JW Insider

Thanks for pointing this out and making the links easy to get to. It's also up to date on the 2016 Watchtower Library, [v.18 with regular online updates through 2017]. The resources provided by the Watch Tower Society are excellent, of course, but they are not always clear about which statements are assumptions (and therefore subject to change) and which statements are 'statements of fact.' Sometimes even the word 'proven' is used, when it's only a strongly held assumption or belief. I'm working through it now to see which are which: *** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.) Undoubtedly, the divine name or Tetragrammaton appeared in the Hebrew mss of the OT. Perhaps not in all of them, but apparently in the vast majority. I'm trying to do a quick, last-minute study to get a sense of what the evidence shows about Hebrew mss of the OT in this time period that did NOT contain the Divine Name. [POINT A, for further research] To get a sense of the evidence for this, I'm also trying to look into the overall time period when the Divine Name began to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-speaking Jews. [POINT B, for further research] *** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). This first sentence is also undoubtedly true. Almost every quote of the OT in the NT follows the Septuagint [LXX] instead of the Hebrew text that the NWT (and almost everyone else) uses for the OT, wherever the LXX and Hebrew are known to differ. The second sentence is true, too, but I don't think we are really saying definitively that, in the first century, the divine name was always represented either by YHWH or IAO in the LXX. We know of various other divine name abbreviations, and it might still be true that some LXX texts, even in the first century C.E., may have already contained replacements for the divine name. [POINT C, for further research] *** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint. The first sentence is correct again, and what they "prove" is that at least some of the LXX copies (which we currently date to the first century C.E. and earlier) have YHWH (or a form of this) or IAO, which we consider to be a transliteration of IAO. The second sentence states that the inspired writers of the NT when quoting from the OT, must have seen the Tetragrammaton in one of these two forms, at least. This may very well be true, although I'm not sure it was always necessarily true based on "POINT C," which I still need to research further. Also, of course, it may very well be true that they saw the Tetragrammaton and purposely, even through inspiration, chose NOT to copy it. This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't utter the divine name. It's even possible that they knew that Jesus had uttered the divine name when quoting from Isaiah or Psalms for example, and yet the inspired Bible writers produced their initial manuscripts with "kyrios" or "theos" for example. This latter point is not something I expect to research further, or draw a conclusion from, it's only that I don't wish to jump to any conclusions not actually evident from the facts. *** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. Nothing to research further here. These are all statements of proven fact. (Until and unless further evidence or manuscript discoveries are disclosed.) Further disclosed discoveries or evidence would not necessarily help the side of the argument that we are expecting it to help, however. *** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done. * We might already have enough evidence to test this particular claim. [POINT D, for further research] I believe it already shows that the NWT translators have backed off the stronger claim made earlier in 1984 (and quoted by Micah Ong, above): *** Rbi8 p. 1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures [1984] *** Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyʹri·os, “Lord” or The·osʹ, “God.” Also the footnote * in the new C1 Appendix, opens up the possibilities much more widely, and removes the need to have mentioned the second or third century scribes in the first place. After all, these scribes, it is admitted, might just be copying from manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton had already been replaced with "Lord" or "God." In the worst case, this comes very close to admitting that it might have already been done up to and (technically) even including the initial manuscript, where an inspired NT writer might have already removed the Tetragrammaton reference from an LXX quotation, for example. That's obviously not the intent of the NWT Appendix writer to state this, but especially with the footnote material in view, it shows just how little is left of the original claim. The last point for further research, therefore, might not include the claim from the 1984 NWT about second and third century scribes removing the Tetragrammaton from the LXX. The real important question is just the NT manuscripts here. It was always an odd claim anyway that both Jewish and Christian scribes would have agreed at some point as late as the third century to remove the name from both the NT mss and the LXX mss, as if all the dozens of manuscript copies were under some central control. Recensions of various types would still exist, because there is no way they could have got them all. And if we find evidence of this being done before the second and third centuries, the entire argument loses its meaning.

Yes, I understand. I just saw your link and now I recognize that I have already purchased from you several times. In case that link disappears, I wanted to quote from it. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to have access to comment on what you said: I was just doing some reading last night and this morning to try to get a better sense of what the DSS actually show us about the use of the Divine Name during the time period(s) represented. So I'll want to get back to this soon.

The Foreward to the 1950 NWT indicates that there were then about 60 Bible versions with a vernacular form of YHWH in the NT. This included NT-only Bibles, especially "missionary" Bibles. Did you mean only a couple of full Bibles as opposed to partial?

I was very dismissive of your initial post for reasons I already gave. I am sorry for that, now. But I also said that I would be happy to engage if I thought your purpose was different. I see how serious you were in studying this issue very thoroughly and coming to a thoughtful and reasonable conclusion. Initially, I thought this was just going to be a matter of taking a few quick "snipes" at the JW teaching and therefore be dismissive of all teachings over another Trinity-related matter. I see that you have made a good point about the quote above where the reference edition of the NWT states that "Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures . . . " I agree that there is no evidence for this claim (yet) although I would not be surprised if something was discovered in the future that might shed more light on this. I have agreed for several months now with the idea that we should not be insistent on adding a form of the Divine Name to the Greek Scriptures [New Testament] until that evidence shows up. But I have not made a thorough investigation of the evidence for myself, and I see from your posts that there is already some good evidence to work from - that leads you to the opposite conclusion. I'd like to go through this evidence myself, and see if there is anything that might sway against the evidence you referenced. If more evidence leads to the same conclusion then I'll see just what position that might lead to. I had the impression that no one knew very much about the divine name in the LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament] until fairly recently. (About 1939 seemed to be indicated in the various NWT forewords and appendixes). This is a big deal to the stance the JWs have taken for decades. When the NWT "NT" was published in 1950, the Foreword on pages 10-25 covered this point, and showed that it was public knowledge that such LXX versions existed due to the comments from Jerome and others. I know that finding the divine name represented in the LXX is not evidence that it was ever in the New Testament manuscripts, but at the very least it could allow for the idea that direct quotes of the OT in the NT could have some reason to include it. I think that the points about the so-called "J documents" have always provided a very weak argument since the addition was done for didactic purposes just as it was done in some Native American (Indian) language translations and African languages, for example. Clearly one of the reasons for these so-called "J documents" was to help teach the Trinity doctrine, which is why the NWT translators have also ignored a lot of the so-called "J" support for using the divine name.

