Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.

Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes¹ his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.

Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.

I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not solely for Arminian or -like tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.

We are all imitators

Something that should humble us is that in some of the most important things in life, we are mere imitators. We learn from those we see, or who've gone before, etc., doing as they do.

We might seem to be original as we abstract atop our observations, combine and compare them, infer from them, reapply them, or (more usually) mix and mis/match them, but in the end: still imitators.

"But we ought be original", so you might say...but I want very much to learn from masters, to imitate the kind and benevolent, the faithful and salty, those who walk in light. There are many men to imitate, but the rule and measure, and the one to follow most of all, is Christ Himself, and foremost Him.

A Christian is not so much interested in all originality. There is little likelihood of success, in Biblical terms, if one decides to "be original" in one's approach in marriage, doctrines, holiness, etc.. In none of these does a man want to be novel. Of course presentation of things may vary--as original as thoughts may become in a society, or as the teachings of wolves become, do we have to be in spying the duplicity, and connecting the taken (read, captives/captivated) again to the old truth by shining it as light on the darkness they've received; therefrom we do something very unoriginal, just as our predecessors did repeatedly, we shepherd (whether by authority in the word and in preaching, or in lowly example of our own walks), them back to the old truth, the ancient paths, and warn our brothers, "abide therein".

The woods and promises

Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum is a novel blog by "Cambria" shaping-up here. This post has a quote by C. S. Lewis that invoked a memory of an old favorite:

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

~Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening, by Robert Frost

I have to check from the book, when I get home, that I have the words right. And on the topic of promises, a lovely song with a virtuous theme (the video not important).

I know it's probably odd to write a not-so-serious post from a reminder stoked by such as serious post as the one with Lewis's quote on a blog titled "Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum". Isn't that the human mind, however, making connections? In this case being stoked to thoughts of a poem, which stoked memory of a song, two uninspired (by God, that is) works of art that are from the world, (though they their sentiments are arguably noble and unreproachable). :)

So on that note, there's a lot about "culture and Christ", and it's a subject I've had to deal with very personally, think about, etc., because of a Church with which I was involved and its teachings (I'm not now, which should give a hint). What I'll say to start is, Christians should be preaching God's word, Christ's teaching, and not founding entire sermons on cultural artifacts just to seem relevant. That's all, for now...

As to the subject Cambria is touching on, it is one of great interest to people: it is one which men with arduously attempt to philosophize to excuse God for the "criminal" behavior of saving some and not others: not a few people upon insisting that He does, indeed, neither save all, nor has to try, have said they could not worship that God, that I'd made Him into some terrible wicked thing (these are Christians). I understand from where they come from, but I cannot reconcile that place with Scripture, a place that reminds me of a Campus Crusade[r]'s testimony, who was taught inductive study, applied it to Romans 9, and became Reformed! thereafter--a stark rejection of Crusade's blatant Arminianism, if not Semi-Pelagianism, (something going by the name of the former quite often these days). I also think I've been guilty before, in this area, of simpletonism, such that I didn't recognize the difference of categories that in precise terms fall under such names as "volition", "agency", etc..

Anyway, a decent reply for those who protest that God would be a monster if He didn't want to save all, along such lines as "then he's making evil", or "[dot, dot, dot]" (strange because they start protesting along these lines, but we are, indeed, born evil, and it has nothing to do with their real item of protest--the supposed unfairness of saving some and not others), is simply pointing to Romans 9:20,

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?"

What's funny about this, unlike the Christian philosophizers, is that it never attempts to defend God, His goodness is left unimpugned, assumed. One interesting blogger I know of There's a (but which I don't link to due to some troubling points in what the guy teaches¹), I once saw write an excellently essay demonstrating the inaccessibility and mystery of God's wisdom as revealed in the book of Job: I highly recommend that book (Job) on this subject.

