BiblicalGreek - Tumblr Posts

The Septuagint's Translation of Daniel 12.1-2 Suggests an Eschatological Messianic Resurrection

By Author Eli Kittim

The Hebrew name מִיכָאֵל (i.e. Mikha'el) means "who is like God?". It is a rhetorical question, the implication of which is that no person is like God. Interestingly enough, the biblical terminology used to describe Michael is often similar to that of the Messiah. For example, "the archangel Michael" (Jude 1.9), who is described in the Old Testament as "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10.13), is clearly identified with Christ the "anointed prince" (Dan. 9.25) in 1 Thess. 4.16:

"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first" (NRSV).

In Dan. 12.1 there is a reference to a great prince named Michael, depicted as "the protector of your people," who “shall arise” during the time of the great ordeal (i.e. the great tribulation).

The so-called ‘Theodotion Daniel’ form of the LXX translates the Hebrew term עָמַד  aw-mad (i.e. "shall arise") as *ἀναστήσεται*, meaning a bodily resurrection.

The Theodotion Daniel (Δανιηλ 12.1) reads:

Καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαήλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου· καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως, θλίψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου·

Translation:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence" (NRSV).

The Old Greek (LXX) goes on to say:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον (Dan. 12.2).

It is translated as follows:

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (NRSV).

The word *ἀναστήσεται* is the future middle indicative from ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of *ἀνάστασις* and means to ‘raise up’ or to 'raise from the dead.' Accordingly, notice how the term *ἀναστήσεται* in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Th Dan. 12.1, we have the singular form *ἀναστήσεται* ("shall arise"). Similarly, *ἀναστήσονται* (the plural form in the OG Dan. 12.2) represents an explicit reference to a resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12.4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

But how does one do that voluntarily?

Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?

——-

Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).

——-

So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?

Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?

——-

It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!

It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?

——-

Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!

——-

If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!

——-

Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:

“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).

Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!

——-

The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).

——-

So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!

——-

Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:

“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).

But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).

Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:

“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?

Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!

——-

Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?

“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).

The Original Greek text reads:

ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;

That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!

Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!

——-

Conclusion

The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.

What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!

And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?

——-

Both Iris & Toxon mean Rainbow in the Bible

By Eli Kittim 🎓

All the Evidence Points to a Christ-Like Figure in Rev. 6.2

In this study I want to focus primarily on two words, iris & toxon, in order to show how they completely change our understanding of Revelation 6.2. But before I do this, I would first like to show you some proofs concerning the implied benevolence of the White horseman of the Apocalypse. That the white horse is a symbol of purity and righteousness is multiply attested by its linguistic usage patterns. For example, the phrase “and behold, a white horse,” in Rev. 19.11, is identical to the one used in Revelation 6.2. In other words, the two white horses of Revelation 19 & 6 represent the exact same figure who “is called Faithful and True” (Rev. 19.11)! That’s why Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141).

This is also confirmed by the type of crown the rider of the white horse wears. Stephanos “crowns” are typically worn by believers and victors in Christ (see e.g. the Greek text of Matthew 27.29; James 1.12; 2 Timothy 4.8; 1 Peter 5.4; Revelation 2.10; 4.4; 14.14)! All these proofs clearly show that the white horseman of Rev. 6.2 is neither deceptive nor evil, as many Bible commentators would have us believe!

The Hebrew Bible Uses the Word Bow for Rainbow

In the New Testament, the Greek noun ἶρις (iris) means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2463.htm). Curiously enough, the Greek noun τόξον (toxon), which we find in Rev. 6.2, means “bow” but——as we shall see——it also means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/5115.htm). Τόξον can be seen as a contraction for ουράνιον τόξον (rainbow), from Ancient Greek οὐρανός ("heaven") + τόξον ("bow").

