This is a continuation of James White’s and A & Ω’s Wishful Thinking about Real Exegesis.

1. The Scandal of the Mysterious “Albrëcht-Kappes” Translation

            Presumably because of Dr. White’s and TF’s lack of comfortability with Greek, about 300/1400 potential original words of their 3, 623 worded article tries to cast conspiratorial suspicion on authors for not following word by word a standard Bible edition, as if were done in a secretive and inexplicable manner:

A&K’s translation of Judges 11:39 (p. 85) has: “And she did not know man”.  At p. 5, A&K indicate that, “Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version and New Revised Standard Version of the Bible,” but with the additional caveat that: “Some quotations have been modified according to the Greek.” (Id.) There is no other note at p. 84.  The NKJV has: “She knew no man.”  The NRSV has: “She had never slept with a man.”  In fact, “And she did not know man” does not appear to be in any of the major English translations (see this list). Where did it come from?  It’s anybody’s guess.  While I have my suspicions, I will simply set that to the side.

Oddly enough, A&K provide another translation of the same phrase at page 83, “She knew not man.”  That wording happens to line up with the ASV’s translation of that particular phrase

Similarly, A&K’s translation of Luke 1:34 has: “I do not know man” without any other note. This happens to align only with the Revised Geneva Translation among a list of major English translation (see the list here).  Where did they actually get it from? Once again, we do not know. The NKJV has, “I do not know a man,” and the NRSV has, “I am a virgin.”  Perhaps they were trying to follow the NKJV here, and just omitted the article.

Behold, the resolution of the conspiracy in the opening pages of book mentioned, where it states:

Copyright © October, 2020 by William Albrecht & Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes

Publication date: October, 2020

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version and New Revised Standard Version of the Bible

Some quotations have been modified according to the Greek

TF could, to my mind, be perplexed only by his disability with reading Greek (not per se a vice, unless one purports nonetheless to be commenting on Greek in the OT and NT, as if understanding it). TF’s repeated amazement, after implying deception by Albrëcht-Kappes (A&K), seems to cast suspicion on Mary and the Evangelists, which was transparent about this issue. So, Dr. White’s and TF’s disastrous 100 worded paragraph about ethereally existent critical editions of Judges and the entire LXX (able to be purchased at fantasyland book shop) were dedicated to thinking that A&K have a problem because there allegedly exist other fantasyland “critical” editions of the entire LXX including the book of Judges (see my Part I for the full critique). Now, these additional 400/1400 words in their first rebuttal, after approximately two years, is centered on the fact that a co-author comfortable with Greek (and therefore not slavishly in need of following one or another translation) reserves the right to alter texts transparently. Where is the scandal? There can be none, but I do not believe TF can personally critique anyone’s Greek translation into English, as evidenced by openly needing an electronic translating machine to tell him what Eusebius’s Greek reads (despite having a fulltime apologist and self-describe NT/Greek scholar Dr. White present ostensibly to provide him with a translation at A & Ω) in an attempt to (falsely) claim there exists an ancient source for Mary not being a perpetual virgin by the words of Eusebius.[1] For its part, Mary among the Evangelists is a purely non-academic popular venture exactly as nearly everything published by A & Ω. It is meant to bring scholarly insights to pious readers and its content is partly produced by a published scholar with peer-reviewed Greek translations of ancient texts sold by academic presses.

• When Faux Scholars Pretend to Understand Biblical Languages, Bad Things Happen

Let’s see what happens when a fulltime apologist (likely making a six-figure salary for what is about to come) and his loyal (albeit sincere) acolyte pretend to read Greek and pretend to analyze the Greek Septuagint as if they knew Hebrew-to-Greek translation techniques to evaluate them:

So, the alleged quotation starts with five Greek words in Judges matched against four Greek words in Luke.  Obviously, “καὶ” (and) is not quoted by Mary/Luke and her “ἐπεὶ” (because) does not come from Judges.  So, now the two phrases are:

J: αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα [My clarification: autê ouk egnô andra/She did not know man]

M/L: ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω [My clarification: andra ouk gignôskô/man I know not]

Of the four words in the first line, you can see that there is one matching word in the second line: “ἄνδρα” (man). The word is in a different position within the phrase, and the rest of the words are different words.  The first phrase even has an extra word compared to the latter.  When only one word of an alleged quotation lines up, what you do not have is a verbatim quotation.  So, the claim was a false claim, no matter how many times it was repeated. Suppose that A&K corrected their claim to assert that this was an allusion, instead of a quotation.  The problem with claiming that it is an allusion is that you have to have something other than the similarity of words.  The situations of Jephthah’s daughter and Mary are remarkably different.  Jephthah’s daughter was a young lady living in his house. Mary was betrothed to a husband.  Mary was receiving an angelic promise that she would have a child, Jephthah’s daughter was guaranteed that she would not. What about the similarity between the phrases?  The similarity is that both have a negative particle (οὐκ in Judges and οὐ in Mark), a form of the verb ginosko (to know), and the word for man.  That’s a very slender reed upon which to hang the weight of an alleged allusion.Notice the grandiose claim about this being “the only other such phrase in the entire history of the Greek language” (A&K, p. 85)

COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 1

• “καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω …” [My clarification: autê ouk egnô/She did not know] (LXX Hosea 2:10 – corresponds to Hosea 2:8)
• “καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα” [My clarification: autê ouk egnô andra/She did not know man] (LXX Judges 11:39)

Notice how those two places have the same four words, in the same order.  The only difference is the object of knowledge.In fact, I was able to locate dozens of verses that have the phrase “οὐκ ἔγνω” in the Septuagint, but only that one other verse with the exact phrase “καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω.” [My clarification: autê ouk egnô andra/She did not know man]  Does that mean that Hosea 2:8 is quoting Judges 11:39?  Does that mean that there is an allusion?  Absolutely not. To assert that this is a quotation or an allusion would just be wishful exegesis.

[My Commentary on their Commentary]

Unfortunately, in addition to using nonsensical jargon, as if it were Septuagint-talk (see my Part I), now Dr. White and TF employ poor exploitation of English saddled with commenting on two languages that neither of these self-proclaimed experts ostensibly understand. At the outset of the article, the emphasis is on our claim that a “quotation” or “quote” in Luke 1:34 can be traced to Judges 1:39 (LXX). The term “verbatim” works Dr. White and TF up, just short of a frenzy, as if hyperbole or an outright lie is being foisted upon the readers of Mary and the Evangelists. So, let’s get our terms straight. I’ll take dictionary.com as the standard use of terms (I do not deny that the Oxford [complete] English Dictionary may provide more meanings). Let’s be clear: (1.) “Verbatim: … word for word”[2]; “Quote: […] to repeat words from.”[3] It is not hyperbole to claim that if only two words match two other earlier spoke/written words, then there is a quote.[4] That is what we have claimed. Provided that we can find two or more words that Mary is said to have spoken (Luke 1:34) and we can find these two or more words from a source earlier than and other than Mary, then she may be plausibly suspected of quoting them. However, more arguments might be needed to solidify or prove such a conclusion of “quoting” depending on factors that might weaken the assertion that Luke’s Mary quoted Judges 11:39.