This is true, and I am aware of the more orthodox Trinitarian sounding quotes. It's not a definitive method, but I have also compared some of the scholarship with respect to Origen over time. It seems (generally) he was considered orthodox enough for his day, then was partly blamed for Arianism even before 325, then was condemned for his views against the Trinity after 325, then found favor among more modern Trinitarians who tried to bring him back into the fold, then was scrutinized In more recent scholarship that put him back into the non-Trinitarian column, and has seen a modest attempt to synthesize his views and make them at least semi-Trinitarian. This was what I found generally, and it's probably informed by my own opinions and prejudices, too. But there are exceptions, as you have pointed out. I did see those exceptions, because most articles that discuss Origen's Trinity references not only acknowledge these other quotes from Origen and others, but they also discuss them in great detail. Part of the process of determining truth has always included "testing" every side of a matter. But, of course, I didn't want to get into a discussion of which scholars are better than other scholars. For me, it is sufficient to know that the arguments about Origen generally fall into two sides, and one of those two sides is closer to the truth than the other. So far, I chose a side, and you have chosen another. Another point to consider is not whether Rufinus was honest or not in a 4th century translation of 3rd century works, but the very fact that he was sure these books had been changed by "heretics and malevolent persons." I never assumed he was personally dishonest. What is more interesting is that in the 100-150 years since they were written, he focuses on one topic where he thinks these changes had been made. They were almost all Trinity references. That fact alone tells me that the Trinity doctrine was not resolved prior to the 4th century. I have also read Rufinus' own words about the "Falsification of the Books of Origen." It reminds me of the same fact. (Which also reminds me that a couple of the most disputed passages that ended up being generally identified as "glosses" or "forgeries" in the NT itself were on the topic of Trinity.) I'm sure you already know that more and more scholarly works on the topic are being published all the time. From what I have seen, the majority of them agree that it developed over time. Some of the same "Church Fathers" who helped to develop and maintain the Trinity doctrine over time also believed that Plato and Aristotle's works might have been inspired of God because they were so thankful that they provided a language and framework in which to explain the Trinity. I ran across a lot of that in the Origen articles, but this short page is accessible to everyone: https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/ and includes a quote from Dean Inge that I think is very relevant to the discussion of "development." The emphasis was added on the original site. Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that: “Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added) And, of course, for background a couple of quotes from the same site from persons who wrote prior to 325. (Eusebius also wrote after 325, of course. As I'm sure you know, he was famous for his book on "Church History" and infamous for his Arianism.) Eusebius of Caesarea “[Plato is] the only Greek who has attained the porch of (Christian) truth.” Clement of Alexandria “. . . before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith . . . . For God is the cause of all good things, but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily . . . . For [philosophy] was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind . . . to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” (Emphasis added) I don't agree, but I do agree that what the first-century early church agreed upon, should be the basis for our current belief. Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine. The verse that is usually used to show what you are saying is: (Matthew 16:18) 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. But Jesus also said: (Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” Illustrations about the wheat and the weeds, the sheep and the goats, the narrow vs the broad road, etc., have always led Witnesses to believe that the intervening centuries have been full of major falsehoods, but that Jehovah and Jesus have not judged all of Christendom in the past centuries over these doctrines. But we also believe that it's possible to compare and test various doctrines as brighter light thus helps to restore truthful, healthful teachings. (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Took me exactly 15 seconds to locate the picture here on the Daily Mail. As anticipated, it's not about the Witnesses in Russia at all. It's a picture about a protest against Putin. Like many involved in this middle-class uprising, Chkhartishvili is new to politics but fed up with their posturing prime minister. ‘Putin is out of date, he is obsolete,’ he told me last week. ‘All of a sudden he looks ridiculous.’ Unrest: Ultranationalists try to break through a cordon during a demonstration against recent parliamentary election results Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078554/Russian-protests-Tens-thousands-thronged-Moscow-defiance-Vladimir-Putin.html#ixzz4hG4TmpPP Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I'm thinking of getting some for around the house. This way I won't have to take the bell off the cat's collar.

That's quite understandable. I'm retired, don't sleep enough, and have replaced TV with Internet. Up until just a couple years ago, I wasn't able to join conversations on the net while I was working and raising a family. I should also admit that while I do have an excessive library, the items I quoted from were from an college alumni account that gives me access to a million academic journals. I didn't check if any of these are freely available to the public, but I got complaints in a previous conversation when I tried to give links that apparently only worked for me. I should also mention that when you respond, I'm not really that interested in defending what the Arians believed or what Origen believed. My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th. But I would already admit that it is possible to find sources that would align Origen more closely with orthodox thinking (and by "orthodox" I mean mid-4th century). I also know that Origen is not considered the Father of Arianism by some scholars. I only mention this because I wouldn't want you to feel it's necessary to respond to the points I made, because I probably will just agree that there are other possible points of view. (e.g., Rufinus didn't really change as much of Origen's work as people have claimed; it was really Origen's students who were the father of Arianism, etc., etc.) I do have a much stronger interest in what the original text of the Bible would have presented, so that some of the copyists' changes that appear to move any Bible text toward a more 4th-century Trinitarian direction will always interest me. You made some good points about John 1:18. What looks like evidence to one person is not always definitive. As you can tell, as a Witness, I don't accept the Trinity, and we are not exactly Arian, either. Anna pointed out that a lot of the thinking and explanations that went into the Trinity doctrine (and some forms of Arianism) might not have been possible without the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. I am not interested in any of that. I'm only interested in whether or not a particular belief system will explain the entire range of Scriptures that touch on the issue of the "divinity" of Jesus Christ. I think Ann O'maly was also right in saying that there are several Bible verses that might not be covered by either neo-Arian or Trinitarian solutions. (I think the ideas about the holy spirit will fall into place when the first issue is resolved.)

I blame it on Lake Erie. Saw this over at http://www.newyorkupstate.com/western-ny/2017/05/what_is_the_international_joint_commission_doing_about_lake_ontarios_flooding.html Also, briefly talk about the flooding around Montreal - did that hold up water releases, say in late March or early April that otherwise would have taken place? Lake Ontario outflows have generally been higher since the beginning of April, but were reduced below 7,000 cubic meters per second for four days in April and five days in May. This occurred when extremely high flows in the Ottawa River caused significant flooding in the Montreal area. The Ottawa River flows into the St. Lawrence River at Lake St. Louis in the Montreal area. The Ottawa River basin is larger than the Lake Ontario basin and it received 150 percent rainfall above-average in April. An outflow of 820 cubic meters per second for one week from Lake Ontario will remove one inch of water from the lake, but will also raise the level of Lake St. Louis by 11 inches for the entire week. Reducing the Lake Ontario outflow for a few days while the Ottawa River flows are peaking can prevent several feet of flooding in the Montreal area. I know this is a secular post, but since you wanted a sea curse, your best bet is Greek Poseidon-related mythology. The closest you get in Scripture is Job 3:8 (Job 3:8) Let those who curse the day put a curse on it, Those who are able to awaken Le·viʹa·than. In Hebrew, the consonantal word YM has been understood here as YoM, for day, but based on Hebrew poetic parallelism could more likely have originally been YaM, which is sea. Therefore the call would have been: 8 Let those who [can] curse the sea put a curse on it, Those who are able to awaken Le·viʹa·than [either a crocodile-like sea-monster or a sea-monster-like crocodile] Perhaps a prayer instead to the God who says of the boundary between land and sea: (Job 38:11) And I said, ‘You may come this far, and no farther; Here is where your proud waves will stop’? I understand the need to use as much of the land as possible, and I hate to see good soil eroded. But this current "sea level" (on the lake) is no worse than a record set back in the 1970's. So I never understand why people need to build so close to the shore.

