As I’ve indicated numerous times, I’m a physicalist. I don’t think that I’m an immortal ghost/soul living inside a body. I think that I’m a physical creature. Long before I encountered philosophy of mind or neuroscience, I became convinced that this is what the Bible teaches, making its teaching on human nature stand out like a sore thumb against the pagan Hellenistic theology of the first century.
I also become convinced that since I am not an immortal immortal ghost living inside a body, when my body dies I will not escape death and live on in heaven, or the underworld, or the astral plane or anything of that sort. I think the Bible teaches that death is very real and it puts an end to our life. There is no conscious state of any sort immediately following death. There is noting at all. Of course, I am a Christian and I do believe in the resurrection of the dead, but that obviously doesn’t happen when a person dies, or I think somebody would have noticed by now. The view I hold has sometimes been called “soul sleep” because it views death as a state of “sleep” or unconsciousness. It’s not an ideal term because it can be taken to imply dualism and maybe “person sleep” would be a better alternative, but it’s too late for that. The term has been coined.
Holding and expressing these views rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way, but for the most part there’s really no disputing that the Bible presents human nature and death this way literally dozens of times in fairly clear language. Affirming dualism and the view that we live on as immaterial spirits after death and go somewhere is a point of view held in the teeth of the biblical evidence. This fact too, I suspect, rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way.
In spite of the fairly clear overall teaching of the Bible, there is a very small handful of biblical passages (no more than four, in my view) that might be used (and have been used) to suggest that actually the general impression given by most of what the Bible teaches is false, and that really we do survive our bodily deaths and travel to heaven, or hell, or some other place and live consciously there. This should not be surprising. Whether you’re doing surveying, earth science or biblical interpretation, when formulating a theory you’re always going to be confronted with recalcitrant evidence, that is, evidence that at first glance seems to go against the flow of the well-established facts and is in need of an explanation. The existence of such evidence in science or in Scripture does not falsify a theory.
One of those texts is Luke 23:43. Here, Jesus has been crucified, and on that same Friday some criminals had been crucified with him (it was normal for multiple people to be crucified together). Here’s what we read in Luke 23:39-43
One of the criminals who were hanged ?railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me ?when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
It’s clear enough how this passage would be used by those who do not share my view: Since Jesus told someone that even though they were going to die that day, they would experience Jesus’ presence later that day as well, it must be the case that (according to Jesus), people survive their bodily death, with or without the bodily resurrection.
Given the essential uniformity that I think we find in the teaching of the bible generally on this subject (namely, that we do not survive our bodily death), I have two choices. I can either say that we have an important conflict between what Jesus said as recorded in Luke 23:43, or I can attempt to interpret this text in Luke in a way to fit with what the rest of the bible teaches. I think that I can quite successfully do the latter. I make no promises that I will convince those who disagree with me, but I have long held the view that nobody can be convinced against her will. (The other possible course of action – to adopt less plausible interpretations of dozens of other texts for the sake of this one – does not strike me as particularly sensible.)
The argument from experience
The first approach is the less controversial, and it is to point out that even if there is no conscious intermediate state between death and resurrection, Jesus’ words would still be quite true from the dying criminal’s perspective. Peter Van Inwagen explains:
The words of Jesus are, obviously, supposed to be what The Book of Common Prayer calls “comfortable words.” Let me ask a question in somewhat the same spirit as the question I asked a moment ago. Imagine that the Good Thief dies in agony; “the next thing he knows,” as the idiom has it, he is in Paradise. He presently discovers that over three thousand years have passed since he died. Was he deceived? Was it somehow wrong of Jesus to say to him, “Today you shall be with me in Paradise”? If so, what should Jesus have said? Should he have said, “After the general resurrection, which will occur after an indefinite period that only the Father knows, you shall be with me in Paradise – but it will seem to you as if no time has passed”? Are there not circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth is unsatisfactory from a pastoral point of view? And are there not, in fact, circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth can impede communication? (I know that a certain large structure in Manhattan is a terminal and not a station; nevertheless, I don’t generally call it Grand Central Terminal, because that’s not what most people call it. And from my calling it Grand Central Station you cannot infer that I believe that it’s a station rather than a terminal.) In any case, to suppose that Jesus and the Good Thief would have attached much importance to the distinction between the strict and the lax interpretations of Jesus’ words – the strict being the one insisted on by those who are treating these words as proof text, and the lax being the one I’m pushing – seems to me to attribute an analytical cast of mind to two first-century Jews (in their extreme agony, let us remember) that is probably unwarranted.
Peter Van Inwagen, “Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem?” Faith and Philosophy 12:4 (1995), 484.