So, what is the premier example brought out by Dr. White and TF? Answer: LXX Hosea 2:10/8! Let’s see a regular translation of LXX Hosea 2:8 “And she knew not that I gave her her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied silver to her: but she made silver and gold images for Baal.”[5] Let’s compare my translation/s from Luke 1:34: “She knew not man/She did not know man” (it is apparently troubling to both Dr. White and TF that I can render “knew not” as “did not know”!).[6] The inane argument is that Hosea has: And + she + knew + not, in common with Luke 1:34, which makes it 4/4, whereas a comparison between Mary’s “I know not man” (Luke 1:34) versus “She knew not man” (Judges 11:39) is not the exact words relative to Hosea’s 4/4, with the exact word order, and even the same inclinations/conjugations as in Hosea. Wow, this looks so damning, so powerful! What am I do? After all, Dr. White and TF have seriously ferreted out and exposed phonies a plenty in their ministry. Sadly, we must admit that even clergy of my own denomination have truly embarrassed themselves historically by challenging Dr. White (at times pridefully), only to find out that he is not a stupid man and their pride and feelings of superiority unfortunately buried them in public. So, given Dr. White’s and TF’s experience with phonies, potentially even phonies in my denomination, they are not unjustified in testing everything. My contention isn’t that they are wrong to critique me, rather that they don’t know how or have the capacity to critique me! The absurdity of their example arises from the fact that Dr. White and TF do not realize that word-for-word parallels, the same syntax between selected words in two phrases, and inclinations/conjugations are useless for this example because it is an idiom! What is an idiom? (since we cannot assume Dr. White and TF know what this means in biblical Hebrew-to-Greek):

Idiom: An expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one’s head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.[7]

Let’s look at Strong’s definition #3 of the Hebrew “to know”:

know a personcarnally, of sexual intercourse, followed by accusative: man subject  Genesis 4:1,17,25; Genesis 24:16; Genesis 38:26 (all J), 1 Samuel 1:19; Judges 19:25; 1 Kings 1:4; woman subject Genesis 19:8 (J), Numbers 31:17,18,35 (all P), Judges 11:39; יֹדַעַת מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר Judges 21:11; לֹא יָ˜דְעָה אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר Judges 21:12; man subject and object (of sodomy) Genesis 19:5 (J), Judges 19:22.[8]

Shockingly, Dr. White and TF do not seem to know that for this idiom in Hebrew (it is a Hebraism in the LXX, it is not Greek-speak), a female subject, or male subject, are needed for the expression. Secondly, they do not seem to know that a female or male object are needed for the idiom! So, for Dr. White and TF, it is a premier argument – being as they are scholars – to argue thus:

• “She did not know man” (LXX Judges 11:39) = singular female subject + know + singular male object = Hebrew sexual idiom in Greek
• “I do not know man” (Luke 1:34) = singular female subject + know + singular male object = Hebrew sexual idiom in Greek
• “She did not know that I gave her corn” = singular female subject + know + dependent clause = Hebrew sexual idiom (for Dr. White and TF) in Greek

We are dealing with masterminds, clearly. The Hebrew idiom cannot exist without three attested terms: (i.) male/female subject (ii.) verb “to know” (yada), and (iii.) male/female object. Let me illustrate analogously Dr. White’s and TF’s simpleton logic by plainer English idioms:

• The young boy and girl got it on inappropriately = sexual idiom
• The young man inappropriately spoke to the pretty young girl at the party and said: “Let’s get it on” = sexual idiom
• Where did you get this inappropriate book? [Answer:] We got it on Ebay = literal non-idiom with exact same words

For Dr. White and TF, if we put nos. 1-3, just above, next to each other and say: “Somebody’s (either 2 or 3) is using a quote from #1, who is it?” For Dr. White and TF, the word order and exact words in #3 mean that only #3 is a candidate. They do not understand that, if we are forced to choose here, there can only be #2 quoting #1 because, without further qualifications, only #1 and #2 use a sexual idiom. Oppositely, for Dr. White and TF, when reading the Bible, we can apparently infer that “Not knowing that I give corn” also means to have sex with someone or perhaps to have sex with plants. Bravo apologists and scholars! Touché critical readers of the Septuagint! Clearly, this challenge is not what they thought it would be when arguing contra the Reformers and contra the Apostolic Churches, both of whom interpret the Bible to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity. Dr. White and TF end this portion of their argument thus:

Notice how those two places have the same four words, in the same order.  The only difference is the object of knowledge.

In fact, I was able to locate dozens of verses that have the phrase “οὐκ ἔγνω” in the Septuagint, but only that one other verse with the exact phrase “καὶ αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔγνω.”  Does that mean that Hosea 2:8 is quoting Judges 11:39?  Does that mean that there is an allusion?  Absolutely not.

“The only difference is the object of knowledge.” Incorrect! The difference is that Judges 11:39 and Luke 1:34 are Hebrew sexual idioms (see above for definition) first found in Greek in the LXX, and Hosea 2:8/10 represents not an idiom but what an idiot does with the Bible who understands not idioms. In the last paragraph, just above, for the first time, Dr. White and TF make some sense: “Does that mean that Hosea 2:8 is quoting Judges […] Absolutely not.” I couldn’t agree more, after running around the Greek Old Testament comparing non-idioms with a proper idiom, it doesn’t prove anything. Congratulations! Just to solidify by way of repetition the lesson here, let’s take a look at some idioms-turned-quotes that Dr. White and TF would propose analogously in the English language:

• That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger (original idiom)
• That which doesn’t kill somebody makes someone stronger (oblique quote of idiom)
• You dummy! Protein isn’t that which kills you, it makes you stronger (literal statement, not an idiom)

For Albrecht and Co., the “quote” here -presuming #1 above to be prior to nos. 2-3, is from sentence #2. It is a quote, the words are the same or verbatim (adjusted for the author’s literary purposes), and the idiom in English is preserved. But what about #3? Sentence three is not a quote of either #1 or #2, but it does happen to have the same words even closer to #1 by chance but with a much different meaning that is literal not an idiomatic expression. Let’s do an experiment: I cannot put every subject for nos. 1-2 and get the same meaning for #3. For example:

• That defeat in battle didn’t kill you, it made you stronger! (The metaphor -even if wishful thinking- is meaningful)
• The trauma didn’t kill her, it made her stronger! (ditto)
• You dummy! Military defeats/traumas aren’t that which kill you, they make you stronger (No, military defeats are often fatal!)

Let’s also illustrate incomplete idioms (meaning nothing), which Dr. White and TF search for all over the LXX since they think incomplete idioms (viz., non-idioms) share more words with a full idiom and therefore can be preferred as the source of a complete idiom. Let’s use an easy example:

• A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (original saying)
• An old birdie in the ole hand is worth two of ‘em in the bush (this is an oblique quote)
• A bird in the hand of the man was from the two in the bush (not an idiom)

When Dr. White and TF do biblical “scholarship,” they argue that #3 is clearly the candidate to be textually dependent on sentence #1. For them, it is insane that sentence #2 would be the real quote here under the proviso that #1 was written first and either no. 2 or no. 3 above is a quote dependent on no. 1. This is how they do their biblical research. That about sums up the skills at work here.

