EarlDoherty

I disagree. When Rice appears before Congress, the meaning is restricted to that occasion in the use of the word "appear". We are not trying to say that she is "REappearing". Whether or not she has appeared before Congress before is not at issue, or present in the mind of the speaker or in his/her meaning. Would such a speaker in that context say: "Thank-you for reappearing today"? So we do not "use 'appear' in English to mean reappear all the time." If we wanted to make the point that this is a 'REappearance' then we would say so, using "reappear". Or we would say something like, "Thank-you for coming back today to continue your testimony." You are simply trying to impose something on the words that will support your faith involved in the subject under discussion.

Note that if you didn't present Rice's appearance before Congress in a context in which it is known and stated that she has appeared before, in other words you are setting up the situation to involve the knowledge of a previous appearance, which is begging the question, then the speaker's greeting "Thank-you for appearing here today" could not possibly tell you whether she had been there before or not.

There really needs to be more critical thinking going on in this forum than is regularly being shown.

Earl Doherty

Gamera

Even assuming you are right, the answer is yes.

The whole point is that Jesus manifested God. So Jesus' first appearance was the appearance of God. Hence, a few verses earlier and later:

1 John 2: Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24

1 John 3: The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9

But leaving that aside, I don't accept your conclusion as "clear." John is notoriously ambiguous in his use of pronouns. In 1 John, he moves from God to Son, without signpost. In the passage in question, the "he" is highly ambiguous. However, if we read on it becomes clearer that it is the Son, not the Father he refers to (assuming he even sees a distinction, which one can argue he does not)

1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 4 Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6

Are you genuinely claimng the he of verse 5 is God? Or that it is a different "he" from verse 2. I submit, that he of verse 5 is clearly Jesus, and thus the he of verse 2 is arguable Jesus too. And I would further suggest, that John doesn't really care about the distinction in passages like these, since it is the unity of the Father and Son on which his theological point rests.

Gamera

Again, I think you cannot win this argument. If Rice appeared before lunch, the chairman would say: "Thank you for appearing." If she then appeared after lunch, the chairman could coherently say "Thank you for appearing." He would be understand. That statement makes sense in the context. And that's all that's required. Usage is usage. It doesn't have to be "logical." And certainly your proposition that you can't have two similar words with overlapping semantic fields is palpably incorrect.

By the way look up the meaning of "redouble" and "double." It refutes your proposition nicely.

But let's not belabor this point; the real issue is the semantic field of the Greek verb being translated by "appear" or "reappear." Which I'll get to.

EarlDoherty

This is the sort of "counter" that J. P. Holding would use. And he has. One can only shake one's head.

Do you really think this writer would resort, or would be capable of resorting, to such a devious mode of expression? (Where is the icon for tearing one's hair out?}

Do you remember what I said about not arguing my reading of the content of 1 John without reading my website article on the subject? You obviously haven't. You'll save us all a lot of trouble if you follow my advice. Then you can actually address my arguments directly instead of querying me about them.

A Solution to the First Epistle of John

Earl Doherty

Gamera

I've read your article, but find it so methodological objectionable that we needn't go into that.

The issue you raised here was who the "he" was of verse 2. An analysis of purported strata is hardly necessary to (a) identify the grammatical ambiguity of the "he" -- that's just a simple fact; and (b) propose that verse 5 may resolve the ambiguity; and finally (c) propose the ambiguity may be intentional and have theological implications (a dubious point, I concede).

But regardless, the ambiguity exists, rebutting your claim that the "he" of verse 2 is "clearly" God and not the Son, Christ, Jesus.

If there's one thing clear about these verses, is that it isn't clear whom John is referring to, either intentionally or unintentionally, either the result of layering or stylistics. The reason doesn't matter; the ambiguity of it rebuts your claim.

Gamera

Well, since you asked, how about these verses:

1 Corinthians 1:7 - so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Philippians 3:20 - But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Thessalonians 1:10 - and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 9:28 - so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


James 5:7 - Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it until it receives the early and the late Rain.

2 Peter 3:12 - waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!

Peter 3:13 - But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Jude 1:21 - keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

You really can't explain away the idea that these texts state or imply a first and second appearance of Jesus in some form or other.