Sure, if “soul sleep” involved believing in a period of relaxed but still conscious rest, sort of a shadowy but comfortable existence in bliss between death and resurrection, then this verse would present a problem. This is another reason why the term “soul sleep” isn’t ideal. However, it doesn’t involve this sort of thing at all. It refers to an absolute loss of all consciousness. From the perspective of personal experience, if your consciousness completely ceased at t1 and then you regain consciousness at t5 (where the gap between t1 and t2, the gap between t2 and t3 etc is one year), even though four years had actually passed you would experience t5 immediately after t1, as though no time at all had passed in the interim. If, just as t1 was approaching, I had said to you “I tell you, in just a few seconds you will be at t5,” then it could hardly be said that I was lying to you. And if this is so (and let’s imagine that at t5 the resurrection of the dead will occur and all things will be made new), there would likewise be nothing wrong with my saying that “in just a few seconds you will be with me in Paradise.”
This approach, although already sufficiently plausible to be taken seriously, is further bolstered by the way that the biblical writers used the Greek word paradeisos (paradise). This term is used in Genesis 2:8 and elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) to refer to the garden of Eden. It is used in this connection to refer to the eschatological restoration that God will bring about (Isaiah 51:3). It is used again in Revelation 2:7 in connection with the tree of life, something said (in chapters 21 and 22) to be present on the “new earth.” So there is no suggestion in Scripture that the term should mean “heaven” or some sort of spiritual intermediate state. On the contrary, it suggests a very physical state of existence and is connected with a restored physical world.
If all you were looking for is a plausible and sufficient explanation, you have just found it, and you can stop reading now.
The Grammatical Argument
The second argument is both more technical and more contentious. In Luke 23:43, the words in question are amen soi lego semeron, “Assuredly I tell you today” – and the question is “where does the comma go – before or after the word “today” (semeron)? According to New Testament Greek scholar E. W. Bullinger, the comma really belongs after the word “today.” The reason for this concerns the use of the Greek word for “today,” semeron. Bullinger explains in his lexicon,
When it comes after a verb, it belongs to that verb, unless it is separated from it and thrown into the next clause by the presence of hoti (that).
E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, 810-811.
Now let’s turn to the verse. The verb after which semeron occurs is “I say,” lego. There are thus two possible translations of this sentence in Luke, depending on whether or not hoti is used. They are as follows.
With hoti, the sentence would read:
“Assuredly I say to you that (hoti) today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Or without hoti:
“Assuredly I say [preceding verb] to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Bullinger makes reference to other examples where this is demonstrated in the NT (e.g. Matt 21:28, “Go today, and work in the vineyard”), and perhaps more importantly for Luke, in the Septuagint such as Dt 8:1, “All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do.”
It is a widely recognised and prominent feature of Luke’s Gospel that the Greek used is clearly influenced by the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. And as you look through the Septuagint, you will see that semeron, translated “this day,” routinely belongs to the preceding verb (in cases where there is a preceding verb. This is not an overly subtle twist or unwarranted claim on my part. It is universally accepted in Lukan scholarship that his Greek reflects the Septuagint.
Commenting on this passage, Joseph Hong, although he opposes what I am suggesting, admits the facts of the case. At a confident moment he asserts that it “undeniably makes more sense to associate the word with the following clause, rather than the preceding clause.” [Hong, “Understanding and Translating ‘Today’ in Luke 23:43,” The Bible Translator 46:4 (1995), 416.]
But while this is his conclusion, he is forced, when actually dealing with the evidence in the text itself, to back away and acknowledge that this is not really where the weight of evidence lies. Attempting to describe the evidence as uninstructive, he was prepared to say (in contrast to the above quote), “from a strictly textual point of view it is impossible to determine which of the clauses before and after it the word ‘today’ should be associated with” (p. 416). What a contrast. It is even more intriguing to note that when he is surveying the same biblical evidence Bullinger referred to, he is forced to admit even more: “As a preliminary observation we can say that as a rule, ‘today’ is placed after the related verb.” (p. 412)
So the translation that he claims is “undeniably” more sensible is also the view that the evidence shows is not normally correct. He’s right about the evidence, but wrong about what is undeniable. Hong does not say that this observation is necessarily or universally true, only that it is a true preliminary observation. This is wise, because insisting on hard, fast and inevitable rules in the way Greek sentences must be constructed generally paves the way for counterexamples that somebody might be able to hunt down and use to trip you. General observations are good enough. Following these observations in this case means that the related verb would be lego, “I say,” rather than ese, “you will be.”
While numerous commentators make very brief comments of disagreement towards the suggestion of Bullinger, these dismissive comments tend not to incorporate evidence based in New Testament Greek. Evans, in his commentary on Luke, says that in fact there are some early manuscripts that do punctuate the verse in this way (of course the very earliest mss had no punctuation at all), (C.F. Evans, Saint Luke, TPI New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press Press, 1990), 874.). That manuscript is Codex Vaticanus.