• Being a Bad Example: More So-Called Exegesis

In [My Commentary on their Commentary] above, I showed that Hosea 2:8/10 is not a sexual idiom and therefore means nothing in comparison to Luke 1:34. The same anile wit came up with the examples in LXX Genesis 4:9 and Genesis 27:2:

Comparative Example 2

• Genesis 4:9 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Καιν ποῦ ἐστιν Αβελ ὁ ἀδελφός σου ὁ δὲ εἶπεν οὐ γινώσκω μὴ φύλαξ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μού εἰμι ἐγώ
• Genesis 27:2 καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ γεγήρακα καὶ οὐ γινώσκω τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τελευτῆς μου
• Luke 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

Notice how those three places have the same pair of words, in the same order.  In the first one Cain says he doesn’t know where Abel is.  In the second, Isaac says he doesn’t know when he’s going to die.  Is Luke quoting from these verses?  Are these allusions just because the identical phrase is used?  Absolutely not.To assert that these are quotations or allusions would just be wishful exegesis.

The real translations of these non-idiomatic verses in Genesis 4:9/27:2 read thus:

• And the Lord God said to Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? and he said, I know not, am I my brother’s keeper? (Genesis 4:9)[9] 
• And he said, Behold, I am grown old, and know not the day of my death. (Genesis 27:2)[10]
• Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man? (Luke 1:34)[11]

Let’s have some fun. If the proper sexual idiom is found in LXX Genesis 4:9 and 27:2 (justifying comparison to Luke 1:34 by Dr. White and TF), then they should be able to be changed just like Luke 1:34:

• And the Lord God said to Cain, “Where is Abel thy brother?” And he said, “I have not sexual relations, am I my brother’s keeper” (that idiom worked out well!)
• And he said, “Behold I am grown old, and I do not have sexual relations with the day of my death” (that idiom worked even better!)
• And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no sexual relations with a man” (Behold, a passage of Scripture that makes sense because it is an idiom!).

That wraps it up for section 3.0

• Reasonable Inquiry: Gaggles of Virgins: A Problem of the One and the Many

So far, we have seen that Dr. White and TF believe that Mary among the Evangelists is flawed because: (1.) Albrëcht and co. (=A & co.) don’t resolve problems using a fairyland critical edition of Judges/LXX (2.) A & co., do not take into account fairyland pre-AD 70 translations of the Bible other than the LXX (3.) A & co., do not consider that Luke (who, Dr. White explicitly claims, thought the LXX to be Scripture) may have wanted to translate exactly as the LXX but by using the Hebrew and not the LXX (an unverifiable claim), and (4.) because A & co. don’t see that Hosea 2:8/Genesis 2:9, & 27:2 are actually equal or better candidates for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34, as if applying A & co.’s logic, since they can find many words that match between Luke 1:34 & Hosea 2:8/Genesis 2:9, & 27:2.

However, despite the ridiculousness so far, there is actually some merit to their last objection. Although it does not absolve them from foisting nonsense in the name of being scholarly, a casual or even middling reading of LXX Genesis 19:8 and Judges 21:2 is entirely worthy of investigation. If Dr. White and TF had produced a tiny article, omitting all the foregoing embarrassing material, the objections below taken by themselves merit a serious and scholarly answer! So, although I have been well aware of these verses per the TLG (largest Greek database in the world) since 2021, how did I come to the conclusion that the verses proposed rationally by Dr. White and TF, below, are not worthwhile competitors with LXX Judges 11:39 for Mary (according to Luke) to quote in Luke 1:34? I will treat this investigation with a meritorious seriousness since Dr. White and TF did well to bring up this objection. I commend them for underlining something that does indeed beg an explanation. If I were objected to with this kind of seriousness throughout, I would gladly thank Dr. White and TF for their critiques, where they write:

Comparative Example 3

• Genesis 19:8 εἰσὶν δέ μοι δύο θυγατέρες αἳ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἄνδρα ἐξάξω αὐτὰς πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ χρήσασθε αὐταῗς καθὰ ἂν ἀρέσκῃ ὑμῗν μόνον εἰς τοὺς ἄνδρας τούτους μὴ ποιήσητε μηδὲν ἄδικον οὗ εἵνεκεν εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην τῶν δοκῶν μου
• Judges 21:12 καὶ εὗρον ἀπὸ τῶν κατοικούντων Ιαβις Γαλααδ τετρακοσίας νεάνιδας παρθένους αἳ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἄνδρα εἰς κοίτην ἄρσενος καὶ ἦγον αὐτὰς εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν εἰς Σηλω ἥ ἐστιν ἐν γῇ Χανααν
• Judges 11:39 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τέλει τῶν δύο μηνῶν καὶ ἐπέστρεψε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ εὐχὴν αὐτοῦ, ἣν ηὔξατο· καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἔγνω ἄνδρα. καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς πρόσταγμα ἐν ᾿Ισραήλ·
• Luke 1:34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

I provide this comparative example because someone may try to say that I’m not being fair because Judges and Luke have a word that can be translated “not,” together with a word for “man,” and a word that is a form of the verb, “to know.”  Is Judges 11:39 unique as a previous case of that?  No, it is not.  Genesis 19:8 and Judges 21:12 also have the same.  Genesis 19:8 is about Lot’s daughters who were of zero interest to the men of Sodom, and Judges 21:12 is about the four hundred young women who became the brides of the surviving Benjamites. Does the similarity mean that Mary and/or Luke was alluding back to Sodom or to Jabeshgilead?  Does that make it a verbatim quotation or anything like that? Of course not. To assert that these are quotations or allusions would just be wishful exegesis, which is exactly what the argument from Luke 1 to Judges 11 was, as I hope we have satisfactorily proven.

Let’s take a look at the English, since many of our readers unfortunately can’t see how strong these objections might prove to be unless they have the Greek explained to them. So, the following will be helpful:

1. But I have two daughters, who have not known a man (ouk egnôsan andra)(LXX Genesis 19:8)
   1. And it came to pass at the end of the two months that she returned to her father; and he performed upon her his vow which he vowed; and she knew no man (ouk egnôsan andra) (LXX Judges 11:39)
   1. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabis Galaad four hundred young virgins, who had not know man (ouk egnôsan andra)by lying with him (LXX Judges 21:12)[12]
   1. Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man (andra ou gignôskô)? (Luke 1:34) […] [I gratuitously add:] And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her house. (Luke 1:56)[13]

We saw that “A women not to know a man” is a Hebrew idiom. It is not understandable to a purely native Greek in Antiquity but is used by Hebrews who speak and read Greek. The first claim made by us that moves toward the criterion of exclusivity lies in the use of the TLG (most powerful search engine) for the lemmata (roots) “not + know + man.” As predicted, the idiom only first appears in the third century BC Jewish literature. The examples above exhaust its use in Greek from approximately 500 BC until AD 70. So, what is already exclusive about this phrase? It is exclusively found in the Hebrew Bible in the LXX (nowhere else) until it is cited by a Greek-speaking (with no incontrovertible evidence of knowing Hebrew) St. Luke. This requires an explanation. St. Luke had ample access and uncontestably cited from the LXX for the vast majority of his biblical quotes. Hence, it is not controversial or objectionable by any Biblicist to state that St. Luke borrowed this idiom from the Greek Bible. Dr. White and TF correctly note, however, that we must discern from three possible passages, from which passage does St. Luke draw? Even without looking at the greater context of Luke chapter 1, we can still come to the almost certain conclusion that the verbatim citation (of the verb: gignôskô, and of the noun: anêr, and the negative particle ou) require us to look to Judges 11:39.