Canon Green, after considering what we know of Origen outside of the view that was literally forged for him by Rufinus, is quoted in the book "Origen as Trinitarian" as follows: Origen continues to use the same strongly ditheistic language about the Logos as Justin had done, and of the Spirit he goes so far as to say that He is a creation of the Father through the Logos. The Logos of Origen is that of contemporary Greek philosophy, the Nous of Flotinus, eternally begotten by God. Origen makes no attempt to conceal the pluralistic character of his thought.... Origen himself was no trinitarian in his more fundamental view .... The trinitarian element in Origen, which is certainly present, is due to his loyalty to the Baptismal Rule of Faith which required it without explaining it, rather than to the inner necessity of his thought. This is not the only place where we see the claim that Origen used the terms that referred to a Trinity, not because he thought it meant the same thing to him as to others, but out of deference to others who needed to hear him use the terms. It would be like a person who joined a church and disagreed on the specific meaning of a term that the church used, but he still used the term so as not to stumble or offend others. Also, we now know that most of the places where people think that Origen used the term "Trinity" were inserted by Rufinus to replace the many places where Origen had actually spelled out terms that included "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The term "peri triados" is written as a marginal gloss in an 11th century manuscript of Origen's Greek, where the actual text only mentions the three entities spelled out. It's as if there was a tendency to want to put words in his mouth. In fact, the actual word Origen would have used would be more like the Greek term like "triados" or "trias" which Theophilus of Antioch had used in the late 2nd century. But again, the 2nd and 3rd century triad is more of a "shorthand" and did not carry the same meaning as the word Trinity, or Latin, "trinitas," of the 4th century and beyond. Remembering that the term "subordination" means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are not co-equal, we can see that the change promoted by Athanasius was somewhat revolutionary to the century of Origen and many others of his time. Note this from "Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?" Author: Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35 : Here he [Origen] cannot be faulted. Until 355 everyone, with the exception of Athanasius, is a subordinationist6. The tradition is unashamedly monarchian. . . . Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) summed it up when he said that "Origen is the stone on which all of us were sharpened"7. Basil (ca. 330-379) and Gregory Nazianzus, as a mark of their admiration, sifted through the writings of their master to produce an Origen anthology, the Philocalia, containing many passages whose Greek text would otherwise have been lost to posterity. A close look at the selections shows that discretion was used in the choice, especially in avoiding trinitarian passages which might be interpreted as subordinationist. Basil and Gregory did not altogether avoid On First Principles, where Origen placed his most pronounced trinitarian teaching, and therefore located the focus of the debate. Perhaps even more than the other two Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa remained under his influence, which "seriously imperilled his reputation for orthodoxy." (p.6) Notice that scholars generally agree that pieces of the Trinity doctrine grew over time and were not accepted in the same way until we get further and further from the Greek Scriptures (NT) themselves. The same article states: Neither Athanasius nor Basil apply "God" to the Spirit, even though writing respectively from 138-148 and 152-162 years later, [after Origen] after considerable theological development, writing with the set purpose of establishing the Spirit's divinity. Indeed, Basil uses "tortuous circumlocutions" to avoid saying the Spirit is God. If it is true, as G.L. Prestige declares, that no Greek in explicit terms said "the Spirit is God" before Epiphanius, this would in broad terms mean until the beginning of the fifth century. (p.7) Back to the connection between Origen and Arianism, however, the same source states: Scholarius indicated that this ambiguity drew down on Origen's head the distinction of being called the Father of Orthodoxy and the Father of Arianism. At least Jerome, that sometime friend, was convinced that Origen had spawned the heresy of Arius . . . . (p.5) It could have been a simple copyist's error. If it was a copyist's error the rules of textual analysis would favor a change from god to son, not son to god.** [See comments within the next link, and near the end of this post.] Besides, we have the testimony of the earlier manuscripts that show this. I'm not arguing for whether the "tampering" was intentional or not, only for why it would have more easily remained and gained popularity over the older reading, if that older reading was, indeed, "only begotten G/god." There is a good discussion that refers to some points made by two JW's (Greg Stafford and Rolf Furuli) at the following link. (Don't know if Greg Stafford is still a JW, but I'm pretty sure both were at the time.) http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_18.htm There is also a reference to Origen's understanding of this verse, which shows he was looking at the term "monogenes theos" not "monogenes huios." Origen cites of John 1:18 in Contra Celsum 2.71: "kai monogenês ge ôn theos ...," which I would translate "the one and only [Son], being God..." McReynolds cites this as "a clear early witness as to how one should understand the reading monogenês theos."10 McReynolds, by the way, was a student of Metzger. That's a good point. I should not have implied that they couldn't say it at all. After all, most of the existing Greek manuscripts they worked from still had "only begotten G/god" as far as I can tell. So it couldn't be avoided altogether. I really meant that you couldn't say that it meant Jesus Christ, the Word, was a begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. There is some evidence that it already carried a different meaning to each group, and therefore it meant what they read into it. Origen himself, as indicated above, might have read it as meaning "only begotten, [who is] God." This leads to an implicit understanding of "only begotten [Son], [who is] God." If Son is already implied in the term "monogenes," then that reading pleased both groups, and it would not be a problem for either side in the Arian controversy. **In textual criticism, there is a rule that says that if someone made a mistake and it made the text more difficult to read and understand, that it would more likely be corrected back to the correct reading in later copies and manuscripts. If it made the text easier to read and understand, then that new reading would more likely remain in later copies and manuscripts. Therefore, a difficult reading that remained in at least some later copies and manuscripts is often considered the better reading for that reason. But we don't need to invoke that rule on its own. We also have the very careful textual criticism of Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God.