--

^{1 The guy is one who'll make statements such as he know that the NT forbids women from teaching men, but in practice it is different, he says, since he's experience being blessed by the preaching of a female presbyter: he justifies all sorts of deviations from the word by stating things like the meaning/intent of the Biblical text, and application, are two different things, though very often the application is actually what he's challenging. A pastor who I have found so often to demonstrate excellent judgment, sober and prudent, had this to say (from personal familiarity of that other blogger's writing/teaching),}

<sup>"My impression of [...] is that he is more or less an old-fashioned "neo-orthodox" liberal. Up until about 1960, liberal biblical scholars did not usually pretend that the Bible supported all their liberal beliefs. They did tend to focus on things that they agreed with in the Bible, while keeping quiet about things they couldn't agree with, but when pressed on some point they usually just admitted that they didn't care much for what the Bible has to say about some things. That's where this guy is coming from. He wants people to appreciate certain things in the Bible that he likes.

After reading his blog for a couple of weeks some time ago, I stopped paying any attention to him. He is always trying hard to sound like some very profound and intellectual "maverick" theologian, sort of neo-neo-orthodox. But he seems to lack any real faith in the Word of God.</sup>

^{I mention him at all because he's the guy who pointed-out Job in this capacity, and to acknowledge that I am very, like many my age, dependent upon teachers.}

ESV with Apocrypha has Arrived

[This post subject to further revisions and refinements on what is not only a touchy subject, but one deserving of more precision and care for the verity and for charitas.]

_______The ESV is a generally useful translation of the Scriptures. I would not make it my main study bible, and it has some issues. (See this excellent review by Michael Marlow.) In the words of one fellow, the more liberal crowd of Bible readers has commonly made this version its "whipping boy"; I note they offer a lot of pedantic and unwarranted criticisms, and suggestions out of line with the version's principles; often calumniating it, though commonly enough right where it matches their otherwise beloved RSV, the RSV being the ESV's basis. This is quite sad.
_______Among more conservative demographics, however, and even those we might call neo-orthodox, (some of them, anyways), the ESV is doing quite well. In a move to secure the customerships of more conservative seminaries and academics, and perhaps the Roman, and Greek, Catholics as customers, Oxford has published the ESV with the Apocrypha (including both the Protestant/Catholic Apocrypha, and the Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha).

"The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books." (Cambridge ESV with Apocrypha product page online)

Personally, I applaud the move because of the interest these books are to scholars, intertestamental students, and whatnot.

_______The Apocrypha, if you don't know, are books written in the interim period between the Old and New Testaments. Anciently they are not regarded as Scripture; during the Medieval period, some Western (Roman) Catholics began reading them as if they were; somewhere in history, Greek Catholics (Eastern Orthodox) also began regarding the Apocrypha regarded by the Roman Catholics, plus some, as Scripture.
_______The extra books were so regarded depending on the version used, the West due to presence in the Latin Vulgate, while in the East, due to presence in the Greek Vulgate (the Septuagint). Something important is to note that "canonical", "deuterocannonical", etc., in ancient writings, seemed to be used in more nuanced senses than today, with fine, developed, considerations of these matters absent today's thinking; this is especially significant since Catholics like to appeal to Augustine, who does not use the words as they do. When studied, I find the historical Protestants are heirs of this older, considerate, view of these books, perfectly in harmony, therefore, with the older catholic (miniscule "c") view of the books as generally acceptable for edification, but unacceptable for building or maintaining any doctrine. (Here is an interesting piece of writing on the subject!)
_______In the Reformation period the protestants set to inquire about the status of the Canon, and following the ancients' judgment, (though we're not to discount their own investigations in this matter from consideration), deemed these books, (in agreement with the ancient Jews and early Christians), as being outside the Canon of Scripture. Ever since, Rome has polemically accused the Protestants of criminal behavior, accusing them of rejecting "Scripture", and often depicting them as "missing out" on something; this is not upright or to be taken seriously, as the Protestants investigated the matter, and find themselves sided with authorities of the church that Rome ignores of necessity in order to assert her position.
_______Their line of inquiry looked to the Ancient Church's investigation of the matter, which was thorough, in both the Old and New Testaments, transcending and bypassing the rhetoric posturing of the Roman political hierarchy. By this the Protestants could hardly be accused, with any legitimacy, of actually contradicting the Church, "yea rather", they were returning to its sober judgment. Today, I have witnessed that the committed and serious Roman Catholics, when confronted with such data, such as,

"Jerome himself denied these are Scripture, and upon Origen's example and teaching, elucidated the name of this collection of books is "Apocrypha", after the custom of the Jews, a term meaning "hidden", properly, but applied to the books the Jews gave much respect, but did not regard as Scripture"

often retort with something like, "well Jerome was overruled by the Church". (!) I also see it often said, something like

"the Protestants use 'Apocrypha' to mean 'false', and they discourage the reading of these works".