Codex Vaticanus showing Luke 23:43. Note the dot after "semeron."
Just as in the case of other contentious issues (intelligent design, global warming, the case for America’s invasion of Iraq), what one makes of even tangible, visible evidence like this is always going to be controlled to some extent by one’s prior commitments. Online apologists for the traditional view have argued at length that the mark here must be an either accidental “blot” or an incorrect punctuation mark added by an unknown editor at an unknown time, while some Jehovah’s Witnesses (whose New World Translation places the comma after “today”) claim this manuscript as solid proof of their position. Such blots do occur in New Testament manuscripts, and it is at least possible that this dot that resembles a comma in precisely the place where some people argue that a comma belongs is just a lucky (or unlucky) coincidence. I accept that. Much more importantly, however, I heed the advice of New Testament textual scholar Bruce Metzger, who warns: “The presence of marks of punctuation in early manuscripts of the New Testament is so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator to the passage.” [Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 3rd Edition, 1975). This evidence is tenuous, but it should be considered evidence nonetheless. The grammatical argument, however, must be considered with or without the manuscript evidence.
Although the evidence that I have seen in the New Testament supports Bullinger’s claim, I would take seriously the charge that his claim is too strong. Maybe the rule is not hard and fast. Maybe someone might at some point dig up an unambiguous case where hoti is not used and where semeron belongs to the following verb. At very least, Bullinger has drawn our attention to the burden of proof. There are undeniably plenty of cases where semeron belongs to the preceding verb, and there are cases where hoti is used, clearly forcing semeron into the following clause. What we now know as a result of this is that anyone who insists that semeron must attach to the following verb where hoti is not used must shoulder the burden of proof and provide clear evidence for why this choice must be made, since there does exist a tendency for this practice to not be followed in the New Testament.
Theologically, the translation that I am tentatively proposing says nothing contentious. Unlike the traditional reading, it does not force the time frame for the fulfilment of Jesus’ words to that very day, but neither does it deny that time frame. It says nothing about when the criminal should expect to be in paradise, only that he should expect it.
My worry is that since the second explanation of Luke 23:43 that I have offered (the grammatical argument) takes so much longer to unpack, readers might think that I am attaching significantly more weight to it than to the first argument. I am not. I think that the first argument is more than enough and actually renders the second argument moot. But the second argument is sufficiently interesting that it should be considered as well.
On the whole, then, I do not think that Luke 23:43 should be used as part of a larger attempt to reverse the wider biblical picture of human nature and death. At most it should give us pause, but at very least we can say that there is at least one very plasuible way to resolve this pause, perhaps even two.
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- Ehrman: I'm not destroying Christianity, I'm only destroying the Bible!
- Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism
- Biblical scholarship and the push for novelty
- The Bible, abortion, and extra-biblical knowledge
- I'm not picking on Robert Peterson, I swear!
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...Tags: eschatology, Gospel of Luke, intermediate state, interpretation, New Testament Studies, Theology / Biblical Studies
Andrew, as every reader can clearly see with no room for doubt, I have carefully assessed the merits of “what was said” and answered in detail. Now, you didn’t like or want to agree with the answers I gave, but it is clearly a lie to tell anyone that I showed no concern for the merits of what was said in this discussion. You know that.
As for you being upset at me having you “all figured out” (something I never said), I merely described a pattern of behaviour that I have seen many times before, and which I was not wrong about in this case, I believe. I am sorry that you find this offensive, but I am not responsible for those feelings.
Glenn,
Since now you are accusing me of lying, and because the relevant posts have dropped off onto a different page, it seems that I need to post your own words back at you, and address this shell game you’re playing.
Glenn wrote in post 42:
What were you trying to do with that Glenn? Anyone who cares to review the actual posts will notice that I ignored your attempt to change the subject, and stuck to the issue at hand.
Glenn wrote, post 44:
Right here you’re not being brave enough to actually say what you’re implying (that comes later) but you have stated that your speculation about what I might believe on another issue is sufficient to “see where it comes from” and to ignore addressing the material points on their merits.
And just to day, Glenn, you revealed what you were implying, and have displayed bigotry in spades:
Glenn wrote, post 69:
Why were you using a theological slur like “KJV-Onlyist” then, unless you were playing upon the underlying prejudice associated with that label?
You said that you researched me on Google. If you actually have researched me, you will notice that I often use up to five English translations, depending upon the particular point I am addressing. Similarly, I have cited the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, King James, and 1901 American Standard Version as being favorable examples in this specific point. So, you cannot be using “King James Only” in a literal sense, but rather you have employed it as a religious slur.
