The Olivet Discourse: Three Eschatological Views

It  is the spring of AD 30. The fig trees are in bloom and Jerusalem is crowded. A rabbi is walking out of the temple with his disciples and one of them, pointing to the temple, says to him, “Look how great the temple is! Look at these stones!” The rabbi replies to him, “Do you see this? I promise you, not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” This story might seem crazy, except that this rabbi is Jesus, the Christ, God-in-the-flesh. He doesn’t just spew nonsense, but he speaks truth. Later, he is sitting on the Mount of Olives when his disciples came to him and asked, “When is this going to happen? How will we know?” What follows this question is what has come to be known as the Olivet discourse. It has been the ammunition of many uncertain and opinionated theological debates, and people have used it to fit whatever eschatological view they wish to promote. Thus, it is my hope in this paper to shed some light on these controversial issues so that the reader may at least have an idea of what to expect. For the purpose of this short paper, I will focus on Matthew’s account since it contains a couple pieces of information that are not found in Mark or Luke.

            This discourse has two primary foci: the signs of the end times (24:6-14), and the return of Christ. These two could be broken down further into seven primary foci: the prophecy of the temple’s destruction and of Jerusalem’s destruction (24:1-2), a warning of counterfeit Christs (24:4-5, 23-28), a promise of persecution (24:9-13), a promise of tribulation (24:6-8, 15-22),  the prelude to the Christ’s return (24:14), the return of Christ (24:29-41), and the warning to be ready (24:42-51). Jesus spends most of this discourse speaking of his return and warning his followers to be ready, warning not once but twice of counterfeit Christs, while the issues of tribulation and persecution seem to be side notes in comparison to the larger context.

            There are several theological controversies present in this discourse. The general agreement is that Jesus’ predictions were not misguided, yet evangelicals come to varying conclusions from this passage nonetheless. Dispensationalists believe that the Olivet Discourse vacillates between present-day (1^st century) Jerusalem and some distant future that even we in the 21^st century may not see. Their reason for this supposition is their focus on a period known as the Great Tribulation, a time of catastrophic events which will take place just prior to Jesus’ return to earth to establish his kingdom. In this case, the “abomination of desolation” is speaking of some future temple which dispensationalists believe will be built and then desecrated in a way similar to that of Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in 168BC, in which he constructed an altar to Zeus in the Holy Place of the temple. This corresponds with the dispensationalist belief that Christ’s return will occur in stages coinciding with the outworking of God’s plan for future Israel and the Church simultaneously. The dispensationalist idea of God’s future plans for national Israel is why they so adamantly urge people to pray for Israel; they believe that Israel is still God’s favored nation. This idea, however, does not harmonize with the idea of the body of Christ (both gentiles and Jews) being the true (spiritual) Israel. [1]

            Nonetheless, Dispensationalists hold to two main “features” of Jesus’ comments: Daniel’s “Day of the Lord” (Daniel 9:24-27) as being a 70-week period in which a figure betrays national Israel and desecrates a future temple, and the idea that Jesus is describing God’s judgment upon earth immediately prior to His final deliverance of national Israel. They cite Luke to say that this will be when the time of the Gentiles is completed (which they cite as being “prophetic code” for the church age). In other words, in some distant future that even we in the 21^st century have not yet seen, national Israel will construct a new temple to God, and some prominent figure will betray the nation and desecrate this temple. After this, the church age will come to a close and God will redeem national Israel for Himself. But even regarding this, dispensationalists are torn. Some cite Jesus’ claim that all of “these things” (which He had prophesied about) would happen within “this generation” and interpret it to mean that the Jewish people as a whole would see it happen, while others see it as being a perpetual generation of unbelievers throughout history. However, there are yet other dispensationalists who believe that it means that the same literal generation who sees the beginning of the tribulations Jesus describes will also see the return of Christ.

            There is one pressing issue to point out in the dispensationalist view of the Olivet Discourse. If dispensationalists believe that Jesus is talking about a literal period of tribulation which will take place immediately preceding the παρουσια (pariousia) because of their claim that it (somehow) fulfills some “postponed” 70^th week of Daniel 9:24-27 (and thus, according to them, lasting for 7 years) then one would have to conclude that the Olivet Discourse’s correspondence with anything that Jesus’ disciples (or even the early church for that matter) would know and understand is artificial at best. In specific, I am talking about Jesus’ allusion to Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” being taken as referring to some future temple, which goes beyond that which the disciples and early church would have been familiar with. In this case, Jesus’ historical backdrop must be duplicated (or replicated). Next, we must look at inaguruated eschatology and how advocates of that view would interpret this passage.

            Some advocates of inaugurated eschatology, like N.T. Wright and Brian Pitre, would contend that the Olivet Discourse is not referring to the second coming (the parousia) at all, but rather the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. The purpose of this would be Jesus’ desire to establish Himself as a trustworthy prophet, and as Israel’s true Messiah. Others view the discourse as pertaining primarily to first-century events, though commentators who hold this view will vary on which point in the passage they believe Jesus shifts from first-century events to parousia events. A conversation with Gareth Reese showed that he believes Matthew 24:1-35 is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem (even verses 29-31, which seem to clearly speak of Jesus’ second coming,), and that verses 36-41 are speaking of the second coming of Christ. He says that verse 36’s phrasing, “But of that day and hour…” is referring to a different event than verses 29-31, being the event of Jesus’ second coming. Yet another group sees this discourse as using first-century events as a prophetic backdrop to tell of future events which will occur throughout the entire church age until Christ returns (D.A. Carson, Mark Nolland, etc.).[2]

While I am an advocate of at least some form of inaugurated eschatology (and would probably fall under the third “inaugurated eschatology” group I described), Reese’s view does not seem to me to harmonize with the passage. We would vary in our interpretation of this passage; where he believes the shift from first-century events to parousia events occurs at verse 36, I believe the shift happens much sooner and more gradually. My reasoning behind this is that verse 14 says, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Reese believes this to be the first-century world, whereas I believe this to mean the entire planet. I believe that the only reference to first-century events in this passage would be the prophecy of the destruction of the temple (and that the destruction of the temple is synonymous with the destruction of Jerusalem). After that, what Jesus says slowly shifts in focus from being for his disciples to being for a future generation, and that by verse 23, He is speaking entirely of future events. However, I truly do not know, and my speculation is as good as anyone else’s.

