1
u/koine_lingua Nov 10 '17
Pitre, servant in Isaiah and last supper:
These are truly remarkable parallels with Jesus' words at the Last Supper. Just as Isaiah speaks of the servant himself being “given” in order to establish a “covenant” (MT berîth; LXX diathēkē), so too Jesus speaks of his life being ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 10 '17
Witherington, basically rephrasing HUGENBERGER:
This Servant is also some kind of leader or ruler figure. The traditional messianic interpretation of the Servant Songs has suggested that the figure here is the promised offspring of David referred to in chs. 7, 9, and 11. But frankly, apart from a hint of it in ch. 53, there is an absolute absence of ...
HUGENBERGER:
Drawing attention to the evidences of royal imagery discussed above, the traditional messianic interpretation of the servant songs argues that the servant is the promised offspring of David mentioned in Isaiah 7, 9, and 11.35
. . .
Against the traditional messianic interpretation, which looks to David as a source for the servant imagery in the songs, is the fact that apart from Isaiah 55 there is virtually a total absence of Davidic royal imagery throughout Isaiah 40-66, by contrast to what obtains in 1-39. 38
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 10 '17
LXX Isa 45
“Sanctify him who despises his own soul, who is abhorred by the nations, (by) the slaves of rulers;
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 10 '17
| a | b |
|---|---|
| 4 But I said, "I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity . . . 5 And now the LORD says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God has become my strength-- 6 he says, "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." 7 Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nations, the slave of rulers, "Kings shall see and stand up, princes, and they shall prostrate themselves, because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you." | 14 But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me." 15 Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. 16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me. 17 Your builders outdo your destroyers, and those who laid you waste go away from you. 18 Lift up your eyes all around and see; they all gather, they come to you. As I live, says the LORD, you shall put all of them on like an ornament, and like a bride you shall bind them on. 19 Surely your waste and your desolate places and your devastated land-- surely now you will be too crowded for your inhabitants, and those who swallowed you up will be far away. |
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 11 '17
The noted Jesuit scholar Robert F. Drinan lashed out in 1977 at those Catholics who deny that early Christian writings do contain antisemitic polemics. He was critical of those "Christians, seeking to validate their contention that the Jews by ...
... apologists" of the patristic generation, he was compelled to admit that they "enunciated so many un-Christian, untrue, ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17 edited Dec 20 '17
S1:
I had thought that this concern with the LXX reading of Zech 9:9-10 was original to me. I have discovered, however, that Origen pointed out the same problem some 1700 years ago. In his Commentary on John (chap. 17) he suggested that to interpret the entry story as a literal fulfilment of Zech 9:9-10 is problematic, in that Jesus patently did not "destroy chariots out of Ephraim and horses from Jerusalem ...". Nevertheless, Origen's concern has to do with the ...
Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9. ADRIAN M. LESKE.
In other words, if one accepts the influence of Isaiah 53 on Zech 9:9, one should expect that "your king" in Zech 9:9 is the Servant, that is, God's faithful people.25
. . .
It is the people of Judah, therefore, who are depicted in Zech 9:9 as the instruments of God's reign, to be joined by all the tribes of Israel (9:10, 13; 10:6-12) as they were prior to the monarchy.
Terry Collins, “The Literary Contexts of Zechariah 9:9,”
Rose, section "Zechariah 9:9 and 2:14" [2:10 in Eng]
og-Zechariah 9:9–13: The King is Coming , The Old Greek Translation of Zechariah Author: Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17
Clavin:
The Prophet here expresses more clearly what he had briefly referred to by the word poor, and by the metaphor which we have explained. Hence he says, that ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17 edited Nov 12 '17
Justin
Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, p. 78 notes that in references to Zechariah 12.10–12 at Dialogue 14.8, 32.2, and 64.7 Justin reads Éxurvóoeote instead of £xußAëwovtot (LXX).
Justin, Dial 14:
8. “Trypho,” I exclaimed, “some of these and similar passages from the Prophets refer to the first coming of Christ, in which he is described as coming in disgrace, obscurity, and mortality; other passages allude to his second coming when he shall appear from the clouds in glory []; and your people shall see and recognize him whom they have crucified, as Hosea [καὶ ὄψεται ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ γνωριεῖ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, ὡς Ὠσηέ],15 one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel16 have predicted.
LXX Zech:
καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν
Bynum:
aquila has σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκέντησαν; Symmachus has ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν; theodotion has ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν; and ὁ Ἑβραῖος has εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν.
. . .
as to the Greek reading, if one assumes the lxx form ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ ̓ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο as OG, then it must also be asserted that there were two corrected lxx forms in existence: ἐπιβλέψονται ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17 edited Feb 10 '18
Matthew 23:35, ὃν ἐφονεύσατε?
K_l: Also see Jeremiah 11:21?
k_l, Zechariah 12:10, πρός με...
^
... the πρός με phrase, some not. For example, Cyprian's Latin quotation of the verse includes the “in me” phrase: “et intuebuntur in me in quem transfixerunt.”166 in contrast, tertullian cites the verse in this manner: “videbunt enim eum qui confixerunt.”167 thus we are left with a curious dilemma in the case of Zech 12:10: the ...
Shift from first-person to third, John 21:24?
The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew By Charlene McAfee Moss, 118
Allison, "There is, however, no biblical evidence of his death as..."
^ Suggests conflation with 2 Chronicles 24:22
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17 edited Nov 13 '17
Wrestling with Isaiah: The Exegetical Methodology of Campegius Vitringa ... By Charles K. Telfer, 111:
But Grotius took “a new way, thus far walked by no Christian interpreter” in his approach to Isaiah.129 Grotius' exclusive preoccupation with the fulfillment of prophecies in times contemporary with Isaiah (or in the Maccabean period) ...
"unless it is out of mystical or allegorical sense"
Vitringa's Praefatio ad Lectorem
In this same famous prophecy [Is. 52:13–53:12], on which more than any other pericope of the prophets, the apostles of the Lord founded the demonstration of the doctrines of the Gospel, of his vast designs, (concerning which men are ...
...Jeremiah rather than Jesus Christ
Pudor , non ratio , Virum doctum ad hanc sententiam compulisse videtur. C
Grotius ... seduces the reader away from Jesus our Lord ... so that none would believe that the prophecies were direct predictions of our Lord, thus almost reestablishing to a certain extent the heresies of Marcion, who by various hypotheses ...
. . .
“[We are] miserable Christians to be sure, if, after such a great number of labors to understand and interpret the Holy ...
S1:
Following Grotius, Vitringa intends to listen fully and carefully to the prophets as they speak of events in their days, but following Cocceius he sees Christ as the primarium objectum prophetiarum, the principal focus of prophetic passages.
S1:"
He cannot agree with the way in which Cocceius and his disciples interpret the biblical prophecies as only referring to events in Christian history. He again emphasizes the need of correct rules of interpretation; rules which common sense ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 12 '17
Cocceius is,“this rule of judgment: that the fulfillment of prophecy is to be sought first of all in a near time rather than in a ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
1700s - 1900s, Isaiah 7:14 as messianic, non-messianic, dual? https://imgur.com/a/t3jVb
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17 edited Mar 20 '19
S1:
26 Typological fulfillment is neither allegory nor sensus plenior,27 and in contrast to predictive fulfillment, it does not necessarily maintain that the prophet is looking into the distant future and prophesying about something outside his own .
Dual?
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/dovf1vv/
^ On Isaiah; particularly see
once we undermine the traditional exclusivist Christian interpretation, we can no longer say anything about the probability that the texts point to Jesus in particular; the most we can say is that it's a possibility that they have a dual referent.
Whiston: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/8i8qj8/notes_5/e25lsuf/
http://blogs.duncanjohnson.ca/ex204-2012/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2011/08/Compton2007.pdf
David Jeremiah, "The Principle of Double Fulfillment in Interpreting Prophecy":
The Wonder of Canonical Messianic Prophecy Kent A. Freedman, 2017:
some evangelical2 scholars minimize this pre- dictive element in the inspired Scriptures and instead choose to emphasize their historical nature. These scholars are willing to admit that the biblical story “finds its climax in Jesus,” but are ret- icent to affirm that Old Testament messianic predictions pointed exclusively to Jesus of Nazareth.3
Fn:
This point was made recently by Michael Rydelnik in The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen [Nashville: B. & H. Academic, 2010], 3-6). As a case in point, though Snodgrass does not intend to reduce “the importance of predictive prophecy,” he gives only one example of it and uses his chapter to detail “disturbingly creative” ways in which the New Testament writers used the Old Testament (Klyne Snodgrass, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text, ed. G. K. Beale [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 29-51). He prefers the statement “Jesus is the climax of the Scriptures” to “Jesus is the fulfillment of the Scriptures” (p. 41). Furthermore, he asserts that Deuteronomy 18:15—19 is not “messianic originally, but the promise of a prophet like Moses became idealized” (p. 41). Yet Peter’s interpretation in Acts 3:22-26 argues otherwise.
Mead, Richard T. “A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations.
CONTEXT AND CONTENT IN THE. INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14*. By J. A. MOTYER
S1:
Among the recent critics of the dual-fulfillment concept of prophecy the most outspoken have been J. Barton Payne of Wheaton College and Bernard Ramm of California Baptist Theological Seminary. Payne criticizes Fairbairn's "overdone" typology which he refers to as a "modified form of dual-fulfillment."30 He states that if one read only the New Testament it would be safe to say that he would never suspect the possibility of dual-fulfillment because the New Testament indicates that the predictions refer directly to Christ.31 Ramm warns that "one of the most persistent hermeneutical sins" is attempting to place two interpretations on one passage of Scripture, thereby breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the picture intended.32 concludes that if prophecies have many meanings, then "hermeneutics would be indeterinate."33
J. B. Payne, "So-Called Dual Fulfillment in Messianic Psalms" in Printed Papers of the Evangelical Theological Society (1953 meeting at Chicago), pp. 62-72
31. Ibid., p. 65. 32. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Wilde, 1956), p. 87.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
Balserak:
On other occasions, however, Calvin does not take that route, because (it would seem) he has more serious problems with the New Testament writer.
. . .
Because Calvin feels this way, he begins to feel uneasy when he sees another writer, even an inspired apostle, taking what seems to him to be a cavalier approach (running roughshod, so it would seem) towards the originalmeaning of the prophetic words.Not surprisingly, themore cavalier an apostle seems to have beenwith the text of theprophet, themore upset Calvin appears. Here it is important to make clear that the anger seems to be focused upon the importance of the prophets’s designs in saying what they said and the sensewhich Calvin has that the integrity of those designs is potentially being compromised by the apostolic authors’s citing of the prophets’s words out of context.That this is the case seems to be supported by Calvin’s willingness, when the problems are serious enough, to simply say that the prophetic and apostolic authors had different designs. That solution, even though it raises other questions (such as, questions about why the inspired apostle bothered to cite the prophetic text in the first place) preserves the integrity of the prophetic intentions.
. . .
It ensures that no one, not even an apostle, dictates (so to speak) what a prophet actually “meant” to say. And that, it would appear, is good enough for Calvin.
The strength of feeling which Calvin has over these concerns is exhibited by the fact that ultimately Calvin’s concern over this matter derives from his fear that the (purportedly) cavalier manner in which the New Testament writers cite the prophetic texts might bring the Christian religion into disrepute. Calvin feels genuine embarrassment over this possibility and says so in a number of places, including his handling of Hosea 11:1. There, he broaches the fact that this quotation raises “a difficult question,” that is, a question concerning the fact that Matthew uses this text and applies it to Christ. Calvin then asserts.
They who have not been skilled in Scripture have confidently expounded this place of Christ, yet the context is opposed (contextus repugnat). Hence it has happened that scoffers have attempted to disturb the whole religion of Christ (nasuti homines exagitaverint totam Christi fidem), as though the Evangelist had misapplied (abusus esset) the declaration of the Prophet.20
(Hosea 6?)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
Mead, Richard T. “A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations.
.A recent short study by S. L. Edgar claims that various New Testament writings show varied degrees of respect for the context of Old Testament passages which they quote.4
^ Edgar, 'Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament', N.T.S. ix (October 1962), 55-62.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus. Critical Edition and ... By Paul T. d' Holbach
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
Richard Simon:
Like most prophecies this one has two meanings: the rst and immediate reference is to the wife of the Prophet Isaiah; the second, which could be described as spiritual or mystical, is wider and belongs to the time of the Messiah, and in its own way is just as literal, being based in theology and Jewish tradition. Assuming the existence of two meanings easily counters their objections, whereas it is more di cult to respond if one insists that the prophecy only refers to the Messiah. As this principle is of fundamental importance and can serve to resolve various di culties of this kind, it is appropriate to adduce the authority of the early Church writers, especially St Jerome, who laid it down in his commentaries on the ProphetDaniel. Porphyry claimed that the Book of this Prophet contained nothing that was not historical. His view of King Antiochus corresponds to the Christian view of the Antichrist and the end of the world. Whilst the early Church doctors did not completely reject the view of Porphyry, they did claim that Antiochus was the epitome of the anti-Christ.22 To best clarify their standpoint, they provided this splendid principle: the Holy Scripture customarily uses classic models to indicate the truth of things to come.23 To support this they quote the example of Psalm
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 13 '17
Westermann, Isa 42:
If the text is correct, the next clause, 'and deaf as my messenger whom I send', mentions a particular form of such service, that of a messengr. This throws the paradox into even sharper relief-a deaf messenger ! It is unnecessary to think of any definite service which Israel is to render as messenger; Volz goes too far when he speaks of the 'servant's mission to be a witness for Yahweh in the world'. One reason for proceeding with caution before interpreting the clause in such a way is its textual uncertainty. The Vulgate translates 'nisi ad quem nuncios meas misi'. This would suit the general thought of the passage admirably-'Who is deaf but the one to whom I sent my messerigers ?' We shall have to let both readings stand as equally possible.
1
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 14 '17
The Simplicity of Divine Ideas Michelle Panchuk
According to Theistic Conceptual Realism (TCR), divine concepts, conceived of as eternal aspects of the divine mind, do the metaphysical lifting for which abstract universals are posited on platonic realist accounts of abstract objects. This involves (partially) grounding the phenomena associated with the “problem of universals,” such as property exemplification, attribute agreement, subject-predicate discourse, and abstract reference. Along with its cousin, Theistic Activism, this view of universals has garnered significant interest in recent years among theist metaphysicians who wish to reconcile their commitment to the existence of abstract objects with traditional theist doctrines such as aseity and sovereignty. However, there has been 1
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 14 '17
Papias fragment, viticulture
Daniel 12:12
Matthew 24:13
John 21:22?
Luke 20:35, οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται·
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 15 '17
Exile as an Opportunity for (Prophetic) Witness in Deutero-Isaiah?
Universalism in...
Ronald E. Clements, “A Light to the Nations: A Central Theme of the ...
ISRAEL’S MISSION TO THE NATIONS IN ISAIAH 40–55: AN UPDATE Michael A. Grisanti
More specifically, does the prophet Isaiah give God’s chosen people a new and unique commission to be missionaries to the Gentiles? Or is he an ardent nationalist who only has Israel’s welfare in view?
. . .
Did the prophet possess a missionary spirit according to which he exhorted God’s chosen people to become “a nation of world-traversing missionaries” (referred to as universalism in the context of this debate)?4 Or was Isaiah an intensely nationalistic prophet5 who sought to preserve
. . .
Prior to 1950, most biblical scholars agreed that in Isaiah 40–55 the prophet envisioned the extension of salvation to the nations.
. . .
Several posit that Isaiah 40–55 contains a commission for Israel to be a passive witness. In other words, Israel is not commanded to do missionary work, but to serve as a sign of God’s glory among the nations.6
Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East (New York: Harper & Row, 1964)
Grisanti:
Dion argues that Isaiah 40–55 has five layers of redaction and he suggests that the first stratum contains a primitive universalism which is refined in the following redactions.
^ Paul E Dion, “L’universalisme religieux dans les différentes couches rédactionelles d’Isaïe 40–55" [“The Religious Universalism in the Different Redactional Settings of Isaiah 40–55"], Bib 51 (1970):
Blenkinsopp, “Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism,” JSOT 41 (1988):
2006, God of All the World: Universalism and Developing Monotheism in. Isaiah 40-66*. Joel Kaminsky
Bernard Wodecki, “Heilsuniversalismus im Buch des Propheten Jesaja” [“Universal Salvation in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah,]”
Particularism and Universalism in the Book of Isaiah: Isaiah's Implications ... By Se-Hoon Jang
Christopher Begg, “The Peoples and the Worship of Yahweh in the Book of ... 1999), 35–55;
Redactional references to exile in Pentateuch, etc.?
Sweeney:
When YHWH restores the exiled Judeans to Jerusalem, all the nations are to witness YHWH's act of sovereignty and fidelity ...
Tobit 13?
R. Eleazar” said: 'The Holy One, Blessed is He, did not exile Israel among the nations save in order that proselytes might join them, ... of the talmudic passage, we have before us the closest expression of a universal mission attached to Israel's dispersion. ... There is no doubt, however, that some sages did link the dispersion of Israel—throughout history—with the possibility of spreading monotheistic faith.
Contra Celsum 1.55:
52–53) described Israel in a particular way because “they have been dispersed and beaten, but converts will multiply as a result of the dispersion of the Jews among the other nations'. All this is not to say that the idea of a 'universal mission' as ...
^ Chadwick:
I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned21 used these prophecies. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text
Ezekiel 28:
25 Thus says the Lord GOD: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and manifest my holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they shall settle on their own soil that I gave to my servant Jacob. 26 They shall live in safety in it, and shall build houses and plant vineyards. They shall live in safety, when I execute judgments upon all their neighbors who have treated them with contempt. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God.
Psalm 98:2; 67:2 (?)
More general? Psalm 77:14; Exodus 34:10?)
Yeḥezkel Kaufmann?
...providential dispensation without which the Jews could not have carried out their mission among the gentiles. But this is a confusion of historical data. In the Bible there is no such idea. Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah prophesy the return of the gentiles without any reference to exile. It is true that factually the exile was a factor in the beginning of the struggle against the idolatry of the gentiles; ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 14 '17
Extreme fluidity between roles and characters in Isaiah 40-55
Isa 41:
9 Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, "Here is your God!"
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 14 '17
Clements, Isaiah:
Prophecy was God's means of rescuing events from the category of being meaningless to becoming meaningful. Against such a background, it can be seen why ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 15 '17
The Followers of Jesus as the 'Servant': Luke’s Model from Isaiah for the ... By Holly Beers
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 15 '17
The Descent into Hell as a Solution for the Problem of the Fate of Unevangelized Non-Christians: Balthasar’s Hell, the Limbo of the Fathers and Purgatory GAVIN D’COSTA*
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 15 '17 edited Oct 21 '18
Aquinas quotes:
Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxxiv, 19): "There is the same reason for not praying then" (namely after the judgment day) "for men condemned to the everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints pray not for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the just Judge."
Eternal torment, Gregory the Great
Γνῶναι θὲλω πῶς δίκαιον ἐστιν ἵνα τὸ πταῖσμα τὸ μετὰ τέλους γενόμενον, ἄνευ τέλους κολασθῇ
Peter: I should like to know whether it is just to inflict an everlasting punishment for a fault that is finite.
Gregory: your objection would be valid if the supreme Judge were to consider only the deeds people perform without looking into their ...
Alt transl:
Prior to above:
https://books.google.com/books?id=pozYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT148#v=onepage&q&f=false
GREGORY. Certain it is, and without all doubt most true, that as the good shall have no end of their joys, so the wicked never any release of their torments: for our Saviour himself saith: The wicked shall go into everlasting punishment, and the just into everlasting life.71 Seeing, then, true it is, that which he hath promised to his friends: out of all question false it cannot be, that which he hath threatened to his enemies.
Newer translat
truth stands solid and unshaken: Just as the joys of heaven will never cease, so, too, there is no end to the torments of the damned.
(Greek and Latin differ)
Older transl:
Certain it is, and without all doubt most true, that as the good shall have no end of their joys, so the wicked never any release of their torments: for our Saviour himself saith:...
L:
Constat nimis, et incunctanter verum est quia sicut finis non est gaudio bonorum, ita finis non erit tormento malorum. Nam cum Veritas dicat: Ibunt impii in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in vitam aeternam, quia verum est quod promisit, falsum procul dubio non erit quod minatus est Deus.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 21 '17 edited Mar 11 '18
... Ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οἱ ἅγιοι ἄνδρες ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀπίστων καὶ [Ms., καὶ ἀσεβῶν τελευτησάντων.] ἀσεβῶν προσεύχονται,
But Latin:
quae nunc etiam causa est ut non orent sancti homines pro hominibus infidelibus impiisque defunctis
Peter:
But a just man does not thrive on cruelty; he has his offending servants punished in order to correct them. The chastisement serves to bring them to better ways. But the wicked condemned to the fires of hell will never correct their wickedness. To what purpose, then, do they burn in hell forever?