Yes, you are a bigot, and your method of argument is dishonest as well. You originally attempted to introduce an new topic, namely, the evaluating the general integrity of all English translations in existence, and when I ignored you and stayed on topic, you have pretended that I was insincere in my “motives” as a convenient reason to slander me.
Additionally, your prejudice has interfered to where you have changed your stated stance from your article for the purposes of arguing against a third possible solution. Yes, my explanation happens to be friendly to the King James Version… (among others) … but so what? Is this a problem for you?
Here’s your closing statement from your article, showing your original stated goal:
Closing statement, by Glenn:
To put this in context, your two proposed solutions were mutually exclusive. That is, if A was true, B must be false, but if B was the intended meaning, then A could not be true. Your initial conclusion was that it was important to recognize options for explaining the passage.
Now, however, you are now arguing because the new explanation of “just read the classic English translations in the literal sense just as they’ve been for the last 650 years” contradicts your “move the comma” trick. But that shouldn’t be anything new for you, since the “experience of the Thief” explanation already contradicted “move the comma” … and you presented that one yourself.
Instead of staying with your stated goal of gathering plausible explanations, you’ve acted very hypocritical and insincere. Slinging around “KJV-Only” accusations doesn’t lend to your credibility.
You certainly do seem to have another motive. Where you previously reserved that maybe someone would “find a contradiction” to Bullinger’s proposed grammatical rule (which he seems to have invented for this exact argument) you rejected seven counter-examples that I laid before you, and started re-inventing his proposed rule in an attempt to make it fit. That’s also called a “shell game” – changing the rules of a challenge after it’s been met.
Regardless of the original topic, the issue I’m addressing is bigotry.
From your own statements, we see that you formed your preconceived opinion apart from anything that I’ve brought forth or defended in these posts. That’s called “prejudice.” Furthermore, you are tossing around an undefined hostile religious slur of “KJV-Only” which marks you as a bigot.
I could honestly say that it’s a waste of time discussing anything of importance with a bigot. You’ve obviously got a chip on your shoulder against the King James, or anyone who quotes the King James, or against anyone who might have a reason to prefer the King James, or anyone who has investigated translation claims concerning the King James, and it interferes with your judgment, and prevents you from judging people or their arguments on their merits.
I’m hoping you might begin to recognize this, and maybe change, and if not you, maybe others might learn from this. I am well aware that there are a few King James-quoting loons out there, but that’s no excuse for the prejudiced labeling behavior you displayed. Judge people on their merits. Yes, it may seem “inconvenient” but that’s the nature of fairness.
And, if you don’t want to discuss translations as a whole… then don’t introduce the topic. It’s that simple. Stay on topic.
-Andrew
Didn’t your post say “catrefully” instead of “carefully” until just a few minutes ago? If you’re able to change your posts after the fact, maybe you could fix the typo in your last sentence of your article as well…
I think you meant “plausible.” I noticed that because I blockquoted that portion in my past post.
No, I didn’t correct anything in the comment (unless my memory is failing). I think I’ll leave the typo that’s there. You know what it means.
As for the accusation of lying, it stands. You claimed that I made an unfair attack on you and that I never addressed the issues raised on the merits of what was said. This is false, as you know well. You spend many words responding to my details comments about the merits of what was said. Therefore this claim is a lie. What’s more, I never discussed a third possibility and argued about it. You may have had such thoughts, but I never did. From start to finish, I have always maintained two possibilities regarding Luke 23:43. I commented briefly on your mistaken but confident claim that the Greek word (emou) is not a predictive one, and showed that this belief on your part was mistaken. But that certainly never rose to the level of a serious hypothesis about Luke 23:43 – not as far as I’m concerned.
As for the rest, I think I have adequately addressed anything of substance between us. I think that now that your attempted arguments from evidence have been simply refuted, you’re trying to complain about me being unpleasant as a diversion.
[Note: I did edit this comment, expanding it a little.]
Glenn says:
Post #1 on this page
I believe I qualify as one of the “every reader” category. And I’m sorry Glenn, you cannot speak for me. There is clearly room for doubt here.
It seems you went to a lot of trouble to discredit something that would have been a very easy answer to that particular scriptural “problem” relating to the subject of “soul sleep”, (or more properly why people get the wrong impression from it.) Sometimes we just overlook something that might be very simple, yet very important. But just because you never thought of it first shouldn’t be an excuse for throwing it out as something of no value.