Grammatical Analysis #1 for Criterion of Exclusivity

Genesis 19:18	Plural noun: virgins	Plural verb: know	Singular object: man
Judges 11:39	Singular noun: virgin	Singular verb: know	Singular object: man
Judges 21:12	Plural noun: virgins	Plural verb: know	Singular object: man
Luke 1:34	Singular noun: virgin	Singular verb: know	Singular object: man

Source Analysis #2 for Criterion of Exclusivity

Verse:	Situation
Genesis 19:18	Lot offers Sodomite virgins to sexually abuse in place of raping men
Judges 11:39	A Father sacrifices his daughter to die a virgin due to his vow
Judges 21:12	Virgins are kidnapped in booty to be forcibly wed to Israelites
Luke 1:34	A virgin responds that she cannot have a child having no sexual relations

Redaction Analysis #3 for Criterion of Exclusivity

Bible verse:	Redaction: virgin	Redaction 2: know	Redaction: man
Genesis 19:18	Make plural “virgins” singular and use “I”	plural & past tense into singular present	None
Judges 11:39	Make “she” into “I”	Singular past tense into singular present	None
Judges 21:12	Make plural “virgins” singular and use “I”	plural & past tense into singular present	None
Luke 1:34	“I” is implied	Singular present	None

Comments: She/I/myself are all able to be expressed by the word: “autê” in the koine dialect common to Luke and Judges 11:39, where “she/I/myself” is more allusive to “I” knew/know not man. This is due to the fact “She knew no man” only need to change the verb from: “knew” (3^rd persons singular) to “know” (1^st person singular). Note, “autê gnousa” is attested in the first century, for example.

But why doesn’t St. Luke quote Judges 11:39 verb in the past, but changes it into the present tense? Answer: “They did not know man” (Genesis 19:18/Judges 21:12) and “She did not know man” (Judges 11:39) use the aorist: “egnôn”? Mary could have said: “I did not know man (andra ouk egnôn/egnôsa)” (= hypothetical Luke 1:34). Answer: The Angel Gabriel predicted that sometime in the future she would conceive, not that she had already conceived or was having relations currently (this is disputed by nobody). Mary’s response, by Luke, makes the most sense to the prediction of a foggy future by saying “How will (estai)this (prediction) be? For I am not presently (though in the situation of one to be married) not having sexual relations so that a future child will result.” Grammatically, Judges 11:39 original verb tense cannot work (changing “she knew not man” to “I knew not man” as a completed past action. The kappa aorist, then is excluded for the futurity issue as well (egnôka). Instead, St. Luke chooses to render the idiom in the present tense. I do not wish to get into speculation as to why the present versus the future might be used. The point is that there is a very, very good reason why “egnôn” or “egnôsa” (unattested until the next century) cannot be used. St. Luke must change the verb to a tense related to the story. This is hardly controversial. But what about word order? The first class that I ever had with Reggie Foster (greatest Latinist perhaps in modern history, whose rule here was applied to Greek too) was one in which we learned universal rules like: “Word order doesn’t matter in Latin/Greek!” When a person is a veteran working with ancient texts, discretion, taste, and intuition do play a part. Experience is another essential teacher. Strictly speaking, a quote is word for word in Latin and Greek when the exact or near exact phrase is found (conveying the same sense), even though it is compact in the original  sentence but distributed throughout another sentence, both of which contain the same quote. Let me give an example:

To err is human but to forgive is divine (original) = For humans, it is said, to err but, so too, it is divine to be forgiving

This is a quote and it is verbatim when found in Latin and Greek. Exclusivity is solidly established by excluding all the other possible sources and narrowing down the one source for the quote. I do not think it controversial to say that the left sentence (above) has been quoted in the right-side sentence even in English. In English, to change the sentence as follows: “To have erred is human but to have forgiven is divine” is not enough to save a student from plagiarism. The meaning and the quotation are sufficiently literal and the meaning is exactly conveyed in its essence. One is still guilty of plagiarism, when there is no attribution in these cases, as attribution is today due to the author.

Contextual Analysis #4 for Criterion of Exclusivity

LXX Judges 11[14]	Luke 1[15]
And the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthae […] And Jephthae vowed a vow to the Lord	The Holy Spirit will come upon you [Comment: This is a supplementary allusion after looking at all other allusions to solidify Luke’s source]
Do to me accordingly as the word went out of thy mouth	Let it be to me according to your word. [Comment: This is a clear allusion]
let me alone for two months, and I will go up and down on the mountains, and I will bewail my virginity, I and my companions. And he said, Go: and he sent her away for two months; and she went, and her companions, and she bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of the two months that she returned to her father	Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah [..] And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her house.   [Comment: Both go to hills and both return on or around the third month]
he performed upon her his vow which he vowed; and she knew no man	Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” [Comment: The parallel makes the intended inference by Luke about Mary looks fairly obvious]
he daughters of Israel went from year to year to bewail the daughter of Jephthae [Comment: She is bewailed because she dies childless, the consequence of perpetual virginity; Elizabeth praises Mary who is a virgin and not childless]	And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Conclusions

            This last objection by Dr. White and TF was respectable, if they were unaware of their overly simplified approach to the text. I would expect a B.A. Classics student, maybe a person getting her M.A. to struggle to find latent and oblique and even the various kinds of verbatim quotes that are used among ancients. There may be a small concession due to TF in the debate on 9 February, in spite of the nugatory nature of the majority of White-TF study overall. When Albrëcht is quoted as saying that Mary gives a “direct quote” from Judges 11:39, in one cited instance, not mentioned in Mary among the Evangelists nor in other shows nor other debates, this may not be the best way to represent the nature of the citation. It is a quote, it is verbatim from Judges, and it is oblique, in my view since some grammatical changes had to be made in order to adjust the LXX Judges 11:39 citation to St. Luke’s history moving to the first person singular speaking of a future (not past) action. However, I have historically put in print errors and usually misspeak once every time I do a show. But, in fairness, I would want to avoid the term “direct citation” only until I know better the English range of direct quoting, but I think that the hundreds of other mentions in which we have consistently referenced the Luke 1:34 and Judges 11:39 citation are entirely accurate and I stand by my name as a coauthor of Mary among the Evangelists and I hope the Dr. Sebastian Brock will find, if ever asked, that this present answer to A & Ω is for him satisfactory to continue his enthusiastic endorsement of our ecumenical and pro-Marian work to bring the message of the Gospel to Christians about the biblical Mary mother of Jesus the Lord.

---

[1] See http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2022/02/eusebius-on-psalm-697-9.html. TF is incapable of checking “the machine”’s translation by recourse to his or Dr. White’s abilities in Greek from the outset, even apparently after a recent page update where only an anonymous “scholarly review” of his equivalent to google translate is said to be happening. Given the emphasis on Mary and the Evangelists as “not scholarly,” what passes as scholarly for TF is to publish for public consumption the equivalent to a google translate, without any review (since A & Ω seems to have nobody), and only after an unverified “machine” translation is already published, to have it checked, post, by an anonymous “scholarly review” (take his word for it[!]) that the translation is not wrong…These guys are obviously not in a position to speak the word “scholarly” meaningfully, let alone, judge a text as scholarly or not.

