Sorry, TD, my understanding of languages is colloquial often, rather than technical. I believe the most if not all of the orginal Scriptures were written colloquially rather than technically. I don't know how to verify that out one way or the other. Jehovah's not speaking to me on that wavelength.
I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel
Narkissos....I think to be more precise, TD's distinction is better framed as between manner and comitative adverbs which relate to the semantics of the verb in different ways.
Adverbs are non-terms, that is to say, they do not participate in certain grammatical processes like agreement and relational annihilation (i.e. promotion of objects to subjects in passivization or the promotion of indirect objects to direct objects in dative movement), as do subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects. But some adverbs are more relevant to the semantics of the verb than others. Some express semantic arguments like agent and patient, such as the non-term agents of passives. Others contribute directly to the action or activity of the verb, like manner adverbs. Manner is predicative (it qualifies or informs about the action expressed by the verb) in a similar way as adjectival predicates with respect to nouns, e.g. He spoke loudly → His voice was loud. Manner can be expressed adverbially via adjunct modifiers subcategorized by the verb or it could be expressed lexically by the verb itself (e.g. verbs of motion like saunter, limp, skip, etc.). Manner adverbs can easily be confused with factive adverbs, which I think usefully illustrates the way in which manner is relevant to the verbal action. To cite an example from English:
John cleverly acted stupidly
"Cleverly" here is a factive adverb and "stupidly" is a manner adverb. It was clever of John to act in a stupid way (such as faking stupidity in order to get out of trouble). If both were manner adverbs, the sentence would be nonsensical but it is not. That is because the manner adverb explains the nature of the verbal action whereas the factive adverb comments on the agent performing the action (i.e. whether the agent was clever or not). A true manner adverb is subcategorized by the verb and contributes directly to explaining how the agent performs the verbal action. Notice how this relevance holds when the sentence is paraphrased or embedded by a perception verb:
The angel spoke with a loud voice
The angel spoke loudly
The way the angel spoke was loud
John witnessed the angel speak with a loud voice
John witnessed the angel speak loudly
John witnessed how the angel spoke
Factive verbs cannot be paraphrased or embedded in this way in English. The sentence "John cleverly spoke stupidly" is not paraphrased as "The way John spoke was clever (and it was stupid of him to do that)". They contrast quite nicely in the "It was x" paraphrase:
It was loud HOW the angel spoke (manner)
It was clever THAT John spoke that way (factive)
The event structure of verbs includes both participants and actions and adverbs can pertain to either. Factive verbs pertain more to an agentive participant than the action denoted by the verb, whereas manner adverbs pertain more to the action itself. But if the verb is intransitive with a single-place predicate, like a verb of motion or speaking (which involve only an agent), then the agent is the one who is also producing the manner while performing the action. This usually is not important, but if other participants enter into the event, especially those that are not arguments of the verb, then the contrast becomes relevant. In the examples that reniaa was citing from 2 Peter 2:16 and Revelation 19:17, the manner adverb is licensed by the verb, i.e. the "loud voice" is itself produced by the verbal action of crying out. And if the voice is loud, so is the agent making the sound. But events expressed by intransitive verbs could have additional participants that are more peripheral to the action and dependent on more central participants. An indirect object requires a direct object, an object requires there being a subject. But a subject does not require any other participant (e.g. "John ran"); it is at the top of the food chain. Non-terms, which often are marked via oblique case, may constitute other participants in the event which are even lower in the hierarchy of centrality to the verb. An instrument, for example, may be employed by an agent as the means to perform the action. Instruments require the existence of an agent and the distance in animacy between an agent and an instrument is usually far greater than between an agent and a patient, i.e. instruments are more often inanimate things used by animate agents while patients may often be equally animate with their agents. But as peripheral an instrument is, at least it is used in the performance of the action.
Comitative adverbs however express participants that are even less central to the verb. They are present in the situation with the agent or other participants, but they may not be involved at all in the action itself. Or if they are involved, their involvement is dependent on that of another more central participant (and thus are oriented more towards another participant than the action itself) who is grammatically licensed as the agent responsible for the action. In other words, the verb does not subcategorize for concomitance. An accompanying circumstance is even less central to the event. It may be regarded as an abstract concomitant — a secondary situation that occurs simultaneously with the primary situation denoted by the verb; it may even be independent to this event (e.g. coincidental to it). It may have its own event structure (such as with a participle) with participants of its own. Here is an example with five different kinds of "with" adverbs:
With cleverness (factive), John walked into the room with clumsiness (manner) with a cane (instrumental) with his friend (comitative) with a band playing in the background (accompanying circumstance).