Of course there are problems with such a view of eschatology. How can Jesus be telling of current (first century) events and future events simultaneously? More importantly, as Everett Berry said, “advocates of this paradigm cannot find consensus on how the events that Jesus alludes to can possibly build and replicate themselves throughout all of church history.” [3] And what about the “abomination of desolation” or the descriptions of persecution? Are these events which will happen continually throughout the church age and until Christ returns, gradually building in intensity, or is this describing something which will happen during a final period of tribulation in a greater form than we could even now imagine? Since there is no concrete evidence that will allow us to piece together what will happen in the future, advocates of inaugurated eschatology remain divided in their interpretations.

The final eschatological viewpoint to point out here is that of preterism. Advocates of this view believe that all apocalyptic and end-times events occurred during the first century AD and are now ancient history. As such, the interpret the Olivet Discourse in the same way. People like Ken Gentry believe that Luke’s account of the discourse explicitly limits Jesus’ prophecies to the first century. However, Gentry admits there is difficulty with this view when it comes to interpreting Luke 21:20-36 (the description regarding the Son of Man) because it uses abstract imagery such as that found in Daniel 7:13-14 that seems to go beyond the first century. [4]However, he responds to his own dilemma by stating that futurists have more difficulty, because (he believes) Jesus was speaking to his disciples (and thus referring to the first century) when he said that “this generation” would see his predictions come to pass. Nonetheless, for a preterist to hold that all of the predictions of the entire Olivet Discourse occurred within the first century, then the section regarding the Son of Man would have to mean that when Jerusalem was destroyed, all would see that He was indeed the risen Lord who is empowered to “symbolically ride the clouds of judgment against them and vindicate his church as his new covenant people.”[5] Finally, the biggest problem with the Olivet Discourse that preterists have to deal with is its depiction of Christ’s second return. If indeed all the events of the Olivet Discourse occurred within the first century, then what of the final resurrection of the dead, the final judgment of man, and the eternal state of judgment for the wicked and new creation for the righteous? They believe that these descriptions can be found elsewhere in the New Testament, but that Matthew 24 was specifically talking about first-century occurrences.

As it stands, no one eschatological camp has a perfect interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. The fact of the matter is, Jesus uses language that could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and this passage seems to speak of both first-century events and future events which have yet to come to pass. It is my opinion that both dispensationalists and preterists must ignore some truths of scripture in order to make their view fit together, and thus one could see why I do advocate an inaugurated view of interpreting this discourse that would lend the possibility of Jesus talking about both first-century and future events simultaneously. After all, history contains repetitive patterns of events that, in my opinion, would lend logical support my advocacy of such a view. Nonetheless, it is my honest belief that nobody will truly know what will happen until after it happens. As a closing thought, it is my earnest prayer that believers might focus more on living for the glory of the risen Christ by showing His love to unreached peoples, and less on coming up with different interpretations of passages (such as this one) that could be nonessential to salvation.

---

[1] Berry, Everett. Reflecting on the Olivet Discourse: How do Dispensationalists Typically Interpret Its Content? December 3, 2013. http://everettberry.com/2013/12/03/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-dispensationalists-typically-interpret-its-content/ (accessed February 4, 2015).

[2] Carson, D. A. The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25) - Part 1, 2, 3 (Sermon Podcasts). 1990. http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/the-olivet-discourse-matthew-24-25-part-3.

[3] Berry, Everett. Reflecting on the Olivet Discourse: How do Advocates of Inaugurated Eschatology Interpret its Content? December 19, 2013. http://everettberry.com/2013/12/19/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-advocates-of-inaugurated-eschatology-interpret-its-content/

[4] Gentry, Ken. The Great Tribulation--Past or Future? . Kregel Academic & Professional, 1999.

[5] --. Reflecting on the Olivet Discourse: How do Preterists Interpret its Content? December 20, 2013. http://everettberry.com/2013/12/20/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-preterists-interpret-its-content/

Narcissism and the Body of Christ (Romans 12:3-13)

The Apostle Paul wrote that the Christ-follower should “not think more highly of himself than he ought to think”, and went on to say that “we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” When I read this passage, one big question comes to mind: what does it mean for a person to think more highly of themselves than they ought, and how does this negatively affect one’s ability, as an individual member, to function together with the body of Christ? Just how highly should a person think of themselves? Is there a view that is too high and a view that is too low?  In a nutshell: how does a narcissistic attitude affect a person’s ability to function as a member of the body of Christ? There are two primary phrases that I am looking at here. The first is “think more highly of himself than he ought to think,” (verse 3) and the second is “we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (verse 5). We will explore how these two verses interact (particularly, how the first affects the second) and how they relate to the rest of the passage.