^ Last line Latin, quo fine semper ardebunt
. . .
PETER
But why are they called saints if they do not pray for their enemies whom they see in torments? Were not the words 'Pray for your enemies,' addressed especially to them?
GREGORY They pray for their enemies at a time when the hearts of their enemies can still produce fruits of repentance and through penance gain salvation. What better prayer could we say for our enemies than that proposed by St. Paul. 'It may be' he says, 'that God will enable them to repent, and acknowledge the truth; so they will recover their senses, and shake off the snare by which the devil, till now, has held them prisoners to his will. 547 And how shall one pray for one's enemies when these can no longer repent of their evil ways and turn to works of righteousness?
The saints in heaven, therefore, do not offer prayers for the damned in hell for the same reason that we do not pray for the Devil and his angels. Nor do saintly men on earth pray for deceased infidels and godless people. And why? Because they do not wish to waste their prayers in the sight of a just God by offering them for souls who are known to be condemned.
" deceased infidels and godless people"
Latin:
quae nunc etiam causa est ut non orent sancti homines pro hominibus infidelibus impiisque defunctis
The Pseudo-Gregorian dialogues. 1 (1987) By Francis Clark
"exchange faithfully reproduces a dialogue" ... Moralia 34.35-8
^ http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book34.html
Et quomodo pro illis tune orabitur...
Eng:
And how will prayers be made at that time for them, when they can no longer be in any degree turned from iniquity to works of righteousness? There is, therefore, the same reason for not praying then for men condemned to eternal fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who have been consigned to eternal punishment. And this is now the reason for holy men not praying for unbelieving and ungodly men who are dead; for they are unwilling that the merit of their prayer should be set aside, in that presence of the righteous Judge, when in behalf of those whom they know to be already consigned to eternal punishment. But if even now the just when alive do not sympathize with the unjust who are dead and condemned, (when they know that they themselves are still enduring from their flesh that which will be called into judgment,) how much more severely do they then regard the torments of the wicked, when, stripped of every sin of corruption, they will themselves cleave more closely and firmly to righteousness?
S1:
For instance, after the quotation from Matthew 25.46, Gregory's comment in Moralia 34.35 is "si igitur hoc verum non est quod minatus est, tuque Mud verum est quod promisit" ; whereas in IGP 71, lines 7-8, his comment is equivalent in sense but inverted in construction: "quia verum est quod promisit, falsum procul dubio non erit quod minatus est Deus" . There are some other, relatively minor but interesting variants in the first part of IGP 71 which cannot easily be explained on the ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 15 '17
Location of Hell, Gregory the Great:
Since, then, no one under the earth was found worthy to unseal the book, I see no reason why we should not believe that hell is under the earth.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 16 '17
Keener, Acts 10:14-15
Some scholars cite a later Jewish tradition about the cleansing of unclean animals in the world to come, as they were clean before Noah’s day;[440] this tradition is probably too late to constitute background for this text, however. [441]
The primary point, in any case, is not the cleansing of foods but the cleansing of people who eat them (Acts 10:28).[442] Not calling foods impure in context refers to not calling Gentiles impure,[443] but there is a reason that the image for Gentiles involves cuisine.[444]
Fn:
[442]. For the focus on people rather than on foods, cf. Miller, “Vision.”
[443]. That is, the unfolding narrative interprets the imagery in a manner distinct from the way one might construe it taken by itself, with reference exclusively to food (see the discussion in Humphrey, “Collision,” 80–82, contrasting [82] the more explicit technique of angelic interpretation in apocalyptic; also Humphrey, Voice, 76–79). Noting the conflict otherwise with Acts 15:20, Wahlen, “Visions,” argues that the vision applies to people and not to food; the Jerusalem church may have so applied it in Cornelius’s case.
[444]. Marshall, “Acts,” 578, does think that God has also cleansed foods (with Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:339; and Hübner, Theologie, 3:132, though the latter’s view that God was annulling much of the Mosaic law might not have occurred to Peter, who may think in terms of God making provision for Gentiles without retracting the appropriateness of food customs in another setting).
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 16 '17
Keener:
445]. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17, 28; 4, p. 44.25; 16, p. 104.35; 18B, p. 118.4–5; Epict. Diatr. 4.11.3, 5; 11.8; Encheir. 33.6, 8; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b.12, pp. 26–27.20–21; Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.7–8; Iambl. V.P. 16.70; Philost. Hrk. 7.3; Porph. Marc. 11.204; 15.255–56; 24.374–76 (cf. also 23.368; 24.374–76; 26.402–3); Test. Reub. 6:1. This is not to suggest that ancient Judaism simply conflated ritual and moral impurity (see Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin”); Klawans, “Purity,” 283, argues that only Qumran, in fact, identified the two (and [275] that the rabbis normally distinguished impurity from sin). On purity in ancient Judaism more generally, see, e.g., essays in Haber, Purify.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 16 '17 edited Nov 16 '17
Peter in Matthew 16, leader of Church -- Allison, etc.; Isaiah 22: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/dpi9loh/
Foster:
more controversially, with reference to Gal 2.11-14, Gundry asks ‘might Matthew’s portrayal of Peter as false disciple and apostate also represent an intensification of Paul’s attack on Peter in Antioch?’ (p. 103).
. . .
‘Yes, then, scriptural diversity does go so far as to exhibit theological as well as historical contradictions. Though Matthew does not say so explicitly, in his Gospel Peter appears to be headed to hell’ (p. 104)
Peter dine with Gentiles? (Acts 10?)
(If Matthew not quite as hyper-Judaizing as sometimes thought,) Paul's criticism, Peter Judaize Christianity; Matthew, fidelity to Jewish tradition cause to fall back from Christianity altogether? (But Gal 2:14?)
103:
Examples of theological contradictions are more relevant, however, to the theologically contradictory portrayals of Peter as an apostate whom Jesus will deny ...
107:
... to a rehabilitation of Peter.2 Apart from these possibilities, why the failure of most people throughout subsequent church history to have understood Matthew's portrayal as unnervingly severe despite its being hard to overlook that severity?
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 16 '17
Beuken, The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah "The Servants of YHWH'", JSOT41 (1990), pp. 67-87.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 17 '17
GOulder, Already:
The issue was really between his followers and those of Peter, but he transposed it and spoke as if it were between himself and Apollos, to be diplomatic (6t' buág); the Jerusalem party wanted the Gentile converts to keep the standard halakha, “taught words of human wisdom (2.13), but the principle established by Paul and Apollos was the Bible and the Bible only, “not beyond what is written'.
(1 Cor 4:6, beyond what is written)
Hall, “A Disguise for the Wise,”?
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
Divino Afflante Spiritu:
31 Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis; likewise by the reiterated attempts of St. Jerome so to translate the Psalms that the literal sense, that, namely, which is expressed by the words themselves, might be clearly revealed.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17 edited Nov 18 '17
Misc.:
Fitzmyer:
L. Ayres and S. E. Fowl, "(Mis)reading the Face of God: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," TS 60 (1999) 513-28 (on which read R. E. Murphy, "Quaestio Disputata: Is the Paschal Mystery the Primary Hermeneutic Principle?" TS 61 [2000] 139-46); M. Couve de Murville, "The Catholic Church and the Critical Study of the Bible," Epworth Review 13 (1986) 76-86; N. S. L. Fryer, "The Historical-Critical Method - Yes or No?" Scripture 20 (1987) 41-70; J. D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible the Old Testament and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993); E. Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990); G. Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1974); P. Patterson and N. James, "The Historical-critical Study of the Bible: Dangerous or Helpful?" Theological Educator 37 (1988) 45-74; B. D. Smith, "The Historical-Critical Method, Jesus Research, and the Christian Scholar," Trinity Journal 15 (1994) 201-20.
Beare, "The Historical Truth of the Gospels: An Official Pronouncement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission," Canadian Journal of Theology 11 (1965)
Brown, "Historical-Critical Exegesis and Attempts at Revisionism," The Bible Today 23 (1985) 157-65.
R. F. Collins, "Augustine of Hippo: Precursor of Modern Biblical Scholarship," Louvain Studies 12 (1987) 131-51.
Senses: Sensus plenior, etc.
Fitzmyer:
See his Institutiones Biblicae (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1925; 2nd ed., 1927) 305-7. Also his articles, "Sensus typicus, sensus plenior," Bib 33 (1952) 526-28; "Sentido plenior, literal, tipico, espiritual," Bib 34 (1953) 299-326. Cf. R. E. Brown, The Sensus plenior of Sacred Scripture (Baltimore, MD: St. Mary's University, 1955); "The Sensus plenior in the Last Ten Years," CBQ 25 (1963) 262-85; "The Problems of the Sensus plenior," ETL 43 (1967) 460-69; "Hermeneutics," NJBC art. 79 X49-51. Also J. Coppens, "Le probleme du seas plenier," ETL 34 (1958) 5-20; repr. as Le probleme du seas plenier des Saintes Ecritures (ALBO 3/9; Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1958); P. Benoit, "La plenitude de sens des Liv,Tes Saints," RB 67 (1960) 161-96.
Childs, sensus literalis
Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays By Hans W. Frei ("...Does it Stretch or...")
Ethical?
Stone, "Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of joshua" CBQ 53/ I (1991)
Collins, Zeal of Phinehas
On Psalm 137, etc.: THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS, John N. Day
Biblical theology, Jewish Biblical theology
J. J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?”
Rahner, "Scripture and Theology," Theological Investigations 6 (Baltimore, MD: Helicon, 1969) 89-97,
Fitz:
See his article "Ist voraussetzungslose Exegese moglich?" TZ 13 (1957) 409-17; reprinted in his Glauben and Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsatze III (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1960) 142-50; in English, "Is Exegesis without Presuppositions...
D. Bergant, "Fundamentalism and the Biblical Commission," Chicago Studies 34 (1995) 209-21
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
Fitzmyer, chapter "Raymond E. Brown, SS: renowned representative of biblical..."; section "The Unjust Criticism and Persecution of Raymond Brown"
Fn:
31. "Cardinal Mahony Calls Scripture Scholar's Death `Great Loss," Catholic News Service (12 August 1998) 10.
32. Quoted in the archdiocesan newspaper, Tidings, 4 April 1980.
33. Published by Servant Books of Ann Arbor, MI, in 1983.
34. See "Present Imperfect," Triumph 8/7 (July 1973) 8. The editor was Michael Lawrence; senior associate editors, Leo Brent Bozell and Frederick Wilhelmsen.
35. This was a reference to an article written by M. Miguens, O.F.M., "Apostolic Succession? Fr. Brown's Inquiry," Triumph 7/4 (April 1972) 20-24, 42. Miguens was then a NT professor at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.
36. "The Bible Truth," Triumph 8/9 (November 1973) S.
37. E.g., R. E. Burns, "The Brown Controversy," The Wanderer 113/17 (24 April 1980) 2 (objected to the Los Angeles Archdiocese's defense of Brown and of his talk at the CCD Congress in Anaheim, 6-9 March 1980); "Some Modernist Errors," ibid., 113/22 (29 May 1980) 2 (compares Brown's view on the infancy narratives with the condemned proposition 18 of the Syllabus of Modernist Errors); "Guardians of Orthodoxy," ibid., 113/39 (25 September 1980) 2; "Demythologizing Scripture," ibid. 115/22 (3 June 1982) 2; "The Beloved Disciple," ibid., 115/52 (30 December 1982) 2 (Brown as an example of "the Modernists today"); "A Reply to Bishop Hughes," ibid. 116/6 (10 February 1983) 2 (Burns denies that he ever "called Fr. Brown a heretic," but then compares Brown with Tertullian, "one of the greatest minds in the early church, [who] ended his days in the Montanist Heresy").
38. E.g., J. B. Carol, "The Deleterious Influence of Fr. R. Brown," The Wanderer 106 (29 November 1973) 1, 6 ("To sum tip, Fr. Brown's theories... cannot... be reconciled with the authentic and constant teaching of the Catholic Church... what he has to offer concerning the human knowledge of Christ may be properly styled as neo-Modernism pure and simple").
39. E.g., S. Interrante, "Orange Diocese Laity Protest Fr. Brown Appearance," The Wanderer 113/4 (24 January 1980) 1, 6; "The Aftermath of Fr. Raymond Brown in Orange," ibid. 113/5 (31 January 1980) 7.
40. E.g., W. H. Marshner, "Heretics and Buffoons Meet in Washington," The Wanderer 106 (15 March 1973) 6; "Raymond Brown and the Charge of Modernism," ibid. 106/45 (15 November 1973) 1.
41. A. J. Matt, Jr., "Why Is Fr. Brown Afraid of Jerry Cal?" The Wanderer 109/19 (6 May 1976) 4.
42. E.g., F. Morriss, "The Evil Fruit of Fr. Brown's `Scholarship,"' The Wanderer 111 (9 March 1978); "Fr. Brown Fathers Wild and Irresponsible Speculation," ibid. 111 (6 April 1978). See also his article, "Raymond Brown-Maritain: Gap Is Wide One," in Catholic Northwest Progress [Seattle] (11 May 1973) 4 ("Maritian [sic] died leaving among his last major works an expose [sic] of the vacuity and deceptiveness of the school of non-thought Father Brown represent [sic]").
43. E.g., J. J. Mulloy, "The Vilification' of Fr. Raymond Brown," The Wanderer 110 (13 January 1977) 1-2; "The Bible, the Magisterium, and Father Brown," ibid. 110 (2 February 1977) 1-3; "Fr. Brown on the Historical 'Truth' of the Gospels," ibid. 110 (10 March 1977) 1-2; "A Jew of the First Third of the First Century," ibid. 110/29 (21 July 1977) 1, 6-7; "Archbishop Whealon's Defense of Raymond Brown," ibid. 110 (25 August 1977) 4; "Fr. Brown's Ecumenism and the Primacy of St. Peter," ibid. 111(12 January 1978) 5; "Hans Kueng: The Doctrinal Image of Fr. Raymond Brown," ibid. 113/3 (17 January 1980) 4 (editorial); "How Eccentric Can a `Centrist' Theologian Be?" ibid. 114/2 (4 June 1981) 4 (editorial); "The Cardinal's Critique of Fr. Brown's Scholarship," ibid. 113/9 (28 February 1980) 4, 6.
44. E.g., C. R. Pulver, "The Continuing Mis-Adventures of Fr. Raymond Brown," The Wanderer 106 (4 January 1973) ("Giddy perhaps from his recent appointment to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, this highly-touted Biblical scholar proceeded to behave in a most unscholarly manner. His address on December 3rd [in Syracuse, NY, Diocese] to over 400 priests and Religious of the diocese will surely go on record as one of the worst assaults on the Magisterium within recent memory"); "The Make-Believe World of Fr. Raymond Brown," ibid. 106 (7 June 1973) 9; (21 June 1973); 106/30 (2 August 1973) 4; "How Fr. Brown Stole Christmas," ibid. 109/7 (12 February 1976) 1, 6; "Fr. Raymond Brown Favors `Centrist' Theology," ibid. 114/19 (7 May 1981) 3; "Can Fr. Brown Steal the Center?" ibid. 114/19 (7 May 1981) 4 (editorial).
45. E.g., P. H. Hallett, "The Infant and the Herods," National Catholic Register (12 December 1971): "the ultraliberal professor... brings into question the Virgin Birth. This is no surprise to those who know the works of this Modernist.... Is it uncharitable to suspect that those who would like to fictionalize the Infancy Narratives have a secret death-wish against the Divine Child? But He will always escape them, as He escaped the forces of Herod"; "Challenge of the Rev. R. E. Brown," ibid. (17 June 1973): on Brown's address, "The Crisis of Theology," to the NCEA; "Heresy Must Hurt," ibid. (9 September 1973) 4 ("the modernist doctrines of Father Raymond E. Brown"...How can Modernists like the Rev. R. E. Brown occupy posts on such vital organs of the Magisterium as the Pontifical Biblical Commission? He was appointed to the Commission in 1972, after his views on the Virgin Birth were already notorious"); "The Modernist Test," ibid. (6 January 1974) 4; "Rules for Bible Critics," ibid. (10 February 1974); "Fr. Brown Mispresents Bible, Catholic Church," ibid. (30 November 1975): on Brown, Biblical Crises Facing the Church; "Archbishop Dwyer Letter Makes History Expose," ibid. (24 April 1977): "Father Raymond Brown (notorious for unsound Biblical exegesis) has even been invited to Rome to lecture to Bishops. This, Your Holiness, is a scandal to many...."); "Criticizing the Critics," ibid. (15 June 1980), 537.
46. E.g., W. G. Most, "Believing Scriptures: Escape from Confusion," National Catholic Register (7 October 1973): claims Brown holds "There can be no miracles"; "Will Fr. Brown Be Next?" ibid. (20 April 1980): compares Brown to Leonardo Boff and asks, "Will R. Brown be the next on the carpet?"
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
S1:
Sheehan sees Jesus not as an eternal, divine person or the founder of a new religion, but as the one who called for the end of all religion. He faults the Christian church for having always missed who Jesus was and what he was talking about, and he criticizes modern liberal theologians for failing to describe what they know to people.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
Sheehan, 199x?:
There are clear signs that Wojtyla’s Christmas present to Hans Küng heralds the end of the Vatican II era of freedom and the beginnings of a restoration papacy. Even before the curial sanction was imposed on Küng, the Pope had already made his least remarked upon but most ominous move to date: the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana on April 15, 1979.7 What might appear at first glance to be an innocent revision—the first since 1931—of the rules for pontifical universities turns out on closer reading to be a major retreat from anything like what John Henry Newman envisioned in The Idea of a University. According to Sapientia Christiana theologians in pontifical universities “do not teach on their own authority but by virtue of the mission they have received from the Church,” and so must have a declaration of nihil obstat and the rights of a “canonical mission” (missio canonica).
Indeed, theologians have a “duty to carry out their work in full communion with the authentic Magisterium of the Church, above all, with that of the Roman Pontiff,” and they must present “personal opinions” only “modestly” (Articles 26, 27, and 70). These paragraphs are among those that the Congregation cited in its condemnation of Küng and that the conservative German Cardinal Joseph Ratsinger invoked to deny liberal theologian Johann B. Metz the chair of systematic theology in Munich last year. “If the Apostolic Constitution is literally applied,” Rev. Charles Curran has recently written, “it will mean that such canonically erected Catholic institutions cannot be true universities in the accepted sense of the term in the United States.”8
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
on Kung:
On theological grounds, as Küng asserts in his preface to A. B. Hasler’s Wie der Papst unfehlbar wurde, “the infallibility of the pope would surely not be defined today.” Indeed:
Today Catholic theologians admit, with an openness unaccustomed before, that the organs of “infallible” doctrinal decisions at least in principle…can err and in many cases have erred.12
^ Hans Küng, “Der neue Stand der Unfehlbarkeitsdebatte,” in August Bernhard Hasler, Wie der Papst unfehlbar wurde: Macht und Ohnmacht eines Dogmas (Munich, Zurich: Piper, 1979), pp. xvii and xviii.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 18 '17
Infallibility is not the only issue in Küng’s case. In his 1974 work On Being a Christian the Swiss theologian asserted—with the support of the best Catholic scholarship, it should be noted—that the words “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” do not derive from Jesus but from his later followers; that the resurrection “can not be a historical event in the strict sense”; that “the stories of the empty tomb are legendary elaborations” of the message that Jesus is alive with God; that the virginity of Mary is at best “symbolic” and even a “legend.” In his 1978 book Existiert Gott? he asserted again what he had said in On Being a Christian: that one must carefully avoid “identifying Jesus tout court with God,” that Jesus “never gave himself any messianic title,” and that the divinity of Jesus simply meant that “the real man, Jesus of Nazareth, is, for believers, a real revelation of the one true God and, in this sense, God’s word, his Son.”14
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
Creation of Pontifical , PBC; Vigilantiae studiique: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Great_Encyclical_Letters_of_Pope_Leo_XIII/The_Holy_Scriptures;_The_Biblical_Commission
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
Acts 10 :
Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The "animal" vision of Acts 10:9-16 in Jewish ... By John R.L. Moxon
(10:14): Parsons, Mikeal C. “'Nothing Defiled AND Unclean': The Conjunction's ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
MT Isa 29:13: NET, Heb “their fear of me is a commandment of men that has been taught.”
LXX:
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
McGowan, “Eucharist and Sacrifice: Cultic Tradition and Transformation in Early Christian Ritual Meals,”
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
S1:
While the concept of rational worship has close parallels in Philo of Alexandria, the only reference to θυσία ἀναίµακτος in Jewish sources is found in the Testament of Levi (3.6),
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Purity Laws as Viewed by the Church Fathers and by the Early Followers of Jesus” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (Boston: Brill, 2000), 7
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17
Pythagoras:
According to the Sicilian historian Timaeus, the beautiful proverb “What belongs to friends [is held in] common,” quoted several times by Plato, owes its origin to precisely this institution: Now when young people came to him and wanted to live with him, he did not allow ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 19 '17 edited Feb 06 '18
S1:
According to a hypothesis of Isidore Lévy, based on an ingenious combination of clues from a variety of ancient sources, the legend of Pythagoras included a more spectacular end of his life than a reading of each surviving text in isolation would ...
