1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Burgon-Hills Theory

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Not only Paid & Skan, but anyone else. I always thought it was the LXX, but was told I was wrong the other day. I really want to know which version. Also is it the same for the scripture that Philip and the eunich used.

    I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I really want to know. If I was wrong, I want to be right.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Tinytim,

    The scroll that Jesus read from would most likely have been written in Hebrew, but there is a slight possibility that it was written in Aramaic and that it was a Targum. Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek and in all likelihood he was quoting from the LXX, but there is a slight possibility that he used his own or another translation of the Hebrew into Greek. I am including in this post quotes from two scholars who studied Luke’s Gospel in detail.

    Luke 4:17-19

    17. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
    18. "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
    19. TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."

    Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in his very detailed commentary on Luke, vol. 1, pp. 532-533, writes regarding Luke 4:18-19:

    18. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. . . . The quotation from Second Isaiah is actually a conflation of 61:la,b,d; 58:6d; 61:2a. Two phrases are omitted: 61:lc, "to heal the broken-hearted" (at the end of v. 18); and 61:2b, "the day of vengeance of our God" (at the end of v. 19). The omission of thel former is of little consequence; but the latter is a deliberate suppression of a negative aspect of the Deutero-Isaian message. The "today" of v. 21 is not to be identified with a day of divine vengeance. The Greek text of Luke's quotation conforms to that of the LXX, save for the infin. keryxai, "to proclaim," instead of kalesai, "to call for" (LXX) in 61:2a, and the shift of the impv., apostelle (LXX) to an infin. in v. 18. The LXX follows the MT for the most part, but the meaning of the Hebrew text of 61:ld is disputed (lit. "for those bound an opening"—but in what sense? The LXX understood it as an opening of eyes). The Deutero-Isaian verses are part of a hymn (61:1-11), which explains the prophet's mission in the Consolation of Zion. See further J. A. Sanders, "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (SJLA 12; ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1. 75-106.
    he has anointed me. In the baptism (3:22; cf. Acts 10:38; see the COMMENT on 3:21-22). Here it is to be understood as a prophetic anointing (see COMMENT).
    to preach good news. The prophetic function of Jesus' mission is thus set forth in Deutero-Isaian terms. On the verb euangelizesthai, see NOTE on 1:19. Its etymological sense is retained here because it is so used in the Deutero- Isaian quotation; cf. 7:22. In the OT it scarcely means the preaching of Jesus or Christian preaching; when put on his lips here, it is not to be assumed that it immediately takes on the full Christian connotation. The point is that what "Isaiah" announced, Jesus is now seen doing himself. In the Greek text it is not clear whether "to preach the good news" is to be taken with the preceding verb, "he anointed me," or with the following, "he sent me." My translation has followed the sense of the original Hebrew, "to announce good news to the poor he sent me." So too the LXX.
    to the poor. Second Isaiah was announcing the Consolation of Zion to varous groups in the postexilic Jerusalem community. Luke includes four of them in his quotation. The first is the "poor" (ptochoi), a foreshadowing of a Lucan emphasis on this social class (see 6:20; 7:22; 14:13,21; 16:20,22; 18:22; 19:8; 21:3;cf. p. 248 above).
    release for prisoners. In the ministry of Jesus this might refer to imprisoned debtors, the second group. In the Melchizedek text from Qumran Cave 11, Isa 61:1 is used in connection with Lev 25:10-13 and Deut 15:2 of the "release" of the jubilee-year (intended for debtors); see ESBNT, 249, 256-257.
    sight for the blind. The third group of unfortunates in the Deutero-Isaian quotation, as it appears in the LXX; allusion will be made to them again in 7:22.
    to send the downtrodden away relieved. Lit. "with relief, or in release." The Greek text uses en aphesei. The fourth group is described by a text derived from Isa 58:6d according to the LXX. The conflation of Isa 58:6d with 61:ld is the result of catchword bond: aphesin, "release," in the latter, and en aphesei, "in release," in the former. Although the word aphesis is used in these two verses in the sense of "release," it should be recalled that Luke also uses it in the sense of "forgiveness" (especially of sins); see 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; cf. p. 223 above. See further M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive, 153.
    19. to proclaim the Lord's year of favor. Lit. "the Lord's acceptable year" (keryxai eniauton kyriou dekton), Isa 61:2a according to the LXX, save for the infin. (see NOTE on v. 18). The Isaian description of a period of favor and deliverance for Zion is now used to proclaim the Period of Jesus, and the new mode of salvation that is to come in him. This is the form that his kerygma takes in the Lucan Gospel in contrast to Mark l:14b-15 (see p. 153 above). The last part of 61:2 is omitted, "the day of vengeance of our God," since it is scarcely suited to the salvific period now being inaugurated. A similar reworking of this Isaian text to suit the role of Melchizedek and "the holy ones of God" can be found in11QMelch 9 (ESBNT, 249).

