than 1,000 Tutsis and Hutus from murder by providing for them in the Belgian-run hotel he manages (Hotel des Mille Collines).
Two recurrent themes jump out at me from the movie Hotel Rwanda. First, that everything has a price. Paul Rusesabagina pays for his family’s and neighbors’ freedom and life by bribing an army officer, even negotiating the price for each. He is able to purchase beer and scotch for the hotel from the distributor, as long as he is willing to pay the price demanded. He consistently bribes the army general for protection for the hotel’s occupants from the armed militia. And when the bribes run out, so does the protection.
The second major theme is one of self-reliance, or absence of external help. Throughout the movie it is repeated that the “West” refuses to help or does not value the Rwandans enough to intervene in the genocide. The West’s refusal to intervene is seen when the UN peacekeeping force has orders to not use their weapons. It’s seen in the size of the UN peacekeeping force, reduced to 260 men at the beginning of the genocide and civil war in 1994. In the movie this last reduction proved a false hope for the survivors holed up in the hotel. UN ‘reinforcements’ arrive, only to evacuate many UN peacekeepers and foreign citizens from Rwanda and the hotel, respectively. There is also an episode where certain Rwandans who have foreign connections are granted visas to leave the country because of the intervention of their friends (mostly from African nations). The contrast of this action to the West’s non-intervention is stark. “Who you know” becomes a factor in survival. The distributor where Paul purchases supplies is a member of the Hutu militia. But because he knows him and has had a business relationship with him for years, he’s able (at a price) to still secure supplies for the hotel residents.
Both of these themes meet together in the Bible in a very different way. Paul Rusesabagina is a sort of messiah character who pays for the redemption of the residents of the hotel. However in the Bible, it is very clear from Romans 3 that we are hopeless and it seems like no help is coming.
10 just as it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one, 11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 17 and the way of peace they have not known."… For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Unlike in Hotel Rwanda, the condemned (that’s us) cannot rely on themselves to get out of this mess that is sin and death. Unlike in the movie, neither is anyone far away nor any of our friends going to help us get out of this predicament; namely that we deserve death as punishment. The Rwandans didn’t deserve the genocide that was inflicted on them. But we do deserve our punishment (Rom. 6:23). Both the good news and the bad news is that there is a price for our sin. It’s bad news, because we can’t pay it; but the good news is that someone did.
There is a redeemer; Jesus, God's own Son
Precious lamb of God, Messiah, Holy One
Thank you O my Father, for giving us your Son
And leaving your Spirit 'til the work on earth is done.
There Is A Redeemer
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)
The ungodly (that’s us) have a redeemer in Jesus Christ who paid the penalty for our sin on the cross. Praise God for a man like Paul Rusesabagina who saved over 1,000 of his fellow Rwandans from physical death because it reminds us of the Redeemer who saves us and countless others from a far worse fate.
Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation)
General
With One Accord
"With one accord? is a wonderful little statement. You find it at least six times in the Book of the Acts. In Acts 1:14, they were in one accord in supplication. Acts 2:1 says, "When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.? Here they were in one accord in anticipation. Acts 2:46 says, "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their food with gladness and singleness of heart.? Here the church was in one accord in continuation'they continued together in serving the Lord. In Acts 4:24 we have the local church in prayer: "And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God.? They were in one accord in adoration, worshiping and praising God and praying.
In Acts 2:43 we read: "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch).? They were in one accord in their association; no divisions, no backbiting, no criticizing. Acts 15:25 contains another reference to "one accord?: "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul.? They were in one accord in their determination.
Power of Satan
The Devil always fights the church when the church is on the move. Charles Spurgeon used to say that Satan never kicks a dead horse. Satan knew that the church was on the move, so he attacked it. In Acts 2 we read that 3000 people were converted. Then what happened? According to Acts 4, Satan came like a lion and had the apostles threatened. In chapter 5, Satan came like a serpent, influencing Ananias and Sapphira to infect the church with their lying and hypocrisy. If Satan can't win by persecution from the outside, he will try pollution on the inside. Then Satan came as the accuser in Acts 6. One group of widows accused the other group of widows of taking over. "We are being neglected,? they said. Satan likes to get the saints to accuse one another. Then according to Acts 12, Satan came as a murderer. James was killed, and Peter was put into prison to be kept for execution.