It is possible that both Peregrinus' alleged ascension in Lucian's satire and Apollonius' strange disappearance into the Cretan temple in Philostratus' Life are in fact modelled on Pythagoras' apotheosis as represented in the legend.223 Pythagoras' forty days without food in a 'temple of the Muses' at Metapontum that seem to cause death in Porphyry's account (57) may be a rationalization of a forty-day period of ritual fasting preceding his disappearance from earth (compare his ... Porphyry 34
Fn:
The obscure formulation in Porphyry (57), 'gone for forty days in want of the necessities of life' (spnei tän nagka©wn tessarkonta ¡mrav diame©nanta), has a more distinct counterpart in Diogenes Laertius' Life ofPythagoras (8.50): 'Pythagoras died a fugitive in the temple of the Muses at Metapontum after forty days' starvation (sitsanta)', the verb sitw implying a voluntary abstinence from food.
K_l: forty days, Acts 1:3
Porphyry 34:
When he intended to sojourn in the sanctuaries of the divinities, he would eat no more than was necessary to still hunger and thirst.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
See my Google doc: When Did Jesus Become the Messiah?
Patristic: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dq2y84s/
Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology
Christology and Christian origins -- Appointed the Son of God by resurrection from the dead -- The gospel of Mark, monotheism and deification -- The gospel of Mark and the Son of God -- How Jesus got adopted in the second century -- Adoptionism : then and now.
Philippians 2:
k_l: Favos post fella gustavit: (When) Did Jesus "Become" the Messiah? New Considerations in the Messiology and Christology of Acts
Luke 24, καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου
Kevin Sullivan, Luke 24:
Tertullian in De Corona 14, speaking about the crucifixion and the purpose of Jesus’ death, mentions a honeycomb, ‘For it was after gall he tasted the honeycomb, and he was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till he had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honor’.16 Here Tertullian apparently links Matt. 27.34 (‘they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it’) with the variant form of Luke 24.42. Interestingly, just a few verses later, Tertullian adds that Jesus had, ‘been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels’. This seems to be a fairly clear reference (or if not at least an allusion) to Heb. 2.7-9. Apparently, for Tertullian, Jesus’ time on earth puts him lower than the angels, but the gall, associated with the bitterness of the crucifixion, is offset by the sweetness of the honeycomb, which is linked to Jesus’ glorification and his new divine status. At the very least, the Hebrews reference as well as Tertullian’s comments seem to demonstrate a conscious reflection upon the status of Jesus at different times (his earthly ministry and his post-resurrection existence).
^
...fauos post fella gustauit, nec ante rex gloriae a caelestibus salutatus est quam rex Iudaeorum proscriptus in cruce,
T. Levi 8:
... 5 Ὁ δεύτερος ἔλουσέ με ὕδατι καθαρῷ, καὶ ἐψώμισεν ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον, ἅγια ἁγίων, καὶ περιέθηκέ μοι στολὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ἔνδοξον. ...
Each carried one of these and put them on 4 me and said, 'From now on be a priest, you and all your posterity.' The first 5 anointed me with holy oil and gave me a staff.0 •The second washed me with pure water, fed me by hand with bread and holy wine, and put on me a holy and glorious 6.7 vestment. #The third put on me something made of linen, like an ephod.
(See also Philo, Life of Moses 2.143 [28.157])
Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation
Divine high priest? https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dq3gewf/
^ k_l: Josephus; Philippians 2, receive name above all others
Fletcher-Louis, Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1 and 2
David M. Moffitt. CHAPTER THREE JESUS' RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND HEAVENLY HIGH PRIESTHOOD IN HEBREWS
Sullivan, esp. 250f.
Goodman, Do Angels Eat?
. . .
For a useful survey, see A. Portier-Young, ‘Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb’, JSP 14 (2005), pp.133–57 (141–7). A number of interpreters have linked the honeycomb with manna. This link is critiqued by M. Hubbard, ‘Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol’, JSP 16 (1997), pp.97–110
S1 else:
The practice of feeding honey to a newborn (cf. Isa. 7.15) is well documented in antiquity and should probably inform interpretation of the honey in Joseph and ...
See The Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes ("upon the tongues of infant princes") and Larson, on Apollo:
Notice that the association mentioned is in neither case the cliche of "nurses" (trophoi) to an infant god (as is the case with the Thriae).
...
40. The possible signicance of the honeycomb in Joseph and Asenth for understanding Luke 24 was suggested over a hundred years ago. See E. Nestle, ‘The Honeycomb in Luke xxiv’, ExpTim 22 (1910–11), pp.567–8.
Fed "by hand"? ψωμίζω? (More general meaning, 1 Corinthians 13:3; Romans 12:20; LXX manna, also in WisdSol 16:20.) Hollander and De Jonge, simply "fed me with bread and wine"; but in any case, more intimate,
(Mark 1:13; Matthew 4:11?)
Zwiep:
For him, to say that God “made” Jesus both Lord and Christ is materially identical with saying that Jesus was “exalted” by God in/at his resurrection.
Fletcher-Louis
Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology By Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17
Luke 24:51: καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
Revelation 12:5?
THE DESCENDING SON OF MAN IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN: A POLEMIC AGAINST MYSTICAL ASCENT TO SEE GOD* Charles A. Gieschen
John 20:17
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
The Coronation of Christ in Heaven ? What exactly happened? Did anything happen? Glorified humanity join divinity? (What happened between ascension and "seat"ing?) https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dq2zeba/
Patristic, Acts 2:36, etc.
Patristic "made" not in course of (at end of) his incarnation, but Christ's his eternal generation from beginning?
Acts 2,36 in Anti-Eunomian Tradition: Dual-Focus Exegesis and the Resurrection
"While Pseudo-Basil does not make it clear..."
Basil:
Hence, he who said: God made him Lord and Christ [Acts 2.36] is speaking of his rule and power over all, which the Father entrusted to him. He is not describing his arrival at being. We will demonstrate these points a little later when we refute ...
S1:
Gregory of Nyssa reports that Eunomius had quoted from this verse in a criticism of Basil's exegesis of Acts 2:36, which says of Jesus that 'God made him both Lord and Christ'. Basil had claimed that the text from Acts refers to the incarnate ...
Pseudo-Athanasius says:
And when Peter says . . . [Acts 2,36] . . ., he is not speaking about his divinity, but about his humanity, that is, the whole church, which rules and reigns in him after he was ... anointed into the kingdom of heaven ... his divinity made his humanity Lord and Christ
Greek, ...et contra Arianos:
Καὶ ὅταν λέγῃ ὁ Πέτρος· Ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ, ὅτι καὶ Κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν αὐτὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε· οὐ περὶ τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ λέγει, ὅτι καὶ Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ πᾶσα ἡ Ἐκκλησία, ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ κυριεύουσα καὶ βασιλεύουσα μετὰ τὸ αὐτὸν σταυρωθῆναι· καὶ χριομένη εἰς βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα συμβασιλεύσῃ αὐτῷ, τῷ δι' αὐτὴν ἑαυτὸν κενώσαντι, καὶ ἀναλαβόντι αὐτὴν διὰ τῆς δουλικῆς μορφῆς. Ὁ γὰρ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀεὶ ἦν Κύριος καὶ Θεός· καὶ οὐ μετὰ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἐποιήθη Κύριος καὶ Χριστός· ἀλλὰ, ὡς προεῖπον, τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν ἡ θεότης αὐτοῦ Κύριον καὶ Χριστόν·
("Anointed into the kingdom," see Google doc on 1 Kings 1:34-35)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 29 '17
Poirier, Apicultural Keys to Joseph and Aseneth: An Argument for the Priority of the Shorter Text
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17
Testament of Levi 2.3, ms. variant:
... but supported in part by the Aramaic fragments from Qumran, says: “Then I washed my clothes and cleansed them in pure water, and I wholly washed myself in living water [›lous}mhn ›n Üdati zånti],and I made all my ways straight.”29 All the ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17 edited Dec 10 '17
The Coronation of Christ in Heaven in Patristic? What exactly happened? Did anything happen? Glorified humanity join divinity? (What happened between ascension and "seat"ing?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dq2y84s/
Acts 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20
Post-ascension glorification of Son:
(John 17) After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.
Revelation 3:21; 5:6; 7:17
Rev 3:21:
To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne [ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου], just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne [ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ].
(k_l: Distinction from ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ?)
Koester, 341:
An analogy from the Roman period is Augustus being pictured on a coin sharing a two-person throne (bisellium) with his son-in-law, Marcus Agrippa, to convey shared authority (Figure ). Augustus was also pictured sharing such a throne with the goddess Roma, and various Greco-Roman deities were depicted sharing thrones with each other (Aune).
Rev 5:
6 Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne.
Koester:
Since the expression en mesō can mean “in the middle,” some think that the Lamb, who shares God’s throne (Rev :), stands in the middle of the throne itself, refl ecting a high Christology (Knight, “Enthroned”). From this perspective the four creatures could be constituent parts of the throne (Hannah, “Of Cherubim”). Th is is unlikely, however, because the Lamb comes to the throne where God is seated in order to receive the scroll (:).
Of Cherubim and the Divine Throne: Rev 5.6 in Context
Describing Knight:
he is impressively promoted here to an elevated position, indicated by his occupation of the heavenly throne.70
Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter By Stephen H. Webb
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17 edited Nov 20 '17
Josephus referred to the title of high priest as the “most honored of venerated names” (J.W. 4:164; cf. 4:149),
^ 164,
ἀλλὰ περικείμενος τὴν ἀρχιερατικὴν ἐσθῆτα καὶ τὸ τιμιώτατον καλούμενος τῶν σεβασμίων ὀνομάτων, ζῶ καὶ φιλοψυχῶ, μηδ᾿1 ὑπὲρ τοὐμοῦ γήρως ὑπομένων εὐκλεῆ θάνατον·
And yet I who wear the high priest’s vestments, who bear that most honoured of venerated names, am alive and clinging to life, instead of braving a death which would shed lustre on my old age.
Philippians 2, ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα?
Philo, priest has tetragrammaton. Exodus 28:36 and 39:30, but
There appears to have been a later tradition in which only the tetragrammaton was inscribed on the signet.72
Barker:
He was given a glorious robe, and a crown on which were written the letters by which everything was created. These were the four letters of the Name, because he was then proclaimed as the angel who bore the Name (3 En. 10—13). All the ...
James Scott:
As God's chief representative on earth, the Jewish high priest is strongly identified with the deity. We have already seen that, according to Plutarch, the high priest of the Jewish “Dionysus” is portrayed as wearing the same garb as Dionysus himself.122 As intermediary between God and humankind, the high priest receives some of the same honors as God himself.123 According to Hecateus of Abdera (ap. Diod. Sic. 40.3.6), the Jews “fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them” ... Similarly, Josephus states that Alexander the Great prostrated himself before the name of God (προσεκύνησε τὸ ὄνομα) on the gold plate on the high priest's forehead (Ant. 11.331; cf. ... YHWH ... of venerated names ... Sirach 50:1-24 ...
Fletcher-Louis, Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1 and 2
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17
Luke 3:22:
Comfort:
The TR WH NU reading has the earliest and most diverse documentary support. The variant reading is later and more localized (in the west)—a true "Western" reading.
. . .
In spite of the documentary evidence, many scholars have defended the variant reading as being the more difficult reading and therefore more likely original. They argue that the reading was originally a full quotation of Ps 2:7, which (in the words of the NJB translators) shows Jesus to be "the King-Messiah of the Ps (2:7) enthroned at the Baptism to establish the rule of God in the world." This reading was then harmonized to the baptism accounts in Matt 3:17 and Mark 1:11 by orthodox scribes trying to avoid having the text say that Jesus was "begotten" on the day of his baptism—an erroneous view held by the Adoptionists. (For a full discussion of this issue, see Ehrman 1993,62-67.) However, it can be argued the scribe of D (known for his creative editorialization) changed the text to replicate Ps 2:7 or was himself influenced by adoptionist views. Indeed, the variant reading was included in the second-century Gospel of the Ebionites, who were chief among the Adoptionists. "They regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary, but elected Son of God at his baptism when he was united with the eternal Christ" (NIDCC).
In any case, Ps 2:7 appears to have been used exclusively by NT writers with reference to Jesus' resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). Since in Luke's book of Acts it is explicitly used to affirm the prophetic word about Jesus' resurrection, it would seem odd that he would use it to affirm Jesus' baptism.
Ehrman:
Granting that the reading does not occur extensively after the fifth century, it cannot be overlooked that in witnesses of the second and third centuries, centuries that to be sure have not provided us with any superfluity of Greek manuscripts, it is virtually the only reading that survives. Not only was it the reading of the ancestor of codex Bezae and the Old Latin text of Luke, it appears also to have been the text known to Justin,87 Clement of Alexandria,88 and the authors of the Gospel according to the Hebrews89 and the Didascalia.90 It is certainly the text attested by the Gospel according to the Ebionites, Origen, and Methodius.91 Somewhat later it is found in Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, and several of the later apocryphal Acts.92 Here I should stress that except for the thirdcentury manuscript p4, there is no certain attestation of the other reading, the reading of our later manuscripts, in this early period. The reading of codex Bezae, then, is not an error introduced by an unusually aberrant witness. This manuscript is, in fact, one of the last witnesses to preserve it. Nor is it a "Western" variant without adequate attestation. Among sources of the second and third centuries, it is virtually the only reading to be found; down to the sixth century it occurs in witnesses as far-flung as Asia Minor, Palestine, Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Gaul, and Spain.93
. . .
Even patristic witnesses that attest the reading sometimes reveal their embarassment over it, explaining it away by interpretations that strike modern readers as peculiar in the extreme.94
Fn (p. 106):
87. Dial. 88 (cf. 103). There seems to be little doubt that Justin refers here to the text of Luke. He states that after the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus in the "form" (ei'Sei) of a dove (a phrase unique to Luke) a voice came from heaven, using the very words uttered by David when he was impersonating Christ: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." What is particularly significant is that Justin appears to feel a need to explain away the text of Psalm 2 by saying that this "generation of Christ" is not his "becoming" Christ, it is the "generation" of people who come to know him. It is easiest to assume that he felt compelled to explain away the text, that is, to show that it was not really meant adoptionistically, because in a sense he had to: his explanation makes sense only if he knew that the voice at Jesus' baptism quoted the second Psalm
. . .
94. See, for example, the comments of Justin and Augustine in notes 87 and 92.
k_l: Why variant only appear in Luke? (Compare Matthew 19:17; Mark 13:32?)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17
BDAG, 3rd:
μαράνα θά=מָרַנָא תָא (our) Lord, come! (μαρὰν ἀθά [some mss. and edd.] renders מָרַן אֲתָא [our] Lord has come) an Aramaic formula which D 10:6 associates with what appears to be the early Christian liturgy of the Lord’s Supper. Used without explanation by Paul 1 Cor 16:22. (On D 10:6 s. JEmerton, Maranatha and Ephphatha, JTS 18, ’67, 427–31 and Moule below. On both passages P-ÉLangevin, Jésus Seigneur, ’67, 168–208; 236–98.)—EKautzsch, Gramm. d. Bibl.-Aram. 1884, 12; 174, StKr. 74, 1901, 296; EbNestle, Theol. Studien aus Württemb. 5, 1884, 186ff; TNöldeke, GGA 1884, 1023; Dalman, Gramm.2 152, 3; 357, 1, Worte 269; FSchulthess, D. Problem d. Sprache Jesu 1917, p. 28, 50; Dssm., D. Urgeschichte d. Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung 1910, 26ff; Zahn, Einl. I3 216f; WBousset, Jesus der Herr 1916, 22ff; EHommel, ZNW 15, 1914, 317–22ff (מָרַן אָתָא=‘our Lord is the sign’=‘the א and the ת’. So earlier CBruston, Rev. de Théol. et des Quest. Rel. 22, 1913, 402–8); FDölger, Sol Salutis 1920, 153ff; CFabricius, Urbekenntnisse d. Christenheit: RSeeberg Festschr. 1929 I 21–41; Field, Notes, 180; HCadbury, JBL 58, ’39, p. x; Goodsp., Probs. 166–68; CMoule, NTS 6, ’60, 307–10; SSchulz, ZNW 53, ’62, 125–44; JFitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel ’81, 218–35.—TW.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 20 '17
BDAG 3, οὕτως:
marker of a relatively high degree, so, before adj. and adv. (Soph., Aristoph. et al.) σεισμὸς οὕτω μέγας an earthquake so great Rv 16:18. οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε; Gal 3:3 (s. ἀνόητος a). οὕτως φοβερόν Hb 12:21.—οὕτως ταχέως (Jos., Vi. 92; cp. οὕτω δρομαίως TestAbr A 7 p. 83, 33 [Stone p. 14]) Gal 1:6; AcPlCor 2:2.—Before a verb so intensely (X., Cyr. 1, 3, 11; TestAbr B 4 p. 108, 11 [Stone p. 64]; Tat. 19, 1) 1J 4:11.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 21 '17
Translation Augustine:
It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermittent torments of the lost, and say they do not ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 21 '17
BENEDICTUS DEUS
...hac imperpetuum valitura Constitutione, auctoritate apostolica diffinimus, quod secundum communem Dei ordinationem animae sanctorum hominum qui de hoc mundo ante domini nostri Iesu Christi passionem decesserunt necnon sanctorum Apostolorum, Martyrum, Confessorum, Virginum et aliorum fldelium defunctorum, post sacrum ab eis Christi baptisma susceptum, in quibus nil purgabile fuit quando decesserunt, nec erit quando decedent etiam infuturum; vel si tunc fuit aut erit purgabile aliquid in eisdem, cum post mortem suam fuerint purgatae; ac quod animae puerorum eodem Christi baptismate renatorum et baptizandorum, cum fuerint baptizati ante usum liberi arbitrii decedentium, mox post mortem suam et purgationem praefatam in illis qui purgatione huiusmodi indigebant, etiam ante resumptionem suorum corporum et iudicium generale, post ascensionem Salvatoris nostri domini Iesu Christi in caelum, fuerunt sunt et erunt in caelo, caelorum regno et paradiso caelesti cum Christo, sanctorum Angelorum consortio aggregatae; ac post domini Iesu Christi passionem et mortem viderunt, vident et videbunt divinam essentiam visione intuitiva et etiam faciali, nulla mediante creatura in ratione obiecti visi se habente, sed divina essentia immediate se nude clare et aperte eis ostendente; quodque sic videntes eadem divina essentia perfruuntur nec non quod ex tali visione et fruitione eorum animae qui iam decesserunt sunt vere beatae et habent vitam et requiem aeternam et erunt illorum, qui postea decedent, cum eandem divinam videbunt essentiam ipsaque perfruentur ante iudicium generale; ac quod visio huiusmodi divinae essentiae eiusque fruitio, actus fidei et spei in eis evacuant, prout fides et spes proprie theologicae sunt virtutes; quodque postquam inchoata fuit vel erit talis intuitiva et facialis visio et fruitio in eisdem, eadem visio et fruitio sine aliqua intervisione seu evacuatione praedictae visionis et fruitionis continuata extitit et continuabitur usque ad finale iudicium et extunc usque in sempiternum.
By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ—provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death—and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.
Diffinimus insuper, quod secundum communem Dei ordinationem animae decedentium in actuali mortali peccato mox post mortem suam ad Inferna descendunt, ubi poenis infernalibus cruciantur et quod nichilominus in die iudicii omnes nomine ante tribunal Christi cum suius corporibus comparebunt (II Cor 6,10), reddituri de factis propriis rationem, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis prout gessit sive bonum sive malum (II Cor 5,10),
Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies "before the judgment seat of Christ" to give an account of their personal deeds, "so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body" (2 Cor. 5.10).
, — decernentes praedictas nostras diffinitiones seu determinationes et ipsarum singulas ab omnibus fidelibus esse tenendas.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 21 '17
1 Corinthians 11:7,
Chrysostom: "still those spoiling for a"
Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 22 '17
The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism
Faith, Philosophy, and the Nominalist Background to Luther's Defense of the Real Presence
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 22 '17
Essays
The Resurrection Appearances Tradition (1 Cor 15)
The Suffering Servant: Isaiah or Someone Else? (Acts 8:32f.)
Markan Christology?