Of the first phrase, “think more highly of himself than he ought to think,” (verse 3), Reese says in his commentary on Romans, “Each individual member of the congregation is pointedly commanded by the apostle to be careful how he regards himself, lest constantly, habitually, he allow himself to have either too high an opinion of his own importance, or too low an estimate of his value to the congregation. Whenever a particular job is offered, the Christian should not try to shirk responsibility by thinking himself too good for the job.” (p.579) Cottrell says this is “an exhortation to humility… not to have too exalted an opinion of oneself, ‘not to over-think...’ The Christian is not to overvalue his abilities, his gifts, or his worth but to make an accurate estimate of himself.” He also says, “Sometimes a false modesty may be just as detrimental to the church as pride.” I would agree, and take it a step further to say that it most certainly is just as detrimental to the church as pride. (p.319) Mills offers a more exact view: “the warning contained in verse 3 is to avoid lofty thoughts of ourselves, not to over-estimate ourselves, not to think that we are better in God’s sight than others.” He then says, “The classical Greek gives the added meaning to the words, ‘not to think of himself more highly,’ by translating it, to look down upon, despise, to be over-proud.” (p.408) A perusal of various lexical materials reveals that the word φρονέω can be translated “to have understanding, be wise,” “to feel, to think”, “to have an opinion of oneself, think of oneself,” “to think or judge what one’s opinion is” “to direct one’s mind to a think, to seek, to strive for,” “to observe”. The full word, ὑπερφρονέω, as used in this passage, can be translated as “to have lofty thoughts, be elated, haughty,” or “think too highly of oneself” (when used in the context of self-evaluation) or “to think highly, consider something of great importance,” (when used in a more general context).

Of the second phrase “we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another,” (verse 5), Reese says in his commentary on Romans, “The unity of the individual believers is supplied by their relation to Christ, the head of the body (Ephesians 1:22-23; see also John 15:1-17)… That is, we, as individuals, are fellow-members with one another in the body. Each member must recognize it is but one of many members, and must contribute to the welfare of the other bodily members, and a desire to do such is ‘thinking soberly…’” (p.581) Cottrell says the point of this phrase is “the interrelations among the various members of the body… Like the human body, the one church has many members with different yet interdependent functions. I.e., there is variety in unity.” (p.321) Mills makes another inference here: “…there is one point in this comparison of the physical with the spiritual that must not be overlooked. Although the body has many members, that values of the members are not equal. Who of us would rather lose a finger than an eye, a hand than a foot, a toe rather than a finger? …the same truth must apply to the Body of Christ as applies to the human body.” (p.409-410) This notion, however, seems preposterous and inaccurate. Each member of the body is just as important as the next. What good is an eye if there is no hand with which to coordinate? The word for “members” here is μέλη, which can be translated “a limb or member, or any part, of the body,” “a part as member of a whole.” TDNT comments on the word in the context of this passage, “Normally the image of the body and members presupposes the idea of the community as an organism,” and later, “The unity of a body with many members to which Paul points…does not derive from the law of organism which holds the members together. It is the ongoing act of the creative will of God.” In other words, God brought the various members of the body of Christ into unity, and therefore none of these members (of the body of Christ) can argue that it doesn’t belong to God. The body of Christ is unified and held together by God.

A link can be seen here between verses 3 and 5: because each person (in the body of Christ) belongs to God, nobody can argue that they don’t belong to God. Could it be suggested, perhaps, that the haughty thinking as described in verse 3 would imply that one is saying they don’t belong to God? God has called each person to humility, or thinking of oneself in a proper light. Haughty thinking removes oneself from the proper light that God has allotted for the Christian to view himself in. It is a narcissistic pattern of thinking which can manifest itself either in the form of pride or self-loathing. But wait, how does self-loathing compare to haughty thinking? How does it compare to a person thinking more highly of himself than he ought? If the reader might stretch his attention a little, perhaps an explanation can be offered.

When a person thinks of themselves as “top stuff,” they hold themselves to an unrealistic standard. When they realize they are not achieving (or oftentimes simply cannot achieve) that unrealistic standard, they begin to hate themselves for it. In reality, they may be doing just as well (work-wise) as the next person, but because they hold themselves to a standard they cannot attain, they think they are unworthy of being a member of the body of Christ. They believe that they are (or ought to be) better than themselves. In turn, they mentally alienate themselves from others, believing they are not “of the same stuff” as the next person. In psychological terms: narcissism is a cognitive distortion, an exaggerated or irrational thought pattern that is believed to perpetuate the effects of a psychopathological state. Such distortions are thoughts that cause an individual to perceive reality in an inaccurate way.

So how does this relate to the rest of the passage? “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly…” (12:6-8) Is a person with an inaccurate view of reality likely to be able do this? Chances are not in favor of it happening. What would happen if the stomach thought it should be a hand? What if a hand believed it was an eye? What if an eye believed it was a mouthpiece? If someone is equipped and called to serve others, yet believes that serving others is below him (i.e. he thinks he is better than them) and thinks that he should be a preacher instead, the whole body suffers as a result. His narcissistic attitude is like a sickness, bringing down everybody around him. Even if he becomes a preacher, it is still not what he is called to do, and thus he will not be able to fill that role properly. A hand cannot be a mouthpiece. Giving would be without liberality, leading would be with laziness instead of diligence, and mercy would be with reluctance rather than cheerfulness.

A narcissistic attitude makes it impossible for love to be without hypocrisy because love (v.9), by definition, does not consider itself to be better than someone else. It cannot unconditionally love because it does not believe itself to be unconditionally loved, and therefore it cannot devote itself to another in brotherly love. It gives preference only to itself, seeking not the good of another but rather its own agenda (v.10). It is lazy rather than diligent, and apathetic rather than fervent (v.11). It does not rejoice in hope but sulks in self-pity. Instead of persevering in tribulation, it gives up in a dramatic fashion (v.12). It does not contribute to the needs of the saints, but seeks only for others to contribute to what it erroneously perceives as needs for itself. Craving attention, it desires to be welcomed, but is itself often unwilling to welcome others (v.13).