GakuseiDon

Steve is quite right to point out that Wright is writing using his assumptions of a historical Jesus that has already appeared on earth. Given that, we can see that Wright is talking about a Jesus who reappears and stays, rather than a Jesus who reappears and then takes people to heaven. That is the background to the article. I doubt that Wright is thinking of the meaning of any one word, rather the meaning of the passages in question.

Well, perhaps. Or perhaps Carr has stuffed up a good point by trying to be disengenious. I'm baffled by what he thinks he gains by such a technique.

GakuseiDon

Scholarly ideas are not that Jesus had already appeared on earth? :huh:

Ben C Smith

I find it odd that you disagree with what I said.

Perhaps this is the difference. Context always matters to me, even in this case when Steven was correct on his main point.

I agree. Steven should have pointed out (and did point out) the errant translation. That is not the difference between you and me in this matter. We agree on that.

Again, you and I agree on that.

He does not have to take into account the readership simply to point out the mistranslation; but he should take it into account if, by not doing so, he is going to give the mistaken impression that Wright was using 1 John and Colossians precisely in order to refute something that you, Earl Doherty, happen to believe:

How can you read this and not walk away with the impression that Wright was specifically refuting your contention (or a contention that at least happened to agree with yours) that the epistles nowhere speak of a reappearance? Does not the wording here imply that appearance versus reappearance was directly in view in the article?

It sure can, and I appreciate that Carr has done so.

Carr did not state that it implies a refutation, even if not deliberate. Those hedgy words (implies, even if not deliberate) that you are using here are exactly the sort of language I would have hoped for from the OP. Had Carr used such words, there would not have been an issue, at least not for my part.

Not at all. Such a statement is open to critique, just as the statement that Wright made is open to critique.

I hope my point is sufficiently clear by now. It is, to my mind, almost absurdly obvious. It should also be clear enough by this time that I do not at all fault Steven Carr for catching the mistranslation. That is not the issue on my end.

Ben.

Gamera

I have no dog in the Wright/Doherty bullpit. My concern is purely scholarly. I want to point out the rather lax linguistic assumption of the Doherty argument. Namely, that since Greek has a verb for "reappear," phainerow (to appear) cannot also mean reappear in certain contexts.

As a general linguistic propostion, the claim is false on its face. There are numerous examples of similar words in both English and Greek that are distinguished by prepositions or suffixes and still have overlapping semantic fields. "Double" and "redouble" is an obvious example. "Flammable" and "inflammable" is another.

So the general proposition simply fails. There is no linguistic principle that prevents related, but morphemic distinguished, words from having overlapping meanings.

The real issue is whether phainerow can mean anaphain or a similar alternative verb meaning "reappear."

The answer isn't unambiguous. I would only note the following.

First, ironically anaphain "reappear" can mean appear in certain contexts (an underground river "appearing" as a spring). That shows the semantic fields do indeed overlap going in one direction, but of course, it doesn't mean phainerow can mean reappear.

Phainerow is a lexically rich word (just like our word "appear"), having numerous special meanings depending on context. The basic meaning almost requires this.

Phainerow does apply to the rising of astronomical bodies, like the sun, which of course is repetitive. When the sun rises in the morning it isn't rising for the first time ever and the verb phainerow would be used. Of course, the argument could be made that the sense is, it is its first appearance on this day. Point granted.

I would note the following uses in Christian scripture which suggest reappearance: 1 Peter 5 and Acts 7.

First, let's look at 1 Peter 5:

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 5

Now the idea here is that the servants of the Chief Shepherd are tending his flocks, but someday he will return. The narrative implies that the servants know the chief Shepherd and were given their duties by him. Sometime in the future he will be "manifested" to them -- that is reappear. Here the semantic range seems to include not only appear, but reappear.

Second, Acts 7:
9 "And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him, 10 and rescued him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him governor over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time. 13 And at the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14

Now, here, Joseph obviously already knew his brothers. He grew up with them (to his regret). Later in Egypt, he makes himself known to them, appears to them. Is this for the first time? Of course not. He is really reappearing. And if the text said he reappeared to his brothers, we would all understand it (indeed, it would be a more dramatic description in my opinion).

In any case, at the very least, these uses of the verb do not exclude the sense of "reappear." Therefore the OP is being somewhat lax in just assuming that another verb has to be used. It cannot be assumed. You may ultimately be correct, but not by merely claiming it. A linguistic anaysis is required. And I see nothing of that from Doherty, just assertions of broad linguistic principles which are manifestly incorrect.