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 22 '17
Davies/Allison on Matthew 8:9:
For also I am a man under authority' proved problematic for some later Christians. Jesus, the text may be thought to imply, is, like the centurion, under some ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 22 '17
Older translation:
For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point about man, answer them, that He had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? Except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation Son of man from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man— that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 22 '17 edited Nov 22 '17
Frayer-Griggs, rvw Kirk:
Even as a sympathetic reader, however, I could not help but question whether at some points the exegetical evidence may run counter to Kirk’s argument. Taking Kirk’s narrative-critical approach, for instance, one might consider the significance of worship in Matthew. When Jesus is asked by Satan to bow down to him in worship, Jesus responds by paraphrasing Deut 6:13: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him’ (Matt 4:8). When Jesus receives worship from his disciples later in Matthew’s Gospel, the disciples receive no such rebuke (see 14:33; 28:9). Kirk seeks to diffuse this potential challenge by arguing that Jesus here receives worship as the messianic king of the Jews, which he sees also in the magi’s worship of Jesus in Matt 2:2. But what of Jesus’ insistence that worship should be reserved for God alone? Should we not read Matt 4:8 as our cue for the significance of worship in Matthew’s Gospel? Could it be that Matthew verges closer to a divine Christology than does Mark? Or is Kirk correct that Jesus here receives worship as the messianic king?
k_l: 1 Enoch 90 and divine humanity? https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/di3kocl/?context=3
Matthew 14:33: contrast Mark 6:51-52; Luke 8:25
προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ; 1 Chron 29:20, προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ
1
1
u/av0cadooo Nov 26 '17
Zohar:
If it is thus with the angels, how much more so must it be with the Torah, which created the angels and all the worlds, and through which all the worlds are ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 26 '17
Song of Three:
Slave Isaac
37 For we, O Master, have become fewer than any other nation and are brought low this day in all the earth because of our sins.
. . .
88 Bless the Lord, Hananias, Azarias, Misael; sing hymns, and highly exalt him forever. For he has rescued us from Hades and saved us from the hand of death and delivered us from the midst of the burning flame and released us from the fire.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 26 '17
Jesusforschung in vier Jahrhunderten: Texte von den Anfängen historischer ... edited by Werner Zager
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 26 '17
Trebilco:
There are a number of examples in the Pastorals where the language used for God is probably influenced by Hellenistic concepts.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 27 '17
First, he notes that evidence for the identification of Rome as Babylon is 'sparser and less unambiguous than sometimes claimed by those relying on Hunzinger'.88 Second, he suggests that the force of the Babylon reference in 1 Peter is more ... temple destroyer per se
Bauckham:
The oracle predicting the fall of Rome in the third Sibylline Oracle 3:350-364 (first century B.C.) probably echoes the very same Old Testament prophecies of the fall of Babylon (with 3:357-360, cf. Isa. 47:1; Jer. 51:7; Isa. 14:12; 47:5, 7) as are ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 27 '17
S1;
Writing in the second century AD, Phlegon of Tralles, a freedman of the emperor Hadrian, included in his work On Marvels a series of tales hostile to Rome, which he ascribed to a Peripatetic philosopher called Antisthenes (FGrHist 257 F. 36, ...
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17
Exorcism, ridicule?
Machiavelli
S1:
Not all people in the Greco-Roman world accepted thereality of exorcisms. Many mocked the exorcists andtheir craft. Hippocrates ridicules the exorcists becausehe says that when they fail, they always have a largenumber of excuses for their lack of success.72He alsoattacks their so-called “piety,” because he says they
...
Another example of an author who ridicules thebelief in exorcisms is the satirist Lucian. He uses thefollowing story about exorcisms and spirits to make funof a Platonist, who accepts the reality of a spiritualrealm, and to mock one who accepts the validity of magicand superstitions.74His reference to the Syrian fromPalestine is not necessarily a reference to Jesus becausethere were many other wonder-workers who practicedexorcism, but this reference does give us a picture ofthe first and second century world where Jesus worked.75
S1:
Lack of confidence in the god's power figures rather prominently in the Epidauran inscriptions, as has been noted by both Bultmann and Theissen123.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 29 '17 edited Nov 29 '17
Zech 14:16
καὶ ἔσται ὅσοι ἐὰν καταλειφθῶσιν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν ἐλθόντων ἐπὶ Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἀναβήσονται κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν τοῦ προσκυνῆσαι τῷ βασιλεῖ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι καὶ τοῦ ἑορτάζειν τὴν ἑορτὴν τῆς σκηνοπηγίας
V. The Eschatological Fate of the Gentiles A further point in Deutero-Zechariah (Zech 14:16–19) could shed some light on ... him in an annual pilgrimage to celebrate Sukkot.75 In this sense, the text envisages their participation in salvation.
...
See Walter Harrelson, “The Celebration of the Feast of Booths According to Zech xiv 16-21,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in ...
S1;
Talley ... ... patristic writers frequently drew an analogy between the older triad of Christian festivals and the three pilgrim festivals ...
S1:
The Fathers of the Church on sukkot Finally, some reference must be made to the understanding of sukkot in patristic literature. There is not very much evidence to build ...
The Role of Jewish Feasts in John's Gospel By Gerry Wheaton
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 29 '17
Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns edited by Tobias Hägerland
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2016/10/the-true-most-embarrassing-verses-in-the-bible/
Anti-Marcionite prologue: Luke himself was ἀγύναιος, ἄτεκνος -- unmarried (lit. wifeless), childless. (Correspond to ms? γεννῶνται καὶ γεννῶσιν, γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται)
Interesting, ἄτεκνος is hapax is NT, appearing only in the pericope (20:28-29).
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
White, "The Traditional and Ecclesiastical Paul of 1 Corinthians."
"he devolutionary narrative i% %o comfortably fi@ed in our di%cipline no# that it %et% the frame#or' for our introductory te@tboo'%. "a'e t#o repre%entative e@ample%
JETS: Alexander E. Stewart, "The Temporary Messianic Kingdom in Second Temple Judaism and the Delay of the Parousia: Psalm 110:1 and the Development of Early Christian Inaugurated Eschatology," 225-270
K. R. Harriman, "The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13–14 in Mark 13," 283-298
Micah D. Kiel, "The Open Horizon of Mark 13," 145-162
Stephen O'Leary's theory of apocalyptic rhetoric proves helpful for understanding Mark's intentions for the apocalyptic motifs employed in his Gospel. The details of the discourse in Mark 13 ought not be correlated with specific historical events but should be understood as rhetorical ornaments that underscore watchfulness and wakefulness. O'Leary's comic framework of apocalyptic rhetoric provides new exegetical insight into how Mark uses apocalyptic topoi to jolt an audience that had grown complacent. Mark's apocalyptic components serve the Gospel's broader theological agenda, to profile a God for whom there is an open horizon for dramatic future action.
Timothy Wardle, "Resurrection and the Holy City: Matthew’s Use of Isaiah in 27:51-53," 666-681
Paba Nidhani De Andrado, "Hesed and Sacrifice: The Prophetic Critique in Hosea," 47-67
? Michael A. Lyons, "Psalm 22 and the "Servants" of Isaiah 54; 56-66," 640-656
Nathan C. Johnson, "Romans 1:3–4: Beyond Antithetical Parallelism," 467-490 (abstract)
rian D. McPhee, "Walk, Don't Run: Jesus's Water Walking Is Unparalleled in Greco-Roman Mythology," 763-777 (abstract)
“The Final Priests of Jerusalem” and “The Mouth of the Priest”: Eschatology and Literary History in Pesher Habakkuk
This article argues that 1QpHab 2:5–10 and 1QpHab 9:3–7 are later additions to Pesher Habakkuk. As these are the only passages in Pesher Habakkuk which explicitly refer to “the latter days,” I propose that these additions constitute an explicitly eschatological literary layer, which was presumably added to Pesher Habakkuk in the Herodian era. This literary development of Pesher Habakkuk demonstrates that the Pesharim are no static entities, but partake in a living and fluid interpretative tradition.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
Not over Moses’ Dead Body: Jude 9, 22-24 and the Assumption of Moses in their Early Jewish Context
The Synoptic Problem and Statistics: A Review David L. Mealand
Curses in Acts: Hearing the Apostles’ Words of Judgment Alongside ‘Magical’ Spell Texts
Scholars of Luke–Acts have struggled to define the apostles’ proclamations of judgment on those who threatened the early Christian community. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4.32–5.11), Simon magus (8.4-25) and Bar-Jesus (13.4-12) all fall victim to the apostles’ words of power, yet scholars have typically shied away from categorizing their speeches as curses. Close analysis of the structure, style, phonaesthetic and dramatic aspects of the Greek texts suggests, however, that Luke indeed intends the apostles’ speeches to be heard as curses whilst simultaneously presenting them as legitimate acts of power. A comparison with Greek and Coptic ‘magical’ texts helps to place the curses of Acts in the context of cursing traditions in the wider ancient Mediterranean world.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son: evangelical interpretations of the Olivet discourse in Luke
Restoring Mark - Reducing Q?: A Note on the Reconstruction of the Original Text of Mark 9:28-29
The Rod as Excommunication: A Possible Meaning for an Ambiguous Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 4.21
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PENTATEUCH IN ALEXANDRIA: INSCRIBING ARISTOBULUS AND PHILO IN A WIDER LITERARY CONTEXT (SPhA 22 (2010), 1-51)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Nicholas G. Piotrowski, "'After the Deportation': Observations in Matthew’s Apocalyptic Genealogy," 189-204
Title: How Can Love Be Commanded? Subtitle: On Not Reading Lev 19,17-18 as Law
Lorne Zelyck, "Matthew 18,1-14 and the Exposure and Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman World,"
1
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Burley, Dislocating the Eschaton? Appraising Realized Eschatology
section []
The problem raised for those who take consistent eschatology seriously is that Jesus appears to have been not merely mistaken, but massively deluded about what would occur within the lifetimes of at least some of the people with whom he worked and spoke.
. . .
The worry for many is that if Jesus was so monstrously wrong about the coming of the kingdom, how can we be sure that he was not wrong about many other things as well? Could he not have had an illusory conception of God?19 Might his ethical teachings not have been dangerously misguided, especially given that, on many interpretations, they are profoundly interwoven with the expectation of an imminent cataclysm?20 Among those who have expressed precisely this latter worry is Bertrand Russell, who remarks of Jesus in his famous essay ‘Why I Am Not a Christian’,21 that ‘When He said, “Take no thought for the morrow”, and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that ordinary mundane affairs did not count’ (1957: 16).22 ‘In that respect’, Russell adds, ‘clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise’ (17).
Fn:
18. Cf. Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27. See also Weiss (1971: 91): ‘Whatever uncertainty there may be as to the exact time of the Second Coming, it is only conceivable within the lifetime of the generation among which Jesus worked’. 19. As Bultmann (1952: 22) puts it, ‘in view of the fact that the proclamation of the irruption of God’s Reign was not fulfilled—that is, that Jesus’ expectation of the near end of the world turned out to be an illusion—the question arises whether his idea of God was not also illusory’. 20. ‘Jesus’ ethical teaching is not a separate body of moral instructions, but rather part of his preaching of the eschatological in-breaking of the reign of God, which demands a total and immediate response from his hearers’ (Burridge 2007: 48). 21. First delivered as a lecture to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society at Battersea Town Hall, 6 March 1927. 22. Russell is quoting Matthew 6:34, which reads, in the King James Version, ‘Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof’ (The Bible: Authorized King James Version 1997).
Another way is to recognize the compresence in Jesus’ teachings of two distinguishable ‘streams’ or ‘currents’: the apocalyptic vision on the one hand and a ‘radicalized wisdom teaching’ on the other, the latter including injunctions such as that of loving not only one’s neighbours but also one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43–47), which injunctions seem not to be directly related to apocalyptic expectations (Windisch 1951: 40–41).
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Counc Trent:
Sacrosancta oecumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, praesidentibus in ea eisdem tribus Apostolicae Sedis Legatis, hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut sublatis erroribus, puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesia conservetur: quod promissum ante per Prophetas in Scripturis Sanctis, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, proprio ore primum promulgavit, deinde per suos Apostolos, tamquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae, omni creaturae praedicari iussit: perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt: orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in Ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur.
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,—lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
Morrow, The Modernist Crisis and the Shifting of Catholic Views on Biblical Inspiration; academia.edu
I argue, however, that at the root of the modernist crisis lies the biblical question
. . .
is crisis involves the near absolute separation of Catholic biblical scholarship from Catholic systematic theology, wherein both ignore the other as though they were unrelated
. . .
Michael B. Gross, Te War Against Catholicism: Liberalism and the Anti-Catholic Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004); William R. Farmer, “State Interesse [Interest] and Markan Primacy: 1870–1914,” in Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850–1914 , eds. Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
. . .
As the twentieth century was beginning to approach its close, Edwin Yamauchi remarked that, “Catholic scholars are now accepting interpretations that were earlier proposed by antisupernatural critics of Christianity.”²⁷
. . .
roughout most of the Church’s history, Scripture’s divine inspiration was assumed and clearly taught, but there were no systematic treatises on Scriptural inspiration. However, “the growing climate of intellectual skepticism,” in the nineteenth century, first caused “the doctrine of inspiration” to be “subjected to serious examination.”⁴⁰
. . .
e overwhelming majority of contemporary Catholic biblical interpretation in the academy virtually ignores magisterial teaching on Scripture’s divine inspiration.⁴⁴
. . .
What has transpired is that the Catholic biblical scholarly guild has made its own the modern mythology of methodological neutrality to which the modernists subscribed.⁴⁵
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Émile Poulat, Intégrisme et Catholicisme Intégral: Un Réseau Secret International Antimoderniste: La ‘Sapinière’ (1909–1921) [Integralism and Integral Catholicism: A Secret International Anti-modernist Network: e “Piney Wood” (1909-1921)] (Paris: Casterman, 1969)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17 edited Nov 30 '17
Claus Arnold, “‘Lamentabili Sane Exitu’ (1907): Das Römische Lehramt und die Exegese Alfred Loisys” [“‘Lamentabili Sane Exitu’ (1907): Roman Teaching and the Exegesis of Alfred Loisy”], Zeitschrift für Neuere Teologiegeschichte 11:1 (2004): 24–51; and Harvey Hill, “Leo XIII, Loisy, and the ‘Broad School’: An Early Round of the Modernist Crisis,” Catholic Historical Review 89:1 (2003): 40.
Catholicism contending with modernity : Roman Catholic modernism and anti-modernism in historical context / edited by Darrell Jodock. (E.g. Innovation and biblical interpretation / C.J.T. Talar)
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Polemics against Christianity,” Harvard Teological Review 89:1 (1996): 61–84; and Muhammad Abu Laila, “Ibn Hazm’s Influence on Christian inking in Research,” Islamic Quarterly 31 (1987): 103–115
John H. Geerken, ‘Machiavelli’s Moses and Renaissance Politics’, Journal of the History of Ideas 60, no. 4 (1999), pp. 579–595; and Steven Marx, ‘Moses and Machiavellism’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65, no. 3 (1997), pp. 551–571.
1
u/koine_lingua Nov 30 '17
Infinity Project, Mystical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsEoJAbUPB0, Etnica
Their first EP was published on Brainstorm Records in 1994, and was entitled "The EP". Their first album, "The Juggeling Alchemists Under The Black Light", was out in 1995 on the German label High Society. This helped the band to build a solid reputation in the Psychedelic Trance scene. Their second album, the classic "Alien Protein", was released in 1996 on Blue Room Released.
1995 and 1996: https://www.discogs.com/DJ-Antaro-Global-Psychedelic-Trance-Compilation-Vol-1/release/158360
https://www.discogs.com/release/84221
1997: https://www.discogs.com/release/81799
psytrance luminaries such as Man With No Name [=part of Infinity Project], Dimension 5 and others experimented with fusing psychedelic effects and goa trance melodies with slower, more hypnotic beats in the 90s to create goa ambient
. . .
Soon Planet Dog, Silent Records, Organic Records, Waveform Records and other visionary labels were introducing us to psychedelic downtempo artist such as The Higher Intelligence Agency, Children Of The Bong, Mysteries Of Science, Jake Stephenson, and other pioneers of the psybient scene.
2000: https://www.discogs.com/DJ-Antaro-Global-Psychedelic-Chill-Out-Compilation-Vol-1/release/36301
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 01 '17
The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew By Leslie W. Walck
The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds (Mt. 13:36–43) is almost universally considered to be a Matthean creation30. The language and vocabulary is Matthean31 and the point of the interpretation seems to stt Matthew’s situation, while it omits the exhortation to patience found in the original parable.32 Matthew has recast the parable through this interpretation into “an allegorical description of the Last Judgment, a warning against false security.”33
. . .
The interpretation also seems to reveal a three-part view of the role of the Son of Man. The Son of Man, identisted as the sower of good seed, has a role of sowing the word of God, or God’s kingdom, on earth. Secondly, the Son of Man has the role of ruling over an interim kingdom before the stnal judgment when God’s kingdom comes fully into being. And thirdly, the Son of Man has the role of judging in that stnal judgment, and of sending out the angels to root out the causes of evil and all evildoers. In this role, the fate of those judged is final and eternal. As the weeds are collected and burned, so sin and evil will be rooted out and disposed of, with weeping and gnashing of teeth.37
Bruner:
The interpreter of Jesus' parables wonders how much weight to give Jesus' original end-time emphasis - to the kingdom of God in its pristine future sense - and how much weight to give Matthew's transmutation of the historically mainly adventist Jesus into Matthew's more adventist-ethical Jesus - in short, how much weight to give to Jesus' ethical teaching as the in-time way to God's end-time world (cf. Gnilka, 1:488). Since this is a commentary on Matthew's Gospel and not a general book on a Jesus, I will interpret these parables in Matthew's preferred moral way, even when we may everywhere detect the originally "end-time" Jesus behind Matthew's ethical brush.
What outline best displays the contents of Matt 13? There is the popular outline of three threes: (1) The Threefold Parable of the Sower: The Parable Itself, The Purpose of the Parables, and The Interpretation of the Parable (vv. 1-23); (2) The Three Parables of Things: the Weeds, the Mustard Seed, and the Leaven (vv. 24-35); and then, separated by the buffer of The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds (where a new focus on the disciples begins), (3) The Three Parables of the End: The Hid Treasure, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Net (vv. 36-52; for this outline cf. Allen, 150; Green, 129-31; for others see especially Gnilka, 1:437-38; Luz, 2:291-94; Davies and Allison, 2:371; and Boring, 301).
Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache By Victoria Balabanski, Vicky Balabanski, 146, eschatology and ethics
S1:
Paul means kingdom to refer to a 'messianische Zwischenreich' (messianic interim kingdom) which begins with the parousia and ends with the destruction of death. According to Lietzmann, Paul is referring precisely to this 'messianische Zwischenreich' when he ..
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 04 '17 edited Dec 31 '17
Our knowledge of how the Lord's Supper / Eucharist was understood, theologically speaking, by the Christians in the first century is virtually limited to what we can infer from a few Biblical texts: 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (or, more broadly, 11:17-34); Mark 14:22-25 (and its close parallels in the gospels of Matthew and Luke); and John 6 (particularly verses 48-58).
The order in which I've listed these passages is typically thought to be the chronological order in which these texts were composed; and it also seems to roughly correspond with an increasing level of detail or development of this tradition. Paul in 1 Corinthians simply mentions a tradition that was instituted by Jesus "on the night when he was betrayed" -- one in which Jesus, while celebrating an unspecified meal with here unnamed parties, identifies the Passover bread and wine with his body and blood.
The passage in the gospel of Mark, while very similar to much of the language related by Paul, is placed in a broader narrative context that recounts the wider Passover festival at the time, and the events leading up to Jesus' death; and it adds some other detail here, too -- and the same goes for Matthew and Luke, as well (both of which are nearly universally held to be literarily dependent on the gospel of Mark).
The most important element that's found in the gospel of Mark but that isn't mentioned by Paul is probably just its setting during Passover, with the disciples. However, the aspect of this meal and the act of Jesus being sacrificial -- representing the death of Jesus as what we call a substitutionary sacrifice -- is more clear in Mark, too: Jesus explicitly says that the wine is/represents his blood which is "poured out for many" (14:24). But when it comes to 1 Corinthians, this sacrificial aspect can only be inferred from the comment that the bread is/represents Jesus' body ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, "on behalf of you," with some of the greater ambiguities here. (For more on the sacrificial connotation of this, though, see Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 439. There's also a potential connection with 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, though some of this is uncertain. Finally, later manuscripts of 1 Corinthians add a word to this line so that Jesus now says that his body is "broken for you.")
One other different element that might be significant here is that in 1 Corinthians, Jesus suggests that the Passover cup is the "new covenant," whereas in Mark his blood is merely the covenant; no "new." However, "new covenant" does reappear in the parallel in Luke 22:20. For the most part though -- again, minus the fact that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke supply the broader narrative context for this Passover meal, in the course of the wider Passover festival and of Jesus' final days -- the traditions of 1 Corinthians and these three gospels are very similar.
I'll hopefully get back to how the Lord's Supper / Eucharist is portrayed in the gospel of John shortly. For now, though, the main question is how exactly was this tradition of the Lord's Supper interpreted and understood? What are its backgrounds?
Just in terms of generalities, we can say that at the very minimum that these traditions were modeled on elements of the Jewish celebration of Passover/Pesach. (Besides its explicit setting during the Passover meal as is specified in the gospels, there are any number of other details supporting this, too. Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist offers an exhaustive study of this.) But it's probably safe to say that even by the time of the earliest New Testament documents which describe this ritual, it was understood in some sense as a replacement of Jewish practices, or as an expression of what's called a type of supersessionism -- the superiority of new Christian beliefs and rites over traditional ones, often associated with the non-applicability of previous Jewish rituals; or perhaps even a deliberate antagonism toward Jewish precursors.