Not at all. Hope you don't mind this style of interspersing comments between each of your paragraphs. This way I'm sure I don't miss anything you said. In the case of Origen, I think it's more meaningful to speak of two branches of "Origenism" precisely because he was extremely well-respected as a scholar on the one hand and therefore many who followed tried to follow even his more "radical" ideas. They were radical, at least, by later standards as they developed. On the other hand, his great body of work was "protected" by re-interpreting and highlighting the more conservative ideas that agreed with later standards as they developed. Most of these conservative persons "forgave" him for his lack of understanding, but this didn't sit well with the fact that he still had the reputation as the only REAL scholar the church ever had for the next 200-300 years. It's for this reason that, well after the Nicaean Council of 325, Origen finally had to be denounced. (It took until 533!!) And this was in spite of the fact that he had been protected by the 4th century Latin translator of "De Principiis" so that the most important things he said about the Trinity, to Latin readers at least, had been edited and changed to Nicaean beliefs. The translator did his work immediately after the council of Nicaea. We know this because the translator admitted it very clearly. Also, this was at a time when hardly anyone was speaking Greek anymore. Which is why we have actually lost most of Origen's original Greek writing of De Principiis and we only know it completely through the edited Latin source. You may already be aware of this, but since it has a direct effect on most of the quotes you offered, I'll provide some material on the translator, Rufinus. A Note on the Status of Origen's "De Principiis" in English Author(s): Ronnie J. Rombs Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), pp. 21-29 Origen's text survives through the Latin translation of Rufinus, aversion that Koetschau fundamentally distrusted: Rufinus had admittedly expurgated Origen's text and could not, accordingly, be trusted. (p.21) . . . Greek fragments and Origenistic material-that is to say, passages that were not direct quotations of De principiis, nor even directly Origen's-were inserted into Koetschau's text based upon presumed doctrinal parallels between those fragments and Origen's 'authentic' thought. We cannot reconstruct the Greek text; what we have inherited for better or worse is Rufinus's Latin translation of Peri archon . . . (p.21) By Rufinus's own admission3 Koetschau was convinced that Rufinus had seriously distorted Origen's text. Rufinus explains in the preface to his translation, "Wherever I have found in his books anything contrary to the reverent statements made by [Origen] about the Trinity in other places, I have either omitted it as a corrupt and interpolated passage, or reproduced it in a form that agrees with the doctrine which I have often found him affirming elsewhere."4 The comparison of Rufinus's translation with fragments and material attributed to Origen in Jerome's letters, the emperor Justinian's letter to Mennas,5 and the Anathemas against Origen from the Second Council of Constantinople suggested that Rufinus's emendations were so great that much of Origen's authentic doctrine had been excised completely or else greatly obscured in the De principiis. The distrust of Rufinus's text was substantial enough that Butterworth could describe Rufinus's text as "a garbled version of Origen's work"; for Rufinus was "willing to alter the text, or to omit portions of it, on no evidence whatever, and for no purpose except to conciliate the prejudices of his readers and to give greater authority to his translation."6 (p.22) Some of these same admissions about the "Trinity" quotes from Origen are expanded upon in the following additional sources, which I will quote from (for other purposes) later in the post: Why Does Origen Refer to the Trinitarian Authorship of Scripture in Book 4 of "Peri Archon?" Author(s): P. Martens Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 1-8 Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Author(s): Kilian McDonnell Source: Gregorianum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1994), pp. 5-35 DID ORIGEN APPLY THE WORD HOMOOUSIOS TO THE SON? Author(s): M. J. Edwards Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 49, No. 2 (OCTOBER 1998), pp. 658-670 The Holy Spirit as Agent, not Activity: Origen's Argument with Modalism and its Afterlife in Didymus, Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus Author(s): Andrew Radde-Gallwitz Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 65, No. 3 (2011), pp. 227-248 ORIGEN AS TRINITARIAN Author(s): Charles W. Lowry Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 37, No. 147 (JULY, 1936), pp. 225-240 BTW, it was not only De Principiis that was distorted by Rufinus. Also, Jerome and Justinian, for example, quote Origen directly from the Greek in places, which allows us to see just how badly the Latin has been changed. Origen did refer to the Trinity. And his belief was not Arianism, per se, either. But Origen didn't mean the same thing that later ANFs meant by the word Trinity. He purposely avoided ever saying that the "Holy Spirit is God." He avoided using many words that were becoming part of the vocabulary of the Trinity, at least with respect to the Son/Word/Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As the one through whom all things were created, Christ/Logos is spoken of as a "demiourgos/demi-urge" He speaks, not just of Jesus, the human being, born or created, but the Son of God, the Word being born or created. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. He spoke of the subordination of the Son and the holy spirit, such that the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit. It's true that he didn't put the beginning of the Son or Holy Spirit in human, temporal time, but he didn't do that for the other spirit creatures, either, since they exist outside of a physical realm of time, "before time" and because there must be a sense in which creation of the spiritual beings, especially the Son, always existed in some way with the Almighty. This resolved the question about the Logos having no beginning since "in the beginning the Logos was [already] with God." But Origen goes as far as to imply that the Father, therefore, was not always the Father (until there was a Son) and that he was also limited in some way as to the number of spirit creatures he could create. Origen could speak of the Word/Logos/Jesus as a second God, and still claim that there is only one God. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as a rational being, but one that is not independent. He [Origen] adds, however, that the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His hypostasis, in order not only that He may exist but that He may be wise and rational and just. What is true of the Holy Spirit, the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ, is true of all other spiritual and rational beings. (Origen as Trinitarian, [referenced above], p.231) The position of the Logos in the scale of being corresponds to His function as mediator. He is μεταξύ τηs τον άγενήτουάγενήτου και τηs των γενητών πάντων φύσεως.1 He is God, θεός,2 but secondary in rank, ό δεύτερος θεός.3 The Father alone is ό θεός 4 and God in Himself, αΰτόθεος5; ,the Logos is the image par excellence of God, but it is only the image and reflection of Him. If He did not contemplate the Father continually, He would cease to be God.'6 In relation to the being of the Father, the Son is numerically distinct from Him,7 and is another than the Father in ουσία, νπόστασις, and υποκείμενου.8 He is at once the Son of the Father and a creature.9 This paradoxical conception finds expression in a favourite formula of Origen (which combines St John and Colossians), ,the only-begotten and first born of every creature10 (p.232) It remains to consider Origen's doctrine of the Trinity as a whole and in relation to his idea of God. It is a ' trinity', a triad of beings (ousiai, hypostaseis, hypokeimena), not a triune being. These divine beings are in no sense co-equal but constitute a graduated hierarchy. The Father is the supreme God, alone uncreate and alone God in Himself. The Logos or Son of God is ' the second God ', born of the will of the Father but not in time, in rank intermediate between the highest God and all other created beings. The Holy Spirit is also God and is the third in dignity and excellence after the Father and the Son. (p.235,236) (Note that the Word "Logos" is a second God, in rank and number. This is the issue that later Trinitarians thought they resolved by making them all one "substance" yet 3 "persons." Origen put God beyond "substance" although he spoke of "spirit" and "truth" being related to this sense of substance. This is probably not so different than the way most Witnesses would describe all three entities as of one same "substance", that substance being spirit.) And it is important to remember just how Origen was seen at the time, vs. how he was seen after the Council of 325 CE: In this sense there is a profound justice and necessity in the eventual condemnation of Origen by the Church, however deplorable the spirit in which it seems to have been done when far lesser men and poorer Christians united in execrating his memory. (p.238) He was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553." And lastly from this particular source, we also have another source for the previously stated conclusion that Arius was a left-wing Origenist, while another view, unsupported in reality, made him a "Nicene before Nicea." The relation of these to Origenism and to Arius, ' a left-wing Origenist', is in no way questioned. They then turn to the other side of this many-sided' theologian and exhibit him in the role of a Nicene before Nicea, . . . and the upholder either explicitly or implicitly of the homoousion. The resulting patent contradiction is either explained away by ingenious reasoning or simply left to be accepted. (p.239) So what was said above was intended to give a more rounded view of what Origen himself meant by Trinity. It should allow a response to the individual quotes to go more quickly. The second of these is merely a mention of the triad as a matter of convenience in that all three entities are of the same purpose. Origen even used Acts 4:32 to explain one way (by analogy) in which they were of equal purpose: (Acts 4:32) "Moreover, the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and not even one of them would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. . ." The first quote is exactly the type of adjustment made by Rufinus. Another example from the article called "Did Origen Apply the Word Homoousias to the Son?" [referenced above] says: Rufinus is a far more likely suspect, as he began translating Origen after the triumph of the Athanasian party, which upheld the homoousion as an article of faith. Moreover, he himself admits that his method in translating is to omit, expand or simplify those statements which might otherwise be misconstrued as heresies by readers of his day. He had therefore both the motive and the means to decorate Origen with a spurious orthodoxy. (p.661) Origen, however, is more generally accused of the opposite heresy, of saying that the Son not only depends for his existence on the Father, but also that his relation to the Father is that of a creature to its Creator. His own vocabulary seemed to allow both 'coming-to-be' and 'creation' within the Trinity, and for this he was repeated condemned. (p.663) Origen's use of the word Trinity was evidently much less common than originally supposed, but in any case was merely a convenient way of speaking of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not the doctrine as defined later. Yes. All things originate with God. And the Word was God. Origen speaks of the creation of the Word by God, and even speaks of the Holy Spirit as a creation by the Word, since all things came to be made through the Word. Origen was rarely vague, like some others of the ANF writers. But more than once he sets up this particular idea as a question (of how the Son came to be both created and already coexisting with God in the beginning). Due to the length here, I will have to continue my response onto another post. As I type, I see that the editing window is slowing down and not keeping up, so that I have to keep typing things two or three times.

Thank you. No I didn't have it already prepared. So far, I've always written "on the spot" and it sometimes shows when I leave out something important. There is a better way. One of the things I left out is that our doctrine is not strictly Arian, but it is very similar. And I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is directly reflected in John's gospel. It is merely one attempted "solution" to the one-or-two-or-three-Gods issue, and it happens to be one that we agree with in more aspects than not. I believe I'll get to those differences when I get a chance to respond to Cos again. That might be a semantic 'distinction without a distinction.' An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written. This would be especially true if a doctrine has been partly obscured and buried by apostate teachers. Yes, I agree with that. It is both wrong and an anachronism to say that the original teaching of the Greek Scriptures is "Arianism." I had said that "I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John," and I meant this in about the same way that someone might read C.T.Russell's early Watch Tower publications and say that he could trace the fundamentals of "Russellism" to the Bible, even if he still disagreed with much of it. My main point was that the parts of Arianism that Witnesses agree with completely really are found in John's gospel, even if Arius wasn't born until perhaps 150+ years after John wrote.

He joined on a lay-away plan?

He was just dying to be one?