Is it really so hard to consider this scenario?:
The thief (that day) asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom. His repentant attitude happened that day, (so it would not be confused as his having been predestinated from before the foundation of the world to have had this happen.) The other thief was ridiculing Jesus. If Jesus made a promise to him [the repentant thief] that day, he obviously would not have expected to have been with Jesus that day. (He may have even heard about Jesus saying he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,) but would realize the fulfillment would happen “when he came into his kingdom”, as a result of the special notice Jesus took of him as he was dying. At any rate the thief showed faith in a resurrection, as he did not say, like the other thief did, that Jesus should get himself and them off the crosses that very day. I’ve heard people refer to one of the thieves as “the good thief”. But he was not a good thief, he was just repentant and believed that Jesus would come into his kingdom, and wanted to be remembered at that time. The promise was made that day, like writing out a check, but the fulfillment would happen at the resurrection and the coming kingdom.
Just because some people want to “go to heaven when they die” and don’t know the difference between a promise and the fulfillment of a promise doesn’t mean the scripture is wrong or has to be changed. This is what is very clear to me.
Joanne, whether you happen to agree with me wasn’t really the point. The point is, I carefully addressed the issues that were put to me. I said that because somebody falsely claimed that I didn’t address what was said.
There’s certainly no doubt that I carefully addressed what was said to me, even if there is some doubt, in your view, over whether or not my proposals are correct.
Besides, nobody is saying that the Scripture needs to be changed.
Glenn, I can say that I can’t remember meeting anyone who resorted to such dishonest methods of argument. You continually misrepresent what I have said and lie about my position.
For example, I never said that the word emou could not be predictive. I said it was not limited to being predictive. There’s a clear mathematical difference, which you seem very eager to remain ignorant of. I gave an obvious example, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten:
Mat 5:48 KJV
(48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
That word esomai “be” is not predictive, and certainly no one of us has became perfect as God in heaven. Even for the hardest of heads, that’s obviously a command, not a prediction.
Here’s a second example:
Mat 6:5 KJV
(5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Again, that’s a command, not a prediction. If that was a prediction, then when one person prayed like a hypocrite, Jesus becomes false.
I was even specific to clarify that I was using these terms within the textbook scope as defined by the English dictionary, that is, comparing a mere forecast of future time (predictive) against determination (command).
Both usages are futuristic: esoumai covers the textbook usages of both shall and will. If I remember correctly, you tried to evade this by playing games by making up your own personal definition for “predictive” and redefining it as “the future sense.”
It seems that you’re determined to “win” no matter how much revisionism it requires. I’m sick of your shell games. How can you fool yourself into thinking that you’ve honestly answered anything when you have to resort to misrepresenting such a basic premise?
Yes, you did refuse to address the issue on its merits, for reason of the already addressed bigotry. It so happens you jumped in later at a different time, although whether you actually addressed it on its merits is still debatable. You resumed the prejudice tack at the end by introducing the “KJV-Only” slur…
Glenn wrote:
Perhaps you are so bigoted that you really cannot see this: but introducing a religious slur to dismiss someone as “not worth discussing translation issues” is an unfair attack. It’s certainly nothing that can be defended against, because you’ve refused to define your term, so it can neither be admitted no denied, let alone addressed on its merits.
* * *
By the way: I commented on the spelling change because I had access to a copy of the original text that survived the web page refresh. I don’t believe that it changed itself, so as a rhetorical question, I ask, who else has access to alter the site content and would do such a thing? Do you have a habit of having memory failures?
Andrew, there is no point in this. I believe that I clearly and honestly addressed the issues raised by you. I am not interested in revisitng the same issues again because I am confident that they were properly addressed, and I am even less interested in your attacks on me. I have nothing to add, and I am confident that the reader will see that nothing further is needed from me in response to you on the issues you raised (whether they happen to agree with me or not), so I will not “take the bait,” so to speak, to carry on.
If you feel that it is wise or necessary to post more of the same about what a wicked person I am, I extend that freedom to you, but I don’t think I have any further duty to explain what I think I have already explained (and explained, if I do say so, with some patience toward you). I think, however, that if you’re going to do no more than repeat the above attacks against me, you should simply send them in private.
Glenn,
When I asked to talk with you privately because I needed to talk to you outside the boards, you mocked me and refused. Thus I was left with little option except by “two or three witnesses” (See Matthew 18:16)
You always had my email address, because it’s required with each post. I never did have your email address, but even if I did hunt it down through other means, you had already refused to talk in private.
I have said that regardless of any translation of Luke 23:43, the issue of bigotry needed to be addressed. This was more important. You played a shell game with this as well, and then tried to claim that I was “ignoring issues” and pretended that you “had answered everything.” You keep hopping back and forth. My patience has worn thin with this foolishness.
You’re the one with the ability to open a private conversation, and you’ve refused to do so, so you have no right to complain about addressing this in public. You are not a victim.
You could still talk with me privately. You have the address.