So how can a person overcome narcissism and better function as a member of the body of Christ?  First, a goal is needed; what does it take for an individual to function properly as a member of the body of Christ? Such a goal can be found in the second half of verse 3: “…think so as to have sound judgment.” Reese says in his commentary on Romans, “Here is the true standard by which a man is to think of himself… Sober and sane thinking neither exaggerates nor depreciates such gifts as God Himself has bestowed on the believer. …sober thinking would lead a man neither to overestimate his own gifts, nor underestimate those of others.” (p.581) Now that the goal has been found, how does a person get from point A (narcissism) to point B (sound judgment)?

A good way to transition from narcissism to sound judgment would be through cognitive restructuring, which identifies inaccurate thoughts and replaces them with more realistic ones. The narcissist believes they are “the exception to the rule.” This can present itself in an overly lofty or overly lowly way, but the principle is the same. “Christians are all members one of another, except for me. I just don’t fit.” This is a common thought among narcissists (whether they believe they’re better than everyone else and thus fitting in would be too lowly for them, or that they’re worse than everyone else and thus fitting in would be too high for them is irrelevant here). The narcissist must come to grips with the reality that they were created by God just like the next member of the body. Instead of saying, “I’m not good enough,” a better response to the issue of fitting in with the body of Christ would be, “God made me just like He made the next person. I may not be designed and purposed to serve the same function as someone else, but the hand is just as necessary as the eye, the stomach is just as necessary as the mouthpiece, and the servant is just as important as the preacher. I may not be able to do the things that I view as being more glamorous, but the things I am able to do still need to be done. If this is what God has called me to do, then this is what I will do.”

As it is, the Body is sick, scared, and falling apart. It is likely that its members do not know their functions because certain roles have been glamorized while others have been made to appear lowly and unimportant. Rather than having to scheme and brainstorm ways to simply get people to come to church, using programs in hopes of stimulating fellowship and creating a false sense of community, if every person kept in mind Paul’s teachings, and each member of the body served their purpose, perhaps our world would be turned upside-down simply as a byproduct of our faithfulness to God and to one another.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alice Boyes, Ph.D. Cogntive Restructuring. 1 21, 2013. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/201301/cognitive-restructuring (accessed 11 2, 2014).

Ben Martin, Psy.D. In Depth: Cogntive Behavioral Therapy. 2007. http://psychcentral.com/lib/in-depth-cognitive-behavioral-therapy/000907 (accessed 11 1, 2014).

Cottrell, Jack. The College Press NIV Commentary: Romans (Vol 2). Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1998.

D.A. Hope, J.A. Burns, S.A. Hyes, J.D. Herbert, M.D. Warner. "Automatic Thoughts and Cogntive Restructuring in Cogntive Behavioral Group Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder." Cognitive Therapy Research, 2010: 34:1-12.

Friedrich, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume IX (Φ-Ω). Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume IV (Λ-Ν). Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1697.

Mills, Stanford C. A Hebrew Christian look at Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Dunham Publishing Company, 1968.

Mounce, William D. The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Reese, Gareth L. Romans. Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Books, 1987.

Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D. The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1992.

W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F.W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Summary

It is somewhere between late November and early December, 1946. Jum‘a Muhammed, a young Bedouin Arab shepherd, notices one of his goats is missing and spots it running up a hillside on the northwestern rim of the Dead Sea. Leaving his flock to search for it, he climbs the hill and notices a cave in the crevice of the rocky slope. Jum‘a is immediately intrigued, as he has always had a penchant for exploring caves, confident that he would someday find a cache of ancient gold. Curious, he picks up a stone, throws it into the cave, and is startled by the sound of shattering pottery. Thinking he may have stumbled upon a cache of gold, he calls his cousins over to show them the holes. It was getting late and was too dark to attempt to enter the cave, and the next day was already set aside for watering the flocks, but they agree to search the cave two days later.

Shortly after sunrise on the third day, Muhammed edh-Dhib climbed the 100 meters up the rocky slope to inspect these holes while his cousins slept. Moving some large rocks underneath the bigger of the two holes, he climbed up, grabbed the rock overhang, hoisted himself into the opening, and slid down on his back into the cave. Allowing his eyes time to adjust to the dark of the cave, he noticed the walls of the cave were lined by about ten tall jars. Muhammed removed two bundles wrapped in cloth, which he had described as appearing “greenish”, from one of the jars. A third, larger bundle, was a roll of leather without any sort of covering.

Unbeknownst to him, he had just stumbled upon the greatest archaeological find of the twentieth century, and what may be one of the greatest archaeological finds in the history of mankind—a discovery which would later change the way scholars approached scripture. According to a later interview between Muhammed edh-Dhib and archaeologist John C. Trever—the first American scholar to see fragments of these scrolls—his older cousins were angry when he returned to show them the three bundles because he had gone alone, accusing him of hiding some gold from them. This could account for his relative lack of involvement as the story developed aside from returning to help Jum‘a and Khalil remove two large jars from the cave.

Days later, Jum‘a’s five sons arrived and he took the three scrolls edh-Dhib had found to the Ta‘amireh center, located southeast of Bethlehem. The scrolls were left hanging in a bag on a tent pole for several weeks, and the cover on the largest, which had been uninscribed, was broken off and destroyed. Though an unconfirmed mystery, it is possible that the Manual of Discipline was broken into two parts at that time as well.

In March of 1947, Jum‘a and Kahlil Musa moved the three manuscripts and the two jars to Bethlehem and showed them Judah Ibrahim ’Ijha, a carpenter and antiquities dealer who said he could find out whether they could be sold. ’Ijha showed the scrolls to another dealer, Faidi Salahi, who suspected they had been stolen from a Jewish synagogue and warned him to not deal further with the Bedouins. When Jum‘a returned to ask about the manuscripts, ’Ijha gave him back the scrolls, asserting they held no archaeological value and could not be sold. Jum‘a departed, leaving the two jars in ’Ijha’s shop.