Wikipedia says the following about Arianism: Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. But note that Origen was born in the late 2nd century and did most of his language and theological work in the early 3rd century. Of him, Wikipedia says: "Origen. . . 184/185 – 253/254),[1] was a Greek scholar, ascetic,[2] and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. " Personally, I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John. I think that Anti-Arianism probably was raised to a high pitch based on the public arguments between Arius and Homoousians leading up to a decision by council at Nicaea in 325 CE. It turns out that the earlier manuscripts of John were more Arian than the later manuscripts. Just look at John 1:18 (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (NWT) (John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV) You might think that JWs would have preferred that this verse had read "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God." You might also think that Trinitarians in the 4th century had no reason to tamper with an expression like "only-begotten God" and would have no reason to change it to "only-begotten Son." Yet that is exactly where the evidence leads. The manuscripts split here on this reading going all the way back to the major Bible mss of the 4th century. I won't take the time to explain the whole footnote here from the NWT Reference Bible, but the main symbols to be concerned with are: Alpha, A, B, C, and in this case P75 and P66. (NWT footnote on John 1:18) “The only-begotten god,” P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.” The P66 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!) The P75 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!) The Aleph refers to the Sinaiticus: א (ʼAleph) Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S. The B refers to the Codex Vaticanus: Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S. But notice that "only-begotten Son" appears first in the 5th century: A Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S. The change was an obvious requirement after the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. That was the crux of Arianism. Therefore a few major manuscripts of the 4th century begin to reflect this. Even 2nd/3rd century manuscripts support the Arian teaching. Two of the most well-read early Christian writers/historians/scholars were Eusebius and Origen. Both of them believed a form of Arianism. Note this about Origen in a respected and scholarly theological journal: THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM Author(s): T. E. Pollard Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 1 (April 1958), pp. 103- 111 Published by: Oxford University Press Page 1 starts out: THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM The question of the origins of Arianism is, at the present time, still wide open. 'It is a matter of considerable doubt whether Arianism is to be traced to Antioch or to Alexandria, and also how far it is due to the teaching of Origen.'1 At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Alexander of Alexandria connected Arius' doctrine yvith that of Paul of Samosata, that is with the Antiochene tradition,2 and this view has been accepted by B. J. Kidd.3 On the other hand, F. W. Green asserts that 'to make Paul the father of Arianism is to add insult to a man already sufficiently injured, and rather unintelligent insult'.4 F. Loofs describes Arius as belonging to 'the tradition of left-wing Origenism', and in a footnote adds that 'the connection between Arius and Paul of Samosata, emphasised by Alexander of Alexandria, the opponent of Arius, is scarcely of importance for the understanding of Arian Christology'.5 Likewise, Père Bardy asserts quite categorically that there is no connexion between the teaching of Arius and that of Paul,6 and that the roots of Arianism are to be found in Origenism.7 After reading this entire article and a couple others like it, I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius. We can see evidence of the teaching in Origen. [And some important elements of it from Paul of Samosata (200-275). It was Paul's student Lucian of Antioch who is said to have had been a major influence on Arius, per the Wikipedia article on Paul of Samosata.] But, more importantly, the textual evidence leads us all the way back to the earliest papyri of the gospel of John.

To be sure, he recanted. The Watchtower has not cited his work since, which once upon a time, could be ordered through the congregation. Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. But there have been persons who spent years promoting and repackaging his work, who have since apologized and recanted after realizing through more serious research that they had been duped. The Watchtower stopped citing him directly based on some information that came to light in researching the Aid Book, which was published in 1972. The Watchtower was supposed to stop quoting him after that, but one article slipped through around Christmas in 1978. Fred Rusk was the Watchtower Editor at the time and didn't let it happen again. (The Awake! had a different editor, Colin Q., and let a couple more Hislop references get through into the mid-1980's.) Unfortunately, Hislop's work had already seeped into some Bible commentaries, including some of the favorite ones that the Watchtower has especially depended on from the late 1800's, and which we still quote from now and then. This has allowed some of Hislop's debunked ideas to get quoted indirectly.

When I said that not every Witness would agree, I mean that most of us would require a lot of context, and prefer to "nuance" our way around it, before ever just using the expression "Jesus is God" and leaving it at that. It would be a rare thing to hear a prayer at the Hall end like this: ". . . And in the name of Mighty God, Jesus, we pray. Amen!" or even, ". . . We come to You in the name of the Word, who is a god, Jesus Christ. Amen!" I started out a talk once with John 1:1 and gave it the emphasis that appears to be intended in the context of John 1. ". . . and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS A GOD!!! And of course it widened a few eyes, because we almost always read it as a proof-text against the Trinity, saying ". . . and the Word with with God, and Word was AAAAY god." John wasn't trying to point out that Jesus was only A god, as opposed to THE God. He was explaining the awesome privilege that mankind had just experienced by have a gOD in our midst, one who had spent a near eternity with the unapproachable, invisible GOD himself, and one who was therefore in the best position to explain the Father to us! John adds the following just a few sentences later: (John 1:14,18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. (NWT) In the talk, I could easily explain why I had given it the emphasis like that. But even though we might "call" Jesus "God" with a capital "G" you will find very few Witnesses who will "spell" it that way. That's why I pointed out the "pains" that the German NWT went to in order to make it different in John 1:1, even though all nouns have be to capitalized according to German grammar.

Jesus was referring to the preaching about a specific phase of the Kingdom preaching before the "axe came down" on the current representation of God's kingdom, those who thought they were protected just by being part of the Jewish nation. So Jesus was referring to how the disciples would not even make it through the circuit of the cities of Israel before this phase of the Son of Man's "coming" to execute judgment was complete - before 70 C.E. (Matthew 3:9-12) 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.” (Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives. These cities all had a similar social structure. You could walk into a city and state your case and what you wanted to do and word would get around to everyone. If someone was interested they would invite you in to discuss it further. If no one was interested, the disciples could shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next city. But Jesus knew that there would be enough interest in his message so that there would be enough hospitality. So they needn't worry about anything. Enough people would be inviting them in and feeding them and giving them a place to stay, that they wouldn't even finish their work before the "end" of that particular phase of Kingdom preaching. (Luke 10:8-11) 8 “Also, wherever you enter into a city and they receive you, eat what is set before you 9 and cure the sick ones in it and tell them: ‘The Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But wherever you enter into a city and they do not receive you, go out into its main streets and say: 11 ‘We wipe off against you even the dust that sticks to our feet from your city. Nevertheless, know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.’ Our Christianity should be flexible and adaptive to meet changing social conditions. Paul worked in different types of cities, and he said that: (1 Corinthians 9:20-23) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. . . . I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. The way we announce our intent to study with people in their homes and tell them about the good news is not the same as when we could make an announcement at the city gate and people would spread the word for us. Today we can go to as many houses as possible, and then come back to those who are willing to have us in their homes. The type of hospitality that Melinda and Eoin have spoken about still happens, as was pointed out. And there are certain types of cities and social structures in the world where the preaching work takes on the same flavor as Jesus instructed the evangelizers in Luke. In London in 1611 under King James, there was no city square or single public forum to announce yourself, and there was absolutely no guarantee of hospitality. So the translators evidently thought that Greek terms like "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) was a match to the idea of "ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν" (from house to house) even though it produced an apparent contradiction to Jesus' instruction. Although it might be better to translate the Greek expressions at Acts 20:20 and Acts 5:42 with the term "in their houses" or "at home" it is still a distinct possibility that the expression could mean "from house to house" as it does when the context implies it. The better translation of Acts 5:42, is found in some more modern translations: Acts 5:42 Revised Standard Version (RSV) And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. But Acts 8:3 in the same translation, for the same Greek expression, says: "But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3, RSV) Although the KJV is inconsistent in using "house-to-house" for these expressions, it translates "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) as "from house to house" in one place where the NWT doesn't. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46, KJV) In that place, even though it is the same expression, "κατ᾽ οἶκον," [where the NWT usually translates "from house to house."] the NWT uses another expression this time: (Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart, Paul evidently did not go from "house to house" to do any initial preaching --it was his usual practice to go into the local synagogue or an open agora or forum-- but he did teach in people's homes, and met the believers in their homes. But if he had preached from house to house, we know that it would have been because of the different social structure in the places he went. It would not have contradicted Jesus' instruction in Luke 10.

