The firmament

7:28 AM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
The sun, planets and angels and the firmament. Woodcut dated 1475.
The firmament is the sky, conceived as a vast solid dome.[1] According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from those below.[2] The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Biblical use[edit]

Main article: Biblical cosmology
The firmament is described in Genesis 1:6-8 in the Genesis creation narrative:
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[3]

Etymology[edit]

The word "firmament" is first recorded in a Middle English narrative based on scripture dated 1250.[4] It later appeared in the King James Bible. The word is anglicised from Latin firmamentum, used in the Vulgate (4th century).[5] This in turn is derived from the Latin rootfirmus, a cognate with "firm".[5] The word is a Latinization of the Greek stereoma, which appears in the Septuagint (c. 200 BC).[1]

History[edit]

The Flammarion engraving (1888) depicts a traveler who arrives at the edge of a flat Earth and sticks his head through the firmament.
The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya` ( רקיע), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqa ( רקע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[5][6]
Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the SunMoonand stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]
Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[9]"We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid." he wrote.[9] Saint Basil argued for a fluid firmament.[9] According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the firmament had a "solid nature" and stood above a "region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed."[10]
The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds.[11] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin.[11] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's "doctrine of accommodation" allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.[11][12]

Scientific development[edit]

Main article: Celestial spheres
The Greeks and Stoics adopted a model of celestial spheres after the discovery of the spherical Earth in the 4th to 3rd centuries BC. The Medieval Scholastics adopted a cosmology that fused the ideas of the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy.[13] This cosmology involved celestial orbs, nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the center. The outermost orb contained the stars and the term firmament was then transferred to this orb. (There were seven inner orbs for the seven wanderers of the sky, and their ordering is preserved in the naming of the days of the week.)
Even Copernicus' heliocentric model included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary). Tycho Brahe's studies of the nova of 1572 and the comet of 1577 were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects.[14]
In 1584, Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[15] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[16]

See also[edit]

A Pyrrhic victory i

12:33 PM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory").[1]

Etymology[edit]

The phrase Pyrrhic victory is named after king Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC andAsculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:
The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one other such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.
—Plutarch [2]
In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers and their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his.
The report is often quoted as "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone",[3] or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."[4]
The term is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."[5] Also, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a charge proscribing group libel, Justice Hugo Black alluded to the Pyrrhic War in his dissent: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone.'"[6]

Related concepts[edit]

A related expression is "winning a battle but losing the war", describing a poor strategy that wins a lesser (or sub-) objective but overlooks and loses the truly intended objective. This contrasts with a Pyrrhic victory in which the objective is achieved but at a cost that makes the victory "turn to ashes".

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Pinker, Steven (2011). The Better Angels Of Our Nature. Pg.263: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-141-03464-5.
  2. Jump up^ Plutarch (trans. John Dryden) Pyrrhus, hosted on The Internet Classics Archive
  3. Jump up^ "Ne ego si iterum eodem modo uicero, sine ullo milite Epirum reuertar": OrosiusHistoriarum Adversum Paganos Libri, IV, 1.15.
  4. Jump up^ Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus21:8.
  5. Jump up^ Niebuhr, Reinhold Moral man and Immoral Society, published by Scribner, 1932 and 1960, reprinted by Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, ISBN 0-664-22474-1ISBN 978-0-664-22474-5 p. 238.
  6. Jump up^ Beauharnais v. Illinois.343 250 (U.S. 1952).
  • Denson, John, The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories. Transaction Publishers (1997). ISBN 1-56000-319-7.

Son of man

10:14 AM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
The Son of man with a sword among the seven lampstands, in John's vision, from theBamberg Apocalypse, 11th century.
Son of man is an expression in the sayings of Jesus in Christian writings, including the Gospels. The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.[1][2]
The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3] The singular Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם i.e. ben-'adam) also appears in the Hebrew Bible over a hundred times.[4]
The use of the definite article in "the Son of man" in the Koine Greek of the Christian gospels is novel, and before its use there, no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity exist.[3] Geza Vermes has stated that the use of "the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages.[5]
For centuries, the Christological perspective on Son of man has been seen as a possible counterpart to that of Son of Godand just as Son of God affirms the divinity of Jesus, in a number of cases Son of man affirms his humanity.[6] However, while the profession of Jesus as the Son of God has been an essential element of Christian creeds since the Apostolic age, such professions do not apply to Son of man and the proclamation of Jesus as the Son of man has never been an article of faith in Christianity.[7]

Etymology and usage[edit]

See also: Son of man
Front page of a 17th-century Hebrew Bible
In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, "the son of man" is "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". The singular Hebrew expression "son of man" (בן–אדם i.e. ben-'adam) also appears over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible.[4] In thirty two cases the phrase appears in intermediate plural form "sons of men", i.e. human beings.[4]
The expression "the Son of man" appears 81 times in the Koine Greek of the four Gospels: thirty times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, twenty five times in Luke and 12 times in John.[3][8] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of man" is novel, and before its use in the Canonical gospels, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.[3]
Geza Vermes has stated that "the son of man" in the New Testament is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages. Vermes begins with the observation that there is no example of "the" son of man in Hebrew sources and suggests that the term originates in Aramaic — ברנש -bar nash/bar nasha.[5] He concludes that in these sources "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title.[5]
The occurrences of Son of man in the Synoptic gospels are generally categorized into three groups: those that refer to his "coming" (as an exaltation), those that refer to "suffering" and those that refer to "now at work", i.e. referring to the earthly life.[6][8][9]
The presentation of Son of man in the Gospel of John is somewhat different from the Synoptics: in John 1:51 he is presented as contact with God through "angelic instrumentality", in John 6:26 and 6:53 he provides life through his death, and in John 5:27 he holds the power to judge men.[8]

New Testament references[edit]

Synoptic gospels[edit]

In Matthew 8:20 and Luke 9:58 Jesus states: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head." This phrasing seems to tie in with the Old Testament prophetic expressions used by such prophets as Ezekiel, and it shows Jesus' understanding of himself as the "man" that God has singled out as a friend and representative.[10] A similar saying is found in the Gospel of Thomas verse 86.
A page from Matthew, from Papyrus 1, c. 250. Son of man appears 30 times in Matthew's gospel.[8]
In Matthew 18:11 Jesus refers to Son of man came to serve and states: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.". In the Gospel of Mark 10:35–45 this episode takes place shortly after Jesus predicts his death.
Mark 2:27-28, Matthew 12:8 and Luke 6:5 include the Lord of the Sabbath pericope where Jesus tells the Pharisees "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." Christians commonly take the phrase "son of man" in this passage to refer to Jesus himself.
Matthew 12:38-42, Mark 8:11-13, Luke 11:29-32
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater thanSolomon is here. (NKJV, emphasis added)
Most scholars and theologians agree that the use of Son of man in this pericope is consistent with that of self-reference.
In explaining the Parable of the Weeds: Matthew 13:37,41-42
He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of man.... The Son of man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Christians commonly take the phrase "son of man" in this passage to refer to Jesus himself, rather than humanity in general.
Luke 18:31-34, Mark 10:32-34, Matthew 20:17-19
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.
Mark 8:31-32:38 states:
He then began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him....If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
Mark 10:35-45 refers to (Son of man came to serve)
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.