[2] See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/verbatim.

[3] See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote.

[4] See https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2022/02/wishful-exegesis-jephthahs-daughter-and.html?m=1: “Mr. William Albrecht (and his co-author Christiaan Kappes, collectively A&K) in their book, “Mary Among the Evangelists: The Definitive Guide for Solving Biblical Questions about Mary,” claimed (emphasis is added by me): ‘The situation is stunning, for Luke’s annunciation has Gabriel, as the Lord’s representative, play the part of Jephthah and Mary quotes verbatim Jephthah’s ever-virgin daughter by responding to the plan of perpetual virginity entailed by the votive sacrifice as inspired by the Holy Spirit.’ (<Mary and the Evangelists>p. 84) […] ‘Mary quotes verbatim her predecessor, the daughter of Jephthah, to protest her vow of perpetual virginity to the Angel Gabriel that should impede her conception of any child.’ (<Mary and the Evangelists> p. 87). From the debate (emphasis obviously mine): ‘Luke is directly quoting this verse.’ (Circa 18:25 of the Youtube video).”

[5] See the Brenton LXX: https://biblehub.com/sep/hosea/2.htm.

[6] See http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/: “A&K’s translation of Judges 11:39 (p. 85) has: “And she did not know man”.  At p. 5, A&K indicate that, “Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version and New Revised Standard Version of the Bible,” but with the additional caveat that: “Some quotations have been modified according to the Greek.” (Id.) There is no other note at p. 84.  The NKJV has: “She knew no man.”  The NRSV has: “She had never slept with a man.”  In fact, “And she did not know man” does not appear to be in any of the major English translations (see this list). Where did it come from?  It’s anybody’s guess.  While I have my suspicions, I will simply set that to the side. Oddly enough, A&K provide another translation of the same phrase at page 83, “She knew not man.”  That wording happens to line up with the ASV’s translation of that particular phrase.”

[7] See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/idiom.

[8] See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3045.htm.

[9] See the Brenton LXX: https://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/4.htm.

[10] See the Brenton LXX: https://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/27.htm.

[11] See NKJV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1%3A34&version=NKJV.

[12] See https://biblehub.com/sep/judges/21.htm.

[13] See NKJV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1%3A34&version=NKJV.

[14] See the Brenton LXX: https://biblehub.com/sep/judges/11.htm.

[15] See the NKJV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201&version=NKJV;SBLGNT.

MORE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ MISINFORMATION EXPOSED

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses produced a booklet titled Should You Believe In the Trinity where they sought to prove that not only is the Trinity not a biblical doctrine, but that it wasn’t even taught by the pre-Nicene church fathers/writers.

For instance, they claim that North African church apologist and theologian Tertullian believed that there was a time when the Son did not exist:

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.” (Should You Believe In the Trinity?, Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?)

Typical of this booklet, no page number or book title is given which would allow the readers to personally verify the accuracy of these citations. And it is obvious why no such details are provided since when we do examine the context of these statements we will see that the Society has shamelessly misquoted their sources. This is especially the case with Tertullian.  

Here is the context of Tertullian’s claim that there was a time “when the Son was not”:

Chapter 3. An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out

He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself — but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power.

I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME when neither sin existed with Him, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. And God said, and God made, and God saw; but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed; Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God commanded Adam. Genesis 2:16 

Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part, to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance, and actually to retort against him his own arguments. For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free, when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one. Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it, although all the while He was really so. (Against Hermogenes; bold emphasis mine)

Tertullian was addressing a heretic named Hermogenes who taught that God did not create matter, and used the title “Lord” to show that matter must be eternal for God to have eternally existed as Lord. After all, lordship implies sovereignty over something or someone and if God was eternally alone then he could not have always been Lord.

Tertullian responds by arguing that lordship and fatherhood are not essential characteristics of Deity and therefore God didn’t always exist as Lord or Father. God only became Father when he begot the Son from out of his own being, from his very own substance, and began ruling as Lord only after creating matter from nothing.

That Tertullian did not think that the Person of the Son was created or brought into existence from nothing or from things created, is clearly demonstrable by what this Apologist wrote elsewhere:

Chapter 5. The Evolution of the Son or Word of God from the Father by a Divine Procession. Illustrated by the Operation of the Human Thought and Consciousness

But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: In the beginning God made for Himself a Son. As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God’s own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. YET EVEN NOT THEN WAS HE ALONE; FOR HE HAD WITH HIM THAT WHICH HE POSSESSED IN HIMSELF, that is to say, HIS OWN REASON. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, HE WAS ACTUALLY CAUSING THAT TO BECOME WORD which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe GOD WAS NOT ALONE, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, WHICH HE MADE SECOND TO HIMSELF by agitating it within Himself…

Chapter 7. The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light. Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, WHEN HE PROCEEDS FORTH FROM GOD— formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom — The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways; Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect — When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: FOR BY PROCEEDING FROM HIMSELF He became His first-begotten Son, BECAUSE BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL THINGS; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART — even as the Father Himself testifies: My heart, says He, has emitted my most excellent Word. The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: You are my Son, today have I begotten You; even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made; John 1:3 as, again, in another place (it is said), By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit — that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God Proverbs 8:22 which strengthened the heavens; by which all things were made, John 1:3 and without which nothing was made. John 1:3 Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom AND OF REASON, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten WHEN HE PROCEEDED FORTH FROM HIM. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, GOD and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself IS DESIGNATED GOD? The Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 It is written, You shall not take God’s name in vain. Exodus 20:7 This for certain is He who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Philippians 2:6 In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although God is a Spirit? John 4:24 For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth FROM HIS SUBSTANCE not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father. (Against Praxeas; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Admittedly, the way Tertullian formulated the generation of God’s eternal Word/Wisdom or his belief that the Father has a substantial body or bodily substance is not how later Christian writers/theologians/apologists would express the church’s understanding of God’s nature as Spirit or the eternal begetting of the Son. However, Tertullian’s statements do show that he clearly believed that the divine Person who later became the Son, thereby making God a Father, was not created ex nihilo.

Tertullian explicitly and emphatically affirmed that the prehuman Jesus is God’s very own uncreated Reason/Word/Wisdom who has always existed in/with God, being an essential, eternally intrinsic aspect of God’s uncreated substance.