These acerbically loaded accusations, however, totally ignore the Protestant writings, prologues, introductions, and scholarly works on these books. Luther, for instance, wrote

"Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read". (See 1, 2.)

The successive English Bibles, the protestant-Anglican (the preceding adjective since sometimes Anglicanism is more Roman than protestant, depending on the mood of the time) Church, the Dutch, etc., agree in this judgment, recognizing the importance of these works for historical data, and benefit for education, but not doctrine. They also ignore, however, the pastristics' use of "apocrypha", (which does on occasion have the sense false!).

The real rub for Catholics is that without these books, some of its doctrines fail either explicit, or implicit, support in Scripture, as if that ever mattered to post-Trent Catholicism, so it is an odd worry to see them express, when they have mountain ranges of such doctrines, and serious Catholic scholars, even the current Pope, unhesitatingly say that Scripture cannot support all of Rome's doctrines. Protestants are often accused of disregarding these books merely to do away with some doctrines. Yet again, the ancient Church is often in contention against Rome, though it claims continuity with it which agrees with the protestants, and it was their ancient cry that no doctrine shall be built upon extrabiblical books.

_______Today, I received my copy of the ESV with the Apocrypha. It's the standard ESV, with a short, fact-stating Preface, controversial about nothing so as, perhaps, to leave the version acceptable widely and ecumenically. It is a hardcover with sewn binding which arrived with a warning not to use the Bible as a holder of paper and Church bulletins lest they damage the sewn binding that was placed inside of course! Of interest to any Catholic, the Apocryphal books of this edition are placed in the back of the Bible, not interspersed into the Old Testament. I would have preferred they be placed between the testaments, for the intertestamental placement is more traditional (among Protestants), and emphasizes the period in which these books were written. Nonetheless, it is interesting to now have a modern, updated, rendition of these books in a literal form. The Apocrypha contained are those of both the Vulgate and the Septuagint. The preface says in part:

" _____As with the Expanded Apocrypha of the RSV, the following edition of the Apocrypha also includes those books from the Septuagint that are in use among Orthodox Christians. _____While the Entire text published in this Oxford University Press edition was examined for faithfulness to the original languages, the main points of interaction included updating archaic language, clarifying obscure words, removing inaccuracies, and bringing punctuation up to current American English standards. Three scholars well versed in the ancient language worked through assigned portions of the Apocrypha, namely: _______ · David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Ashland Theological Seminary _______ · Dan McCartney, Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary _______ · Bernard A. Taylor, Loma Linda University. The whole was then edited by David Aiken (Ada, Michigan) to achieve consistency throughout. _______The Göttingen Septuagint served as the textual base for all of the books except 4 Maccabees (which was translated from Rahlfs's Septuagint) and 2 Edras (which was translated from the 1983 Vulgate published by the German Bible Society). _______We are pleased to offer this version of the Apocrypha to all those readers who wish to explore these ancient writings, which provide additional insight into the history and thought of the Jewish people during the centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. The Translation Committee of the Apocryphal Books

"

_______The edition is quite thin, yet it has large type. The paper is good quality and opaque, having very little bleed-through of the text, (on this last point I give my caution, as I'm used to editions of Bibles that have heavy bleeding--such as the KJV/RV interlinear by Cambridge, so I may be a little out of the ordinary in evaluating that point[edit: I've seen other reviewers say there's more bleed-through than they'd like]). The large text will be be welcome to big readers and those with weary eyes. The book has no jacket. The appendices contain a table of weights and measures, and monetary units; three two-sided pages of note paper, (which is comical, but not unusual these days); and maps.