Given that the Greek noun “iris” is the most widely used term for “rainbow” in the New Testament, some commentators argue that since the word in Rev. 6.2 is “toxon,” not “iris,” it means that “toxon” (τόξον) cannot possibly refer to a rainbow. However, many notable Bible commentators, such as Chuck Missler, have said that the “bow” (toxon) in Rev. 6.2 appears to represent the “rainbow” of Genesis 9.13. In other words, the bow (toxon) represents the peace-covenant of Genesis 9.13. The actual verse in Genesis 9.13 (NRSV) reads:

“I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”

Bear in mind that Genesis 9.13 uses the Hebrew phrase qaš·tî (קַשְׁתִּ֕י), which means “my bow.” It comes from the Hebrew noun קֶשֶׁת (qesheth), which means——wait for it——a bow (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7198.htm).

The Septuagint (LXX) Translates the Hebrew Word for Rainbow with the Greek Word Toxon

Further evidence that “toxon” (bow) can mean “rainbow” comes from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Lo and behold, the Septuagint translates “rainbow” as τόξον (toxon) in Genesis 9.13!

Thus, this brief study illustrates my point, namely, that “iris” and “toxon” are interchangeable in the Bible! The Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis 9.13 by L.C.L. Brenton reads as follows:

τὸ τόξον μου τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.

Translation:

“I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of covenant between me and the earth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, both “iris” and “toxon” mean “rainbow” in the Bible! They are interchangeable terms. This means that the rider of the “white horse … [who] had a bow” (τόξον), in Rev. 6.2, is symbolically holding the “rainbow,” which represents the covenant of peace between God & man in Genesis 9.13!

A Response to Bill Mounce’s God's Gracious Gift of Suffering (Phil 1:29)

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Bill Mounce is a well-known scholar of New Testament Greek. He serves on the Committee for the NIV translation of the Bible, and has written a classic biblical Greek textbook, “Basics of Biblical Greek,” among other things. He blogs regularly on New Testament Greek at BillMounce.com.

Does God Give us the Grace to Suffer? Or the Grace to Endure Suffering?

Recently, I came across a piece of writing by Greek scholar Bill Mounce. In that paper, Mounce took issue with what “a popular preacher” was saying, namely, that “All suffering … is outside of God’s will.” Mounce shot back at the pastor for making an “absurdly non-biblical statement.” In calling him out, Mounce began to expound Phil 1.27–30. He writes:

Translations generally are not able to bring

out the nuances of this verse, nor the

awkward Greek. Paul begins, ‘for it has

been granted (ἐχαρίσθη) to you on behalf of

Christ.’ χαρίζομαι means ‘to give freely as a

favor, give graciously’ (BDAG). χαρίζομαι is

the cognate verb for the familiar noun,

χάρις, meaning ‘grace.’ The NLT translates,

‘you have been given ... the privilege.’ The

following are gracious gifts to Christians: 

to believe in him (τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν),

and

to suffer for him (τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν).

The theology of the “popular pastor” denies

God’s gracious gift of suffering.

In other words, Mounce believes that our suffering——regardless of what form it takes——is actually a gracious gift from God. Thus, one can reasonably argue that if a person has cancer, or if he has lost all his limbs, as well as his eyesight or hearing, then this is a wonderful, gracious gift from God, and, therefore, the person should thank him for it! Not only does this view attribute the cause of all evil to God (cf. 1 John 1.5), but it also calls evil good (cf. Isaiah 5.20). Paradoxically, it is a glorification of suffering and evil. Mounce writes:

I have heard sermons on God’s gracious gift

of faith to his children; I have yet to hear a

sermon on God’s gracious gift of suffering.

That’s unfortunate, to understate it in the

extreme.

But just because we may have faced similar struggles with our fellow Christians, or we may have suffered for righteousness’ sake, doesn’t mean that these evils were deliberately sent our way. And just because suffering can test us, through which we may be purified, doesn’t mean that God himself is behind these temptations, orchestrating them, one by one. It would be far more accurate to call it God's "permissive will” in allowing suffering and evil to exist.

This idea is often misunderstood by other writers as well. For example, if the followers of Christ are said to experience the same sufferings that the Apostles in the New Testament experienced, then it means that they, too, have entered into the kingdom of God, renewed their minds, and shared in God’s consolation. In other words, the afflictions exist to frighten us from walking along the spiritual path (cf. Phil. 2.12). It doesn’t mean that these obstacles, temptations, and afflictions are ipso facto created by God. That’s what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 1.6-7:

If we are being afflicted, it is for your

consolation and salvation; if we are being

consoled, it is for your consolation, which

you experience when you patiently endure

the same sufferings that we are also

suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for

we know that as you share in our sufferings,

so also you share in our consolation.

