Here. Well not exactly, but yes the Byzantine or Majority text. Very good job by the Baptists.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm and is filed under Byzantine Text Type. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
For some reason my comments aren’t posting.
(I just posted a response to Ionannis and it disappeared so I will attempt to reconstruct it again-sorry if this is a repost)
Thank you for your response.
Would it be possible for you to cut and paste your above comments to my blog in the comment section there and continue our conversation there?
Quickly, though, I would like to make it clear that I don’t presume to believe that the Confessor is in error and if the Confessor and I differ, it is I who am in error.
I’m just exploring possible objections I would have had if I was Pyrrhus whom St. Maximus was addressing within the parameters of Photios’ paper.
Having said that, I don’t believe you adequately answer my questions and comments there for the reasons I’m putting forth.
I would prefer, once again, to continue this at:
so that the conversation will make more sense to anyone else joining in with the paper easily accessible to view and with my questions/comments also at hand.
Euxaristo adelphe mou,
Thank you for the response.
Would it be possible for you to cut and paste your comments onto my blog in the link I provided and there continue the conversation?
Quickly, though, I wish to categorically state that I do not venture to find error with the Confessor.
If we differ, it is because I and not the Confessor is in error.
Having said that, however, I do not think you adequately answer my questions and comments I posted on my blog and for the reasons I said there.
I would prefer to continue this on my blog with the link I provided above so that others may read the context of our talk within Photios’ paper.
It seems however that, according to John Damascene, the gnomic will is the object of the will.
“But in the case of God(5), it is to be remembered, we speak of wish, but it is not correct to speak of choice. For God does not deliberate, since that is a mark of ignorance, and no one deliberates about what he knows. But if counsel is a mark of ignorance, surely choice(6) must also be so. God, then, since He has absolute knowledge of everything, does not deliberate(7).
Nor in the case of the soul of the Lord do we speak of counsel or choice, seeing that He had no part in ignorance. For, although He was of a nature that is not cognisant of the future, yet because of His oneness in subsistence with God the Word, He had knowledge of all things, and that not by grace, but, as we have said, because He was one in subsistence(8). For He Himself was both God and Man, and hence He did not possess the will that acts by opinion(9) or disposition (Actually, here the translation is not very good because the text says that Christ had no gnomic will). While He did possess the natural and simple will which is to be observed equally in all the personalities of men, His holy soul had not opinion(1) (or, disposition) that is to say, no inclination opposed to His divine will, nor aught else contrary to His divine will. For opinion (or, disposition) differs as persons differ, except m the case of the holy and simple and uncompound and indivisible Godhead(2). There, indeed, since the subsistences are in nowise divided or separated, neither is the object of will divided. And there, since there is but one nature, there is also but one natural will. And again, since the subsistences are unseparated, the three subsistences have also one object of will, and one activity. In the case of men, however, seeing that their nature is one, their natural will is also one, but since their subsistences(3) are separated and divided from each other, alike in place and time, and disposition to things, and in many other respects, for this reason their acts of will and their opinions are different. But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, since He possesses different natures, His natural wills, that is, His volitional faculties belonging to Him as God and as Man are also different. But since the subsistence is one, and He Who exercises
the will is one, the object of the will the gnomic will(5), is also one, His human will evidently following His divine will, and willing that which the divine will willed it to will.
Further note, that will ( qelhsis ) and wish ( boulhsis ) are two different things: also the object of will ( to qelhton ) and the capacity for will ( qelhtikon ), and the subject that exercises will ( o qelwn ), are all different. For will is just the simple faculty of willing, whereas wish is will directed to some definite object. Again, the object of will is the matter underlying the will, that is to say, the thing that we will: for instance, when appetite is roused for food. The appetite pure and simple, however, is a rational will. The capacity for will, moreover, means that which possesses the volitional faculty, for example, man. Further, the subject that exercises will is the actual person who makes use of will.
The word to qelhma (the will) , it is well to note, sometimes denotes the will, that is, the volitional faculty, and in this sense we speak of natural will: and sometimes it denotes the object of will, and we speak of will ( qelhma gnwmikon-gnomic will ) depending on inclination(6).”
The translation is from http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactii.html
From what I have understood so far the gnomic will is not so much something that we “have” or “given” to us by God but rather a manner of using what we have, as the paper says it is “a personal employment of the will”. It is the personal encounter of our natural will with our limited knowledge or ignorance which, in the process of making choices, brings about doubt and deliberation. But Christ is not a human person. He is the divine person of Logos who assumed human nature. Being omniscient and having foreknowledge, Christ always knew good from evil and even the best good from a lesser one. If Christ has gnomic will then either He is not God or He has a different personal will from the Father and therefore, I guess, we introduce polytheism. It is because it is personal that it is not essential and it is called gnomic to be distinguished from our natural power of will. If it was essential to our nature then either we identify it with our natural will or we possess two faculties of will which I guess that does not make sense.
Photios (and all),
I have put up the fourth part of your paper:
I have some fairly tough questions(I think at least)in regards to gnomic will, whether it can be said to be truly only “accidental” and not “essential” to human nature in lieu of the fact it was given to Adam prior to the Fall and related to this whether it can be said that Christ indeed has a gnomic will(read my comment on my blog to see what I mean by this).
Any and all participation is welcome.
One thing I’ve gleaned from reading the text critical scholars is that the Majority Text is the late Byzantine text. The earlier Byzantine texts are about half way in between the Alexandrian and the late Byzantine texts in textual affinity.
What is the difference in this and the Zane Hodges MT? I own a copy of that, so that is why I am wondering. While my hold on presbyism is tenuous at best, I do attend a good church with a very good pastor who loves the Fathers (he says he would be EO if he weren’t presby, just so you know), but I take my GNT to church and he doesn’t care. He also encourages people in our church to read the Fathers.
I have the TBS version as well, and it has proven a sturdy edition. I like it far better than the vynal covered ABS edition. The only bene I saw to that one was when I spilled coffee the cover was water-proof.
I used to bring one of my GNTs to church with me when I was a presby, but the elders told me I looked like I was showing off and that it seemed pompous of me to bring it.
I have gone ahead and ordered this edition, and shall make a report on it when it arrives.
Closest thing I have is the TR that’s distributed by the evangelical Trinitarian Bible Society. The greatest virtue of the text is that it is cheap; the clear font face is the second thing in its favor.
Blog at WordPress.com.