That is all,
-Andrew
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cry-baby
Andrew, what I chose not to do was to answer your exegetical arguments in private, since they had been offered here. I did not “mock” you as you now allege. I answered them here instead, and I explained why. I am not asking you to answer my public arguments in private, so there’s no compariason here between the two scenarios. I was confident enough in my arguments that I was not afraid for others to see your answers. What I have now said is that I have already given all the answers that I believe are required, and that if you intend to go over and over the old ground of repeating your attacks on me (which have nothing to do with exegesis), there’s no point reproducing them here again, so it’s best to send them in private. These claims about me being dishonest (“shell game”) and even of me changing my stance on issues (“hopping back and forth”) are untrue, and they are just unhelpful attacks on the person. It should not be happening here, as it 1) lowers your standing and degrades you in the eyes of anyone who sees it, and 2) is not the purpose of my extending to you freedom and privilege of using my blog.
To be clear, I am not requesting that you contact me in private. I’d prefer to see you simply stop this altogether. I am only saying that should you feel the need to do nothing more than complain about my personal traits, private is the way to do it. As I said, I am confident that your exegetical comments have been fully addressed in sufficient detail, and I think you are trying to focus on me personally to distract from the way that turned out. I wouldn’t go as far as to join Ron with the “crybaby” reference, but it’s certainly not productive in the least to do what I think you’re doing, which is why I have said that should you wish to continue doing that, do it in private. There is a “contact us” button that you can use for that purpose. The reason I am not contacting you in private is that I believe I have said all that I need to. I have nothing to contact you about.
Getting back onto the actual subject of the blog entry (what a novel idea!) – as I made pretty clear in the blog entry itself, even as written, “assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (setting aside concerns over emou, since I have shown that it is normall used in the same was as “will” – which can be predictive or imperative), the taxt isn’t a problem for soul sleep as it refers tot he experience of the dying criminal, and even if soul sleep is true (as I think it is), the experience of Paradise would have been immediate.
Regarding the second possibility (that the comma belongs after “today”), biblical commentators that I have read have never actually challenged Bullinger’s observation (either because they haven’t read Bullinger, or because they’ve checked the way semeron is used and they did not rebut Bullinger because they saw that his observation was correct). Now having seen someone actually try to come up with counterexamples (and clearly fail, in my view, for reasons already explained), the discussion has reinforced the confidence I have that Bullinger was demonstrably right and that his observation stands up to attempted counterexamples.
Saying that his observation was right (which it is), however, doesn’t mean that his proposed translation has got to be correct. It only means that it cannot be dismissed and is a live possibility. After all, it’s also true that there’s a pattern of how Amen lego soi (“Assuredly I say to you”) and similar phrases are used. We have no right to automatically privilege one over the other. There’s no opportunity to be dogmatic about it.
In light of this (unintended) confidence boost, I may put something fairly brief together, no more than a simple demonstration of this “rule” in practice and also of why some possible counterexamples end up not being counterexamples at all, and submit it for publication. Maybe. The immediate future is fairly busy, but it would be worth doing.
Well call me impressed. I had heard of the “the comma’s in the wrong place” line of argument before, but I had only heard of it from reactionary types who just dismissed it as a way of “changing the word of God.” It’s no such thing. It’s a real question about how to best translated and express the word of God, surely. Actually seeing it well explained and (very successfully, I think) defended from some attempts at rebuttal is an eye opener. Like you, Glenn I wouldn’t say that you’ve shown that this is definitely the correct translation (with the comma after “today), but I hand it to you. I can’t just ignore it or assume it’s not plausible anymore.
Andrew, sorry, but I think your counterexamples were simply not counterexamples as Glenn showed. Quoting someone else’s sentence means that even though the first word of the quote appears within your sentence, you still have to regard it as the first word of a sentence (namely, someone else’s sentence).
I hope you do publish on this, Glenn. Other people need to at least be exposed to this. It’s not earth shattering stuff, but it’s still interesting.
In its original printing, behold Glenn’s Golden Grail:
http://www.archive.org/stream/criticallexiconc00bull#page/810/mode/2up
It actually seemed pretty funny to see Glenn’s source. One tiny entry, in one lexicon, on page 810-811, inventing a rule that no other lexicon or translation team has recognized, but he cites his own rule as if it were an authority when he writes his “Lazarus and the Rich Man” article. Yet he doesn’t claim that any other verse suffered in translation because of lacking his proposed “rule.”
Apparently this “rule” was created for the sole purpose of supporting his explanation of a single verse. Not only have critics pointed out that his supposed LXX references do not match the patterns that he says they do, but even looking at his lexicon entry you can see where he gives a non-conclusive example as positive support that could be interpreted either way.
I hope you do publish something, Glenn. You’ll need to do better. Continued postings protesting that you’ve “answered everything” won’t hold up in an actual article.
