Diodorus

[Steven Avery]

Sanday and Headlam
http://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic32sanduoft/page/234/mode/2up

(Cramer’s Catena p.162)


with Photius
“definitely ascribe the words to the Father”

Fernand Prat
https://books.google.com/books?id=ez5IEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA126

 

[Brianrw]

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 390)​

The reference, as indicated by Metzger, is Cranmer's Catanae for Romans, p. 162 lines 25-27. It's from the Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos (Fragments from his commentary on Romans)

Ἀναγκαίως τῷ παρέποντι ὅρκῳ πιστοῦται τὸν λόγον· προειπὼν γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τι ὃ δυνήσεται αὐτὸν χωρίσαι τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐπάγει ὅτι μόνον τῆς συγγενείας αὐτοῦ ἡττᾶται. φησὶν οὖν ὅτι ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡδέως ἂν καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν προήκατο, ἵνα ὧν ἐκπεπτώκασιν, τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἀνακαλέσωνται, πιστεύσαντες εἰς Χριστόν. τί γὰρ τῶν καλῶν οὐκ Ἰουδαίων ἦν ἐφ' οἷς νῦν τὰ ἔθνη σεμνύνεται; ἡ υἱοθεσία, ἡ δόξα, αἱ διαθῆκαι, αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ἡ λατρεία, οἱ θεοφιλεῖς πατέρες, καὶ τὸ μέγιστον· ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ἐξ αὐτῶν, φησίν, ὁ Χριστός· θεὸς δὲ οὐ μόνον αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ κοινῇ ἐπὶ πάντων ἐστὶ θεός. τούτων οὖν πάντων ἐκπεπτώκασιν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἀλλ' ἵνα ταῦτα ἀνακτήσωνται, φησίν, ἡδέως ἂν ἀνάθεμα ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγενόμην ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τὸ δὲ ἀνάθεμα τὸν ἀλλότριον δηλοῖ, ἐπεὶ τὸ ἀνατεθὲν τοῦ ἀνατιθέντος ἀλλότριον. ἀναγκαίως δὲ ὅσην ἔχει περὶ αὐτοὺς διάθεσιν δείκνυσιν, ἵνα μή τις τοὺς κατ' αὐτῶν ἐλέγχους πρὸς ἀπέχθειαν λέγεσθαι ὑπολάβοι.​

I'll let you translate this one on your own. Should be a piece of cake for you, since you're always correcting and insulting the Greek of others. I don't personally see how θεὸς δὲ οὐ μόνον αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ κοινῇ ἐπὶ πάντων ἐστὶ θεός refers, specifically, to God the Father. Maybe you see it? It seems to be a continuation of the thought ἐξ αὐτῶν, φησίν, ὁ Χριστός. Cranmer's Catenae also does not include the following words that close out the chapter which seems important to the overall context:

ἐπειδὴ δήποτε ἐπαιδεύθη τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιμιξίας τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων γνωρίζειν θεόν, τηνικαῦτα καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν σαρκὶ ἐπιδημήσας τῷ κόσμῳ, τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς ἀποστέλλει κήρυκας αὐτοῦ τῆς γνώσεως. διαλανθανούσης μὲν ἐν χρόνοις, κηρυχθησομένης δὲ ἐν ἐσχάτοις καιροῖς, οἳ καὶ πανταχόσε φοιτῶντες κατήγγελλον τὸν Χριστὸν θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀνάρχως καὶ ἀχρόνως γεγεννημένον, μαρτυροῦντες ἅμα καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ φωτιστικῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι τὴν ὁμοούσιον τριάδα συμπληροῖ ἐκ πατρὸς δι' υἱοῦ εἰς ἀνθρώπους χορηγούμενον. τῆς οἰκονομίας οὖν αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν καταπλαγεὶς τὴν ὀφειλομένην ἀναπέμπει δόξαν τῷ θεῷ.​

​

If you get stuck translating, let me know.

 

[Steven Avery]

Ezra Abbot goes into Diodorus in some depth:

https://books.google.com/books?id=tQonAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA138
http://biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1881_087.pdf
http://thebookshelf2015.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-construction-of-romans-95-by-ezra.html
https://archive.org/details/journalofbiblica01sociuoft/page/n141/mode/2up
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268736?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Also in 1888
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and Other Critical Essays: Selected from the Published Papers of the Late Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA393

Later we can bring over the pics and discussion.

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon seems to simply skip Diodorus.

 

[Brianrw]

Do try and translate.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I never claim to know Greek or to translate, so you are being obnoxious for no purpose.

Here is Abbot.

“From them, he says, is the Messiah. But GOD belongs not to them alone, but is God over all men alike.”
Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi, and Schultz understand it as relating to the Father.

This section does seem to leave writer's puzzled.
It would take a while to look at Meyer et al. and may not be worth the effort.

Meyer
https://books.google.com/books?id=FgAWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA117

 

[Brianrw]

And I never claim to know Greek or to translate, so you are being obnoxious for no purpose.