Jum‘a continued to move the scrolls around until Sheikh ‘Ali Subh, a Ta‘amireh and friend of Jum‘a, suggested they go to a local cobbler named Khalil Eskander Shahin. Shahin agreed to guarantee a Syrian Orthodox Christian named George Isha‘ya to keep the scrolls for five pounds (the then-equivalent of twenty dollars). They reached an agreement for the Bedouins to receive two-thirds of any price the scrolls sold for.

Word about the scrolls spread fast, and over the next several months, the manuscripts changed hands and numerous people had examined the scrolls and had come (prematurely) to varied conclusions regarding their age and origin. Some claimed the scrolls were forgeries. Others claimed they dated to medieval times. Mar Ignatius Aphram I, Patriarch of Antioch, claimed the scrolls to only be three hundred years old. Still others believed they were about two thousand years old. Claims of the scrolls’ value ranged from “not worth a shilling” to being too great to purchase. One such inquirer, a Jewish antiquities dealer named Sassun, offered to buy the scrolls for 100 pounds (the then-equivalent of 405 dollars) a little before October 1^st, 1947. Tovia Wechsler stated, “if that table were a box and you filled it full of pound notes, you couldn’t even then measure the value of these scrolls if they are two thousand years old.” Ironically given the fact that he was using that statement to emphasize his opinion that the scrolls did not date to antiquity, he was right.

These scrolls would later become known as the “Dead Sea Scrolls”, and they would change the way we look at scripture today. Among the first three scrolls that Muhammed edh-Dhib recovered from the cave were the Manual of Discipline (1QS), the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab), and the largest was the famous Isaiah Scroll (1QIS^a). Little did this man know that the scroll whose uninscribed cover they had broken off would happen to become known as the most complete Isaiah manuscript currently in existence. Had Jum‘a known their true worth, the shepherd probably would not have let the manuscripts go for the mere sum of 24 pounds ($97.20), with his share being 16 pounds ($64.80).

In 1948, Hebrew University Professor Eliezer Lipa Sukenik heard through an Armenian antiquities dealer that ancient scrolls had been discovered and wanted to investigate the finds to see if they were significant or not. Despite tension between the Jews and Arabs, he met the dealer at the British divided military zone on the Jerusalem border. It was a secret meeting in which it is told that the dealer “held up a fragment of leather for the professor to examine.” Sukenik recognized the ancient writing while looking through the fence, and wanted to see more.

After traveling to Bethlehem with the dealer to see the scrolls, he recorded his experience in his journal:

“My hands shook as I started to unwrap one of them. I read a few sentences. It was written in beautiful biblical Hebrew. The language was like that of the Psalms, but the text was unknown to me. I looked and looked, and I suddenly had the feeling that I was privileged by destiny to gaze upon a Hebrew Scroll which had not been read for more than 2,000 years.”

He then acquired and published selections of three scrolls: The War Scroll, the Thanksgiving Scroll (Hodayot) and a second copy of Isaiah. In 1949, due to regional turmoil growing violence, Syrian Achbishop Samuel decided to smuggle his four scrolls out of the country and had them relocated to a Syrian Church in New Jersey. Then in 1954, after listing them for sale in a Wall Street Journal advertisement, Samuel sold the four scrolls to Professor Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin, through an American middleman, who purchased the on behalf of Israel for the price of $250,000. In 1955, Yadin combined the four scrolls he purchased with the three which were already at the Hebrew University.

Word spread quickly that the seven scrolls contained biblical texts and other ancient religious writings, and people started taking interest. When people discovered where the texts were found, they scrambled looking for more, and over the next nine years, more texts were found in ten nearby caves. A small number of nearly-complete scrolls were discovered, along with tens of thousands of fragments, all representing over 900 different texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Most of these texts are written on parchment, but some are written on papyrus and bronze.

Excavation continued throughout subsequent years, extending outside the Qumran area. More scroll fragments were found at various sites along the western shore of the Dead sea, from Masada to Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabba’at. In fact, between 1946 and 1956, 981 texts were discovered at Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank alone. In 2014, nine of the scrolls were rediscovered at the Israel Antiquities Authority, after they had been in storage for sixty-two years since being excavated in 1952. Of every scroll and fragment that has been found since, it was the Bedouin shepherds who discovered “the majority bounty”, with thousands of fragments from about five hundred different scrolls being found just in Cave 4.

An international team of scholars was appointed by Harding and De Vaux in 1953 to begin publishing the scrolls. As the team began piecing together fragments from over 900 manuscripts at the Rockefeller Museum, what began to merge proved to be an extraordinarily complex historical puzzle—a puzzle that is still being pieced together today.

For 40 years after the manuscripts were discovered, the study of the thousands of fragments was primarily controlled by less than a dozen international scholars. While each of these scholars were experts in their own fields, the small team size limited the rate of publication. In the early 1990s, however, the Israel Antiquities Authority began taking some relatively major steps in order to speed up the publication of the manuscripts. Professor Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University was nominated as chief editor, and the task of publication was dispersed among approximately 100 international scholars. By 2001, most of the official editions were published and available in academic libraries. Concerned for the physical condition of the scrolls, the IAA also established a conservation lab for the sole purpose of the conservation and preservation of the scrolls.

As scholars sorted and assigned the fragments to various manuscripts, early attempts in the 1950s and 1960s to preserve the texts involved using scotch tape and placing the fragments between more than 1200 plates of window glass. As the adhesives aged, however, the skins darkened, their edges gelatinized, and some of the texts became illegible. During the 1960s and 1970s, some of these glass plates were opened and scholars attempted to remove the adhesive tape and stains. Unfortunately, this did more harm than good and the fragments were damaged even further. In 1967, these glass plates were inventoried and numbered from 1 to 1261. During the 1970s, hundreds of glass plates were treated by the Israel Museum. In 1989, there was another, more complete inventory of the fragments which included photographs, museum inventory numbers, and publication statuses.