I want to see how you justify circular logic that you are allowed to determine phrasing before applying your rule of how to determine phrasing. Your “rule” doesn’t work if treated as a rule, and even if you had no contradictions, you lack a sufficient sample set to establish a rule, let alone enough to outnumber the already well-recognized established rule concerning Christ’s introductory form of speech.
I’d like to see you publish that. So publish something, and try to be more convincing this time, because you’ll also be arguing against the whole world of Greek scholarship and the entire history of Bible translation. It won’t be your personal blog anymore, and you can’t discredit all of them with religious slurs.
Andrew, I’m not sure if you knew this, but acting scornfully towards a claim about an observable pattern is not the same as a rebuttal. Just a minor correction though: I won’t be arguing against any greek scholarship, because no serious Greek scholarship (that I am aware of) has ever been published showing (or even trying to show) that Bullinger’s observation is incorrect. It’s amazing, even though so many people might have a theological reaon to want to do so, they don’t do it. I actually take heart from that.
Here’s an interesting tidbit: Someone recently implied that it was false to call him KJV onlyist.
Someone has also said “For the record, I am a Conditional Immortality Soul-sleep King James Version inerrantist.”
One guess as to whether or not they were the same person.
I found an interesting article just now: can anyone guess who wrote this?
Quote one:
Quote two:
Quote three:
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/on-behalf-of-kingdom-theology/
Glenn, I think that you should read this article … carefully, and consider how it might apply on this thread. Can you agree with the author’s statements?
Luk 19:22 KJV
(22) And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee…
Glenn,
I didn’t see the speaker identify himself as a “KJV Onlyist.” When you discover the guts or the honesty to define what you mean that slur “KJV Onlyist” then we might be able to evaluate whether there is any truth or merit in your accusation.
One of my areas of study includes scripture integrity concerning the Masoretic Hebrew, koine Greek, and common English translations. I often compare the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, and King James texts, but I’ve compared quite a few more. From these translations, I’ve only found one that continues to pass tests against “error.”
Those were my words you quoted above. I don’t even like the term “Conditional Immortality” but I used it there because that specific audience would understand. I have never, under any circumstances, called myself “King James Only” and in my experience folks that seek to apply that label others are insincere, dishonest, bigots that only seek to prejudice others, without intention of addressing the base issue on its merits.
“…every time”
Make no mistake about my motives: I stand against your position because it is weak, foolish, and sets people up to fall. It twists the scripture. You’re defending a failed position that ultimately loses the battle, and it remains one of the chief reasons why those that identify themselves with “Conditional Immortality” are not taken seriously.
The people who actually fight these battles in the real world need working ammunition.
As an ironic example based on your most recent post, your entire argument depends on mocking and scorning an observed pattern that is more oft-repeated and far more easily observed than that proposed by your theory.
I’ve lost count of the times you’ve said that you need no further explanation, that you do not need to defend your points any further. Yet you persist in demonstrating the behavior of a religious bigot without apology. Nothing will come of this. So you go and publish what you need to publish.
And let the “readers” decide.
Andrew, I understand that you do not yourself believe that you are biased. I accept that. I believe you are. I think the KJV only position introduces bias into a person’s stance.
I cannot apologise for any offence caused by this, as much as it might bother you. I am simply being honest about what I think is true. I also note in your recent comments a strong passion and tendency to unfairly impute incorrect states of mind when you now say that I was “mocking” and “scorning” a well established pattern [i.e. the pattern of the amen lego sayings], when in actual fact I did the opposite: I acknowledged and accepted that pattern as real and demonstrable. Your bias is controlling the way you read other people to the point where you are unwilling to even see what I am really saying, instead projecting what you’d prefer me to be saying. This is what I was concerned about all along given what I take to be your closed minded stance on modern translations (or suggestions for altertive translations of verses) as per your KJV only position, and I believe this concern is vindicated.
EDIT: On the other hand, I’m pleased to see that you’re reading through other blog entries here such as the one on Kingdom Theology. Feel free to do more of that, and I hope you find them helpful!
Glenn,
1) You persist in applying an undefined slur of “KJV Only.” In this blog alone, I have addressed the Greek text, quoted from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, and King James Bibles, and also alluded to the American Standard Version of 1901 because it supported the case in point. Clearly, the word “only” is not being used in its literal sense. Thus, it seems that you have only used this term to invoke prejudice.
2) You have tacked on accusations unsupported by evidence, namely accusing of a “closed minded stance on modern translations…” Perhaps you are offended by the implication that I judge translations by their merits, instead of applying “affirmative action” or assuming that “newer is always better?”
I suppose you would accuse a basketball coach of being “close minded” for not recruiting midgets on his team, never mind that the said midgets couldn’t run, pass, dribble, or shoot. Darn those close-minded coaches with standards! They are so biased.