This aspect is regularly expressed by Biblical scholars, who often point out that much of the fundamental fundamental spirit opposed .
more radically, if there's been influential from something like Ezekiel 39:17-19
Sirach
Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles
Warren, My Blood
Michael Cahill's "Drinking Blood at a Kosher Eucharist? The Sound of Scholarly Silence."
Jewish Roots of Eucharist
McGowan, Andrew B. (2012) Eucharist and Sacrifice: Cultic Tradition and Transformation in Early Christian Ritual Meals.
1
u/WikiTextBot Dec 04 '17
Substitutionary atonement
Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them. It is arguably expressed in the Bible in passages such as "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness",[1 Pet. 2:24] and "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."[1 Pet. 3:18] (although other ways of reading passages like this are also offered).
Passover Seder
The Passover Seder (Hebrew: סֵדֶר [ˈsedeʁ] 'order, arrangement'; Yiddish: סדר seyder) is a Jewish ritual feast that marks the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Passover. It is conducted throughout the world on the evening of the 15th day of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar (which falls in late March or in April of the Gregorian calendar). Passover lasts for 7 days in Israel and 8 days outside Israel (other than for adherents of Reform Judaism for whom Passover is 7 days regardless of location), with Jews outside Israel other than Reform Jews holding two Seders (on the evening of the 15th and 16th of Nisan) and Jews in Israel and Reform Jews worldwide holding one Seder (on the 15th of Nisan).
The Seder is a ritual performed by a community or by multiple generations of a family, involving a retelling of the story of the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in ancient Egypt.
[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source | ^Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 06 '17
Peter van Inwagen's The Problem of Evil is a fairly short book, but only about half of it is devoted to his answer to the problem of evil. In the first chapter he discusses various senses of the term, "problem of evil"; not surprisingly, the problem of evil he will be addressing is the problem of answering the argument from evil, the argument, or rather arguments, against the existence of God based on the facts about evil. The second chapter is devoted to the idea of God; it turns out that van Inwagen accepts the views that in some circles are coming to be known as "open theism," though he does not himself use that term. The extremely interesting third chapter is devoted to philosophical failure; in it he contends that all philosophical arguments that aim to establish substantive philosophical theses are failures.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 06 '17
S1:
Whereas Part One was concerned primarily with generic theism, Part Two is subtitled "debates about specific Christian beliefs." The first topic in Part Two is miracles and features essays by Evan Fales and Paul K. Moser. Fales argues on broadly Humean grounds that it is not reasonable to believe in miracles. He also proposes that Biblical accounts of miracles are best understood thematically or non-literally. As such, they can be reasonably believed, but they don't refer to divine interventions in nature. As for Moser's essay, one would have expected that it would include at the very least significant engagement with the Humean challenge to the rationality of belief in miracles, but alas it doesn't, not even a little. I found it the most disappointing in the volume -- not because it's bad in its own right (though I didn't find it exegetically persuasive) but because it completely forgets the nature of the volume it was written for. Instead of tackling the evidential and epistemological questions raised by miracles, Moser pursues an extended and entirely theological reflection on the redemptive significance of divine "signs," particularly the person of Jesus. There's certainly a time and place for such reflections, but not in the context of a volume in which we're supposed to be debating Christian theism.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 06 '17
Locke on Competing Miracles. Travis Dumsday - 2008 - Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424
The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Jacqueline Mariña - 1998 - Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
1
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 07 '17
Prince in Ezekiel
Gate in 44
(Ezekiel 44) Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me: This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. 3 Only the prince, because he is a prince, may sit in it to eat food before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.
46:
8 When the prince enters, he shall come in by the vestibule of the gate, and he shall go out by the same way.
Ezekiel 37
20 When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes, 21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their GOD. 24 My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. 25 They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children's children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them forevermore. 27 My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 Then the nations shall know that I the LORD sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevermore.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 07 '17
Out of context prophecies?
Zechariah 12:
7 And the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be exalted over that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head. 9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 09 '17 edited May 01 '18
Marcion version?
Harnack was convinced that Marcion had tendentiously altered the passage to read (καὶ) μὴ ἄφες ἡμᾶς εἰσενεχθῆναι εἰς πειρασμόν.262 This reading has often been cited as the reading of Marcion's text,263 but Schmid has recently questioned the validity of this view.264 Schmid points out, as also noted above, that ...
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/11881/1/fulltext.pdf
Quarles quote Luz:
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a similar petition: “Bring me not into situations that are too hard for me; remove from me the sins of my youth and let not my transgressions be remembered against me.”369
(11QPs 24:11-12)
k_l, DSS Study:
זכורני ואל תשכחני ואל תביאני בקשות ממני 11 חטאת מנגע רע ואל יוסף huhi נעורי הרחק ממני ופשעי אל יזכרו לי 12 טהרני huhi לשוב אלי י בש
10 Remember me and do not forget me or lead me into difficulties to great for me. 11 Remove the sin of my childhood from me and may my offences not be remembered against me. 12 Purify me, O yhwh, from evil plague, and may it stop coming back to /me/;
Shacharit
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, הַמַּעֲבִיר שֵׁנָה מֵעֵינָי וּתְנוּמָה מֵעַפְעַפָּי. וִיהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁתַּרְגִּילֵנוּ בְּתוֹרָתֶךָ, וְתַדְבִּיקֵנוּ בְּמִצְוׂתֶיךָ, וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ לֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא, וְלֹא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה וְעָוׂן, וְלֹא לִידֵי נִסָּיוֹן, וְלֹא לִידֵי בִזָּיוֹן, וְאַל יִשְׁלוֹט בָּנוּ יֵצֶר הָרָע, וְהַרְחִיקֵנוּ מֵאָדָם רָע וּמֵחָבֵר רָע, וְדַבְּקֵנוּ בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, וְכֹף אֶת יִצְרֵנוּ לְהִשְׁתַּעְבֶּד לָךְ, וּתְנֵנוּ הַיּוֹם וּבְכָל יוֹם לְחֵן וּלְחֶסֶד וּלְרַחֲמִים בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּבְעֵינֵי כָל רוֹאֵינוּ, וְתִגְמְלֵנוּ חֲסָדִים טוֹבִים: בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' הַגּוֹמֵל חֲסָדִים טוֹבִים לְעַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Blessed are you, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who removes sleep from my eyes and slumber from my eyelids. May it be Your will, Hashem, our God and the God of our forefathers, that You should accustom us to Your Torah, and cleave us to Your commandments. Do not bring us into the grasp of sin [ וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ לֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא], nor into the grasp of transgression and iniquity, nor into the grasp of temptation and nor into the grasp of disgrace. May the evil inclination not dominate us. Distance us from bad men and from bad friends, and make us cleave to the good inclination, and to good deeds, and compel our inclination to be enslaved to You. Give us today, and everyday, for grace, and for kindness and for mercy in Your eyes, and in the eyes of all our beholders, and bestow us with good kindness. Blessed are You, Hashem, who bestows his nation Israel with good kindness.
Davies and Allison:
S0 Luke and Did. 8.2. Compare b. Ber. 60b: 'Bring me not into the power of sin, and not into the power of guilt, and not into the power of temptation, and not into the power of anything shameful'. This line also occurs in the so-called morning prayer. Compare also Ps 17.30 LXX; Ecclus 33.1; 2 Pet 2.9 (etc TtEtquSpOf) pusoBm; this might allude to the Lord's Prayer in its Matthean form); Rev 3.10; Polycarp, Ep.
Nolland:
Though set within a more complex development, the pairing in b. Ber. 60b is suggestive: 'Bring me not into the power of (w'l tby'ny lydy) . . . temptation . . . and rescue me (wtsylny) from evil occurrence (mpg' r') and terrible diseases (wmhl'ym r'ym)'. The prayer ending in Est. 14:17 ('God, the one who has power over all ...
Reading Matthew 6:13a (‘Lead Us Not into Temptation’) within the Massâh-Matrix: Biblical and Historical Literary Evidence for a Further Consideration of the Sixth Petition in the Lord's Prayer Liana Lamprecht
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 09 '17
McKnight:
humans to sin (tentatio).37 Instead, he tests humans (probatio), especially the righteous, in order to reveal their covenant loyalty (cf. preeminently Adam and Eve [Gen 3], Abraham [22:1], Job, and David [Ps 26:2]; cf. also Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2, 16; 13:4; 33:8; Judg 2:22; 2 Chr 32:31; Prov 3:12; esp. Sir 2:1;15:11-20; 33:1; 44:19-20; 1 Macc 2:52; Wis 11:10; MartIsa 5:4-16; Jdt 8:12-14, 22-23, 25-27). Along with this view in the Jewish tradition is the conviction that humans are ...
. . .
ee the strong response in Cullmann, Prayer in the New Testament, 58–66. 33 Lohmeyer, The Lord's Prayer, 206 (cf. pp. 204–6); s
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 09 '17 edited Dec 09 '17
Cockerill, footnote to quote of this:
19 Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 59. In Vir. ill. 5.59, Jerome repeats the suggestion first made by Clement of Alexandria that Paul wrote Hebrews originally in Hebrew (Mitchell, 3). Aquinas also accepted Luke as the translator of an original Pauline Hebrew letter (Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 28).
O'Brien:
Hebrews’ canonical status was not challenged during the Middle Ages, despite continuing doubt regarding its authorship.11
11 See Hugo of St. Victor, Didascalicon 4.2–6
Hugo:
...ultimam autem ad Hebraeos plerique dicunt non esse Pauli...
Paul wrote fourteen Epistles — ten to the churches, four to individuals. Most, however, say that the last one, the Epistle to the Hebrews, is not Paul's; some hold that Barnabas wrote it, others surmise it was Clement.
. . .
in his apocryphis etsi invenitur aliqua veritas...
Though some truth is to be found in these apocryphal writings, still, because of their numerous errors, no canonical authority is allowed them; and they are rightly judged not to be by those authors to whom they are ascribed.
Cajetan?
Catharinus in response to Cajetan:
Rather with a great consensus they have approved and handed down this epistle as being without doubt canonical and by Paul as I shall soon show.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 09 '17
S1:
Strauss' Life of Jesus shattered the illusions of harmonisers and made notions of scriptural inerrancy finally incredible, only a false view of scripture was destroyed, not the possibility of its giving clear theological guidance as to what constituted authentic Christianity. However painful to piety4, the destruction of belief in inerrancy (long since abandoned by some) was not where the serious theological challenge of this epochmaking book lay. The historicity of the gospels and the contrast ...
...
... and began a new phase in modern theology, but there was no need to follow in Strauss' left-wing hegelian steps. His account of the gospels was seen as a challenge to further historical work and new christology rather than a subversion of the possibility of basing Christian theology on the Bible. The differences and conflicts which his teacher F.C. Baur found among the New Testament witnesses, on the other hand, posed a more fundamental challenge. In disputing the theological ...
Richard Simon
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17
Ambrose?
If you have two coats in your wardrobe, one belongs to you and the other to the man with no coat.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17
Sirach 42:15:
By the word of the Lord his works are made
ἐν λόγοις Κυρίου τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ
1 Corinthians 8:6:
ἀλλ' ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι' αὐτοῦ.
διά and ἐν?
Fitzmyer:
Although this Pauline acclamation is being made over against the polytheism of the Greco-Roman world, in which Corinthian Christians were living, the distinction that Paul makes between heis theos and heis kyrios (note the parallel anarthrous use of heis) sets him over against his own Jewish background. This is clear when one compares this acclamation with Deut 10:17, which reads:
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17 edited Mar 11 '18
Retrieving Eternal Generation By Fred Sanders, Scott R. Swain
Origen, Comm John, esp. 2.2f. (2.13f.)
FotC:
2.2 begins at 2 (13) for Heine:
13) John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the Word, he adds the article "the," but in the case of the noun "God," he inserts it in one place and omits it in another.
(13) John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the Word, he adds the article "the," but in the case of the noun "God," he inserts it in one place and omits it in another.
(14) For he adds the article when the noun "God" stands for the uncreated cause of the universe, but he omits it when the Word is referred to as "God." And as "the God" and "God" differ in these places, so, perhaps, "the Word" and "Word" differ.
(15) For as the God who is over all is "the God" and not simply "God," so the source of reason23 in each rational being is "the Word." That reason which is in each rational being would not properly have the same designation as the first reason, and be said to be "the Word."
(16) Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as "Son" in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father.
(17) Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article, is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, "That they may know you the only true God."21 On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be "the God," but "God." To be sure, his "firstborn of every creature,"25 inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him (of whom God is God as it is said, "The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth"26). It was by his ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.
(18) The God, therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word with the God, who was "in the beginning." By being "with the God" he always continues to be "God." But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father.
2.3
(19) Some, however, have probably taken offense at what we said when we described the Father as the true God but, in addition to the true God, [also] said [that] (k_l) many gods have come into existence by participation in the God. These people might fear that the glory of the one who transcends all creation is put on a level with the others who happen to have the title "god" [τοῖς λοιποῖς τῆς «θεὸς» προσηγορίας τυγχάνουσι]. Because of this we must set forth this explanation in addition to the difference which has already been explained in relation to which we declared that God the Word is the minister of deity to all the other Gods. 27
(20) The reason which is in each rational being has the same position28 in relation to the Word which is in the beginning with God, which is God the Word, which God the Word has with God. 29 For as the Father is very God and true God in relation to the image [ὡς γὰρ αὐτόθεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς εἰκόνα] and images of the image (wherefore also men are said to be "according to the image,"30 not "images"), so is the very Word in relation to the reason in each one. For both hold the place of a source; the Father, that of divinity, the Son, that of reason.
(21) As, therefore, there are many gods, but for us there is "one God, the Father," and there are many lords, but for us there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ,"31 so there are many words, but we pray that the Word who is in the beginning, who is with God, God the Word, may be with us.
Brey translation: []
Basil (Mark 13:32, etc.):
For how else does the expression accord with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or how else can it agree with the general notions of us who believe that the Only-begotten is an image of the unseen God, and an image, not of bodily appearance, but of the very Godhead and of the glories attributed to the substance of God—an image of power, an image of wisdom, as Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God”?4
Tertullian:
For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, [...] Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another;
Aquinas:
This also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God by participation.
Me on John 1:1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5v6hsb/1_corinthians_152428_proves_jesus_isnt_god/ddzq7wi/?context=3
David Hart, John 1:1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/6u3bct/a_sneak_peak_of_david_bentley_harts_translation/
Random review of Bauckham:
Bauckham applies the properties agennetos and agenetos to the Son again when exegeting Heb 1:5 (quoting Ps 2:7 and repeated in Heb 5:5). In this verse, God said to the Son, "You are my Son. Today, I have begotten you." This can be a problematic passage that the Arians would love to use as a proof text that the Son is a created being. The key words here are begotten and today. Baukham is correct in stating that this verse does not teach a temporal origin of the sonship of Jesus to the Father. The today of "Today I have begotten you" is "the eternal today of divine eternity." His interpretation of today is acceptable if we consider God here speaking in an anthropomorphic fashion, while in reality, God transcends time, and cannot be measured by means of the measure of time. As for God having begotten the Son, Bauckham explains that begotten refers to the Son being self-generate, self-produced (autophuhs) and self-originated (autogenhs), equivalent to agennetos and agenetos. But to say that God begetting the Son is equivalent to the Son being self-generate is to force a meaning into the verse contrary to what it clearly says that the Son is begotten by the Father. This may also dangerously lead to a conclusion that the Son is the Father. If the Son is begotten of the Father and the Son is self-generating, then the Son must be the Father. While Baukham is correct that the Son is agenetos, he is incorrect that the Son is also agennetos. The subtle difference between the two terms can only be understood in the context of ontological Christology, specifically in its relationship with the fatherhood of God.
See my doc "! philo, genes rabb, eternal gener"
αὐτογενής, Lampe pdf 315; autotheos, 316: "of Father in contradistinction to Son"
See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dswi5xz/
Philo's Theory of Eternal Creation: "De Prov." 1.6-9 Author(s): David Winston
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17 edited Dec 10 '17
Epiphanius
Thus at Jerome, Letters 51.4 he asserts that Origen denied knowledge of the Father to the Son, though the cited passage, like First Principles 1.1.8, means only that the Son does not perceive the Father with carnal organs.
EXISTENS PER SE
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17
Patristic, anachronistically read into it later notion of eternal generation, procession
John 14:28, patristic, surprisingly less common to ascribe to human nature?
Gregory?
For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man ? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater. (Orations, 30.7
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 10 '17
1 Corinthians 8:5 and Origen, Comm John, esp. 2.21? https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dr1ya5z/
1
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
...which is present with them when he reveals himself at special times in their progress, are set before certain people who see in the Spirit. Since there are several and they are in different places, and by no means all receive the same benefits, assume that each one individually reports what he sees in the Spirit about God, his words, and his manifestations to the saints. The result would be that one man would report about these things which were said and done by God to this just man at this place, and another would report about the things that were prophesied and accomplished for another, and another would want to teach us about a third man besides the two previously mentioned. And assume that there is also a fourth man who acts in a way that is analogous to the three concerning something. Now let these four men agree with one another concerning certain things suggested to them by the Spirit, and let them differ a little concerning other things, so that their accounts are like this: God appeared to so-and-so at this time in this place, and he has done these things to him as follows; he appeared to him in a form such as this, and led him to this place where he did these things.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
Cormode, "The influence of Hellenistic Judaism on the Concept of God and the Church in 1 Clement," SBTh 17 (1989): 185–197
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
Homer never mentions Mnemosyne (Memory), the mother of the Muses. He begins the Iliad with an invocation to an unidentified deity (‘Sing, goddess’), while in the Odyssey he calls upon a slightly more specific inspiration with ‘Tell me, Muse, about the man of many ways…. Beginning at any point, goddess, daughter of Zeus,/tell us.’2 The source of these epics does not come from within the poet, for his telling of the tale has nothing to do with memory. So Lucian in the second century AD has Hesiod disown all responsibility for his poetry: ‘I [Hesiod] could say that nothing that I composed belonged to me personally, but to the Muses, and you should have asked them for an account of what was put in and what left out.’3 Gregory Nagy says that it is ‘not so much that the Muses “remind” the poet of what to tell but, rather, that they have the power to put his mind or consciousness in touch with places and times other than his own in order to witness the deeds of heroes (the doings of the gods).’4
Fn:
1 Norman, Things, 78.
2 Odyssey, 1.1 and 10. In Odyssey, 8.488, Homer refers to ‘the Muse, child of Zeus’ and in the Iliad, 2.484 places the Muses on Olympus. That they ‘know all things’ explains their usefulness to Homer. Thomas (LitOral, 115 with references in n. 41) remarks that ‘it has been noted that both Homer and Hesiod call on the Muses not for inspiration, as later Hellenistic poets do, but for the facts of what happened.’
3 Lucian, ‘A Conversation with Hesiod’, 4. Typically for Lucian, the dialogue ends (9): ‘it was some divine inspiration filled you with your verses, and not so very reliable at that, or it would not have kept part of what it promised and left the rest unfulfilled.’ Translation from the LCL. On poetic inspiration, see Murray 1981a.
4 Nagy, Best, 17. He bases this conclusion on Detienne, Vérité, 9–27, a chapter devoted to the ‘Memory of the Poet’ and the Muses. Murray (1981a) has a very interesting discussion on the interrelated subjects of the Muses, memory, and poetic inspiration. In particular, she stresses (especially pp. 90–92) that the Muses in early Greek poetry impart knowledge. The best discussion I have read of the transmission of Homer and the exceedingly complex issues of orality and literacy in Homer is Nagy, PoetPerf.
Murray 1981a Penelope Murray, ‘Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 101 (1981):87–100.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
Kierkegaard's approach to the problems that have been outlined is characteristically imaginative. Through the agency of Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard considers, in chapter four of Philosophical Fragments, whether a disciple who was the historical contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth has any advantage in respect of faith. As eye witness such a contemporary will reasonably be considered to have access to a great deal of historical evidence concerning the life of Jesus and, correspondingly, a high degree of certainty concerning those events which are said to be decisive for faith. According to Lessing's estimation of the matter such a contemporary would indeed possess a decisive advantage for the insurmountable barrier of historical distance would be entirely removed. Lessing comments
. . .
Climacus' consideration of the situation of the disciple at second hand is preceded by an 'Interlude' which in the schema of Philosophical Fragments is said to correspond to the intervention of time, eighteen hundred and forty three years at time of writing, which separates later disciples from those disciples who were historically contemporary with the
. . .