In 1991, the IAA enlisted the help of international conservation and preservation experts to document and treat thousands of scroll fragments from roughly 900 manuscripts. Facing decades’ worth of damage which had been unintentionally inflicted on the fragments, one important element of the conservation lab was to make sure that any preservation methods which had been used up to that point could be reversed to prevent further damage. The lab uses a climate-control system to mimic the conditions of the caves which had preserved the scrolls for 2,000 years. The IAA now keeps highly meticulous and annually updated records of the condition of each and every fragment, regardless of how small, and each fragment is regularly maintained. This is all done at the hands of specially trained conservators. In 2007, the IAA consulted an international experts committee to discuss the use of spectral imaging to document the scrolls, and by 2008, a dedicated studio was built. A test was conducted to gauge the scope of the project (time, procedures, manpower, technology needs and funding). Currently, the IAA is working to digitize the entirety of every last fragment of manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Today there is a great deal of demand by people wanting to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the fragments are sent all around the world on exhibits. However, transportation of these fragments is strictly regulated; a piece can only be exhibited for up to three months in perfect conditions, and must then “rest” for a year before it can be transported again. That means if there are four museums in line to view a piece of a scroll and a fifth signs up to see it, the museum’s owner would need to wait at least five years after it leaves its current location before they can see it. There is a constant demand worldwide for such exhibits.

Written between the second century BCE and the second century CE, the Dead Sea Scrolls not only offer fragments of scripture but also other historical documents which offer insight into political and religious struggles various Judean groups faced and explore different ways the Jews during the Second Temple period related to the rest of the world. Painting a picture of complexity and diversity in Jewish religious life and philosophy, these documents have greatly changed the way we understand the world that early Christianity came from.

The non-biblical texts contained within the Dead Sea Scrolls display profound differences and discrepancies in how the various Jewish sects interpreted scripture and obeyed its guidelines. This advances our knowledge of how the ancients interpreted the bible and the way historical events influenced religious life and ideas. The texts even offer insight into philosophical debates and disputes about the Temple, priesthood, the religious calendar, and the afterlife. Most of the disputes were more narrowly focused on observance of the law in everyday life.

What is interesting is that these profound debates which change our understanding of the ancients so dramatically happened during the peak of the Greek and Roman empires, during invasion and foreign rule, from the time of Alexander the Great to the Bar Kokhba Revolt against Rome. Many of the scrolls were written during under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty. Various international events at the time supported the idea that the world would soon end, as many early Christians believed.

While the shepherds who happened upon the scrolls may not have known the significance of what they had found, much is owed to the ignorance of Jum‘a and his cousins. Through the passing of hands, the greatest archaeological find of the twentieth century find has been pieced together, examined, reproduced, and today is now available for anybody to view on the internet for free. Today the condition and whereabouts of every last fragment of Dead Sea Scrolls are closely monitored, and it is likely that these texts will not pass from history so long as computers exist. After all, who knows how many people have downloaded electronic copies of these scrolls for their own records? 

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

Summary of Sources Used

DSS Collections. n.d. http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah (accessed July 27, 2014).

Oh, That My Words Were Written - Dead Sea Scrolls. n.d. http://www.mywordswritten.org/DeadSeaScrolls.html (accessed July 27, 2014).

The Dead Sea Scrolls. n.d. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/discovery-and-publication?locale=en_US (accessed July 27, 2014).

Trever, John C. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Personal Account. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing, 1979.

Πορνεια: A Word Study

This is an academic paper I wrote for my Greek Exegesis class during the fall of 2013.

ΠΟΡΝΕΙΑ

A Brief Word Study in Relation to Ephesians 5:1-12

            A study of the word πορνεία (porneia) shows its origins as early as the 5^th century BC. However, a closer look at the passage of focus, Ephesians 5:1-12, also shows that the root, πορν-, shows up a couple verses later as πορνος (pornos). The English word pornography is borrowed from the greek root πορν-, even if it has a slightly different meaning. In the English it implies printed or visual material displaying sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. In Greek, πορνεία refers to sexual immorality or adultery, and πορνος refers to one who commits such things into action.

In the Septuagint, πορνεία is used numerous times, and is typically defined as prostitution, fornication, or unchastity. It is used, however, as harlotry, unfaithfulness, wickedness, and prostitution. The Septuagint usage of πορνεία can be found in the following LXX passages: Gen 38:24; Num 14:33; IV Ki 9:22; To 4:12; 8:7; Pro 26:7; Wi 14:12; Si 23:23; 26:9; 41:17; Hos 1:2; 2:2, 4; 4:11, 12; 5:4; 6:11; Mic 1:7; Nah 3:3; Isa 47:10; 57:9; Jer 2:20; 3:2, 9; 13:27; Ezek 16:15, 22, 25, 33, 34, 36, 31; 23:7, 8, 11, 13, 17-19, 27, 29, 30, 35; 43:7, 9.

In the New Testament, πορνεία is used 25 times and is used to mean six different things, while one passage leaves the word untranslated. The six ways πορνεία is used in the New Testament is as follows: sexual immorality [13], adulteries [5], immorality [2], marital unfaithfulness [1], illegitimate children [1], sexual sin [1], and untranslated [1]. The New Testament usage of πορνεία can be found in the following passages: Mt 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk 7:21; Jn 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor 5:1 (twice); 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; Rev 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2.