As such, Tertullian was neither an Arian nor a Modalist. Rather, he was a Trinitarian who did the best he could to articulate the eternal distinctions and relationships which the God-breathed Scriptures testify exist among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

A final point of Tertullian’s Christology which needs to be emphasized is his express denial of Jesus being an angelic being. Tertullian wrote that Christ assumed the role and function of an angel, but wasn’t an angel by nature:

Chapter 14. Christ Took Not on Him an Angelic Nature, But the Human. It Was Men, Not Angels, Whom He Came to Save

But Christ, they say, bare (the nature of) an angel. For what reason? The same which induced Him to become man? Christ, then, was actuated by the motive which led Him to take human nature. Man’s salvation was the motive, the restoration of that which had perished. Man had perished; his recovery had become necessary. No such cause, however, existed for Christ’s taking on Him the nature of angels. For although there is assigned to angels also perdition in the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, Matthew 25:41 yet a restoration is never promised to them. No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father; and that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken. For what object, therefore, did He bear the angelic nature, if it were not (that He might have it) as a powerful helper wherewithal to execute the salvation of man? The Son of God, in truth, was not competent alone to deliver man, whom a solitary and single serpent had overthrown! There is, then, no longer but one God, but one Saviour, if there be two to contrive salvation, and one of them in need of the other. But was it His object indeed to deliver man by an angel? Why, then, come down to do that which He was about to expedite with an angel’s help? If by an angel’s aid, why come Himself also? If He meant to do all by Himself, why have an angel too? He has been, it is true, called the Angel of great counsel, that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, NOT OF NATURE. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel OR A MICHAEL. For the Lord of the Vineyard sends even His Son to the labourers to require fruit, as well as His servants. Yet the Son will not therefore be counted as one of the servants because He undertook the office of a servant. I may, then, more easily say, if such an expression is to be hazarded, that the Son is actually an angel, that is, a messenger, from the Father, than that there is an angel in the Son. Forasmuch, however, as it has been declared concerning the Son Himself, You have made Him a little lower than the angels how will it appear that He put on the nature of angels if He was made lower than the angels, having become man, with flesh and soul as the Son of man? As the Spirit of God, however, and the Power of the Highest, Luke 1:35 can He be regarded as lower than the angels — HE WHO IS VERILY GOD, and the Son of God? Well, but as bearing human nature, He is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature, He to the same degree loses that inferiority. This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion, who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God; although He is, to be sure, in one respect more glorious than the prophets, inasmuch as he declares that there was an angel in Him, just as there was in Zechariah. Only it was never said by Christ, And the angel, which spoke within me, said to me. Zechariah 1:14 Neither, indeed, was ever used by Christ that familiar phrase of all the prophets, Thus says the Lord. FOR HE WAS HIMSELF THE LORD, who openly spoke by His own authority, prefacing His words with the formula, Verily, verily, I say unto you. What need is there of further argument? Hear what Isaiah says in emphatic words, It was NO ANGEL, nor deputy, but the Lord Himself who saved them. Isaiah 63:9 (On the Flesh of Christ; bold and capital emphasis mine)

The foregoing data makes it abundantly clear that Tertullian was indeed a Trinitarian who loved, worshiped and glorified the Triune God of Scripture!

FURTHER READING

Tertullian and the Doctrine of the Trinity

WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS TRINITARIANS?

THE EARLY CHURCH ON THE ETERNAL BEGETTING OF THE SON

In this post I am going to show how the method [J]ehovah’s [W]itnesses employ to deny Jesus’ being Jehovah God in the flesh can be used to refute their belief that God the Father is Jehovah as well. I will be referencing the 2013 revision of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition).  

JWs will often cite the following [N]ew [T]estament texts where the Father is identified as the one God or only true God to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical:

“How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God (tou monou Theou)?” John 5:44

“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God (ton monon alethinon Theon), and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” John 17:3

“For there is one God (heis gar Theos), and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5

The JW reasoning is that since the Father is the only true God, and since the Father is not the Son, then the Son Jesus Christ cannot be the one true God Jehovah. The Father alone can rightly be described as Jehovah Almighty:  

“Now the spirit of God came upon Az·a·riʹah the son of Oʹded. So he went out to meet Aʹsa and said to him: ‘Hear me, O Aʹsa and all Judah and Benjamin! Jehovah is with you as long as you remain with him; and if you search for him, he will let himself be found by you, but if you abandon him, he will abandon you. For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law. But when in their distress they returned to Jehovah the God of Israel and searched for him, he let himself be found by them.’” 2 Chronicles 15:1-4

“Hez·e·kiʹah took the letters out of the hand of the messengers and read them. Hez·e·kiʹah then went up to the house of Jehovah and spread them out before Jehovah. And Hez·e·kiʹah began to pray to Jehovah and say: ‘O Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, sitting enthroned above the cherubs, you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth. You made the heavens and the earth. Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear! Open your eyes, O Jehovah, and see! Hear all the words that Sen·nachʹer·ib has sent to taunt the living God. It is a fact, O Jehovah, that the kings of As·syrʹi·a have devastated all the lands, as well as their own land. And they have thrown their gods into the fire, because they were not gods but the work of human hands, wood and stone. That is why they could destroy them. But now, O Jehovah our God, save us out of his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God, O Jehovah.’” Isaiah 37:14-20

“But Jehovah is truly God.He is the living God and the eternal King. Because of his indignation the earth will quake, And no nations will endure his denunciation. This is what you should say to them: ‘The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth Will perish from the earth and from under these heavens.’ He is the Maker of the earth by his power, The One who established the productive land by his wisdom And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding.” Jeremiah 10:10-12

With the foregoing in perspective, let us see what happens when we apply this same logic and interpretive method to texts where Jesus is identified in a similar fashion.

The NT describes Christ as the one great Shepherd whom believers have overseeing them:

“I am the fine shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my life in behalf of the sheep. And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd (heis poimen).” John 10:14-16

“Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, with the blood of an everlasting covenant,” Hebrews 13:20

The risen Jesus is further said to be the only sovereign Ruler in heaven who is the only One who is immortal by nature:

“to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the happy and ONLY Potentate (monos Dynastes) will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,the one ALONE having immortality (ho monos echon athanasian), who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:14-16

Remarkably, even the JW’s own Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society admit that the blessed Apostle is describing Jesus in 1 Timothy 6:15-16!

Jehovah is the “happy God” and his Son Jesus Christ is called “the happy and only Potentate” (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:15)… (Aid to Bible Understanding [Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1971], p. 711 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001868?q=Jehovah+is+the+%E2%80%9Chappy+God%E2%80%9D+and+his+Son+Jesus+Christ+is+called+%E2%80%9Cthe+happy+and+only+Potentate%E2%80%9D+%281+Tim.+1%3A11%3B+6%3A15%29&p=par; bold emphasis mine)

How can Jesus be “the one alone having immortality”? The first one described as being rewarded with immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God [sic] is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Compare Re 1:17, 18). For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel. The glorified Jesus, God’s appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has “an indestructible life.” – Heb 7:15-17, 23-25. (Insight on the Scriptures [Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY 1988], Volume 1. Aaron-Jehoshua, p. 1189 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002155#h=6– see also p. 1032; bold emphasis mine)⁽¹⁾

The Son is even identified as the one and only Sovereign Lord who shall appear with his myriads to judge the wicked and grant mercy to the believers:

“My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our ONLY owner and Lord, Jesus Christ (ton monon Despoten kai Kyrion hemon ‘Iesoun Christon). Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah (Kyrios), having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those not showing faith… Yes, the seventh one in line from Adam, Eʹnoch, also prophesied about them when he said: ‘Look! Jehovah (Kyrios) came with his holy myriads to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.’… But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit, in order to keep yourselves in God’s love, while you await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view.” Jude 1:4-5, 14-15, 20-21

That Jude is referring to the risen Jesus as that very Jehovah who comes with his heavenly host is made clear by the following NT passages where Christ is spoken of as the Lord of all creation that shall arrive with his angels to judge all the nations and punish the disobedient with everlasting destruction:

“He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all.” Acts 10:36

“For to this end Christ died and came to life again, so that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.” Romans 14:9

“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I became hungry, but you gave me nothing to eat; and I was thirsty, but you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, but you did not receive me hospitably; naked, but you did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but you did not look after me.’ Then they too will answer with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of these least ones, you did not do it to me.’ These will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.” Matthew 25:31-46

“For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

“so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.” 1 Thessalonians 3:13

“But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you.” 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

This brings me to my next. Jesus possesses a name that no one knows besides himself:

“I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that NO ONE KNOWS but he himself, and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God. Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords… And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the one seated on the horse and against his army. And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulfur. But the rest were killed off with the long sword that proceeded out of the mouth of the one seated on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.” Revelation 19:11-16, 19-21

This is where the JWs’ woes begin.