    I. Howard Marshall, in his commentary on Luke, p. 182, writes regarding Luke 4:18-19:

    The quotation, also found independently in Barn. 14:9, was already used at Qumran with reference to the work of the Teacher of Righteousness (1QH 18:14; Braun, Qumran, I, 87) and also in the Melchizedek document (11QMelch 6-9). It is taken from Is. 61: If. LXX with certain changes (Holtz, 39-41).
     
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Epistle of Barnabas 14:9,

    Again the prophet saith; The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, wherefore He anointed Me to preach good tidings to the humble; He hath sent Me to heal them that are broken-hearted, to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of recompense, to comfort all that mourn.
     
  3. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly, your problem is with inspiration, not preservation or translation. From your post, I take it that you do not accept plenary verbal inspiration. If you do accept inspiration at all, then you probably hold to some form of thought inspiration or something similar. I contend that accepting ideas also means accepting the ramifications as well. This, I suppose, rules out any real belief in infallibility or inerrancy. I cannot imagine a cogent argument for inerrancy, even though you state that you believe it, from what I perceive to be your position. Please enlighten me.

    Secondly, you are using guilt by association. Divination has absolutely nothing to do with those who believe in plenary verbal inspiration. This is a red herring. Before attacking Burgeon, be ready to defend your own territory. After all, war is both attack and defense. Do you play chess?

    Thanks. Bye. [​IMG]
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanx, Craig, for providing some solid info on the differences between Isaiah 42& 61 and Luke 4. The KJVOs have provided nothing but excuses, knowing that the TRUTH shoots their one-version myth in the foot.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paiedagogos: " I take it that you do not accept plenary verbal inspiration.
    If you do accept inspiration at all,
    then you probably hold to some form of thought inspiration or something similar.
    I contend that accepting ideas also means accepting
    the ramifications as well.
    This, I suppose, rules out any real belief in infallibility or inerrancy."

    You commit a logical error: denying the assumption.
    Your assumption is that i accept inspiration.
    Your conclusion is that i do not accept "infallibility or inerrancy".

    Actually, i don't believe in "plenary verbal inspiration"
    for it is not necessary for God to inspire an infallible
    and inerrant Holy Bible.

    Paidagogos: "Divination has absolutely nothing to do with those who believe in plenary verbal inspiration."

    Plenary verbal inspiration allows
    for inspired letters making inspiared words for equal distance
    bible codes. No other theory of inspiration, linfalliblaty,
    and inerrancy allows for
    equal distance bible codes. Equal distance bible codes
    is a form of divination. By it's fruits you shall know it:
    Plenary verbal inspiration fosters divination.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense. You cannot fault "plenary verbal inspiration" for some aberrant use of it. This is rather like saying the Bible is God's Word fosters the wickedness of the Branch Davidians, or any other hateful cult, because they believed the same. This is a spurious argument.
     
  7. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somehow, I don’t really follow your logic if it is, in fact, logical. I state the assumption that you don’t believe plenary verbal inspiration and you confirm that you don’t. However, I did not say that you even accept any form of inspiration at all. I said, “If you do accept inspiration at all, then you probably hold to some form of thought inspiration or something similar.” Please note the tentative, conditional nature (i.e. “if”) of my statement. Read carefully and accurately. Yet, you say I made a mistake. It seems that I’m right on target. I posit a hypothesis and you confirm its truth. The validation of a prediction is the best confirmation of your logic. My prediction was true. So, what more can you ask of me?

    On the other hand, I do contend that you may not believe plenary verbal inspiration and still hold to infallibility and inerrancy but you do so at the risk of being illogical. If God did not inspire the very words, then how can there be a major theological point centering on the number of a single word (i.e. Paul’s discussion of seed as opposed to seeds in Genesis 3:15). Since number (i.e. singular instead of plural) is germane and critical to the argument, then God evidently controlled the process of inspiration to the point of a specific word and its number.

    If you don’t accept plenary verbal inspiration and believe in infallibility and inerrancy, please define what you do believe. We may be defining infallibility and inerrancy differently.

    In sum, you tried to make a comeback and a point at my expense but it just doesn’t fly. After all, the proof is in the testing. It won’t fly.
    [​IMG]
     
Loading...