My point is not to be obnoxious, but to make a point that if you want help in understanding Greek you need to cool the insults and stop telling those who know the language how it ought to be read. You can sound completely silly to me in personal conversation, but when you post publicly where everyone can see it, and you're wrong, people don't know your background and think you know something that you don't. That makes wrong statements harmful.

This section does seem to leave writer's puzzled.
It would take a while to look at Meyer et al. and may not be worth the effort.

My understanding is that Diodore's writings are mostly fragmentary. Part of the problem is that a catena is taken from a larger teaching and placed in the commentary of another work. All the references are to Cramer, but we actually have a fragment that contains the additional text I included above, which speaks of how Christ was preached in the end of time, God from God timelessly begotten (τὸν Χριστὸν θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀνάρχως καὶ ἀχρόνως γεγεννημένον), and that the consubstantial Trinity (ὁμοούσιον τριάδα) is complemented by the Father granting a Son to the people.

 

[Steven Avery]

My point is not to be obnoxious, but to make a point that if you want help in understanding Greek you need to cool the insults and stop telling those who know the language how it ought to be read.

Since you still are not up to speed on the heavenly witnesses, where I correct Hofstetter and multiple supposed modern Greek experts, all this falls to the ground.

 

[Brianrw]

Since you still are not up to speed on the heavenly witnesses, where I correct Hofstetter and multiple supposed modern Greek experts, all this falls to the ground.

Would you tell, for instance, a mathematician how to properly form an equation you don't know? That's the problem. Because you don't know the Greek, you're going to pick the arguments that sound good to you. You're actually not dividing the good from the bad. You haven't here in a number of instances. You may be technically right when you hit on a good authority, but the fact remains that you yourself don't have the ability to properly weigh what is being said. You have to learn something about what you want to impart before you try and impart it. Otherwise, what are you trying to do? You're going to lead people astray and not even know it. I'm not saying this in the case of the "heavenly witnesses," since I am unfamiliar with Hofstetter's comments. I'm saying this as an admonishment in general.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm not saying this in the case of the "heavenly witnesses," since I am unfamiliar with Hofstetter's comments

Then you should stop with the blah-blah.

You are avoiding the Hofstetter material, simply because it shows that I am able to tutor the Greek professor who is duped by textual criticism and comes up with errant arguments. And lacks the humility to accept simple corrections.

And I work with simple understandings and Logic 101.

Then you would have to try to figure out WHY I was able to tutor Hofstetter, who theoretically is better at Greek than you.

=====================

On Romans 9:5 you start with an English problem, not properly reading the AV text. On the Greek, I let you spin around as much as you like, and point out people who see it differently. My basic perspective is that since you are weak on English, I will not put much credence in your Greek. Plus, you put yourself in an impossible bind by pretending that the AV has the apposition meaning. Your main support is the bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Brianrw]

You are avoiding the Hofstetter material, simply because it shows that I am able to tutor the Greek professor who is duped by textual criticism and comes up with errant arguments. And lacks the humility to accept simple corrections.

I'm not avoiding it. It's just not a priority. Let it go already.

My basic perspective is that since you are weak on English, I will not put much credence in your Greek.

It's for God to defend my integrity, not me. I think I don't have to be worried about your opinion on this one. Most debates involve one intellectually dishonest tactic after another, and you've essentially thrown the book at me in that respect. If this were the first or second insult, I'd let it go.

How well are you faring on Reddit, for example? Last time I looked you hadn't found any support.

And how are you doing in other forums? In several places you seem to have a bad reputation, and I gather from some of your own comments that you've likely been banned in some places also for it. One of the removed comments at the BCHF involved a "monthly reminder" about your lack of ability in the Greek language, and I have had at least one private message warning on many points about your behavior, and though I gave you mostly the benefit of the doubt to them they ended up being completely right. So I think you need to be more concerned about your integrity than you do about winning an argument.

Here's the trouble: because you automatically believe someone who disagrees with you is wrong, you then proceed to try and correct them and fall into bad arguments, and sometimes completely bad. And you're not even polite about it, but downright rude as above. Here, you're sloppily and hastily reading commentaries thinking they support you, then when they don't (Glassius, Harris, etc.) you turn around and call them (in so many words) inconsistent or unstable. You're going to be tossed about because you have no anchor.

 

[Steven Avery]

and I have had at least one private message warning on many points about your behavior

Too vague. I have vulgar rants against me from the anti-AV crew at BVDB, Bible Version Discussion Board, especially from potty-mouth sicko Bill Brown. Often it is the Anti-Avery forum.

There is one poster who is an exception, in that he is able to discuss properly, and he posts on Facebook, Textus Receptus Academy and the Evangelical Textual Criticism forum and YouTube. No vulgarity, avoids insults. We have sharp disagreements (and sometimes surprising agreements) about Burgon, the TR , the AV, etc. but we still discuss all those topics.

They always try the back-channel route to poison the well, congratulations on being their dupe.

They especially gnash their teeth at the defense of the beautiful and authentic scripture verse, the heavenly witnesses. And any defense of the Authorized Version as the pure and perfect word of God.