Mounce then goes on to enumerate the various benefits that suffering brings to the followers of Christ. He says “Suffering binds us together,” “strengthens our faith,” purifies our faith, and so on. And he rightly says that “if we are not suffering, then we need to ask if we are living out our allegiance to Christ.” That is quite true. He correctly points out that suffering is “so essential that without it one’s salvation is in question.” But he confuses the *benefits* of suffering with the *causes* of suffering. He assumes that since suffering brings the Christian so many blessings, then it must be part of God’s plan. God must be behind all this. It must be part of his sovereign will. Mounce writes:

Not only is belief a gracious gift from God,

but so also is entering into suffering on his

behalf. To deny the reality and the gift of

suffering is to rip out half of God’s gracious

gifts to us that Paul is discussing.

Then he admits that he’s reformed in his theology. To show the importance and necessity of suffering, he quotes Paul who says that “we are children of God, … and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8.16-17 NRSV). I concur with Mounce that “Our glorification depends on our suffering,” and that our suffering depends upon our courage to follow Christ no matter what the cost may be. Mounce concludes:

Suffering for Christ as we live out our lives is

a gracious gift from God, confirming and

strengthening his gracious gift of faith to us.

As Fee writes (quoting Lightfoot), “suffering

should not surprise or overwhelm them; it is

rather evidence that ‘God looks upon you

with favor’” (171).

Anyone who teaches otherwise is teaching

false doctrine and is robbing God’s children

of the joyful benefits of suffering.

Conclusion

Bill Mounce is essentially saying that suffering itself “is a gracious gift from God.” It’s a sign of God’s love for you. He’s basically saying that God gives us the grace to suffer. But I think that Bill Mounce is wrong. By contrast, I hold that God gives us the grace to endure suffering. In other words, God doesn’t predestine suffering; he foreknows it, and therefore gives us the grace to overcome it. Otherwise, God would be accused of being the author of evil. Mounce interprets Philippians 1.28-29 as if it is saying that God *causes* us to suffer. However, I think it teaches that God gives us the grace to *endure* suffering.

Philippians 1.28-29 (Stephens 1550 Greek

text):

28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν

ἀντικειμένων ἥτις αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστὶν

ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας,

καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ,

29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ

μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ

τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν

My Translation (Philippians 1.28-29):

28 And don’t be terrified by anything with

regard to your adversaries, which to

them, on the one hand, is an indication

of perdition, but to you, on the other, of

salvation, and that of God.

29 Because unto you the grace has been

given concerning Christ, not only to

believe in him, but also to suffer for his

sake.

Biblical Greek Exegesis

The Greek text of Philippians chapter 1 verse 28 says σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ, meaning that salvation is by God alone. That is, it’s granted only by God; it’s a grace. Verse 29 says ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη, meaning, “to you the grace has been granted.” But what type of grace has God given us? The grace to suffer or the grace to endure suffering? The former view implies that God himself gives us the suffering. The latter position implies that God allows suffering, but gives us the ability to endure it. Being of the reform tradition, Mounce implies that God creates evil and thus brings suffering into our lives. However, this is not necessarily the only possible exegesis from the Greek. Verse 29 could also mean that God’s grace has been given to us not only to believe in Christ, but also to *endure* suffering for his sake!

For further details on the theological implications of Bill Mounce’s exegesis, read my paper:

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists

Eli of Kittim

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim ——- Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

——-

🔎 Bible Contradictions: In Using the Term “Arnion,” Does the Book of Revelation Contradict John’s Gospel Which Uses the Word “Amnos” Instead? 🔍

By Award-Winning Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

This short essay is a brief reply to a question that was posed by a member of my “Eli Kittim Theology” group on MeWe.

