Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Not too long ago we charged JW apologist Edgar Foster with a partial misrepresentation of Harold Attridge's commentary on Hebrews 1:3. Foster has written a response in which he tries to duck out of his clear misrepresentation by taking the bucther knife and splitting hairs with it. My original comments are in bold; Foster's reply is in italics. This reply was some time in the making because Attridge's commentary was unavailable for several weeks at my local seminary library. It has now completely disappeared from there, so that I am not able to complete a response to Foster after this.

This is a rather interesting summation of Attridge, and very incomplete.

I find Holding's criticism here interesting. The discussion on APAUGASMA in my book forms a minor part of the entire presentation contained in Christology. The book itself is only a little over 100 pp. If Holding was reasonable, he would not castigate my supposedly "incomplete" summation of Attridge. However, even though my synopsis of Attridge's comments may have been brief, the following observations will show that I did not misrepresent the thorough exegetical treatment of Attridge.

What part of Foster's book this formed is utterly beside the point. I make no pretense at having fully represented Foster's entire book. I clearly am only dealing with what he has to say about Heb. 1:3. Foster is manipulatively trying to foster (pun intended) an impression that I have somehow addressed his work incompletely and that therefore I am being hypocritical in my castigation of him. That is a case of "apples and oranges" since I make no claim to be addressing all of his work or to be representing his work as he represents Attridge's.

I do not understand Holding's censure here. As even Mr Holding notes, I already had written that "This reference work [BAGD] goes on to demonstrate that Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret and Chrysostom all accepted the active meaning of apaugasma. F.F. Bruce also suggests construing apaugasma as active in Heb 1:3 as does A.T. Robertson." How can he then turn around and say that I neglected to tell my readers that Attridge alludes to what Patristic commentators thought? Would not such a mention of what Attridge had to say about the Patristics, in this context, have been somewhat pleonastic? Furthermore, Attridge actually writes that "many" moderns argue for the active sense and "many" modern commentators opt for the passive sense in Heb 1:3. Mr Holding's critique thus falls flat.

There is nothing "pleonastic" about it. Foster essentially admits he is guilty as charged and tries to cover it up. If Attridge agreed on this important point, he should have noted it. That he did not suggests a desire to cover up confirming acknowledgement.

In terms of what Attridge says about "many" this is correct [42] but beside the point at issue. Foster is shoving this in just for show. The modern opinion was denoted to be equitably split and that is what I said.

Heb. 1:3 derives "from a specific source in the Wisdom tradition," Wisdom of Solomon 7:26. This document uses both emnationist language and the passive language to describe Wisdom. Philo's use of the term is clearly "active" when he refers to the human mind but "passive" when he refers to the world. The determinant is context, and given the parallel with Wisdom as an attribute of God, the active sense is clearly warranted in Heb. 1:3.

It behooves the reader to consult Attridge's commentary for himself/herself. He does not state what Holding would have you think he says. Attridge actually pens the following:

"Philo uses APAUGASMA both of the human mind and of the world. In the former passages it REGULARLY has the sense of radiation [an active sense], a use that reflects a Stoic background shared with the Wisdom of Solomon. In the passage on the world as APAUGASMA the passive sense is clear. The context of Hebrews itself, where APAUGASMA is paralleled with 'imprint' (XARAKTHR), may support a passive understanding of APAUGASMA, although that second term is not entirely free from abiguity" (Attridge 43).

First, Attridge says that APAUGASMA in Philo "regularly" (not always) conveys an active sense when referring to the world. Furthermore, based on the context, Attridge actually writes that APAUGASMA in Heb 1:3 may support a passive sense. He does not say a thing about the active sense being "clearly warranted in Heb. 1:3." In the final analysis, Attridge actually concludes that "In such poetic language complete precision is not to be expected."

Here is where Foster tries to split hairs to escape an obvious conclusion that damages his case and covers up his careless use of Attridge. He is trying to force-fit Attridge's "regularly" in opposition to "always" with no conception of how "regularly" the active sense is conveyed, and in what contexts. Moreover Attridge goes on to say that the image "in whatever sense it may be taken, serves, like the following, to affirm the intimate relationship between the Father and the pre-existent Son, through whom redemption is effected." This stands against the standard JW idea of Jesus as a creation of God, and therefore, ultimately, Attridge disagrees with Foster's position, as noted below, and which Foster tries to sponge away as irrelevant.

I also write that one cannot be dogmatic about the sense of APAUGASMA in Heb 1:3. I conclude, to quote from Christology again:

"In the final analysis, after discussing Philo and the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, Attridge has to admit that the meaning of apaugasma is not easy to pin down. He seems to think, however, that the passive sense is more preferable in Heb 1:3 than the active sense. While the precise meaning of apaugasma and even character may be somewhat ambiguous, the overall thrust of the words in the text are clear enough."

Attridge notes that the parallelism in Heb. 1:3 "may not be synonymous, but anthithetical, as in the two preceding clauses," which is against the JW view. Attridge nevertheless agrees with our view that the text depicts a "pre-existent Son" and actually makes no admission about the meaning being "not easy to pin down."

Attridge observes: "In such poetic language complete precision is not to be expected. The image, in whatever sense it may be taken, serves, like the following, to affirm the intimate relationship between the Father and the pre-existent Son, through whom redemption is effected."

Based on these words, I think it is fair to state that Attridge DOES admit that it is difficult to determine the sense [active or passive] of APAUGASMA with precision. Additionally, notice the modal employed by Attridge, namely, "may." APAUGASMA, he declares, "may" be passive or it "may" be active, if the parallelism in Heb 1:3 is not synonymous. In the end, it is difficult to be dogmatic about the matter on grammatical grounds alone. Clearly, I make this admission in Christology, a point that Mr Holding overlooks.

However "difficult" Attridge says it is, he clearly comes down on the side against the JW position -- in short, Foster slides right over the point that though it is considered difficult, this does not mean that an answer has not been arrived at and that the clear weight of the evidence sits against the JW view. In terms of this alleged "admission" it reads as follows:

"In Heb 1:3, the Son is manifestly identified as the apaugasma (reflection OR radiance) of God. The expression is similar to Paul's use of eikon tou theou in Col 1:15 and, furthermore, the phrase informs us that as the image of God, Christ starkly resembles God and perfectly reflects his Father's matchless characteristics. He is not, however, equal to his Father (Buchanan 7)."

Notice that I write APAUGASMA in Heb 1:3 may mean "reflection or radiance."

This "admission" is practically worthless and amounts to Foster yet again muddling the clarity of the case by not admitting the weight of the evidence falls against "reflection".

We would finally note that the "imprint" language fits in with the use of eikon indicating that Wisdom is God's ordained representative on earth. Thus both active and passive meanings for apaugasma would be appropriate.

Louw-Nida, with astute caution, suggests: "It is impossible to determine whether APAUGASMA should be interpreted in an active sense and therefore 'radiance,' or in a passive sense and therefore as 'reflection.'" See semantic domain 14.48 of Louw-Nida.

Foster imitates Skeptics here by finding a vaguer and less comprehensive study of the subject. Louw-Nida do not develop their analysis to the extent Attridge or any commentary does. Hence this is a pointless cite, and Foster is playing manipulation games by crediting LN with "astute caution" when what it really is, is an incomplete study (for which LN are not to be faulted in context).

Update: Foster has responded to this with more niggling about Attridge. Absurdly enough, Attridge's commentary has either been stolen or withdrawn from the library I got it from, so I am no longer able to reply.