           

There are fourteen passages in which πορνεία is translated as “sexual immorality”. Those passages are as follows: Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor 5:1 (twice); 6:13, 18; 7:2; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; Rev 9:21. The majority of the usage as “sexual immorality” comes in Paul writing to churches, stressing the importance of avoiding such things. Two passages which clearly state the severity of πορνεία come in 1 Corinthians 6, verses 13, “The body is not meant for πορνεία, but for the Lord,” and 18, “Flee from πορνεία. All other sins a man commits are outside the body but the one who practices [this] sins against his own body.”

There are five passages in which πορνεία is translated as “adulteries”. Those passages, all found in the book of Revelation, are as follows: Rev 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2. The contextual usage of πορνεία (and its translation as “adulteries”) seems to allude to the idea that this is not just an act of one or two people, but the world as a whole. In 19:2, it speaks of “the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her adulteries,” which is also referred to as “Babylon the Great.” It is used metaphorically, painting a picture of God longing for His people to return to Him.

It is used metaphorically, painting a picture of God longing for His people to return to Him.

Twice πορνεία is translated as “immorality” (1 Cor 7:2; Rev 2:21). Each time it has a different contextual meaning. Paul uses it literally, while John, in Revelation, uses it in a sense that can go either way, depending on one’s eschatological views. Paul speaks of each man having his own wife because of immoralities between men and women. John speaks of Jezebel refusing to repent of her immorality, though God had given her time to repent.  

What of the minority translations? Twice in Matthew πορνεία is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” (5:32; 19:9). Once it is translated as “illegitimate children” (John 8:41), and once it is translated as “sexual sin” (2 Cor 12:21). In Matthew 5, Jesus was delivering the famous sermon on the mount and speaks of the importance of maintaining the bond of marriage except on the grounds of πορνεία, which goes to further show the weight of severity the word seems to carry. Later, in Matthew 9, Jesus repeats the same concept, even using the same word picture. In John 8, Jesus is accusing the people of seeking to kill Him and they reply by saying “we are not illegitimate children (πορνεία); we have one father: God.” In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul writes of his fear of mourning over those who have not repented of their πορνεία (immorality).

Other words related to πορνεία used in the NT (at least, those based off the word’s root) are πορνος, πορνευω, and πορνη. Throughout history (from early Greek literature to early Christian literature), the word does not seem to have undergone much change in definition. In earlier (classical) Greek, the word typically refers to prostitution, while in later Christian literature the word refers to adultery or sexual immorality, both categories under which the earlier translation of prostitution could easily rest.

Paul seems to use πορνεία almost exclusively as a general referance to sexual immorality. Once he also uses it as sexual sin, and once as immorality. However, the other 8 times he uses it in the general sense of sexual immorality, leading one to believe that πορνεία is not so much an issue of the hands but of the heart, since morality is of the heart. I have seen English translations which place πορνεία in only one category, primarily as translating it as either “adultery” or as “sexual immorality.” The general usage as “adultery” seems limiting and bland and thus I do not agree with it as a one-size-fits-all usage. However, the general usage as sexual immorality does seem to cover a wide ground and thus at least appears safe to do.

Sexual immorality, unchastity, fornication, prostitution, adultery, marital unfaithfulness, illegitimate children, immorality, and sexual sin are various ways that πορνεία has been used in Scripture, both the Septuagint and the New Testament. In my passage of focus, Epheians 5:1-12, πορνεία is used alongside πορνος to refer to sexual immorality and those who commit sexual immorality. I do believe that the best translation of πορνεία, as used in Ephesians 5:3, is “sexual immorality”, given its contextual association: “among you there must not even be a hint of πορνεία,” again leading one to conclude that it is more so an issue of the heart than that of the hands.

Bibliography

Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1990.

Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

—. Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1872.

Become Imitators: An Exegesis of Ephesians 5:1-12

This is an academic paper I wrote for my Greek Exegesis class during the fall of 2013.

BECOME IMITATORS

Written around A.D. 60 by the apostle Paul of Tarsus, possibly from the cell in the Roman prison where he was being held[1], the letter to the Ephesians is similar to his letter to the Colossians comes with a twofold purpose: primarily, it is a letter of encouragement, but it is also a reminder that since they (those receiving the letter) are Christians, they must live as such. The letter was written to encourage any Gentile believers, and also to clarify that Gentiles and Jews have all been brought together as one in Christ. Ephesians is divided into two clear sections: the first three chapters lay out theological truths, and the last three chapters lay out clear instructions of how a Christian is to live.

The passage in particular which I will focus on, 5:1-12, happens to fall in the second half of the letter and fits into this text as a piece of instruction which has one clear message: As children of God and of Light, we should imitate God by walking in love and in light; darkness and immorality have no place in love and light. Chapter 4 begins the second half of Ephesians, and concludes (verses 29-32) with talking about letting “no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” It also says that we should be kind to each other, tender-hearted, and forgiving each other, “just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Thus, chapter 5 immediately begins with, “Therefore, become imitators of God as beloved children, just as Christ loved you and gave Himself up for us,” and goes on to talk about living as children of light. After my passage, Paul goes on to say “But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light,” and talks about the importance of being careful how we walk and making the most of our time.

Paul uses 171 words (in the Greek) to make his point that immorality has no place in love and among God’s beloved children. Paul says several things in this passage, and one has to look a little closer than the surface to see all of it. We should become imitators of God (ref. Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15-16; Col 3:12; Eph 4:12; 1 John 4:11) as beloved children (we are His children), and walk in love even as Christ loved us (ref. Col 3:5; 1 Cor 6:13, 18), and our lives should be lived as a sacrifice to God which has a sweet smell (cf. Rom 12:2). Les Painter states: “Our love should also be a sacrifice.” [2]The phrase “become imitators” points to what we should be, and not what we should do. This becomes important when one takes into consideration the fact that the rest of the section is talking about what we should (and should not) do.