——-

The member’s name is Marlo Bliss. This was his Question:

The writer of the Book of Revelation used

the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON <G721> for

Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S <>

(lambkins require feeding). He did so 26

times. Why this contradiction to John 1.29

and 1.36?

Thanks for any reply.

*I use the DLT (Dabhar Literal Translation)

software in hebrew, greek, english and

german.*

——-

He’s basically asking the following question: if John’s Gospel uses the Greek term Ἀμνὸς twice to refer to Jesus, then why does the Book of Revelation repeatedly use the word ἀρνίον instead? Isn’t that a deviation from the canonical context? Doesn’t that constitute a Biblical contradiction? The implication is that the Book of Revelation appears to be wrong and contradictory in its terminological usage.

First of all, it is important to establish at the outset that both ἀμνός (amnós) and ἀρνίον (arníon) mean the same thing. These terms are not self-contradictory, but rather interchangeable and complementary. Whereas **ἀμνός** (amnós) has the connotation of a consecrated or sacrificial lamb, especially a one-year old lamb, **ἀρνίον** refers to a “little lamb,” under a year old (Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940). According to J. Thayer, the connotation of ἀρνίον (arníon) is that of pure innocence, with virgin-like (gentle) intentions.

Second, John’s Gospel uses both amnós and arníon. It’s true that John chapter 1 and verses 29 & 36 use the term Ἀμνὸς (lamb) to refer to Jesus Christ. But this term occurs only twice. And yet, the exact same gospel of John uses the alternative ἀρνία (lambs) in chapter 21 verse 15—-which is the plural form of the singular term ἀρνίον (lamb)——to refer to the *Christ-like* followers, namely, the saints of God who are becoming like Christ.

Third, the use of the word ἀρνίον (arníon) in a “messianic canonical context” is in fact scriptural, as can be seen, for example, in the Book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 11.19, the Septuagint (LXX) uses the Greek term ἀρνίον in an overtly messianic context:

ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ

θύεσθαι οὐκ ἔγνων ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο

λογισμὸν πονηρὸν λέγοντες δεῦτε καὶ

ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ

ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων καὶ τὸ

ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ ἔτι.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

But I as an innocent lamb led to the

slaughter, knew not: against me they

devised an evil device, saying, Come and let

us put wood into his bread, and let us

utterly destroy him from off the land of the

living, and let his name not be remembered

any more.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 53. In fact, Jeremiah’s aforementioned verse is a parallel to——and presents a near-verbal agreement with——Isaiah 53.7 (LXX):

καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει

τὸ στόμα· ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη

καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν

ἄφωνος οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα

αὐτοῦ.

Translation (NRSV):

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb

that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep

that before its shearers is silent, so he did

not open his mouth.

In Jeremiah 11.19, the L.C.L. Brenton translates ἀρνίον “as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter,” while the NRSV similarly renders it as a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter.” The theological idea in Jeremiah 11.19 is consistent with that of Isaiah 53.7—-which says “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter”——even though Isaiah employs the terms πρόβατον (lamb) and ἀμνὸς (sheep) instead of Jeremiah’s use of the word ἀρνίον (lamb). These thematic parallels demonstrate that the above terms are interchangeable.

Thus, the Septuagint (LXX) uses 3 alternative terms to refer to this so-called messianic “lamb” of God who “was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; … and by his bruises we are healed” (Isaiah 53.5). Two of the three terms that the LXX uses for this *slaughtered messiah* are found in Isaiah 53.7, namely, πρόβατον and ἀμνὸς. Incidentally, πρόβατον (probaton) means ἀρνίον, which comes from ἀρήν (meaning “lamb”). Thus, ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable terms.

The word πρόβατον (probaton), which means ἀρνίον, is also used in Gen 22.8 by the LXX to refer to the sacrificial lamb of God:

Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the

lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ (NRSV)

The Septuagint also uses the Greek term πρόβατον (which means ἀρνίον) to refer to the sheep which is slaughtered as a “sin offering” in Lev 4.32.

Therefore, the Book of Revelation uses the exact same term that is found not only within the Biblical canonical-context itself (Jn 21.15), but also within the writings of the Septuagint as well. So how is it contradictory? It is not!