The God-breathed Scriptures proclaim that Jehovah is immortal by nature:

“Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.” Habakkuk 1:12

“Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God (mono Theo), be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:17

The [O]ld [T]estament further teaches that Jehovah is the One that shepherds his people and who will come to judge and destroy evildoers with everlasting punishment:

“Jehovah is my Shepherd. I will lack nothing.” Psalm 23:1

“O Shepherd of Israel, listen, You who are guiding Joseph just like a flock. You who sit enthroned above the cherubs, Shine forth.” Psalm 80:1

“Bow down to Jehovah in holy adornment; Tremble before him, all the earth! Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King! The earth is firmly established, it cannot be moved. He will judge the peoples fairly.’ Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Let the sea thunder and all that fills it; Let the fields and everything in them rejoice. At the same time let all the trees of the forest shout joyfully Before Jehovah, for he is coming, He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the inhabited earth with righteousness And the peoples with his faithfulness.” Psalm 96:9-13 – Cf. Pss. 9:7-8; 98:9

“Look! The Sovereign Lord Jehovah will come with power, And his arm will rule for him. Look! His reward is with him, And the wage he pays is before him. Like a shepherd he will care for his flock. With his arm he will gather together the lambs, And in his bosom he will carry them. He will gently lead those nursing their young.” Isaiah 40:10-11

“For Jehovah will come as a fire, And his chariots are like a storm wind, To repay in furious anger, To rebuke with flames of fire. For with fire Jehovah will execute judgment, Yes, with his sword, against all flesh; And the slain of Jehovah will be many.” Isaiah 66:15-16

Jehovah is also identified as the only sovereign Lord who rules in heaven above over all creation:

“Jehovah has firmly established his throne in the heavens; And his kingship rules over everything.” Psalm 103:19

“Who is like Jehovah our God, The one who dwells on high?” Psalm 113:5

“As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.” Psalm 115:16

“To you I raise my eyes, You who are enthroned in the heavens. As the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, And the eyes of a servant girl to the hand of her mistress, So our eyes look to Jehovah our God Until he shows us favor.” Psalm 123:1-2

Therefore, since Jesus is described as doing the very things and possessing the essential characteristics which the OT attributes to Jehovah alone, this means that Christ is none other than Jehovah God Almighty in the flesh.

At the same time, however, Jesus is not the Father. Therefore, the Father cannot be Jehovah God Almighty since only the Son is thus described.

Nor can the Father be the only sovereign Ruler and Lord over all creation who shepherds believers, or immortal by nature, since only Jesus is said to be all these things. Neither is the Father all-knowing since he doesn’t know everything that the Son knows.

Here is a summation of the problems which the JW hermeneutical method raises for their belief in the Deity of the Father:

1. Jesus is the only Potentate, Master and Lord who reigns in heaven over all creation, especially over all believers, and who comes with his myriads to judge all creation.
2. Jesus alone possesses immortality.
3. Jesus bears a specific name that he alone knows.
4. Jesus is the one great Shepherd of the flock.
5. Jehovah is described as the only sovereign Lord from heaven, being the Shepherd of his people, who never dies, and who alone comes to judge mankind.
6. Jesus must, therefore, be Jehovah Almighty who became a human being.
7. Jesus is not the Father.
8. Therefore, the Father cannot be Jehovah God and is definitely not the heavenly Potentate, Master and Lord who rules over all creation.
9. Nor can the Father be the Shepherd of the sheep.
10. Moreover, the Father isn’t omniscient and does not know as much as the Son knows since the latter has knowledge which none but he possesses.  

JWs, you have a problem!

FURTHER READING

The Use of Exclusive Language and the Deity of Christ [Part 1], [Part 2]

Is Jesus only a Man who mediates before the One God? Pt. 1

One Mediator and One God Pt. 1

One Mediator and One God Pt. 2

ENDNOTES

(1) The explanation offered by the Society to explain why Christ is described in such a rather exalted fashion is rather desperate.

In the first place, the Society teaches the Man Jesus was never resurrected, and that Christ’s physical body was disposed of by Jehovah. They teach that Jehovah recreated the archangel Michael with the memories of the earthly Christ since the man Jesus remains forever dead:   

“The man Jesus is dead, forever dead.” (Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 5, p. 454)

“We deny that he was raised in the flesh, and challenge any statement to that effect as being unscriptural.” (Studies, Volume 7, p. 57)

It is true that Jesus appeared in physical form to his disciples after his resurrection. But on certain occasions, why did they not at first recognize him? (Luke 24:15-32; John 20:14-16) On one occasion, for the benefit of Thomas, Jesus appeared with the physical evidence of nail prints in his hands and a spear wound in his side. But how was it possible on that occasion for him suddenly to appear in their midst even though the doors were locked? (John 20:26, 27) Jesus evidently materialized bodies on these occasions, as angels had done in the past when appearing to humans. Disposing of Jesus’ physical body at the time of his resurrection presented no problem for God. Interestingly, although the physical body was not left by God in the tomb (evidently  to strengthen the conviction of the disciples that Jesus had actually been raised), the linen cloths in which it had been wrapped were left there; yet, the resurrected Jesus always appeared fully clothed.—John 20:6, 7.

 

Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?

 

The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.

 

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)

Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the GLOTIFIED SPIRIT Son of God. (Reasoning From the Scriptures, Jesus Christ; emphasis mine)

Therefore, it is simply dishonest and deceitful to teach that Christ was the first to be made immortal by resurrection since the human being known as Jesus was never raised to immortality.

This leads me to my next point. The righteous angels are also immortal who never die, and they also rule like Michael the archangel, which is why he is said to be one of the first/foremost princes. I.e., Michael is one among many ruling angelic creatures:

“But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia… Then he said: ‘Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Miʹcha·el, your prince.’” Daniel 10:13, 20-21

As such, these spirit beings are immortal as well, with one glaring difference which puts JWs in a major dilemma. These angelic rulers never died, and therefore never ceased to consciously exist, since this is how the Society interprets death. As such they continued to remain immortal, unlike Michael who for a season ceased to exist as an angel once Jesus came into being with the life force and memories of the archangel. Later on, Christ ceased to be and Michael was then recreated or brought into existence in Jesus’ place. Talk about mass confusion!  