====================================

Are you still using the devil word Yahweh?

That may be causing some of your animosity.
Please try to learn why the AV Jehovah is correct, and yahweh should NEVER be used by a Christian.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm not avoiding it. It's just not a priority. Let it go already.

You are losing a lot by avoiding the most important verse in the Battle of the Bible.

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

And I will bring it up loud and clear anytime you start with the "don't correct Greek experts" nonsense. Since you are de facto defending the Hofstetter blunders, and that of many others opposed to the heavenly witnesses verse.

The irony is that you were very good on this about 17 years back.

 

[Steven Avery]

One of the removed comments at the BCHF involved a "monthly reminder" about your lack of ability in the Greek language,

That does not make sense. Maybe BVDB?

And I have never seen any such "monthly reminder", anywhere.
And BCHF afaik does not remove comments in normal circumstances. CARM removes some.

Hofstetter tries to shut down conversations on forums using that argument, and he is the grand deceiver on the Greek grammar of the heavenly witnesses!

It seems to me that you have your memory wires crossed.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm not saying this in the case of the "heavenly witnesses," since I am unfamiliar with Hofstetter's comments. I'm saying this as an admonishment in general.

It all falls to the ground until you come up to speed on the heavenly witnesses.

You could also study the solecism in 1 Timothy 3:16, but that has a few more layers of complexity.

 

[Steven Avery]

and I gather from some of your own comments that you've likely been banned in some places also for it.

Anybody who posts frequently, and has Bible convictions, and does not get kicked off forums, is milque-toast.

You can be banned for being a King James Bible supporter, for factual corrections to people who write errors like James White, for not being an "Orthodox Trinitarian", for being a conspiracy factist, and a dozen other reasons.

And I do not think I have ever been banned for insulting anyone.

Now I realize that you do not like me to say you are weak in English, and that is one reason I do not consider your Greek parsing very important. On that one, though, I have documented many of your foibles on hyphens and commas and circular reasoning and much more. You are a rule-book English analyst, who struggles with the actual flow of the words in our beautiful Authorized Version text.

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place because you put up a pretense of defending the AV text, when you actually want a different understanding that what the AV says.

 

[Brianrw]

Now I realize that you do not like me to say you are weak in English, and that is one reason I do not consider your Greek parsing very important. On that one, though, I have documented many of your foibles on hyphens and commas and circular reasoning and much more. You are a rule-book English analyst, who struggles with the actual flow of the words in our beautiful Authorized Version text.

Rather, you keep applying the wrong rules to the wrong constructions, and don't seem to even bat an eye when corrected. Or you keep misstating my position, then pretending to refute me with a straw man argument. You can foist all that on people that don't know better, but most people will see through it.

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place because you put up a pretense of defending the AV text, when you actually want a different understanding that what the AV says.

I'm not stuck at all. My interpretation is supported by the host of Greek commentators, the host of English speaking commentators, the host of Latin commentators, and meanwhile here you're misquoting commentaries and grasping at straws from random web pages and fishing in forums trying (largely unsuccessfully) to find someone who substantially accepts the reading "blessed by God." You can't even argue from that point, so you're rehearsing all the other emendations to the text that are specifically designed to avoid calling Christ "God." Meanwhile, you're still waiting for Spin to show up again on one of the forums to explain himself.

Anybody who posts frequently, and has Bible convictions, and does not get kicked off forums, is milque-toast.

Or a habitual rule breaker. There's a difference between persecution and people getting fed up with one's antics. I've never been kicked off a forum, no matter how bold because I stick to the rules.

 

[Steven Avery]

Or a habitual rule breaker. There's a difference between persecution and people getting fed up with one's antics. I've never been kicked off a forum, no matter how bold because I stick to the rules.

And I have seen you post almost nowhere. When I ask you to affirm the ideas about the heavenly witnesses from BVDB, one of the few places you posted, you run, because that would refute your "Greek scholars" criticism.

Where did I break rules, and what rules did I break? Or are you just blowing smoke again.

 

[Steven Avery]

find someone who substantially accepts the reading "blessed by God."

God blessed is far superior to "blessed by God", because the emphasis is on God.

 

[Brianrw]

And I have seen you post almost nowhere. When I ask you to affirm the ideas about the heavenly witnesses from BVDB, one of the few places you posted, you run, because that would refute your "Greek scholars" criticism.

Where did I break rules, and what rules did I break? Or are you just blowing smoke again.

I didn't run at all. You asked and I said my position hasn't change, how is that running? I just said you don't have a Greek background and should not criticize things when you have no way of separating the good Greek arguments from the bad. There's a lot of us who can make that argument from a learned position. We don't need Steven Avery to save the day--in fact, people in the same position as you who have nothing to impart, yet feel the need to impart it, make it far worse for people who can argue it skillfully and correctly.

I didn't say anything specific of you in the latter comment. You said if you don't get kicked off a site for proclaiming the truth, you're milque-toast. I said habitually breaking the rules can have the same effect. Am I wrong?