ISSUES:

The printing is disorganized to the uninitiated (that includes myself: must decipher...) and looks fragmentary. What connects to what...one does not necessarily know. The handling of the printing here is terrible. Perhaps it would not be so bad if this edition weren't so minimalist, skipping all intros and opportunities to convey some indication of what's going on!
_______Apocryphal Esther has various forms, Greek and Hebrew. In the Apocryphal Esther, I've encountered a problem: the printing in this edition of either does not indicate which is which, and generally leaves the reader who is not fully learned about the Apocrypha at a loss for what the heck is going on: why does the book start at chapter 11? Why does it have facing pages each with Chapters 3, 4, 5... Also, of interested to the Eastern Orthodox readers, the entire Greek Esther is printed, not just the Greek additions to the original Hebrew's version. Unfortunately, there are no introductions to the Apocryphal books whatsoever (or any of the ESV's introductions, actually), or cross-references.

Conclusion:
_______Other than these issues, this edition looks to be one that has already wildly, and widely, sold; Anglicans, Lutherans, and even Catholics have expressed interest. They delayed the release date because the pre-order numbers outran the supply. It looks as if there will be a much greater interest in the Apocrypha in the days ahead. Now if only people would take such an enthusiastic interest in handling Scripture carefully, and learning its doctrines, rather than reading it like a self-help therapeutic make-my-life-better book.

A Plea to Christians

[There would be a great quote here by Martin Luther on "non-essentials", but nobody that's cited it gives the source.]

[There's be a great quote by Spurgeon here, perhaps, but nobody gives its source.]

Please brothers, CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!

Personally I do not like, necessarily, copying quotes, rather to look up the source then perhaps quoting the text from there.

Too much misinformation is spread through careless propagandizing of information without investigating it first and investigation is hampered by the lack of citation.


2011-12-24 Revised. Removed:

(t desire and the wherewithal to have “travelled about 7000 miles, in about 18 months, chiefly by foot,” Mr. Asplund recorded fand that should be done after ensuring it hasn't been removed from context to twist it in some way).(t desire and the wherewithal to have “travelled about 7000 miles, in about 18 months, chiefly by foot,” Mr. Asplund recorded fand that should be done after ensuring it hasn't been removed from context to twist it in some way).

Because it made no sense where it was and I do not know how it got there.

I just looked up the text and found it on a page about "Regular Baptists" here, http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=1077 and probably looked up something on religious history one day, came across this, and somehow introduced the material into this post, though I really am mystified as to how.

Microsoft is getting nervous...

Trying to access Hotmail on Firefox using Linux, I get the "shiny" new live interface that doesn't detect my browser, so doesn't change to the "Classic view" (which is no longer possible to choose manually). Maybe they're just trying to beat-up Linux, since it works using Firefox on Windows; maybe they're just not caring anymore, and removed classic altogether; Mozilla indicates that Microsoft is trying to fix things... I can access it from a Windows PC, but from a linux or unix consol, it does not work.

Most everything works except...you cannot edit e-mails: not new, draft, nor replies: period.

I was going to do a temporary measure: forward all messages to gmail until things were fixed: Gmail just works. However when I attempted this, here's the reply I received:

You're only able to forward mail to a custom domain or an e-mail address that ends in hotmail.com, msn.com, or live.com. Please try again.

I don't know what you think, but forwarding is basic functionality expected of e-mail providers...and I'm pretty sure this is anti-competitive behavior: the stuff the EU keeps finding Microsoft, massively, for perpetrating against users: for which the company is now receiving heavy punishments and orders to open-up protocols and to document their API. I might've even paid for MS Mail in the future: now I'm just disgusted with the company, it never learns.

A Place for Response to a Comment...

This post is a place made for a response to a comment where I asked a fellow a question regarding this comment, about a biblical phrase, which [comment] was:

The HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Version, 2003) has a note at 1 Sam. 25:22, "Lit. "of those of his who are urinating against the wall." Because this is an idiom for "men," I like that the HCSB chose that word as the text's translation. And yes, "men" may well be a better translation than "males".

I'm just curious about why "men" may be better than "males"; perhaps he means this because fellows like Rashi took this to mean anything with a phallus, (even dogs), although it actually just means male humans.