Thirdly, and more importantly, the NT doesn’t teach that Christ possesses immortality because of the indestructible life he received by virtue of his resurrection. Rather, Jesus has this quality due to his being Life itself who gives life to every person:

“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.” John 1:3-4

“For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to… Most truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD, and those who have paid attention will live… Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear HIS [the Son’s] VOICE and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” John 5:21, 25, 28-29

“This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none out of all those whom he has given me, but that I should resurrect them on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day… No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day.” John 6:39-40, 44

“My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.” John 10:27-30

“Jesus said to her: ‘I am the resurrection and THE LIFE. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?’ She said to him: ‘Yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.’” John 11:25-27

“Jesus said to him: ‘I am the way and the truth and THE LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:6

“The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom you handed over and disowned before Pilate, even though he had decided to release him. Yes, you disowned that holy and righteous one, and you asked for a man who was a murderer to be given to you, whereas you killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.” Acts 3:13-15

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have observed and our hands have felt, concerning THE WORD OF LIFE, (yes, THE LIFE was made manifest, and we have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you THE EVERLASTING LIFE that was with the Father and was made manifest to us), that which we have seen and heard we are reporting also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 1:1-3

Therefore, since Christ is the Life, the Eternal Life, and the Chief Agent of Life, who raises the dead and gives everlasting life to all who trust in him, it was impossible for him to remain dead:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ was a man publicly shown to you by God through powerful works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know. This man, who was handed over by the determined will and foreknowledge of God, you fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men, and you did away with him. But God resurrected him by releasing him from the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held fast by it.” Acts 2:22-24

In fact, the Lord himself said that no one could take his life away and that he would personally raise himself up from the dead in three days:

“Jesus replied to them: ‘Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said: ‘This temple was built in 46 years, and will YOU raise it up in three days?’ But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples recalled that he used to say this, and they believed the scripture and what Jesus had spoken.” John 2:19-22

“This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my life, so that I may receive it again. No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.’” John 10:17-18

Yet despite the Society’s erroneous interpretation, their position regarding 1 Timothy 6:15-16 shows that even this anti-Trinitarian cult clearly sees and readily acknowledges that the Apostle Paul described the glorified Christ as the only Sovereign Lord and King, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light!

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

What a Jew would understand is that the apostle Paul in this epistle has all along been treating the Lord Jesus as if he were the Lord (YHWH), while also distinguishing him from the Father. The various ways in which Paul distinguishes God the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ should already be familiar to you (for example, 1 Cor. 1:3, 9; 3:23; 6:14). What you may not realize is just how often Paul speaks of Jesus as if he were the Lord YHWH:

* Christians, according to Paul, are those “who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). Judaism, of course, taught that one should call on the name of the Lord (YHWH; e.g., Joel 2:32).

* Christians hope to be found “blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8; see also 5:5), whereas Judaism spoke of that judgment day as “the day of the Lord” (YHWH).

* Paul exhorts his readers “through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:10), again placing the focus on the name of Christ that Judaism placed on the name of the Lord (YHWH).

* After quoting the words of Jeremiah 9:23-24 about boasting only in the Lord (YHWH), Paul says that his whole message to the largely pagan Corinthians could be summed up as “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1:31; 2:2). Can you imagine one of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching to people who never heard of Jehovah and summing up his message in that way?

* The one who was crucified, Paul says, was “the Lord of glory” (2:8), language no faithful Jew would use for anyone but YHWH.

* Later Paul quotes the words of Isaiah, “but who has known the mind of the Lord” (YHWH) and then comments, “But we have the mind of Christ” (2:16). In other words, the mind of the Lord can only be known if he reveals it to us, and that is what we have in the mind of Christ.

* In answer to his critics, Paul states, “the one who examines me is the Lord” (4:4); this “Lord” must be Jesus because Paul, like the rest of the NT writers, regards the Lord Jesus as the one who will sit in judgment (recall 1:8; see also 2 Cor. 5:10). It is Jesus who is the “Lord” who will “come” and “bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of hearts” (4:5). Again, this is what Judaism taught that the Lord (YHWH) would do.

* The members of the Christian church assemble “in the name of our Lord Jesus” (5:4); the “assembly” or “congregation” of YHWH in Judaism has become the assembly or congregation of the Lord Jesus.

* Christians confess that they are “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (6:11), even though in the Old Testament all people are summoned to be “justified in the Lord” (YHWH, Is. 45:23).

* The directions received from the Lord are indistinguishable from those received from God: “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk” (7:17).

* Paul wants a Christian to be “concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord,” with the ideal being “undistracted service to the Lord” (7:32, 34-35). The purpose of life in Judaism, of course, is to please the Lord (YHWH; see Ex. 15:26; Deut. 6:18; etc.). The only other use of any form of the verb translated here as “service” (EUPAREDRON, also translated “devotion”) is just a couple of chapters later in the same epistle, where Paul says that those “serving” (PAREDREUONTES) at the altar share in what is offered at the altar (9:13). Thus, Paul makes religious devotion or service to the Lord Jesus the ideal and purpose of the Christian life.

This constant placing of God and the Lord Jesus side by side (see also 1:1, 2, 4, 24, 30; 3:5, 6, 19-20; 4:1, 19-20; 6:13; 7:21-24, 39-40), attributing functions to the Lord Jesus that Judaism understood to be those of God, could only be understood by Jews as treating Jesus as on par with God and as in some way even identifying him as the Lord YHWH. Eleven times, at least, prior to 1 Corinthians 8, the apostle has spoken of Jesus as KURIOS in contexts that would be naturally understood by literate Jews as alluding to the honors, attributes, and functions of deity belonging in biblical Judaism only to the Lord YHWH.

Thus, when this same literate Jew comes to 1 Corinthians 8:6, he will see Paul placing God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ AGAIN side by side, distinguished from one another, yet both attributed functions of deity in creation, in a way that strongly echoes the SHEMA: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord [Heb., YHWH, Jehovah; Gk., KURIOS] our God, the Lord [Heb., YHWH, Jehovah; Gk., KURIOS] is one” (Deut. 6:4). After eleven times (at least) in which Jesus Christ is spoken of as Lord (KURIOS) in a way that alludes to the functions of the Lord YHWH in Judaism, such a Jew will recognize the same thing going on in 8:6. Yes, the roles of the Father and the Son are also distinguished in some way (EK and DIA imply some sort of functional distinction), yet for Judaism the confession of Jesus as the “one KURIOS” and the attribution to him of an intimate role with the Father in all of creation will still clearly amount to identifying or equating Jesus with the Lord YHWH.

Let me make one supplementary observation regarding an objection that has already been implicitly raised. The oldest copies of the Septuagint that we currently have extant do not use KURIOS as a surrogate for the name YHWH but instead have some form of the tetragrammaton. That is true enough. However, during New Testament times, Jews customarily would *say* “Lord” (ADONAI or KURIOS or some equivalent) when reading aloud or quoting an Old Testament text using the divine name YHWH. Furthermore, the NT evidence is unequivocal that this was also the practice of the NT writers, since they routinely use KURIOS (or occasionally QEOS) in place of the name YHWH when quoting from the OT. In support of this conclusion we have ALL of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, ALL of the ancient language versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic), ALL of the writings of both the church fathers AND of the heretical writers (especially the Gnostics). The evidence from the church fathers pushes our evidence back into the late first century. These writings all follow the same practice of using KURIOS in place of YHWH, whether in quotations from the OT or in other speech about the Lord God.