Conclusion

As you can see, the way in which the Koine Greek language has been used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament clearly shows that the words ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable and complementary terms. These 3 words have all been used in terms of a “messianic sin offering,” that is, in reference to an innocent lamb that is led to the slaughter (cf. Rev. 5.6 ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον/“a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered”). Although these terms have slightly different nuances, nevertheless they have been used consistently within a “messianic scriptural context” across the board. This is based on the principle of expositional constancy, the idea that similar terms and images are used consistently throughout scripture.

Since most scholars don’t think that John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation were written by the same author, this would explain why they don't use the exact same terminology. Different biblical authors use different vocabularies. This fact alone doesn’t preclude their books from being seen as authoritative or inspired. On the contrary, if we look at the 27 New Testament books, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception!

Thus, Mr. Marlo Bliss’ accusation——that “the writer of the Book of Revelation [who] used the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON … for Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S” was contradicting “John 1.29 and 1.36”——is unwarranted and without merit!

Incidentally, I looked at the so-called “DLT” (Dabhar Literal Translation) that Mr. Bliss uses, but unfortunately it is not faithful to the original Greek New Testament text. Besides, there is no disclosure or commentary about which text-types were used or if there even was a committee of scholars who edited it, which I seriously doubt, given the poor quality of the translation. I’ve also come across some YouTube videos, that are put out by the same sect, which endorse the Dabhar Literal Translation. Unfortunately, this English translation is of an inferior quality. Adherents of this cult further claim that the Book of Revelation is a “spurious” book. This sounds like a sect that has drifted away from sound Bible teaching!

——-

The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament

By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.

However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:

Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of

division into two parts: in New Testament

Greek the sense of the dual has largely

disappeared and έτερος is often confused

with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and

grammars to differentiate the two words

are often strained. In the New Testament

the words are interchangeable and

synonymous as can be seen most clearly at

I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.

(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in

the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,

Issue 1-2, 1969]).

What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:

ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ

προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,

ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία

γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν

καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ

καθὼς βούλεται.

Translation (NRSV):

to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:

ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς

νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,

οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ

ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι

δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·

Translation:

Women received their dead by resurrection.

Others were tortured, refusing to accept

release, in order to obtain a better

resurrection. Others suffered mocking and

flogging, and even chains and

imprisonment.

In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.

In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:

ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,

φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω

ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ

Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation:

When they persecute you in one town, flee

to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not

have gone through all the towns of Israel

before the Son of Man comes.

Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:

At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for

an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt

19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been

responsible for the variant. This parallel

shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were

interchangeable within the New Testament

period itself.

If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ

γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

Translation:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries

another commits adultery, and whoever

marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery.

Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ

ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

Translation:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,

except for unchastity, and marries another

commits adultery.

Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

ἐπ’ αὐτήν.

Translation:

He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another commits adultery

against her.’

Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:

καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ

φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Translation:

Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it

withered for lack of moisture.

However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:

καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου

οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς

ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·

Translation:

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did

not have much soil, and it sprang up

quickly, since it had no depth of soil.

Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ

εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.

Translation:

Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where

they did not have much soil, and they

sprang up quickly, since they had no depth

of soil.

Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,

ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα

τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,

but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah

or one of the prophets.’

Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην

τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ

ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;

and others, Elijah; and still others, one of

the prophets.’

Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:

οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν

βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι

προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.

Translation:

They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but

others, Elijah; and still others, that one of

the ancient prophets has arisen.’

Conclusion

Based on the numerous parallel passages that we studied, it is quite obvious that the Classical Greek qualitative distinction between άλλος and έτερος had largely disappeared in New Testament times. As can be seen from the previous New Testament examples, and from Dr. James Keith Elliott’s study, the words άλλος (allos) and έτερος (heteros) are interchangeable and synonymous terms!

Was the Septuagint Destroyed When the Library of Alexandria Was Burnt Down in 48 BC?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

The Argument

Some people (typically Jewish apologists) claim that the Septuagint doesn’t exist because it was destroyed when the Library of Alexandria was burnt down in 48 BC.