Article Tagging Information/Help
help page for the tagging project
- requirements sponsor (acting)- daustin/joe head/ (if you want this job please select new ticketabove in a new tab and change the \"type\" of ticket from \"defect\" to\"feedback\" and fill out the ticket use your email as reporter (if youhave logged in it fills in the reporter automatically )and help page for the tagging project
- requirements sponsor (acting)- daustin/joe head/ (if you want this job please select new ticket above in a new tab and change the "type" of ticket from "defect" to "feedback" and fill out the ticket use your email as reporter (if you have logged in it fills in the reporter automatically )and volunteer
- project manager daustin
- implementation developer Brian Seagraves
Help page for understanding the tagging test page
The tagging project will develop a user tagging box that is on the top right of every article. the test page has this box and which looks like:
Help Tag this Article
Official Tag(s): prayer
Add some tags
Tagging Results
If you Login,
your tags count more
Info/Help
Report a problem/suggestion
Explanation of the format above:
- The help tag this article is an instruction to induce a user to begin tagging
- When a person logs in this changes to read usersname help tag this article
- There is a box for the user to Add some tags (note there is a pop up instruction when you mouse over the box to add a tag word.)
- And a place for them to click add when they have a word they want to suggest we add to the topic and key word list
- current shortfall notes:
- the ability to collect multi words in the data base works but they are not displayed by the underlying sw in a manor that is currently viewable example "tag prayer meeting" (it actually stores the entry "prayer meeting" as a multi word but it is displaying the words singlely prayer which it increments up 1 as it is already on the list and meeting. the display is driven by what it calls its "normalized" data
- word entered currently can not be removed
- The next major item is the Tagging results (see the picture below and the explanation )
- The next line says: If you Login your tags count more (we will log the users id and associate it with the tag and we will weigh more heavily the scholarly users from the normal user and the anonymous user. We hope to get a set of volunteers or interns to form a review board of the tags and move some to the official borg tag list. All of this is done to assist netbible in doing a better job in the discovery box.
- The next line is info/help and it points to this page
- The next line is the “report a problem/suggestion” this goes to the new ticket link in the trac ticket system.
------------------------ the tagging results popup looks like ------------------------------------------
Report a problem/suggestion
------ explaniation of these lines ----------
Bible.org Tags:
PrayerThese are the official tags that are in the borg database. This test article is officially tagged with prayer
User Tags:Occurrences:
prayer 4click on prayer and up will come
Agree with "prayer"? Close click yes to increment the number of Occurrences of prayer from 4 to 5 (click no is not implemented yet)
click on the number (4 in the case of prayer above) and you get the names of the people who voted for the tag in this case when i made this help page thye 4 votes were
OFFICIAL
Anonymous
Brian Seagraves
Anonymousif you attempt to stack the ratings by voting more than once for a tag you will get the error "Sorry, you have already used this/these tag(s): "prayer ".":
more words shown here as the users input them
these are all the words that users have suggested and the number of occurances
this will increment and add new words as users “add tag words”Machine Tags:
Probability:
There are no machine tags yet!
This is where we run a machine tagger and ask the users to validate or reject its selection
This takes one to the new ticket link in trac ticket system
last updated 9/25/07 daustin
Getting Married or Know Someone who is?
It is Summer... That means it is time for couples to bind their lives together in Christ!
Here are some free bible.org helpful resources for Pastors and those preparing to get married or who have friends that will be this summer:
- Pre-Marriage Counseling Guide
-
The Meaning of Christian Marriage
(Eph. 5:21-32) - The Makings of a Christian Marriage
- 13 Sample Wedding Vows (huge help)
- 18 Sample Wedding Ceremonies
- Marriage: Intimates or Inmates? (Boa)
Bible.org has some excellent gifts that will help that new marriage last a lifetime:
-
NET Bibles - Beautiful leather Bibles from bible.org (Get their names engraved!)
- Burgundy Leather - Under $30 if your budget is a little tight
- Stunningly beautiful British Tan Leather - FREE engraved name on front
- Preparing for Your Marriage - An excellent resource pre-marriage counseling