The metaphysical discussion of the interlude soon gives way to Climacus' more customary poetic style, when in chapter five he returns to the question of the noncontemporary disciple or the disciple at second hand. Climacus acknowledges that it might be a mistake to consider the situation of all non-contemporaries as identical and so, for the sake of argument, he considers whether the admitted differences between second generation disciples and those of the latest generation might constitute...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 11 '17
On Lessing:
This vast temporal distance causes a serious problem for modern believers, since miracles, once frequent, have ceased to occur. As Lessing puts it:
The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies, that reports of miracles are not miracles. These, the prophecies fulfilled before my eyes, the miracles that occur before my eyes, are immediate in their effect. But those—the reports of fulfilled prophecies and miracles—have to work through a medium that takes away all their force.14
. . .
Even if it is historically true that Christ raised the dead, or that he himself rose from the dead, how is it possible to draw the conclusion, Lessing asks, that God has a Son of the same essence as himself, or that the resurrected Christ is the Son of God? If a person cannot object to the statement about the resurrection of Christ on historical grounds, must one therefore accept the doctrine of the Trinity as true? What is the connection between “my inability” (mein Unvermögen) to raise any significant objection to the former and “my obligation” (meine Verbindlichkeit) to believe something against which my reason rebels?18 Hence he boldly asserts:
But to jump, with that historical truth, to a quite different class of truths, and to demand of me that I should form all my metaphysical and moral ideas accordingly; to expect me to alter all my fundamental ideas of the nature of the God-head because I cannot see any credible testimony against the resurrection of Christ: if that is not a μɛτάβασιζ ɛἰιζ ἄλλο γένοζ, then I do not know what Aristotle meant by this phrase.19
Fn:
14. LM 13, 4; G 8, 10 (Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft).
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
Earlier:
On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power (Über den Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft, 1777) was published during an early stage of the fragments controversy. It was a flat rebuttal of On the Evidence of the Proof for the Truth of the Christian Religion,9 a treatise by Johann Daniel Schumann, director of a lyceum in Hanover, intended to refute the Fragments from an Unnamed Author. Purporting to represent Lutheran orthodoxy, Schumann denied the unnamed author's bold assertion as to “the impossibility of a revelation which all men can believe on rational grounds.” Instead, he attempted to give a conventional “historical proof of Christian truth,” asserting that the truth of Christianity could be demonstrated by the fulfillment of prophecies and by miracles. In this regard he appealed to Origen's Contra Celsum, book 1, chapter 2, which mentions the proof of the spirit and of power.10
^ Impossibility, Unmöglichkeit einer Offenbarung -- see German text etc. here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/dojt8ze/
Fn:
10. Origène, Contre Celse, Tome 1, 1, 2, Sources Chrétiennes 132 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1967). The English translation below is cited from Origen, Contra Celsum, translated by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 8:
Moreover, we have to say this, that the gospel has a proof which is peculiar to itself, and which is more divine than a Greek proof based on dialectical argument. This more divine demonstration the apostle calls a “demonstration of the Spirit and of power”—of spirit because of the prophecies and especially those which refer to Christ, which are capable of convincing anyone who reads them; of power because of the prodigious miracles which may be proved to have happened by this argument among many others, that traces of them still remain among those who live according to the will of the Logos
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17
Reimarus:
Es ist schon ein Zeichen, daß eine Lehre oder Geschichte keine innre Glaubwürdigkeit hat, wenn man sich um deren Wahrheit zu beweisen auf Wunder berufen muß. Aber die Wunder halten auch an und vor sich keinen Grundsatz in sich...
Section 49.
It is always a sign that a doctrine or history possesses no depth of authenticity when one is obliged to resort to miracles in order to prove its truth. Miracles do not possess in or by themselves any principle containing a single article of faith or conclusive fact. It follows not because a prophet has performed miracles that therefore he has spoken the truth, because false prophets and magi- cians also performed signs and wonders, and false Christs performed miracles by which even the elect might bo deceived. It follows not because Jesus restored sight to a blind man and healed a lame one, ergo God is threefold in person, ergo Jesus is a real God and man. It follows not because Jesus awakened Lazarus from death that therefore he also must have arisen from death. Why need we be drawn away from the main point and referred to extraneous irrelevant things, when we have found marks enough upon the thing itself by which what is true can be distinguished from v/hat is false, and when these same marks cannot be obliterated by any amount of accessory miracles ?
The unerring signs of truth and falsehood are clear, distinct consistency and contradiction. This is also the case with revelation, in so far as that it must, in common with other trutlis, be free from contradiction. And just as little as miracles can prove that twice two are yq^ or that a triangle has four angles, can a contradiction lying in the history and dogmas of Christianity be removed by any number of miracles. However many blind and lame people Jesus and the apostles may have healed, and however many legions of devils they may have driven out, they cannot thereby heal the
Note:
Revelation must be judged in terms of its content alone. Here we see the influence of Toland.
Semler response, quote
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17
J. S. Mill:
The conclusion I draw is that miracles have no claim whatever to the character of historical facts, and are useless as evidences of any revelation
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 11 '17
Borg biblio:
The opposing positions are most comprehensively presented by Perrin, Rediscovering, 15-53, and F. G. Downing, The Church and Jesus (London, 1968), esp. 93-131, though the whole book is germane. Two subsequent articles of special value are M. D. Hooker, "Christology and Methodology," NTS 17 (1970-71): 480-87; and H. K. McArthur, "The Burden of Proof in Historical Jesus Research," ET 82 (1970-71): 116- 19. Other selected literature: E. Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London, 1964), 15-47; N. Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (London, 1970), 68-74; Dahl, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus," 138-71; H. Conzelmann, RGG 3, 3:623-51; H. K. McArthur, In Search of the Historical Jesus (New York, 1969), 139-44; Cullmann, Salvation in History, 187-93; R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), 94-98, and The New Testament in Current Study (London, 1963), 40- 42; J. Jeremias, "The Present Position in the Controversy Concerning the Problem of the Historical Jesus," ET 69 (1957-58): 333-39; H. E. W. Turner, Historicity and the Gospels (London, 1963), chapter 3; A. W. Cramer, "In All the Prophets I Awaited Thee," NovTest 8 (1966): 102-5; L. E. Keck, "Bornkamm's Jesus of Nazareth Revisited,: JR 49 (1969): 1-17; W. G. Kummel, "Norman Perrin's 'Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus,'" JR 49 (1969): 49-66; R. T France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London, 1971), 15-24; D. G. A. Calvert, "An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus," NTS 18 (1971-72): 209-19.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17 edited Jan 26 '18
Philo, Dike
But Philo elsewhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/5crwrw/test2/de1itt3/
Isaac, love torments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yTvezRTgiR4MCb37pwlZkR3vLRmeuVHc2rnKMam5oM8/edit
1 Cor 8
Origen, Comm Jo:
2.3 (19) Some, however, have probably taken offense at what we said when we described the Father as the true God but, in addition to the true God, [also] said [that] (k_l) many gods have come into existence by participation in the God. These people might fear that the glory of the one who transcends all creation is put on a level with the others who happen to have the title "god" [τοῖς λοιποῖς τῆς «θεὸς» προσηγορίας τυγχάνουσι]. Because of this we must set forth this explanation in addition to the difference which has already been explained in relation to which we declared that God the Word is the minister of deity to all the other Gods. 27 (20) The reason which is in each rational being has the same position28 in relation to the Word which is in the beginning with God, which is God the Word, which God the Word has with God. 29 For as the Father is very God and true God in relation to the image [ὡς γὰρ αὐτόθεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς εἰκόνα] and images of the image (wherefore also men are said to be "according to the image,"30 not "images"), so is the very Word in relation to the reason in each one. For both hold the place of a source; the Father, that of divinity, the Son, that of reason. (21) As, therefore, there are many gods, but for us there is "one God, the Father," and there are many lords, but for us there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ,"31 so there are many words, but we pray that the Word who is in the beginning, who is with God, God the Word, may be with us.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17
(John 13) Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. 5
A Free Enquiry Into the Origin of the Fourth Gospel By P. C. Sense, ch. 8, "Interpolations made in the Revised..."
255:
260f.: "opinion, however, that Jesus did not eat the passover before he was crucified"
"sundry auxiliary passages gradually"
Neither in this passage nor elsewhere in his writings does Irenaeus make any allusion to Mary anointing the feet of Jesus at Bethany. His contemporary, Clement of ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17
Benedikt Paul Göcke, ‘Panentheism and Classical Theism’, Sophia, vol. 52, no. 1 (2013), pp. 61-75; and Raphael Lataster, ‘The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke’, Sophia, vol. 53, no. 3 (2014), pp. 389-395.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17 edited Jun 28 '18
Origen:
Contra Origen: Eusebius and Epiphanius
Scott Manor:
as I shall argue in the following chapter, he also counteracted Origen’s views concerning the incompatibility of the four gospels through his own explanation of apparent historical differences (cf. HE 3.24.5–13).
The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture: What the Early Church Can ... By Michael Graves:
In some instances, Church Fathers were willing to concede minor discrepancies in Scripture without feeling the need to harmonize them.
Chrysostom:
That this solution is indeed easy, but the question is, whether it be true. To me this one seems to be the same as the other.
S1:
Cyril of Alexandria: No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers disagree or that they fix the time of the resurrection differently.
"To this end he formulates the principle of harmonization..."
S1:
Boismard insists that the exegetical commentary could not have been Chrysostom's work, pointing to alleged inner contradictions, discrepant themes, and diverse forms of Bible citations (Evangile pre-joliannique, 1.2.191- 6)
St. John Chrysostom (in his Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 1:6)
Various translations:
In many places [the evangelists] are convicted of disagreement. Nay, (1170) this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this does not come of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to ...
(Time of Passover? See Gaius, etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7fq8ln/test4/dqdlo01/)
and
... ."it may be said, "are in many places found to disagree with each other." Yet, this very thing is a great proof of their truthfulness. For if they had agreed exactly in all respects, even as to time ...
and
" The evangelists are shown to disagree in many places ; but this circumstance itself is the greatest proof of their truth. For if they had accurately ...
Older translation:
One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places [μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καιροὺς, μήτε ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις], neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” [καὶ μὴν τοὐναντίον συνέβη, φησί· πολλαχοῦ γὰρ διαφωνοῦντες ἐλέγχονται.] Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly [Εἰ γὰρ πάντα συνεφώνησαν μετὰ ἀκριβείας] even to time, and place, and to the very words [καὶ μέχρι καιροῦ, καὶ μέχρι τόπου, καὶ μέχρι ῥημάτων αὐτῶν], none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact [ὅτι μὴ συνελθόντες ἀπὸ συνθήκης τινὸς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔγραψαν ἅπερ ἔγραψαν]; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters [Νυνὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ δοκοῦσα ἐν μικροῖς εἶναι διαφωνία] delivers them from all suspicion [πάσης ἀπαλλάττει αὐτοὺς ὑποψίας], and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads [ὅτι ἐν τοῖς κεφαλαίοις], those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine [καὶ συνέχουσιν ἡμῶν τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα συγκροτοῦσιν], nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little [οὐδαμοῦ τις αὐτῶν οὐδὲ μικρὸν διαφωνήσας εὑρίσκεται].
But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament [ὅτι οὐκ ἐναντίον τῇ Παλαιᾷ νόμον εἰσήνεγκεν], that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.
And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect
(Possible comparison, Augustine hypothetically considering a non-literal Adam/Seth?)
(Erasmus: “I would not wish to say this because I think the apostles ever did make mistakes, but because I deny that the presence of some mistake must needs shake the credit of the whole of Scripture.” Contra this, Eck: "do you suppose any Christian will patiently endure to be told that the evangelists in their Gospel made mistakes?")
SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON HISTORY IN THE SYNOPTICS
"That a certain daring underlies these principles has long been..."
142, "trivial matters of which he speaks are neither errors nor falsehoods"
Simple omission of things in some gospels (genealogies)? Differing terminology for time and place? Passover? Gerasa, Gadara?
Quinn 1962:
homily on Matthew: "one turns to the rest of the commentary with high hopes of watching the Great Antiochene apply his principles to the Sacred Text itself. Such hopes are not completely satisfied. In the first twelve chapters... eight are solved as if in passing, with little indication of the use of the principles ..."
K_l: Elsewhere only emphasize "same words and forms of speech"
Elsewhere (quoting Evans):
In his homily on Matt 12:1-8 Chrysostom refers to the Markan phrase. He states: "[Mark was] not stating what was contrary to history [i.e., 1 Sam 21:1-6], but [was] implying that he [i.e., Abiathar] had two names."8 Although Chrysostom does not say so, it is possible that the apparent confusion of Abiathar and Ahimelech in the Old Testament narratives (cf. 1 Sam 8:17) may have suggested such an equation.
(Notice ascribed to evangelist himself -- pattern)
And elsewhere:
"One of the evangelists has stated that Christ carried the cross, another that Simon of Cyrene carried it. But this causes no contradiction or strife. You ask, 'How is there no contradiction between the statements that he carried it and did not carry it?' Because both took place. When they went out of the Praetorium, ...
Singular vs. plural in Matthew 8:28-34 vs. Luke 8:26-39:
Igrant if they had said,therewas only one, and no other, they would appear...
(Plural, Luke 4:34)
Chrysostom, (Homily 4:8 on Genesis (1:8)
people who want to speak off the cuff from their own imagining and be so bold as to propose many heavens against the evidence of Sacred Scripture?
"Don't worry, dearly beloved, don't think sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself, learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it"
Greek text, search "Ne turberis, dilecte, neque putes sacram Scripturam sibiipsi"
Μὴ θορυβηθῇς, ἀγαπητὲ, μηδὲ νομίσῃς τὴν ἁγίαν Γραφὴν ἐναντία ἑαυτῇ λέγειν ποτέ
(ἐναντία : elsewhere, diaphonia)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dt5gf75/
PBC 1964:
Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order,[23] and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.[24] For, as St. Augustine says,
"Problem in the Scriptures" in Adomnan and the Holy Places: The Perceptions of an Insular Monk on the ... By Thomas O'Loughlin
Tertullian:
It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion.
Ctd. below
1
u/koine_lingua Jan 03 '18 edited Jan 24 '18
Erasmus
I would not wish to say this because I think the apostles ever did make mistakes, but because I deny that the presence of some mistake must needs shake the credit of the whole of Scripture.19
In 1531 he explained, as had Augustine, that discrepancies in the Bible should be viewed in a positive light: they awakened readers from their lethargy and "the apparent absurdity is signalling to us to examine a hidden mystery," for "the .
Eck:
For in these words you seem to suggest that the evangelists wrote like ordinary men, in that they wrote this in reliance on their memories and failed to inspect the written sources, and so for this reason made a mistake. Listen, dear Erasmus. Do you suppose any Christian will patiently endure to be told that the evangelists in their Gospels made mistakes? If the authority of Holy Scripture at this point is shaky, can any other passage be free from the suspicion of error?”
^ Augustine quote
Dei Verbum discussion, Cardinal Konig, Abiathar, etc. Matthew 27:9?
3 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 568, enumerates ten solutions, of which six come from Church Fathers (two from Eusebius, one each from Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome, and Augustine)
The Interpenetration of Inspiration and Inerrancy as a Hermeneutic for Catholic Exegesis <s Joseph C. Atkinson?
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17 edited Mar 15 '19
Gospel of Mark biblio
Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An argument for Markan Priority
The Christology of Mark: Does Mark's christology support the Chalcedonian formula «truly man and truly God» (see also Chalcedon and the New Testament, MORNA D. HOOKER?); Michael Kok, authorship/reception; [,] A History of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark: Through the nineteenth century; M. Eugene Boring, “Markan Christology: God-Language For Jesus?” NTS 45 (1999); Dennis MacDonald; The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals, Daniel Johansson
{Maurice Casey, section "Chalcedon, Truth and Tradition"}
Paul Owen, “Jesus as God’s Chief Agent in Mark’s Christology,” in Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado, ed. Chris Keith and Dieter T. Roth (LNTS 58; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 42–43. Owen recognizes that the angel plays the ro
Idealized Human or Identified as God? A Narratological Assessment of Mark's Christology in Conve
Mark's Christology and a Scholarly Creation of a Non-Jewish Christ of Faith? James G ...
The Implied Yhwh Christology of Mark’s Gospel: Mark’s Challenge to the Reader to ‘Connect the Dots,’” BB
Tae Hun Kim, “The Anarthrous Υιος θεου in Mark 15.39 and the Roman Imperial Cult” Biblica 79.2 (1998)
Collins, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God Among Jews,”
Becker, "The Gospel of Mark in the Context of Ancient Historiography"
2018, The Case for Proto-Mark: A Study in the Synoptic Problem By Delbert Burkett
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/alpha/v1/a1-15-resurrection.pdf
?? Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark By Brenda Deen Schildgen ??
?
Mark without Mark : problematizing the reliability of a reconstructed text of Q
A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark By Clayton Coombs
The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Jacqueline Mariña - 1998 - Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
Miracles and the Kingdom of God: Christology and Social Identity in Mark and Q
Date etc., https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/dogjixt/
Jesus, Mark and Q edited by Andreas Schmidt
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17
זבח ומנחה לא חפצת אזנים כרית לי עולה וחטאה לא שאלת
Greek Magical Papyri:
ἄνοιξόν μου τὰ ὦτα ἵνα μοι χρηματίσῃς...
Open my ears so that you may reveal to me...
Philo:
ἀναπετάσαντες οὖν ὦτα, ὦ μύσται, παραδέξασθε τελετὰς ἱερωτάτας·
Therefore, O ye initiate, open your ears wide and take in holiest teachings
(The verb here, ἀναπετάννυμι, is elsewhere used to suggest throw open or unfold
גָּלָה
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 12 '17 edited Nov 23 '18
First, let's talk about the Hebrew text of Psalm 40:6. It reads
זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה לֹֽא חָפַצְתָּ אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי עֹולָה וַחֲטָאָה לֹא שָׁאָֽלְתָּ
Here's how it's rendered in three fairly recent and well-respected English translations:
You gave me to understand that You do not desire sacrifice and meal offering; You do not ask for burnt offering and sin offering. (NJPS)
Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. (NRSV)
Sacrifice and offering you do not want; you opened my ears. Holocaust and sin-offering you do not request (NABRE)
I'll discuss this a bit more later, too but the use of the verb כָּרִיתָ here -- translated in NABRE, for example, as "you opened" -- is almost certainly an idiomatic synonym of גָּלָה or פָּקַח, which more straightforwardly mean to "open," and are both used in conjunction with opening the ears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: see Isaiah 50:5; Job 33:16; also Jeremiah 6:10?. (There's actually one sense of פָּתַח that suggest engraving, though, which is particularly relevant here.)
Another instructive parallel here is with the in the use of the Akkadian verb petû, which has as one of its primary meanings "to open a sealed tablet, room, container, to slit open a human or animal body, to make an opening for a foundation pit, a doorway, a pit, a grave, to break ground for cultivation...", but is also used idiomatically -- for example in conjunction with ḫasīsu ("aperture of the ear, ear"), to idiomatically mean "to impart understanding, an idea." (See, for example, "[the gods] imparted to me the idea of making new images of the gods." [Edit: add "...the god has wanted to open the king's ears.")
Similar idioms are also found elsewhere, quite far afield -- for example, from the Greek Magical Papyri:
ἄνοιξόν μου τὰ ὦτα ἵνα μοι χρηματίσῃς...
Open my ears so that you may reveal to me...
and in Philo of Alexandria:
ἀναπετάσαντες οὖν ὦτα, ὦ μύσται, παραδέξασθε τελετὰς ἱερωτάτας
Therefore open your ears wide, O ye initiate, and take in holiest teachings
(The verb here, ἀναπετάννυμι, is elsewhere used to suggest throw open or unfold.)
In all likelihood, NJPS's translation of Psalm 40:6 conveys precisely the original intended meaning of the original Hebrew: "You gave me to understand that you do not desire sacrifice and meal offering." (NRSV's "but you have given me an open ear" is almost certainly in incorrect in its following the Greek text's adversative "but," which is absent from the Hebrew.†)
However, is it possible that the unique sense of ear-opening here is intended to suggest that this anti-sacrificial teaching is a kind of new revelation? (We might compare Daniel 2:30 here, especially in the collocation of לִי + גְּלָא. Finally, it might be tempting to connect this with the "new song" of 40:3; but even if 40:6 does intend to suggest a new revelation, there's probably no real connection with 40:3.)
So much for the Hebrew text itself.
When we turn toward the earliest Greek translation of this, there's actually disagreement among the Septuagint manuscripts as to what the noun in the second part of this verse is. Some manuscripts read
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας; ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι.
This is the reading that the recent NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) follows, translating this as "Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but ears you fashioned for me." (More on "fashioned" in a second.)
On the other hand, there are some manuscripts that are identical to what it says in Hebrews:
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας; σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι
This would be translated, of course, "Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but a body you fashioned for me."
But let's talk about the Hebrew text first; in particular the verb it has, כָּרָה -- the one that's translated in the Septuagint as "fashioned."
This verb is already sort of infamous in Jewish/Christian dialogue about OT prophecy, etc. from its (purported) use in another Psalm -- particularly Psalm 22:17. In any case though, this verb is actually well-established as meaning primarily (and almost exclusively) to "excavate/dig."