3) Concerning your complaint that I am “closed minded” concerning “suggestions for altertive(sp) translations of verses…” I ask, why should I consider you an authority on how to translate the Greek text? It seems that is what this is really about. If I do not validate your personal attempt at translation, you judge me as “closed minded.”
More on “close minded” shall follow when we take a look at your own quote, in a moment… at the “black hole” reference.
4) You are pleased that I am reading your blog entries? Did you fail to realize that your own quoted words called a hypocrite? Maybe you should read your own words again (post 17) or from their source:
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/luke-2343-and-soul-sleep/comment-page-2/#comment-4015
Now you invested energy to create an “Anti King James Only” page with a picture of a red dragon on a black background. Do you actually define what you mean by “King James Only” here? Let’s see…
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
Taking advocates at their own word? How hypocritical. I have protested your label, and yet you persist using it as a slur. Maybe the next sentence will better illuminate your meaning…
Are you intentionally trying to obfuscate? What does that mean? You’re the one that wrote the article, and presumably no one was rushing you. What do you mean by “a certain status?” Obviously, there are many English bibles that one could assign “a certain status.”
The Wycliffe translation has “a certain status.”
The Tyndale translation has “a certain status.”
The Authorized translation has “a certain status.”
The Revised Standard Version has “a certain status.”
The Message has a “certain status.”
Now, not every status is guaranteed to be complementary. That’s what happens when you judge a thing on its merits rather than what you think will get you pats on the back from your so-called “intellectual” peers.
It is always folly to accept an undefined label, and no honest person will insist on trying to force an undefined label on anyone.
I think that you’ve demonstrated that “King James Onlyism” is a slur to be applied to any opponents that have found merit in (or even simply prefer) the King James translation, regardless of whether the label is technically accurate. The brush has been made intentionally broad, and the meaning undefined, to make it useful as a weapon.
Indeed, if you want to see “closed-minded bias” staring you in the face, you need only to look in the mirror, or read your own words:
Glenn wrote:
Not only do you fail to define what you mean by “KJV-only” but by refusing to grant it “serious discussion” you are refusing to allow … whatever this position is, we are not sure … to be judged by its merits.
That’s called prejudice, Glenn. Those were the words of a bigot. And if we consider your article defending “Kingdom Theology” where you specifically lamented being mislabeled or slurred, then you are also a hypocrite (see post 17 above.)
You say you are a Calvinist. I can see in the margin that you subscribe to multiple Preterist blogs, so I believe you might be a Calvinist. Earlier, I admitted (see post 40 of Older Comments) that the traditional punctuation of “to day shalt thou me with me in Paradise” was opposed to Calvinist doctrine.
But did I say that your statements should not be considered, because you were obviously “biased?” I could have said used a blanket judgment against you because of other observations I have made of self-admitted Calvinists. Yet I allowed your claims and statements to be judged individually, by their merits, without trying to label you with “-ists” or “-isms” and protesting that it would be useless to talk any further.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
You’ve had your chance to write a long article, and given that you have persisted in trying to label me with “KJV-Only” it seems like a pretty cowardly method of indirect attack.
Glenn wrote:
This isn’t too hard to figure out, with a little math:
1) You label me with “KJV-only” without otherwise defining the term
2) You persist on applying this label when it is not claimed
3) You claim it is not a religious slur, and deny that invokes prejudice
4) You now say that your personal definition for this term means “intellectual black hole”
Speaking of intellectual black holes, your research for that article was sadly lacking. The least you could have done was to have done was to have checked your facts before posting absolutely false statements. I think you should have been a little more careful in your research, seeing that you are accusing others of being an “intellectual black hole.”
Luk 19:22 KJV
(22) And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee…
Let’s deal with the merits of some of your statements on your “Label People Who Use the King James” blog now… on the blog itself. I’ll see you there.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
Oh boy… So now Andrew quotes just a tiny part of my definition of what it means to be KJV-only and claims that it, all by itself, is inadequate (wow what a surprise), he then denies that I define the term, and then claims that I “define” the term as intellectual black hole. I couldn’t make up the silliness that I’m seeing here.
Andrew, aside from vastly increasing your web visibility, why are you even posting here if you’re just going to descend to this nonsense?
What’s tragic is that I suspect there may be a person behind the name “andrew patrick” who really sincerely believes that he’s serving as some sort of prophetic voice, taking wicked people like you to task Glenn. It’s tragic, it’s crazy, but it may just be why he’s here.
I have to agree with your assessment though – there’s some outrageously dishonest quoting in his last comment. Why even reply to him? Surely you’re only encouraging him. I think he’s probably more visible at your blog than anywhere else on the internet. Does his ego really need stroking by answering him? I wouldn’t. There are serious people who would actually benefit from your comments. Don’t cast your pearls in that direction anymore – that’s my advice anyway.