There was only one mention of this term in my entire library. I am assuming the concept is out there couched in other terms. How would YOU go about searching for anticipated, yet unknown, terms in Logos 4?
I would suggest that should look at both words separately, many terms are just ad-hoc combinations of distinct concepts.
Don't forget to check the context in which the terms are used. This usually is a clue to how the author understands it.
From A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament
"John 3:5
Of water and the Spirit (ἐξ ὑδατος και πνευματος [ex hudatos kai pneumatos]). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add ἐξ ὑδατος [ex hudatos] here? In verse 3 we have “ἀνωθεν [anōthen]” (from above) which is repeated in verse 7, while in verse 8 we have only ἐκ του πνευματος [ek tou pneumatos] (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by ἐξ ὑδατος [ex hudatos] (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3, 5, 7)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6 as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of “water” here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words ὑδατος και [hudatos kai] (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but “are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.” Here Jesus uses εἰσελθειν [eiselthein] (enter) instead of ἰδειν [idein] (see) of verse 3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom)."
It seems (through George's suggestion of context) that Nicodemus would understand Jesus' concept if coupled with his understanding as one who is a Pharisee and steeped in ceremony (sounds like a traditional Webster definition doesn't it! [:P])
I think its also interesting to attempt to search "ceremonialist" in resources published by authors of the same or close to the same time period as Robertson. It seems like it is some form of academic buzzword that carries some weight.
What command limits a search to a specified time period?
From A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament "John 3:5 Of water and the Spirit (ἐξ ὑδατος και πνευματος [ex hudatos kai pneumatos]). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add ἐξ ὑδατος [ex hudatos] here? In verse 3 we have “ἀνωθεν [anōthen]” (from above) which is repeated in verse 7, while in verse 8 we have only ἐκ του πνευματος [ek tou pneumatos] (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by ἐξ ὑδατος [ex hudatos] (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3, 5, 7)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6 as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of “water” here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words ὑδατος και [hudatos kai] (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but “are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.” Here Jesus uses εἰσελθειν [eiselthein] (enter) instead of ἰδειν [idein] (see) of verse 3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom)." It seems (through George's suggestion of context) that Nicodemus would understand Jesus' concept if coupled with his understanding as one who is a Pharisee and steeped in ceremony (sounds like a traditional Webster definition doesn't it! )
It seems (through George's suggestion of context) that Nicodemus would understand Jesus' concept if coupled with his understanding as one who is a Pharisee and steeped in ceremony (sounds like a traditional Webster definition doesn't it! )
It cannot be forgotten that the gospels are not purely historical, biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. They are the product of the Church of the time in which they were written. The terms "water" and "spirit" here seem to specify the two elements involved in the "Christening" of a new member of the church. This is also practiced in the more liturgical churches today where, quite naturally, "water" would signify baptism and "spirit" would signify the annointing with oil whereby the reception of the Holy Spirit is signified. Of course, Robertson was a Baptist and thus did not follow this practice which would thus be simply "pharasaic ceremonialism" to him.
Of course, Robertson was a Baptist and thus did not follow this practice which would thus be simply "pharasaic ceremonialism" to him.
I suspect Robertson did practice water baptism, and that there was no shortage of water in those baptisms so I'm not sure that it's true to say that he didn't follow this practice. I'll avoid discussion of spirit in order to stay on the right side of the forum's rules on theological discussion.
Of course, Robertson was a Baptist and thus did not follow this practice which would thus be simply "pharasaic ceremonialism" to him. I suspect Robertson did practice water baptism, and that there was no shortage of water in those baptisms so I'm not sure that it's true to say that he didn't follow this practice. I'll avoid discussion of spirit in order to stay on the right side of the forum's rules on theological discussion.
But I'm bet he didn't practice chrismation.
I only had one mention of this term in my library also.
I tried a google search for the term and found a lot of references. Might be worth looking into.
We're famous. A google search for "pharisaical ceremonialist" lists THIS discussion thread in THE #1 spot. My brother does business on the internet so I know how difficult it is to reach the first page of google results, let alone the top spot. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us.
I'd step back a bit and question the text from two perspectives:
1. I'd read up on Pharisees - I have found that many Christian sources misrepresent them.
2. I would run searches on "ceremonialist" or "ritualist" or other similar concepts looking for reference to lack of meaning, lack of understanding, lack of efficacy ...
I would, I suspect, come to the conclusion that what Robertson means by the phrase"Pharisaic ceremonialist" has little to do with Pharisees and lots to do with the mindless repetition of ceremony where the meaning of the ceremony has been lost.
@MJPlease recommend some resources that you believe represent the Pharisee's accurately.
Please recommend some resources that you believe represent the Pharisee's accurately.
Forum thread => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/17791/134382.aspx#134382 recommended In the Shadow of the Temple
Background about ceremonial aspects could include some Talmudic reading. Logos has many Talmud resources, including
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (4 vols.) includes John 3:4 discussion => logosres:lightfootcom03;ref=Bible.Jn3.4
The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated and Translated into English (19 vols.) (Community Bidding closes Fri 16 Sep)
Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud Collection (50 vols.)
Searching Talmud collection (Title:Talmud) for proselyte born found some items to consider, including COMPOSITE ON CONVERSION IN GENERAL logosres:babytalmud;ref=BabTalmudFolio.Yebam._45B;off=4548
After reading Talmud entry, a search for immersion circumcision found another Babylonian Talmud entry (possible background for "pharisaic ceremonialist"):
II.5 A. The master has said, “Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only with circumcision and immersion and sprinkling of blood through the sacrifices, so they [proselytes] will enter the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood on the altar.”
B. Now there is no problem as to circumcision, for it is written, “For all the people that came out were circumcised” (Josh. 5:5), or, alternatively, evidence derives from the following: “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you, In your blood, live” (Eze. 16:6).
C. And there also is no problem as to the sprinkling of blood, as it is written, “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings” (Ex. 24:5).
D. But how on the basis of Scripture do we know that immersion is required?
E. As it is written, “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people” (Ex. 24:8), and there is no sprinkling without immersion.
F. Now what about this problem: these days, in which there is no possibility of bringing an offering, perhaps we should not accept proselytes at all?
G. Said R. Aha bar Jacob, “ ‘And if a stranger sojourn with you or whosoever may be among you throughout your generations’ (Num. 15:14) [means, for all times].”
Neusner, J. (2011). Vol. 22a: The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (67–68). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
From context reference to Nicodemus, one follow-up search idea is Nicodemus. Another search idea is references to John 3:5
Keep Smiling [:)]
The context of the phrase "pharisaic ceremonialist" does not lie in the scripture text since it is not found there. It rather lies in the work of the commentator A. T. Robertson. It is his view that Nicodemus was a "pharisaic ceremonialist."
From context reference to Nicodemus, one follow-up search idea is Nicodemus. Another search idea is references to John 3:5 The context of the phrase "pharisaic ceremonialist" does not lie in the scripture text since it is not found there. It rather lies in the work of the commentator A. T. Robertson. It is his view that Nicodemus was a "pharisaic ceremonialist."
Concur, while commenting about John 3:5, A.T. Robertson used "pharisaic ceremonialist" phrase to describe Nicodemus. From John 3:1 context, pharisaic is readily apparent. Discussion about "ceremonialist" seems appropriate elsewhere.