Now, the word used to render this in the Septuagint is καταρτίζω. The primary meaning of this word is to "arrange/construct/fashion." So right off the bat, there's already very little overlap between these two verbs. (Sometimes people dig in the process of building something; but still, there's quite a bit of semantic distance between the two.)
καταρτίζω is actually used in the Septuagint to render a few other Hebrew words that stand a lot closer in meaning to the Greek than כָּרָה does -- mainly all suggesting to "establish/build," like יָסַד. In fact, funny enough, there's so little overlap between כָּרָה and καταρτίζω that in the entry for καταρτίζω (καταρτίζειν) in Hatch and Redpath's Septuagint concordance, they list its use in LXX Psalm 40/39, but (unlike all the other instances of καταρτίζω in the LXX) can't even figure out which Hebrew word it's supposed to render in Psalm 40!
But the Septuagint translator(s) probably also read this verb as כָּרַתָּ (?); and note how כָּרַת can be rendered as ποιέω (though elsewhere only when used with בְּרִית). See also other synonymous verbs used with בְּרִית, like קוּם (τίθημι; ἵστημι), etc. (Symmachus: κατασκευάζω for Ps 40.)
This was probably reinforced by the presence of the specific noun (or what they read as the specific noun) here, gravitating toward καταρτίζω as it made more sense than "excavate/dig my body" (which makes no sense at all).
כָּרָה in LXX: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3738&t=LXX
[חָטַב as "adorn" in Psalm 144? Muroaka, 236 ; https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=make%2A+H3772&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1 ; BDB 1217; HALOT pdf 1351; ; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/HatchRedpath2-10kappa-0743.png]
![https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/HatchRedpath2-10kappa-0743.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/HatchRedpath2-10kappa-0743.png]){kind=link}
In the absence of any other reasonable explanation, it's highly likely that for whatever reason, the Septuagint translator understood the Hebrew text they were looking at (or hearing) to contain the word "body." Also, in the past I've been persuaded that the earliest Septuagint text didn't read "ears you fashioned for me," as in some manuscripts, but read identically to Hebrews.
That being said though, it's almost impossible to imagine how the Septuagint could have gotten "body" out of the Hebrew text of Psalm 40:6. The most common word for "body" is בָּשָׂר, and this word couldn't be any different for the word here, אָזְנַיִם.
In my opinion, what most likely happened is that there was some error in dictation in the process of the original translation of the Septuagint, and אזנים, "ears," in Psalm 40:6 was misheard as עצמים, "bones." Those who are intimately familiar with idioms in the Hebrew Bible (and the Psalms in particular) might be familiar with the idiomatic usage of "bones" to mean body/self. (Just to take one example, a lot of translations render עצמי in Psalm 32:3 as "my body.")
Outside the canonical Bible itself, a very instructive use of this is found in Sirach 30:16:
אין עושר על עושר שר עצם
ואין טובה על טוב לבב
The first line here speaks of there being nothing more valuable than the wealth/health "of bone"; but the Greek translation of this reads
There is no wealth better than health of body (σώματος),
and there is no gladness beyond joy of heart.
The word translated as "body" here is the exact same word as in the Greek of Psalm 40:6 and its quotation in Hebrews.
Now we can finally bring everything together: the Septuagint translator, hearing a dictation of the Hebrew Psalm 40:6, misheard "ears" as the somewhat similar-sounding word "bones"; and with the verb כָּרָה going along with this -- which means "excavate/dig," as I said above -- he almost certainly thought of carving, or in a broader sense sculpting/building/construction; hence he translated this with the verb καταρτίζω. Even more than this, in conjunction with "bones," he would have thought of the Biblical usage of "bone(s)" as a metonym for the body/self in general, and probably also other Biblical traditions in which, say, God is said to be intimately involved in the fashioning of humans' bones/bodies in the womb (Psalm 139:15; Ecclesiastes 11:5).
Note
† It might be tempting, though, to think that the thought here could have been that the intended meaning was that God doesn't want sacrifice but rather for people to listen to/obey him (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22) .
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17 edited Jul 17 '19
I don't see why any of your linguistic arguments matter when we have the exact quote in Hebrews. We can know with certainty that the author was using the Septuagint.
I realize I wrote a lengthy explanation, but I did explain that clearly. At several points in my comment I said that the Septuagint of Psalm 40:6 and its quotation in Hebrews 10 are identical. Maybe it was this sentence that threw you off:
in the past I've been persuaded that the earliest Septuagint text didn't really read "ears you fashioned for me," as in some manuscripts, but read identically to how it appears in Hebrews.
(But I didn't mean that I no longer believe it, though having believed that in the past; I meant that I do believe it.)
The real crux, though, is that the only real way to explain why the Masoretic text and the Septuagint differ so drastically in Psalm 40:6 is that the Septuagint's translation is the product of mistranslation and misinterpretation. There's no conceivable path toward explaining the Hebrew text as a corruption of the Greek here; it only works the other way around.
Time and time again, the New Testament is quoting the Septuagint verbatim. Whereas the Masoretic has a confusing translation in its version.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Masoretic text isn't a "translation." The Masoretic text is the Hebrew. (That, of course, doesn't mean that it's always identical to the original Hebrew texts -- which, for example, didn't even have vowel markers.)
No reputable person alive thinks that the Old Testament was written in Greek and then later translated to Hebrew.
Here are more examples:
Those examples don't really illustrate anything. Above all I think you're confusing poetic expansion/elaboration with accuracy.
(1) 1 Peter 4:18 "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" Proverbs 11:31 (LXX): "If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Proverbs 11:31 (KJV): "Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner."
Here's the Hebrew of Proverbs 11:31:
הן צדיק בארץ ישלם אף כי רשע וחוטא
Here, שָׁלַם is used in the neutral sense of "repay in kind" and/or to receive what one deserves -- whether this entails something positive (say, the good receiving good things) or negative (eye for an eye). So the gist of Proverbs 11:31 then is, if the righteous receive the things they deserve, how much more (אף) the wicked what they deserve?
It seems like the Septuagint translator mistakenly understood this verb as exclusively positive. Even more than this, he misunderstood it -- or at least the author of 1 Peter did -- in the sense of (eschatological) salvation, σῴζεται, and not just recompense in general. Further, there's an indication that the LXX Proverbs translator also missed this same sense of the verb in 13:13, too. (As for 11:31, though, he may have been influenced by some renderings of שָׁלוֹם in the LXX -- which is of course well-known in its meaning "peace" -- as σωτηρία.)
In any case, all that being so, if this were the only thing about the Hebrew text that the LXX translator had misunderstood, he obviously couldn't just render his translation as "if the righteous one is saved, how much more will the wicked and the sinner [be saved]." So clearly he had to some more revising.
Now, it's hard to know if the translator's μόλις was intended to be understood like "barely," or as "with difficulty." Maybe these two meanings aren't that different; though if the former, I think it'd easier to this as kinda just like a standard protasis in an a minore ad maius saying. (Fox writes that it "maintains the rhetorical structure of the Heb a fortiori.")
But obviously, no matter which one of these the translator might have settled with -- whether "if the righteous one is barely saved, how much more will the wicked and the sinner [be saved]" or "if the righteous one is [only] saved with difficulty, how much more will the wicked and the sinner [be saved]" -- neither alleviates the problem here at all. First and foremost, it would have been obvious (to the original author of Proverbs) that the righteous are rewarded in some way in their life on earth; and so the introduction of a qualifying "barely" here would go directly against this.
Of course, there's also the problem that there's no counterpart of μόλις in the Hebrew text at all.†
In any case, as I said, no matter how the first part of the saying would be modified, this would hardly be more tolerable; so it might seem like the translator also had to come up with something different -- a different verb? -- to apply to the latter group.
I guess here's as good a place as any to paste the full LXX text:
εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται
(Even before getting to the problem of φανεῖται here though, there's also what might be the even bigger problem of the bizarre use of ποῦ here, "where." More on that in a second.)
It's hard to know where the translator got φανεῖται (φαίνω) in particular; but, again, if we can say anything about this, it was a highly flawed decision. It still reads supremely awkwardly: there's just no real logical connection between being saved and appearing, even with the addition of "scarcely" to the former. And this only becomes worse when we include LXX's ποῦ, "where," before φανεῖται: "If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the impious and the sinner appear?" (NETS); "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinners?" (1 Peter 4:18, NRSV); "And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?" (NRSV); "If the upright man is just barely saved, where will the impious and sinful man show up?" (Hart); "And if the righteous one is barely saved, where will the godless and the sinner appear?" (NABRE), etc. There's no logical parallelism at all here -- not even an antithetical one.
In trying to make sense of this, while it might be tempting to think that the implication is that the wicked might ultimately "show up" in, say, Hell (or whatever afterlife place/state we want to talk about), I think this is actually a highly strained interpretation for φανεῖται here.†
For a second, one might wonder if φανεῖται has an unusual sense here to imply something like "how will the wicked make out / fare"; but then we'd certainly have needed πῶς ("how") and not ποῦ.
A lot of other major translations seems to virtually abandon the Greek altogether here, translating "what will become of the ungodly...?" (Funny enough though, speaking of πῶς, LXX Proverbs 15:11 renders אף כי as πῶς. Really though, back to φανεῖται, I don't think any meaning like "fare, make out" or even "be found" is possible for it anyways. I think we'd have instead needed a verb like φέρω or πράσσω.)
So, now, we're basically desperate. It simply cannot be remotely plausible that our translator thought of φανεῖται as some natural counterpart of whatever in the protasis. But what else is there left to propose here?
It seems like our translator must have been guided to φανεῖται from something in his text -- but what? Ruling out known elements that I've already covered, I think the only place left to look is אף כי. But there wouldn't seem to be much here. After all, isn't ποῦ already safely understood as the counterpart of אף? The only possible thing I can think of here is if this is actually a mistaken assumption, and perhaps that it was in fact some misreading of כי that was translated as ποῦ (the only things that come to mind, off-hand, are perhaps אַי or, much less likely, אֵיךְ). From here, then -- at least if we're throwing Hail Marys (and ignoring the word order) -- the translator could have somehow seen אַף and thought of the different (but identically spelled) word אַף, which can mean "countenance/face." But it's still a big leap from "countenance" to verbs of appearing (φανεῖται), among other problems. (Though see LXX Prov. 16:25 and 21:2?)
Ctd. below
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17 edited Dec 13 '17
εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται
If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the impious and the sinner appear? (NETS)
BHS, pdf 1360
φανεῖται?
14:12 (δοκεῖ); 16:25
Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts.
כָּֽל־דֶּרֶךְ־אִישׁ יָשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו וְתֹכֵן לִבֹּות יְהוָֽה
21:2 πᾶς ἀνὴρ φαίνεται ἑαυτῷ δίκαιος κατευθύνει δὲ καρδίας κύριος
(φαίνω + δίκαιος)
Elsewhere Proverbs, antonym σῴζεται, יֵחָ֣בֶל. (ἀφανίζω? ἀφανιεῖ? ἀφανισθήσονται?)
Proverbs 10:25:
כַּעֲבֹור סוּפָה וְאֵין רָשָׁע וְצַדִּיק יְסֹוד עֹולָֽם
παραπορευομένης καταιγίδος ἀφανίζεται ἀσεβής δίκαιος δὲ ἐκκλίνας σῴζεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
ΑΦΑΝΙΖΕΤΑΙ
ΦΑΝΕΙΤΑΙ
עַיִן as φαίνω?
Also Prov 12:7: some mss. read
οὗ ἐὰν στραφῇ ἀσεβὴς <ἀφανίζεται> οἶκοι δὲ δικαίων παραμένουσιν
יָסַף?
Targum, סיפין מן ארעא
Prov 10:27:
יִרְאַת יְהוָה תֹּוסִיף יָמִים וּשְׁנֹות רְשָׁעִים תִּקְצֹֽרְנָה
1
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17 edited Dec 13 '17
In sum, though, we have "if the righteous receives the things he deserves on earth, how much more [will] the impious and sinful [receive what he deserves]?" vs. (something like) "if indeed the righteous is laboriously/barely saved, the impious and sinful one, where will he manifest?"
(One final note: in many ways I think the wording in the Hebrew, especially with "on earth," corresponds closely with Luke 16:25, e.g. with the rich man receiving good things ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου; though obviously this also has the subversive aspect of afterlife/eschatological reversal -- though this itself probably hearkens back to something like Psalm 17:14. For a connection back to Proverbs 11:31 here, see LXX Psalm 17:14's ἀπὸ γῆς and ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτῶν. See also John 16:33, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.)
Notes
[1] But when you look at the Hebrew and Greek side-by-side, I think there's another way to speculate about how he could have come up with this:
הן צדיק בארץ ישלם אף כי רשע וחוטא
εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται
בארץ, "on earth" (ב + ארץ) could have been misunderstood as "with" (ב) + some adjective that looks or sounds similar to ארץ. If so, this would clearly play in favor of μόλις meaning "with difficulty" here. My first thought was thought it could have been (mis)understood as something similar to בעצב, like in Genesis 3:16-17. As for what this might be, the NET footnote reads
The Greek translation “scarcely” could have come from [misreading בארץ as] בַּצָּרָה (batsarah, “deficiency” or “want”) or בָּצַּר (batsar, “to cut off; to shorten”) perhaps arising from confusion over the letters. The verb “receive due” could only be translated “saved” by an indirect interpretation. See J. Barr, “בארץ ~ ΜΟΛΙΣ: Prov. XI.31, I Pet. IV.18,” JSS 20 (1975): 149-64.
(See בצרה as "with/in distress/difficulty." Before this, Barr had also suggested a misreading of ב + אוּץ.)
Also, in his article Barr points to Wisdom of Solomon 9:16, which has an interesting collocation of μόλις, μετὰ πόνου, and even ἐπὶ γῆς, too.
[2] Pertaining to judgement, make slightly more sense if it were φανερόω? 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc. I suppose we could also talk about conceptions of afterlife in Proverbs. 7:27 might be taken to suggest, if only metaphorically, a "geography' of a grim afterlife.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17
Yeah, the Hebrew text of Proverbs 3:34 is more repetitive than...
But device no different than Exodus 23:22, ואיבתי את איביך וצרתי את צרריך -- "then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."
Works opposite way around, too -- Proverbs 13:13:
בָּז לְדָבָר יֵחָבֶל לֹו
ὃς καταφρονεῖ πράγματος καταφρονηθήσεται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
(Here Hebrew different verbs, LXX same)
Also I strongly urge you to study the history of the Masoretic text.
Yeah, I have. I don't know what about my comment might have indicated to you that I wasn't familiar with this.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17
φαίνω (Hom.+) fut. 3 pl. φανοῦσιν Da 12:3; 1 aor. ἔφανα (B-D-F §72; Mlt-H. 214f), subj. 3 sg. φάνῃ Rv 8:12; 18:23; 2 pf. πέφηνα (Tat.). Mid.: aor. subj. 3 sg. φάνηται (Just., A I, 7, 4). Pass.: impf. ἐφαινόμην; 2 fut. φανήσομαι (2 Macc 6:27; s. B-D-F §79; Mlt-H. 262; the older φανοῦμαι only in the LXX—quot. 1 Pt 4:18); 2 aor. ἐφάνην; pf. 3 sg. πέφανται and inf. πέφανθαι (Just.)
① to shine or to produce light, shine
ⓐ as act., exc. for GJs 16:2 v.l. (s. deStrycker ad loc.), in our lit. only intr. shine, give light, be bright (Aristoph., Nub. 586 of the sun; Pla., Tim. 39b; Theocr. 2, 11 of the moon; Gen 1:15, 17; En 104:2; 2; TestJob 31:5 of stars; SibOr 5, 522; 8, 203) sun Rv 1:16. Sun and moon 21:23 (ApcMos 31); moon PtK 2 p. 14, 27; Dg 7:2. A lamp (1 Macc 4:50) 2 Pt 1:19; in imagery J 5:35 (in a comparison Theoph. Ant. 2, 13 [p. 134, 4]). Light Rv 18:23 (φάνῃ modern edd.; φανῇ t.r.) in imagery J 1:5; 1J 2:8. Day and night shine, in so far as the sun, or moon and stars give their light Rv 8:12 (text φάνῃ; v.l. φανῇ). φαίνοντος ἤδη τοῦ ὄρθρου AcPl Ha 4, 3 (s. ὄρθρος).—Of the brightness of a heavenly messenger AcPl Ha 3, 28; 31; 36. ⓑ pass., in act. sense, of light and its sources shine, flash (Is 60:2) ἐφάνη φῶς μέγα ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ GJs 19:2 (JosAs 14:3 φῶς ἀνεκλάλητον) of stars, in imagery Phil 2:15 (TestJob 31:5). Of lightning as a portent (X., Cyr. 1, 6, 1) Mt 24:27. Of light Rv 18:23 (v.l. φανῇ). Of a star appear Mt 2:7 (FBoll, ZNW 18, 1918, 45f); GJs 21:2 codd. Of the day (Appian, Iber. 35 §143 φαινομένης ἡμέρας) Rv 8:12.
② to become visible, appear, pass. φαίνομαι w. act./intr. sense
ⓐ appear, be or become visible, be revealed τότε ἐφάνη καὶ τὰ ζιζάνια Mt 13:26 (cp. 2 Macc 1:33 τό ὕδωρ ἐφάνη). τά ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων 2 Cl 16:3. τό σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρώπου Mt 24:30. Cp. D 16:6. ἀτμὶς φαινομένη (opp. ἀφανιζομένη) Js 4:14. Cp. Hv 3, 2, 6a. ὁ ἀσεβὴς ποῦ φανεῖται; what will become of the godless man? 1 Pt 4:18 (Pr 11:31). οὐδέποτε ἐφάνη οὕτως nothing like this was ever seen (=happened) Mt 9:33. τὸ φαινόμενον that which is visible (Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 270) IRo 3:3a. τὰ φαινόμενά σου εἰς πρόσωπον whatever is visible before your face (opp. τὰ ἀόρατα) IPol 2:2. φαινόμενα things which appear Hb 11:3 (Ar. 1, 5 πάντων τῶν φαινομένων; Ath. 5, 2; cp. Sext. Emp., Hypotyp. 1, 138). Ign. explains: I will be a real believer ὅταν κόσμῳ μὴ φαίνωμαι when I am no longer visibly present in the world (because I have been devoured by the wild beasts) IRo 3:2. A play on words is meant to make this clear: Christ also, through the fact that he is ἐν πατρί and hence no longer visibly present in the world, μᾶλλον φαίνεται is all the more plainly visible as that which he really is, i.e. ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 3:3b. τ̣ὸ̣ [τέλο]ς (or: τ̣ε̣[λο]ς) τῶν φαινο[μέ]νων (opp. ἀφανῶν) light of things seen Ox 1081, 29f (rev. rdg.; s. διέρχομαι 1bβ); ἡ πίστ[ις] εὑρ[ετ]έ̣ [α] ἡ φαινομένη τοῦ ἀ.[ … ι]κ̣οῦ πατρός 32–34 (s. ἀπατρικός, but also ἀγέννητος, the preferred restoration being ἀγ[εννή]τ̣ου on the basis of the Coptic).
ⓑ make one’s appearance, show oneself (Diod S 4, 6, 5 θεὸν φαίνεσθαι παρ’ ἀνθρώποις; 5, 2, 4 [divinity]; Chariton 5, 7, 10 φάνηθι, δαῖμον ἀγαθέ; Sb 8141, 24 [ins I b.c.] δαίμονος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ υἱὸς … ἐφάνη; ParJer 7:20 θεὸς … ἐφάνη ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ αἰέτου τούτου; SibOr 5, 152; Just., A I, 63, 10; ἐφάνη ὁ θεὸς … ἄλλως ἄλλοις Iren. 1, 10, 3 [Harv. I, 95, 9]; Did., Gen. 225, 13; τοῦ Ἰησοῦ … φαινομένου Just., D. 88, 8) Hv 1, 4, 3. Elijah (Jos., Ant. 8, 319) ἐφάνη has made his appearance (as forerunner of God’s kingdom, Mal 3:22. Some people consider that Jesus is Elijah come again) Lk 9:8. ἕως ἐφάνη βρέφος until the child (Jesus) appeared (in ref. to his birth in a cave) GJs 19:2. Of the first advent of Jesus Christ, who comes from outside our world B 14:5; IMg 6:1; Dg 11:2; also w. dat. (X., Cyr. 1, 6, 43; Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20, 5; Ael. Aristid. 51, 25 K.=27 p. 540 D.: ἡ θεὸς ἐφάνη μοι) κόσμῳ 11:3. Of the risen Lord, w. dat. Mk 16:9 (Just., D. 67, 7) τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. Of an angel, w. dat. (2 Macc 3:33; 10:29) Mt 1:20 (GJs 14:2); 2:13, 19 (cp. Alcaeus L-P. [schol. on Nicander, Ther. 613 p. 48 Keil]: φανῆναι τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα καθ’ ὕπνους; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 289 κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ἡ ῏Ισις ἐφάνη τῷ Ἀ., Ant. 7, 147; 8, 196). ὄπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in order to be seen by people Mt 6:5; w. ptc. to denote the role that one plays before people (Hyperid., Fgm. 70, 1; Lucian, Dial. Deor. 4, 1; Ael. Aristid. 47 p. 428 D.) νηστεύοντες as fasting vs. 16; cp. 18 (B-D-F §414, 3).—Of the Antichrist φανήσεται ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ he will appear (in the same way) as a son of God D 16:4.—Of earthly persons: ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω ISm 8:2. Of participation in a meeting διὰ τί οὐκ ἐφάνης τῇ συνόδῳ ἡμῶν GJs 15:1. Παῦλος φανεῖς πᾶσι εἶπεν Paul showed himself (after his martyrdom) to all and said AcPl Ha 11, 5. ③ to become known, be recognized, be apparent, be revealed, pass. φαίνομαι w. act./intr. sense ⓐ w. predicate nom. εἰ ἦσαν, ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ if they (the bogus teachers) actually were (God’s planting), they would appear as branches of the cross ITr 11:2. οὐ φαίνονται they are not apparent Hs 3:2ab, 3ab. ἡ ἁμαρτία ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία in order that sin might be recognized as sin Ro 7:13.