It would be nice to see a discussion of Trinity or one of it's sub-topics without so much diversion into topics about the phoenix bird, war, fish, and the pope's clothes. Someone said something about the phoenix and then someone else goes off on a tangent about how the word might have been translated in the LXX???? Oh wait. That was me. Sorry. I usually stay out of Trinity discussions lately because I'm not very good at staying on topic. I have seen well-organized, well-written topics started on related subjects though. Such as a topic about how the Bible writers spoke about the holy spirit, and why it appears to be treated as a person. As I recall, hardly anyone responded at all. Maybe because it wasn't worded as a question, and most people who share in discussions here already knew what the poster thought. Here, Cos has asked a question, and the answers and responses range from mature to childish, some points are excellent and some are completely off-topic. Rather than add to the discussion as it is, I would just like to clarify something I added earlier. I don't know whether the earliest manuscripts of Job or the earliest LXX mentioned the phoenix bird. If it did, it does not necessarily mean that it was a real animal anyway. Apparently the book of Job makes use of references to symbolic animals or uses some "poetic license" and might even reference folklore. Getting off-topic, we claim that Jesus was doing the same when he drew on the common Jewish beliefs about life-after-death when he spoke of the "rich man and Lazarus." Perhaps this was no different than making a point while telling a humorous story that starts out: "A rabbi and a priest and a beggar all die at the same time and they are all standing at the Golden Gates in front of Saint Peter . . . ." [How's that for a diversion!] I personally doubt that the book of Job ever intended to refer to the phoenix bird, and I doubt that there is enough evidence to show that the LXX originally had a reference to such a bird in this place. Once something is believed to be true, it's easy enough to go searching for proof texts to support it. But we can't rely on human translators, and we can't rely even on learned rabbis from any century in history to tell us anything definitive. A lot of very good and interesting material comes out of their commentary and a lot of really stupid stuff is there too. I like to imagine that we fretted over certain specific lines in the Bible for years, and maybe even "spilled a ton of ink" over it, and then we have an opportunity someday to ask Job what he meant here. I imagine he might laugh and say something that we would not have thought of in a million years: "A 'phoenix bird'? That's what you thought I meant? No. A 'phoenix' was the name my Egyptian friend always called this big, loud annoying bug, a special kind of cicada that flew up from Egypt. We called it the Nile bug, and some people have now called it the '17-year locust.' You see, it disappears for 17 years and then keeps coming back. I wasn't talking about resurrection, anyway, just the fact that I always thought that I might live a long and comfortable life and if anyone tried to get rid of me, I'd always come back; I'd always be there. Since the topic is really about Trinity, I'll divert my attention to that topic for a minute. I don't think it's fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century. I don't think it's fair to tie a fish symbol to Egyptian hieroglyphics (or to imply that Christians should be under Jewish laws about the use of graphics and symbols. I don't think it's fair to say that a word must appear in the Bible before we can discuss whether the teaching is there. There is no mention of the word Neutrality, yet we have a Neutrality doctrine. Someone already mentioned that the term "Governing Body" is not in the Bible. For that matter there is no "Seven Gentile Times" either, and yet some Witnesses pretty much treat some of these teachings as if they are the central doctrines of the Witnesses. bruceq mentions that he has no problem saying Jesus is God (with a capital G). Not every JW would agree, but this is a good starting point, since we have some potential common ground to begin a serious discussion about Trinity without just "fighting about words." A lot of Trinitarians who put too much emphasis on a specific definition of Trinity would be happy to understand that we have a lot of good, Scriptural backing for our belief. On the subject of capital letters, I wondered how the NWT in German would get around the fact that, grammatically, it MUST put a capital G on "god" or any noun, even a "falsch Gott." (John/Johannes 1:1, NWT German/Deutsch) Im Anfang war das WORT, und das WORT war bei GOTT, und das WORT war ein Gott. Anyway, I'm not disciplined enough as a poster to try to get too involved in this conversation, but for the most part I'm enjoying it. Thanks.

It appears that while early LXX translations went with "phoenix" in Job, the word for "palm tree" may have been produced as a kind of "pun" on phoenix to remove the reference to a questionable bird, since the word is φοίνικος (phoinikos, palm) vs. φοῖνιξ (phoinix). So because of the similarity of the two Greek words, it's actually difficult even in the LXX to see which was an adjustment of the other. The tie-in to the nest, however, is what made the Masoretic-text rabbis stick with phoenix. (Which came first, the phoenix or the nest?) Standard LXX goes with the "palm." There is a potential support text for the phoenix, which was depicted as a special kind of eagle: (Psalm 103:5, NWT) 5 He satisfies you with good things all your life, So that your youth is renewed like that of an eagle. Here's an interesting compromise by Juan de Horozco y Covarrubias, Sacra symbola, Agrigento 1601, Emblem 6: Ut vivam. In the picture attached below, the phoenix bird sits atop a pheonikos (palm) tree. Note too that the date palm is the hieroglyph symbol of the 365-day year in Egyption semiology. In Latin, the name of the date palm is "Phoenix dactylifera." Also note that Enoch lived for 365 years. (Some commentators about the Phoenix bird put the life cycle at 1,000 years, too.)

In 1948 the Biblical Archaeologist journal had an article that ran about 20 years after the discovery of some related Canaanite Ugaritic texts, that purportedly shed some light on the background of the Leviathan: Howard Wallace wrote the article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1948), pp. 61-68. I found the following on page 62 and 63: Be that as it may, there is no question but that the most famous monster of western civilization is the Biblical Leviathan, whose immediate background is to be sought, not in Babylonian, but in Canaanite mythology. The Ras Shamra texts, found in Syria at the ancient site of Ugarit nearly twenty years ago, record Canaanite myths of the period from 1700 to 1400 B.C. A section of one text tells of the fight of Anath and the dragon. At one point Anath shouts: "I have destroyed the Sea-Dragon, beloved of El, I have slain River of El, the Chief; I muzzled Tannin, I muzzled him (?). I have destroyed the winding serpent, Shalyat of the seven heads I have destroyed the underworld dragon, beloved of El." In another of the texts ("Baal and the Waters"), we learn of the seven-headed Lotan, the very name from which the word "Leviathan" in the Old Testament is derived. A comparison of the vocabulary of Isaiah 27:1 and three lines from the Ugaritic epic, "The Death of Baal," shows the direct borrowing of the Hebrew from the Canaanite. Two words which describe Lotan and Leviathan are identical in the two languages. They are brh, usually translated "swift" or "gliding," and 'qltn, usually translated "crooked" or "tortuous." [twisted] I also found these points interesting from page 65: It must be noted that several Old Testament words are basically related to Leviathan. One is tehom, a word designating primeval chaos. While it is not personified, it is mentioned in Job 41:31,32 as being the dwelling place of Leviathan. (See also Job 28:14; Pro. 3:20; 8:24; Psa. 42:7; 71:20.) Yam, "sea," is more than a mere body of water in many passages; it is an active force, probably reflecting the old myth of the struggle between order and chaos. One of the most interesting of these passages is Job 7:12: "Am I a sea, or a sea-monster, That thou settest a watch over me?" In Ugaritic epics, Baal fights against Zebul-Yam, Prince Sea. The waters or sea rebel against the ruling power in Canaanite mythology, and therefore must be watched by the main god. Leviathan dwells in the sea. Rahab, a sea monster, can be equated with Leviathan in several O. T. passages (Job 9:13; 26:12; Isa. 51:9; Psa. 89:10). Tannin can mean a similar sea monster (as in Psa. 74:13), though having other translations. Before getting to the next section of the article, I'll quote and highlight some relevant portions of Rev 12 & 13 from the NWT: (Revelation 12:3-13:4) 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; . . . 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, . . . 7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, . . . “Now . . . the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! . . . 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, . . . 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is to be fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. . . . 13 And it stood still on the sand of the sea. And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. . . . 3 I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed, and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration. 4 And they worshipped the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they worshipped the wild beast with the words: “Who is like the wild beast, [Michael="who is like El?"] and who can do battle with it?” Not sure if any of these other points from the article are very useful, but they might be interesting so I'll include them anyway from page 67-68, with some portions highlighted. In Rev. 12:3, the "great red dragon, with seven heads, and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his head" is mentioned. Drakon, "dragon," is the usual Septuagint rendering of Leviathan. Only once is Leviathan translated ketos, "sea-monster" (Job 3:8). From Rev. 13:1 on, the beast and the dragon are used interchangeably, as are Leviathan and Rahab and Tannin in the O.T. It may also be noted that abyssos is the Septuagint rendering of tehom, the watery deep. However, by New Testament times, it had become a bottomless pit full of fire and smoke. In the description of the war in heaven between the dragon and Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7-12), verse 9 is especially interesting. . . . The war in heaven is an echo of the war in which Tiamat and her hordes were defeated by Marduk and the gods in the Babylonian Creation Story, and in which Baal of Canaanite lore fought against the rebellious waters. Yahweh destroyed Leviathan in the dim past. . . . The primeval struggle between Yahweh and the powers of chaos is transformed in the Christian context into a struggle between God and Satan. Though the heathen powers, and Rome especially, rage as they will, God will triumph over them in the end. In Chapter 13, two beasts appear. "And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns, . . . Both descriptions seem to be based on Dan. 7:2 ff., and upon the idea that Leviathan has seven heads. Verse 11 reads: "Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth;. . . " The beast from the earth and the beast from the sea appear very much like Behemoth and Leviathan in Job, chs. 40, 41. II Esdras 6:49-53 indicates that Behemoth and Leviathan will both occupy portions of the world until Judgment Day. Leviathan, as has been stated, was specifically assigned the watery portions, and Behemoth the dry portions. Since both of these beasts play such an important part in Jewish Apocalyptic writings, the author of the Book of Revelation would turn to them in attempting to paint the vivid picture of the coming of the last days. The last part of chapter 19 and the first part of chapter 20 picture the over-throw of the beast and his armies. "The dragon, that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan" in Rev. 20:2 is bound and thrown into the [abyss] bottomless pit. The abyssos and its relation to tehom is again indicative of the whole Leviathan strain, in which Leviathan is the representation of the restless forces of chaos, later to become the representation of evil. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more (Rev. 21:1)." The turbulent waters, the sea, which had been in rebellion against the gods in Babylonian mythology, against Baal in Canaanite literature, and against Yahweh in the O. T., the sea was gone! This is a graphic symbol of the complete abolition of evil in the world. The article doesn't mention it, but it was interesting that the early rabbinical sayings spoke of the taunting message written on Leviathan's horns. I don't think it's useful to draw more parallels between the ancient symbols used by Canaanites and Babylonias, but more could be drawn from literary evidence. There is another point, not made in this article, but I'm sure some commentators have made it, which draws parallels between Paul's words about the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11, and the actions of the beastly powers mentioned in Revelation. The more interesting parallels are between the book of Enoch and Revelation. Commentators argue over the idea that Enoch gets quoted verbatim in the book of Jude. But there are at least a dozen more times that ideas found directly in Enoch (and not found directly in the Hebrew Scriptures) are alluded to in the book of Revelation.