The statement of “as beloved children” also adds an addition answer to any “why” that could be asked in regard to 4:3 which states to preserve the unity of the Spirit with all diligence; why do this? We are children of God. Immorality, impurity, and greed should not even be named among the people of God, and filthiness and worthless talk should be replaced instead with thanksgiving (ref. Eph 4:29). Thanksgiving and worthless talk are at odds with each other; thanksgiving leaves no room for worthless talk, and worthless talk nullifies thanksgiving. Paul purposely makes this contrast to show that God’s children are called to an even higher standard of moral living. He reinforces this by stating that we can know with certainty that no immoral, impure, or covetous person will have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God—in fact, such a person is an idolater (ref. Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rev 21:8). When thinking about how serious God took adultery during Old Testament times, this again comes as a very stark contrast. We are called be different; not look or act different, but be different.

Paul’s love for the Ephesians bleeds through his words, and he makes certain to urge them to stand firm in truth by stating “let no one deceive you with empty words.” Because such people deceive God’s children and lead them astray (like wolves that would come to snatch sheep from the flock), “the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Ref. Col 3:6; Col 2:8; Matt 14:4; 1 John 4:1; Rom 1:18) Note here the contrast that Paul makes with verse 1. We are called children of God; those who deceive and lead astray, though, are not children of God but rather sons of disobedience. And because the sons of disobedience are not children of God, Paul states in verse 7, “do not be partakers with them,” (ref. Pro 9:6; 13:20). He goes on to add additional reasoning behind this as well: “for you were formerly darkness but now you are Light in the Lord…” (Ref. John 8:12; 1 John 1:7). Light and darkness cannot cohabitate. Therefore, as Light in the Lord, we should “walk as children of Light”. Paul states the fruit of the Light “consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth,” (ref. Gal 5:22-23). And in walking as children of Light, we should learn what is pleasing to the Lord (ref. Rom 12:2).

Immediately, Paul contrasts this with the statement: do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them (ref. 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 3:6; Rom 13:12; 1 Cor 5:9-11). Again, light and darkness cannot cohabitate. If we are to live as children of Light, we cannot play with the things of darkness. We cannot play in the streets of sin. A God who doesn’t discipline is one watching His kids playing in their streets of sin, but our God is one who disciplines. His wrath comes upon the sons of disobedience. This passage concludes with: “for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.” The deeds of darkness are such a putrid smell in God’s nostrils that it is disgraceful for God’s children to even speak of such things.

There are several key words in this passage which I would like to point out. First is the word γίνεσθε, which best translates “become”, and is in the imperative case. Though it is often translated “be”, the root word, γίνομαι, translates as “come into a state of being,” or “become”. Thus, my conclusion of the word’s best meaning stands. Another word is μιμηταὶ, which translates as “imitators”. This word is key to this passage, as the remainder of the passage centers around what it means to be imitators. Also in this passage, as in several others, Paul tells us to walk, which is περιπατεῖτε. Here he tells us to walk in love. The word used for love here is ἀγάπῃ. The next word I wish to point out is μωρολογια, which is translated in this passage as “foolish talk” but I believe better translates “worthless talk”. It is any speech which is does not described in Ephesians 4 or 5 as being fitting for God’s children. The word συνμέτοχοι translates “partakers with” (verse 7). Interestingly, the word translated as “participate” in verse 11, συνκοινωνεῖτε, is better translated as “have a joint share of”. It is not simply a matter of participation, but a matter of having an equal, or joint, share with the unfruitful deeds of darkness. The word for “learning” (verse 10) is δοκιμάζοντες and can also be translated as “testing”. Testing what is pleasing to God.[3]

Next we come the word πορνεια.  A brief word study has showed that this word (which, by the way, is the word from which the English word “pornography” is derived from) can be best translated one of two ways in this passage: immorality, or sexual immorality.[4] Seeing as Paul follows the word with “immorality” (NASB) with “impurity” in the context of being imitators of God (a lot of “im” words, or as I’d say, “I’m” words), it becomes clear that he is talking about issues of the heart and not just issues of the hand. Thus, it could be translate either way and still fit the overall context of the passage well. [5]

            

I could not find any significant or otherwise noteworthy issues of textual criticism with this passage, and most findings have been conclusive with one another. There have not been theological issues with this passage in terms of interpretation or application, as it is very straightforward. I would not conclude that this is the key passage of Ephesians because taken by itself without the surrounding context of the rest of the letter, it does not hold nearly as much value, and much of its own value is lost because it must be taken in its greater context to be fully understood. It has been a fun semester studying this passage and I’m glad for all exegetical techniques I learned in the process of doing so.

Bibliography

Chris. Letters to the Church: Ephesians. August 21, 2012. http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/08/letters-to-the-church-ephesians/ (accessed December 8, 2013).

Meyer, Frederick Brotherton. F.B. Meyer's 'Through the Bible' Commentary. 1914. http://www.studylight.org/com/fbm/view.cgi?bk=eph&ch=5 (accessed 12 4, 2013).

Painter, Les. Christian Belief and Behaviour: An EasyEnglish Bible Version and Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. UK: Wycliffe Associates, 2005.

Unknown. Ephesians 5:1-5:21: Walking in the light, Imitating God. July 10, 2013. http://www.bcbsr.com/books/eph5a.html (accessed December 4, 2013).

Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1990.

Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

—. Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1872.

---

[1]Chris. Letters to the Church: Ephesians. August 21, 2012. http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/08/letters-to-the-church-ephesians/ (accessed December 8, 2013).

[2] Painter, Les. Christian Belief and Behaviour: An EasyEnglish Bible Version and Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. UK: Wycliffe Associates, 2005.

[3] These word study findings were independently researched.

[4] Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1990.

[5] Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

—. Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1872.