This conclusion, however, is both textually misleading & historically erroneous.

First

The Alexandrian Library and its collection were not entirely destroyed. We have evidence that there was only partial damage and that many of its works survived. According to Wiki:

The Library, or part of its collection, was

accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during

his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how

much was actually destroyed and it seems

to have either survived or been rebuilt

shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo

mentions having visited the Mouseion in

around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly

output of Didymus Chalcenterus in

Alexandria from this period indicates that

he had access to at least some of the

Library's resources.

Second

The Septuagint had already been written and disseminated among the diaspora since the 3rd century BC, and so many of its extant copies were not housed in the Library of Alexandria per se.

Third

Textual Criticism confirms that the New Testament authors used the Septuagint predominantly and quoted extensively from it. If the Septuagint didn’t exist, where did the New Testament authors copy from? And how do you explain the fact that the New Testament and the Septuagint often have identical wording in their agreements?

Fourth

The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the Septuagint was far more accurate than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text. See, for example, the textual controversy surrounding Deuteronomy 32:8. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint have “sons of God.” The Masoretic text is demonstrably inaccurate because it has “sons of Israel,” a later redaction. Israel didn’t even exist at that time!

Fifth

Emanuel Tov, a leading authority on the Septuagint who has explained the various textual families (or text-types) of the Old Testament, never once mentioned that we lost the Septuagint, or that it was destroyed, or that it was no longer in circulation. On the contrary, he claims that it continued to be in use during the Christian period and that it is much more older than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text, which the Jews call the “Hebrew Bible.”

Sixth

If the Septuagint was completely destroyed, as some have erroneously suggested, from where were the later revisionists and translators copying from? We have historical evidence that they were, in fact, copying from the Septuagint itself. Wiki writes:

Theodotion … was a Hellenistic Jewish

scholar, … who in c. 150 CE translated the

Hebrew Bible into Greek. … Whether he was

revising the Septuagint, or was working

from Hebrew manuscripts that represented

a parallel tradition that has not survived, is

debated.

So there’s evidence to suggest that the Theodotion version is a possible *revision* of the Septuagint. This demonstrates that the Septuagint existed in the second century AD! Otherwise, where was Theodotion copying from if the Septuagint didn’t exist?

Seventh

The great work of Origen, Hexapla, compiled sometime before 240 AD, is further proof that the Septuagint was still in use in the 3rd century AD! Wikipedia notes the following:

Hexapla … is the term for a critical edition

of the Hebrew Bible in six versions, four of

them translated into Greek, preserved only

in fragments. It was an immense and

complex word-for-word comparison of the

original Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek

Septuagint translation and with other Greek

translations.

Encyclopedia Britannica adds:

In his Hexapla (“Sixfold”), he [Origen]

presented in parallel vertical columns the

Hebrew text, the same in Greek letters, and

the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the

Septuagint, and Theodotion, in that order.

Eighth

Besides Origen’s Hexapla, we also have extant copies of the Septuagint. According to wiki:

Relatively-complete manuscripts of the

Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar

recension, and include the fourth-century-

CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century

Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-

surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of

the Old Testament in any language; the

oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date

to about 600 years later, from the first half

of the 10th century.

Ninth

There’s also historical and literary evidence that the Greek Septuagint was in wide use during the Christian period and beyond. Wiki says:

Greek scriptures were in wide use during

the Second Temple period, because few

people could read Hebrew at that time. The

text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted

more often than the original Hebrew Bible

text in the Greek New Testament

(particularly the Pauline epistles) by the

Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek

Church Fathers.

Tenth

Today, Biblical scholarship has a *critical edition* of the Septuagint. If it was destroyed in 48 BC, where did the critical edition come from? The Göttingen Septuaginta (editio maior) presents *a fully critical text* and should silence the skeptics and critics who try to mislead the public. They deliberately mislead the public by trying to discredit the far more reliable and much older Septuagint in order to get people to accept the much later Hebrew Masoretic text from the Middle Ages!

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

Read the PDF of my article, published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 13, no. 3 (2018).