The NWT Glossary says the following about Leviathan: *** nwtstg Leviathan *** An animal usually associated with water, apparently some form of aquatic creature. At Job 3:8 and 41:1, it seems to refer to the crocodile or some other aquatic creature of great proportions and strength. At Psalm 104:26, it may be some type of whale. Elsewhere it is used figuratively and is not identifiable with any one animal.—Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1. So with words like "apparently" and "seems to refer" the Watchtower publications no longer tie the word to a specific real creature, although the crocodile (or perhaps a type of whale) is still preferred in the sense that it is the only real animal we know of that comes anywhere close to the description. The Glossary also shows that two important uses (Psalms and Isaiah) are symbolic anyway. (Psalm 104:25, 26) 25 There is the sea, so great and wide, Teeming with countless living things, both small and great. 26 There the ships travel, And Le·viʹa·than, which you formed to play in it. This is the reference that the Glossary considers be a whale, since it is far out to sea -- not a place where crocodiles go. A careful reading of Job 41, however, also indicated the depths of the sea in the description of Job's Leviathan. Psalm 74:14 is quoted here with more context, so that the symbolism is clearer. The symbolism would remind the Jewish readers (and psalm-singers) about Pharoah in Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, because both were major "taunters." In context, the main theme seems to be that the Temple had just been burned, and Jehovah seems to have abandoned them, yet they knew Jehovah's power, the same power that could kill a Leviathan. As the book of Job had said, Jehovah had made it and only its Maker could kill it. (Psalm 74:1-23) 74 Why, O God, have you rejected us forever? Why does your anger burn against the flock of your pasture? . . . Remember Mount Zion, where you have resided. 3 Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins. The enemy has devastated everything in the holy place. 4 Your foes roared inside your meeting place. They have set up their own banners as signs there. 5 They were like men wielding axes against a thick forest. 6 They broke up all its engravings with axes and iron bars. 7 They set your sanctuary on fire. They profaned the tabernacle bearing your name, casting it to the ground. 8 They and their offspring have said in their hearts: “All the meeting places of God in the land must be burned.” 9 There are no signs for us to see; There is no longer any prophet, And no one among us knows how long this will last. 10 How long, O God, will the adversary keep taunting? Will the enemy treat your name with disrespect forever? 11 Why do you hold back your hand, your right hand? Draw it out of your bosom and put an end to them. 12 But God is my King from long ago, The one performing acts of salvation on the earth. 13 You stirred up the sea with your strength; You smashed the heads of the sea monsters in the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Le·viʹa·than; You gave it as food to the people, to those inhabiting the deserts. . . .18 Remember the enemy’s taunts, O Jehovah, How a foolish people treats your name with disrespect. 19 Do not surrender the life of your turtledove to the wild beasts. Do not forget the life of your afflicted people forever. 20 Remember the covenant, For the dark places of the earth have become full of the haunts of violence. . . . Remember how the foolish taunt you all day long. 23 Do not forget what your foes are saying. The uproar of those who defy you is ascending constantly. Several things I thought were notable here, not the least of which is the fact that Leviathan has multiple heads in verse 14. Leviathan therefore represents "the taunting adversary." The "wild beasts" in verse 19 wish to swallow up the afflicted people, but the prayer is that Jehovah remember his covenant, and take note that the "taunting" is against his name. A quick aside: The taunt-song motif, by the way, is known in ancient psalms and poetry. Isaiah 14 is a good example. The idea was also used in one of our old Kingdom Songs. Note the song titled: "The Taunt-Song Against Satan" as Song 75 in the linked songbook that we used from 1950 to 1966. It's a song we rarely sang. The year before I got baptized we got a new songbook, so I barely remember it. In Isaiah we have a similar reminder that Jehovah could strike the heads of Leviathan (without mentioning Leviathan) so that the Assyrians would have to let the Israelites go back home, just as Jehovah had struck at them when Pharoah trapped them at the Red Sea. (Isaiah 11:15, 16) 15 And Jehovah will certainly cut off the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and wave his hand at the River [Euphrates, NWT fn] in the glow of his spirit. And he must strike it in [its] seven torrents, and he will actually cause people to walk in [their] sandals. 16 And there must come to be a highway out of As·syrʹi·a for the remnant of his people who will remain over, just as there came to be [one] for Israel in the day of his coming up out of the land of Egypt. Note how this same idea is carried forward in Isaiah chapter 27 to a time of full restitution: (Isaiah 27:1-8) 27 In that day Jehovah, with his harsh and great and strong sword, Will turn his attention to Le·viʹa·than, the gliding serpent, To Le·viʹa·than, the twisting serpent, And he will kill the monster that is in the sea. . . . 4 There is no wrath in me. Who will confront me with thornbushes and weeds in the battle? I will trample them and set them on fire all together. . . . 8 With a startling cry you will contend with her when sending her away. He will expel her with his fierce blast in the day of the east wind. I'm guessing that there might even be a connection between these multiple "heads of Leviathan" and the idea that the dragon and beast of Revelation has 7 heads. (Revelation 12:3, 4) 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; (Revelation 13:1, 2) . . .And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. 2 Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority. The tie-in to a taunting Adversary is the same as in Psalms and the similar idea in Isaiah. Traditionally, even the old pre-Biblical fables about a "Leviathan" also showed a beast with 7 heads. The similarly described Greek "Hydra" was often shown with 7 heads. This made it a useful symbol of the power of the beastly world powers (who get their power from Satan the Adversary) and which could only be broken at a time when Jehovah sees fit for these powers to be broken. Note: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/56-ut-68-and-the-tell-asmar-seal/file The picture is of the god "Baal" killing the 7 headed "Leviathan" or its near equivalent, dated to older than 2200 BCE. (4,200 years old!)