Here the band has nothing whatsoever to do with John's action of walking into the room. It would be absurd to say that the band is the same agent as John performing the act of walking, i.e. John is not the band. It is similar to the archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16; the archangel is the participant producing the "sound" or "voice", and that vocalization is an accompanying situation to the descent that has the Lord as its agent. It is equally absurd to construe such vocalization, or the blowing of the trumpet, as things necessarily performed by the Lord which characterize the manner in which he makes his own descent. That is what taking the "with" phrases as manner adverbs, as reniaa does, requires.
thanks TD, leo, and nark.
I know jack shit about greek, but this thread has been a good teach!
appreaciate it all, keep up the good work!
Very interesting analyses and nuances -- each language constructs its grammatical approaches and metalanguage a bit differently I suppose, in spite of the universalistic objective (Babel!).
From where I stand it seems better not to mix (what I construe as) an 'essential' characterisation, what it is (adverb, adverbial phrase), with a functional one, what role it plays (which I would characterise broadly in French as complément circonstanciel, circumstantial complement, allowing for finer distinctions such as comitative or accompanying circumstance).
Words like "manner" or "circumstance" being used either in a looser or stricter sense add to the confusion. "Manner" is a (too?) large category as opposed exclusively to time and place, but a more smaller one when opposed to instrument or circumstance (in the narrow sense) for instance.
If anything the discussion may serve as a reminder of the analytical, reflexive, hence secondary character of descriptive grammar, which has to divide, order and classify the continuous phenomenon of usage into separate, clearly defined, but wholly artificial "boxes". Which is very often missed by apologists throwing "grammar rules" at each other, especially referring to a language they cannot read...
On another topic, I think TD's Watchtower quote is quite revealing too; the use of the verb "accompany" obviously derives from the scholarly sources the WT writer has used, making peremptory statements like "this is his own voice" (a couple of paragraphs before) stand out as non-exegetical but dogmatic.
One would think that the research done by Leo a few pages back would have been enough...
All this ends up being simply another case of interpretation and as such, whether Jesus is or is not Michael becomes a subject of interpretation, which means that it is NOWHERE plainly stated in scriptures.
It becomes a case of going beyond what is taught.
To uses some reasoning from the WT, as they like to apply to the Trinity, IF it were scripture, it would be in the bible, it would be plainly state.
By that very reasoning we can conclude that, IF Jesus was Michael it would be plainly stated somwhere, anywhere, in the scriptures, but what do we see?
In all the Gospels, in all the letters, NOWHERE is is stated that Jesus is Michael or that Jesus is/was an angel, in other words, nowhere do you find the following: Jesus Christ was an Angel, Jesus is an Angel, Jesus is the archangel Michael, Jesus i/was Micahel, etc, etc.
It is quite simply NOT there.
In the Bible Daniels makes not that Michael is ONE of the chief princes, if we regard chief prince as (archangel", then Michael is ONE of them, if we do NOT regard Chief Prince as archangel, then Daniel is to NOT be referenced in discussion with Archangels and the indentity of the Michael of Daniel is called into question.
As for Jude, he says "the archangel Michael", that doesn't mean he is the only archanangel, just like say "the apostle Paul" doesn't mean he is the ONLY apostle.
Until the Governing Body does away with the Jesus = Michael teaching ... Reniaa's mind is closed for any other interpretation.
Besides, according to the angelic hierachy, it would be insulting to even suggest Jesus being an archangel ...
- Second Sphere (New Testament sources)
Archangels are of the Third Sphere. That's pretty low on the totem pole for the Son of God. I guess that's where JWs want Him.
The "evidence" for Jesus being Michael is very weak, Michael only being mentioned five times in the whole bible!
However, the evidence for Jesus being God and the Holy Spirit being their spirit occurs hundreds of times.
Well enough debate, you p ay your money and take your choice
All the best,