Here's the curious way that 1 Enoch 40:7-9 refers to both of them: 7. And on that day were two monsters parted, a female monster named Leviathan, to dwell in the abysses of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. 8. But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named †Dûidâin†, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created. 9. And I besought the other angel that he should show me the might of those monsters, how they were parted on one day and cast, the one into the abysses of the sea, and the other unto the dry land of the wilderness. One question that came up was why Behemoth is male and Leviathan is female. Why would such a detail be important? Enoch doesn't say much about them, but does mention Tartarus and Chaos, which might become important to the overall discussion. When Enoch mentions the 7 archangels in chapter 20, he mentions that CHAPTER XX. 1. And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. 2. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is over the world and over Tartarus. 3. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. 4. Raguel, one of the holy angels who †takes vengeance on† the world of the luminaries. 5. Michael, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ over chaos. 6. Saraqâêl, one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. 7. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents and the Cherubim. 8. Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise. This is mentioned because if either Leviathan the Dragon, or Behemoth the Beast is tied to Chaos, we might expect Michael to be the archangel to fight him. If Tartarus it might be the archangel of Light [Uriel/Oriel=God is Light]. Recall that the Septuagint included the idea that these were created to be "mocked" by the angels. I believe that Bible verses create a link between the ideas of the words "mocked" and "taunted." Jewish ideas gave the killing of Leviathan first to Gabriel, however, the archangel over the serpents. Just to start the response to the reason they are given different genders here, I can quote some of the other extra-Biblical works and traditions carried in Jewish literature. Here is a summary from the Jewish Encyclopedia: LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH: Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast." Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. . . . —In Rabbinical Literature: According to a midrash, the leviathan was created on the fifth day (Yalḳ., Gen. 12). Originally God produced a male and a female leviathan, but lest in multiplying the species should destroy the world, He slew the female, reserving her flesh for the banquet that will be given to the righteous on the advent of the Messiah (B. B. 74a). The enormous size of the leviathan is thus illustrated by R. Johanan, from whom proceeded nearly all the haggadot concerning this monster: "Once we went in a ship and saw a fish which put his head out of the water. He had horns upon which was written: 'I am one of the meanest creatures that inhabit the sea. I am three hundred miles in length, and enter this day into the jaws of the leviathan'" (B. B. l.c.). When the leviathan is hungry, reports R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan, he sends forth from his mouth a heat so great as to make all the waters of the deep boil, and if he would put his head into paradise no living creature could endure the odor of him (ib.). His abode is the Mediterranean Sea; and the waters of the Jordan fall into his mouth (Bek. 55b; B. B. l.c.). The body of the leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). . . . In the Messianic Times. The leviathan is prominent in the haggadic literature in connection with the advent of the Messiah. Referring to Job xl. 30 (Hebr.), "and the pious ones [] shall make a banquet of it," R. Johanan says that at the time of the resurrection a banquet will be given by God to the righteous, at which the flesh of the leviathan will be served (B. B. l.c.). . . . Gabriel will be charged with the killing of the monster; but he will not be able to accomplish his task without the help of God, who will divide the monster with His sword. . . . Not only will the flesh of the leviathan furnish food for the table of the righteous, but there will be a great supply of it in the markets of Jerusalem (B. B. l.c.). From the hide of the leviathan God will make tents for the pious of the first rank, girdles for those of the second, chains for those of the third, and necklaces for those of the fourth. The remainder of the hide will be spread on the walls of Jerusalem; and the whole world will be illuminated by its brightness (ib.). Symbolical Interpretation. These haggadot concerning the leviathan are interpreted as allegories by all the commentators with the exception of some ultraconservatives like Baḥya ben Asher ("Shulḥan Arba'," ch. iv., p. 9, col. 3). According to Maimonides, the banquet is an allusion to the spiritual enjoyment of the intellect (commentary on Sanh. i.). The name, he says, is derived from (" to join," "to unite"), and designates an imaginary monster in which are combined the most various animals ("Moreh," iii., ch. xxiii.). In the cabalistic literature the "piercing leviathan" and the "crooked leviathan" (Isa. xxvii. 1), upon which the haggadah concerning the hunting of the animal is based, are interpreted as referring to Satan-Samael and his spouse Lilith ("'Emeḳ ha-Melek," p. 130a), while Ḳimḥi, Abravanel, and others consider the expressions to be allusions to the destruction of the powers which are hostile to the Jews (comp. Manasseh ben Israel, "Nishmat Ḥayyim," p. 48; see also Kohut, "Aruch Completum," s. v. "Leviathan," for other references, and his essay in "Z. D. M. G." vol. xxi., p. 590, for the parallels in Persian literature). The haggadic sayings obtained a hold on the imagination of the poets, who introduced allusions to the banquet of the leviathan into the liturgy. —In Apocryphal Literature: Both leviathan and behemoth are prominent in Jewish eschatology. In the Book of Enoch (lx. 7-9), Enoch says: . . . [already quoted above] According to II Esdras vi. 49-53, God created on the fifth day the two great monsters, leviathan and behemoth, and He separated them because the seventh part of the world which was assigned to the water could not hold them together, and He gave to the behemoth that part which was dried up on the third day and had the thousand mountains which, according to Ps. i. 10, as understood by the haggadists ("the behemoth [A. V. "cattle"] upon a thousand hills"; comp. Lev. R. xxii.; Num. R. xxi.; and Job xl. 20), furnish behemoth with the necessary food. To the leviathan God gave the seventh part of the earth filled with water; and He reserved it for the future to reveal by whom and at what time the leviathan and the behemoth should be eaten. In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, xxix. 4, also, the time is predicted when the behemoth will come forth from his seclusion on land and the leviathan out of the sea, and the two gigantic monsters, created on the fifth day, will serve as food for the elect who will survive in the days of the Messiah. . . .

Thought that the Watchtower provided the names as a response to a request for all the cases of sexual child abuse on file. (The cases cover quite a range that might not always be defined as criminal child sexual abuse, but it was the Watchtower intending to provide cases that fell under this definition.) Also, it wasn't 1006 incidents, but 1,006 files about the abusers. Therefore the number of incidents was higher than the 1,006 cases of abusers. I also understand that several of the cases have already been turned over to the authorities based on time that has past, and evidence of criminality. A few of these have already hit local Australian papers. I've been sent 4 of them, and told about others, but I am not interested in posting them. Enough of that happens by others. (In one of the cases, where the person is much older now, the authorities decided not to prosecute, stating that his disfellowshipping by his congregation had already produced a severe punishment. I guess they consider disfellowshipping to be a bit like a prison sentence.)

Me, too. We all know that the Bible refers to "beasts" and "dragons" in the apocalyptic books such as Daniel and Revelation, but I guess we just didn't want them mentioned as if they were "real" in the book of Job. The Librarian pointed out that someone had asked me a question about Enoch (non-canonical apocalyptic book), where Leviathan and Behemoth are mentioned together in a very curious way. To answer that question, I thought it was a good idea to set up the background comparing what we have believed about Behemoth and Leviathan compared to what some of the Bible-believers in Bible times believed about them.