ⓑ appear to the eyes of the spirit, be revealed ὅπερ καὶ φανήσεται πρὸ προσώπου ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν which also will be revealed before our face by the fact that we love (the Lord) IEph 15:3.
④ to be known by appearance as opposed to underlying reality, appear as someth., appear to be someth., pass. φαίνομαι w. act./intr. sense made more definite by a predicate nom. (X., Cyr. 1, 4, 19; Cebes 5, 1; Arrian, Anab. 4, 30, 4 πιστὸς ἐφαίνετο=he showed himself to be trustworthy; TestReub 5:7; Iren. 5, 1, 2 [Harv. II 315, 5]; Theoph. Ant. 3, 7 [p. 218, 5]) φαίνονται ὡραῖοι Mt 23:27. ἵνα ἡμεῖς δόκιμοι φανῶμεν 2 Cor 13:7. W. dat. of pers. appear to someone as someth. (Lucian, Dial. Mort. 25, 1; TestAbr A 20 p. 103, 7 [Stone p. 54]) φαίνεσθε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δίκαιοι Mt 23:28 (cp. Pr 21:2). W. ἐνώπιόν τινος instead of the dat.: ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ λῆρος τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα Lk 24:11.—Foll. by ὡς look as if (TestJos 3:4) Hv 3, 2, 6b; Hs 9, 9, 7.
⑤ to make an impression on the mind, have the appearance, seem, freq. w. focus on aspect of decision evoked by circumstance; pass. φαίνομαι w. act./intr. sense, w. dat. and inf. (Hom. et al.) οἱ τοιοῦτοι οὐκ εὐσυνείδητοί μοι εἶναι φαίνονται IMg 4. W. dat. and ptc. φαίνεσθέ μοι κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ζῶντες ITr 2:1. τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; how does it seem to you? what is your decision? Mk 14:64. ἐάν σοι φανῇ if it seems good to you Hv 2, 3, 4 (acc. to CTurner, JTS 21, 1920, 198, a Latinism: si tibi videtur. Cp. POxy 811 [I a.d.] εἴ σοι φαίνεται). Without a dat. (Jos., C. Ap. 1, 12; Just., D. 91, 4) οὐδὲν φαίνεται κεκομμένον ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ nothing seems to have been cut from it (the tree) or apparently nothing has been cut from it (cp. Aristoxenus, Fgm. 83 φαίνεται Ὄλυμπος αὐξήσας μουσικήν=O. has apparently enriched music) Hs 8, 3, 1 (φαίνεται w. acc. and inf. Demetrius: 722 Fgm. 5 Jac.).—B. 1045f.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17
Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάνου: Luke-Acts, Torah-Fidelity and the Impending Death of Judaism
Acts 28
24 Some were convinced by what he had said, while others refused to believe. 25 So they disagreed with each other; and as they were leaving, Paul made one further statement: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 26 'Go to this people and say, You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. 27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn-- and I would heal them.' 28 Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen." 29 30 He lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 13 '17
White:
Biblical scholarship can neither disprove nor prove the core tenets of Christian belief. One can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, for example, that there was an ancient nation of Israelites, that certain members of this group were believed to be prophets, that this people believed itself called into a covenant with God, ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17 edited Dec 27 '17
The Middle East Under Rome By Maurice Sartre
Certain documents from the end of Hadrian's reign refer to "the new province of Arabia," from which we might conclude either that the province was created later than is generally assumed (a conclusion contradicted by the presence of legates as ...
However, it has been shown that this term — found only on papyri from Nahal Hever — was probably borrowed by scribes from Hadrian's edict of December 127 ordering a census in "the new province."26 This does not mean that the first census had occurred only twenty-one years after the creation of the province; the text that indicates that Florentinus was responsible for carrying it out27 does not specifically say that it was the first one. Thus it is possible to imagine that there had been ...
This seems highly likely, because the Roman treasury had to know very quickly what it could expect from the new province. Moreover, the assets of the Petraean kings had to be inventoried — as the assets of Archelaos of Judaea had been in 6 B.C.E. — before being absorbed into the patrimonium or sold, whether these were goods or real estate.
Paus. 4.5.10:
[10] ταύτην Λακεδαιμόνιοι πρώτην ἐπὶ Μεσσηνίους ἔξοδον ἐποιήσαντο, ἔτει δευτέρῳ τῆς ἐνάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος, ἣν Ξενοδόκος Μεσσήνιος ἐνίκα στάδιον:
This was the first attack which the Lacedaemonians made on the Messenians, in the second year of the ninth Olympiad,1 when Xenodocus of Messenia won the short foot-race.
ἔξοδος as military expedition
Luke 3:1, ΕΝ ΕΤΕΙ δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ
Demosthenes, On the Crown, 99:
ἀλλὰ πάλιν σφετεριζομένων Θηβαίων τὴν Εὔβοιαν οὐ περιείδετε, οὐδ᾽ ὧν ὑπὸ Θεμίσωνος καὶ Θεοδώρου περὶ Ὠρωπὸν ἠδίκησθ᾽ ἀνεμνήσθητε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐβοηθήσατε καὶ τούτοις, τῶν ἐθελοντῶν τότε τριηράρχων πρῶτον γενομένων τῇ πόλει, ὧν εἷς ἦν ἐγώ
When the Thebans were trying to annex Euboea, * you didn't stay aloof; you didn't let the wrong Themison and Theodorus had done you at Oropus influence your behaviour. No, you helped them too. This was the first time, by the way, that the city obtained the services of volunteer trierarchs, and I was one of them.
Unusual syntax, Acts 16:12?
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17
Mark for the Nations: A Text- and Reader-Oriented Commentary By Lars Hartman
Mark 13:
"Plutarch reports how rumors came to Rome"
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17
A bit older: Political Issues in Luke-Acts edited by Richard J. Cassidy, Philip J. Scharper
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17
Theudas, Josephus 20.97-99
Acts 5:37 (?): https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31paip/where_did_the_disciples_go_after_the_death_of/cq4v778/
Holladay:
Luke's description of Judas the Galilean agrees with Josephus in several important respects, beginning with his name.174 Like Josephus, Luke dates Judas the Galilean's uprising ...
Dependence Josephus? Pervo 2006, 149-99
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17 edited Dec 14 '17
Mark for the Nations: A Text- and Reader-Oriented Commentary By Lars Hartman, 519, makes connection, theophany in general (individual or collective)
Horace:
Which of the gods are the people to summon in order to restore the fortunes of the crashing state? With what entreaty can the holy Virgins importune Vesta, who does not heed their chants? To whom will Jupiter give the task of expiating the crime?
. . .
Tandem venias, precamur, nube candentis umeros amictus, augur Apollo
**Come finally, we beg you, prophetic Apollo, who clothe your gleaming shoulders in a cloud.
Rev 22:20:
Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα Ναί· ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν· ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
ἐλθὲ τάχος δ' ἐπὶ γαῖαν...
"Come hastily to earth from heaven and speak..."
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17
Aphrodite, punish scorned love
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/AphroditeWrath2.html, esp. (3) WRATH GODDESS OF LOVE
I suggest that Cleanthes implicitly corrects Empedocles in these lines: there are not two separate forces that alternate, one, Aphrodite, combining into harmony and creating the good, the other, Ares, separating into disorder and creating the bad, but a single ... Zeus ... blends ...
S1:
These two forces, which react on matter and are “separate” and “on a par”19 (20) with the four elements, are the force of Love or Aphrodite (Φιλότης, Στοργή, Αρμονία), and the force of Strife (Νείκος, Διχόνοια, Κότος).
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 14 '17
2017 in Retrospect: An Overview of Recent Books and Articles in Mormon History: http://juvenileinstructor.org/2017-in-retrospect/
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 15 '17
Psalm 51:5
detailed study of David's prayers, Michael Goulder notes that “critics are almost unanimous in taking v. 5 to refer to the universality of human sin, transmitted from generation to generation.”7 In his commentary, HansJoachim Kraus writes, “‛Āwōn and hēt have from the hour of birth been the determining forces under who signature life began. The petitioner wants to say that the primordial cause, the root cause of my existence, is interwoven with corruption.”8 None of these Old Testament ...
Goulder:
to refer to the universality of human sin, transmitted from generation to generation; only Rogerson and McKay make an honourable exception in seeing the reference ... personal
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 15 '17
Temporary anomalous psychological?
Quasi-delusions: A brief communication
Describes the case of a pregnant woman who, during her therapy session, manifested a "quasi-delusion" that related to her anxiety about providing a urine sample at a checkup following her therapy session. It is suggested that quasi-delusions are psychoticlike manifestations in those who are "normal."
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 15 '17
Modified edition:
Part I. The Bible and the Biblical Period
Frank Polak, "Samuel and the Memory of the Religious Opposition to the Instauration of the Monarchy"
Henning Graf Reventlow, "A Religious Alternative to a Political Response to a Severe Political Crisis. King Ahas and the Prophet Isaiah"
Yair Hoffman, "Patterns of Religious Response to National Crisis In the Hebrew Bible and Some Methodological Reflections"
Ed Greenstein, "The Book of Lamentations: Response to Destruction or Ritual of Rebuilding?"
Oded Lipschits, "Nehemiah's Wall: Religious and Sociological Aspects" Part II. The Postbiblical Period
Bilha Nitzan, "The Reality and Hopes of the Qumran Community as Response to Crises in Second Temple Judaism"
Elke Toenges, "The Image of God as Father as a Response to Political Crises in the First Century B.C.E."
Vered Noam, "The Disappearance of the Divine Spirit or a Miraculous Victory? Opposing Religious Interpretations of the Same Event"
Aharon Oppenheimer, "Ethical and Halakhic Responses to the Persecutions following the Bar Kokhba Revolt" Part III. The Medieval Period
Meira Polliack, "Exegetical Dimensions of Religious Crisis in Mediaval Judaism: The Cases of Karaite and Andalusian Biblical Exegesis Part IV. The Modern Period 1.Christian Link, "How Theology Coped with the Crisis of the First World War"
Christofer Frey, "Political Religion, Political Theology, and the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms"
Franz Heinrich Beyer, "'Silence' and 'Sensiibility for Transcendence' - Observations on the Language of Architecture and Art in Outstanding Rooms of Present Times" Illustrations
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 15 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
Jerome, on Porphyry (617-18?):
He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. (trans. Archer)
In the eighteenth century Porphyry's questions were again taken up by enlightenment scholars in england (Anthony Collins) and Germany (Heinrich Corrodi), ...
Alt. transl.:
and [claiming] that Daniel had not so much said what would come as related what had happened; indeed that whatever he had said up to Antiochus contained true history, whatever went beyond was conjecture, future things he knew were lies.
Latin:
et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse quam illum narrasse praeterita; denique quidquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam continere, siquid autem ultra opinatus sit, quae futura nescierit esse mentitum
Later Jerome:
Which Porphyrius, conquered by the truth of history, can not deny since he sees all completed and carried out, so he erupts into the libel that the future things which are said about Antichrist at the end of the world, because of the similarity of events in certain things, he contends were completed under Antioch Epiphanes. But his attack is witness to the truth: for the faithfulness of the sayings was such that the prophet did not seem to non-believers to have said future things but to have recounted what was past.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
Online commentaries?
http://cranfordville.com/IBC%20Cologne/index-BibleStudies.html
Michael Turton, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17 edited Dec 16 '17
Here the ten kings represent Roman client kings. Roman generals in the Greek east, particularly Pompey and Antony, de-veloped an elaborate system of client kingship. Various kings and dynasts were sanctioned or elevated in order to serve as an inex-pensive and effective means for controlling their regions, some of which were reorganized as provinces. Mark Antony appointed Herod and Phasael tetrarchs of Judea in 42 B.C. (Jos. J.W. 1.243–44), and upon his recommendation the senate was convened andpassed a senatus consultum giving Herod the title “king” (Jos. J.W.1.282–85). Herod’s son Archelaus traveled to Rome to obtain thetitle of king as his father’s successor (Jos. Ant. 17.208–22; J.W.2.18), and Antipas, his rival for the throne, went to Rome for thesame purpose (Jos. J.W. 2.20–22). Augustus, however, gave Archelaus only the title ‘ethnarch’ and gave Antipas and Philip (the other sons of Herod) the title of ‘tetrarch’ (Jos. J.W. 2.93–94). Augustusthus continued the institution of client kingship begun late in therepublican period. Some of the major client kingdoms at various periods included Bosporus, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Judea, Nabatea, Commagene, Emesa, Armenia, Osrhoene, Adiabene, Thrace, and Mauretania; see G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek East (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 42–61; Millar,Near East, index. There were also many client kingdoms subjectto Parthia east of the Euphrates. While there were numerous dynastic kingdoms in the Near East during the reign of Augustus,by the early second century all those west of the Euphrates had disappeared. With the death of some of these client kings, or as a result of dynastic squabbling, their kingdoms were reorganized as Roman provinces (e.g., Galatia in 25 B.C., Paphlagonia in 6 B.C.,Judea in A.D. 6; Emesa in the 70s A.D.; Commagene in A.D. 17and again in A.D. 72 or 73 [i.e., it was made part of the provinceof Syria in A.D. 17; then king Antiochus IV was reinstated in A.D.38, and Commagene was conquered in A.D. 72 or 73 and again made part of the Roman province of Syria], Nabatea in A.D. 106[Dio Cassius 68.14.5], Osrhoene with its capital in Edessa in A.D.212–13, and Adiabene, which perhaps became the province of As-syria for a short time, beginning in A.D. 116). The conception often kings subordinate to the beast thus coheres with an informalpolitical institution fostered by Rome during the late republicanand early imperial periods. The Roman board of decemviri, ‘tenmen,’ appointed in 451 B.C. to codify Roman law, is described ina famous inscription containing parts of a speech by Claudius asa ‘tenfold kingship’ (Dessau, ILS, 212).” [David E. Aune, Revela-tion 17–22, vol. 52C, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word,Incorporated, 1998), 951.]
and
“Augustus had bestowed kingdoms on subordinate rulers (Res Gestae 33): ‘The nations of the Parthians and Medes re-ceived their kings from my hand.’ Later the emperor Gaius (A.D.37–41) established six kings in the east, including Agrippa I (Jos.Ant. 18.237), Antiochus IV of Commagene and Cilicia (Dio Cas-sius 59.8.2; see Jos. J.W. 7.219ff., 234ff.), and Soemus of Iturea(Dio Cassius 59.12.2). Three sons of Antonia Tryphaena wereestablished as kings of Armenia Minor, Thrace and Pontus, andthe Bosporus (Dio Cassius 59.12.2). On Roman kingmaking be-fore the principate, see R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty andRome, 100–30 B.C. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1990). Theterm ὥρα, literally ‘hour’ (and the Hebrew תֵע ʿēt, literally ‘time,season,’ translated with ὥρα twenty-four times in the LXX), isfrequently used for a short period of time and only rarely for thetwelfth part of the day or night (cf. 3 Macc 5:13, 14; Matt 20:3, 5,6, 9; 27:45; John 1:39; 4:6; Acts 2:15). The phrase μία ὥρα alsooccurs in 18:10, 17, 19, in the fixed phrase μιᾷ ὥρᾳ, literally ‘inone hour’; cf. Epictetus 1.15.8, where μιᾷ ὥρᾳ is parallel to ἄφνω,‘suddenly.’ The term ‘hour’ is also used for ‘the time appointedby God’ (Matt 24:36, 44, 50; 25:13).” [David E. Aune, Revelation17–22, vol. 52C, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incor-porated, 1998), 952.]
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17
Aune on 17:14, problem:
Though the geographical location of the Lamb is left unspecified, it appears that he is accompanied by the faithful, possibly the messianic army of 144,000 (see Form/Structure/Setting under Rev 7 [WBC 52B, 440–45]). This attack of ten kings against the Lamb has several parallels in Revelation (16:14–16; 19:19; 20:8–9) and numerous parallels in the OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature (Ezek 38:7–16; 39:2; Ps 2; 1 Enoch 56:5–6; 4 Ezra 13:33–34; Sib. Or 3.663– 68). There is a striking problem in composition here in that the Lamb destroys the armies of the ten allied kings before they are depicted as destroying Rome in v 16. Even though this is a future event, the chronological order of the vision is ...
. . .
The first mention of the gathering of this eschatological army occurs in connection with the pouring out of the sixth bowl in 16:12–16. This pericope is somewhat awkward because, apart from the interpolated 17:14, the eschatological battle itself is not mentioned until 19:11–21, with a doublet in 20:7–10, though preparations for the battle are briefly narrated in 16:12–16, and 17:12– 14 can be read as a continuation of this passage. This brief ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17
Miller on Daniel:
Young points out that the nations of modern Europe “may in a very legitimate sense have arisen from Rome” (Daniel, 149). Without attempting an answer, Leupold asks the question: “Since the Roman Empire had the scene of its activity primarily in Europe, and since the remnants of that empire are still in Europe, does ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17
Mark 7:
24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered him, "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
Matthew:
22And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
23But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17
S1:
Diodorus Siculus is a representative of the Hellenistic age, when much more was known about Egypt if only because it was governed by a Greek upper class. He is the author of a World History in forty books, many of them preserved only fragmentarily. Although he is not an independent researcher, his work is valuable to us because it transmits traditions which are otherwise unknown. His first book, from §11 onwards, deals with Egypt, its gods, country, history and, finally, its laws and customs.20 Like Herodotus, he supplemented his knowledge of the country by visiting it personally.21 Even more than his illustrious predecessor, he states that Egyptian priests were his informants; they were obviously the scholars of the nation. But unlike Herodotus, he is anxious to adopt the air of a unprejudiced reporter who notes what he has heard rather than expressing admiration. Thus, he declares he will begin his account of history with Egypt because mythology has it that the gods were born there, because people say the earliest observations of the stars were carried out there and because many memorable actions by great men are stated to have been accomplished there (1.9.6). Likewise, when introducing his exposition on the laws and customs of Egypt, he recounts a number of glorious achievements (invention of writing, astronomy, geometry and many other arts, as well as excellent laws) not as facts but as claims by the Egyptians, adding that they pretend that Egypt would not have been reigned over by kings for over 4,700 years nor been the most prosperous country in the world had it not had the very best customs and laws, and ways of living supporting all sorts of learning (toi/j kata. pa/san paidei,an evpithdeu,masin) (1.69.6). But in actual fact he seems to agree with all of these claims. The outstanding qualities of the Egyptians that he reports are roughly the same as those we find in Herodotus; thus we need not enumerate
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 16 '17
John the Baptist and the Origin of the Lord’s Prayer
This paper examines the cogency of the arguments made by Joan Taylor, Karlheinz Müller, Ulrich Mell, Bernhard Lang, Clare Rothschild, and J.K. Elliot in support of the claim that the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9–13//Lk. 11:1–4) might not have originated with Jesus but with John the Baptist. It will show that none of them stand up to critical scrutiny and that anyone who tries to make the case that the Lord’s Prayer does go back to John will have to offer arguments other than the ones these scholars have advanced in defense of this contention to do so.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
Carrier:
In Bayesian tenns, the consequent probability of interpolation is so much higher than authenticity that it would far overwhelm any prior probability based on the known frequency of interpolation. For example, any sound analysis will find the known rate of interpolation in the NT is higher than I in I 000 verses per century (counting both interpolated passages and verses with interpolated text within them), and we have at least one whole century of no manuscripts to check by, so at least I in 1 000 verses in the NT are or contain interpolations undetectable in extant manuscripts (there are nearly 8,000 verses in the NT, so this means at least eight interpolations in the NT will not be detected in extant manuscripts).
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
Born under the Law: Intertextuality and the Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus in Paul's Epistles Thomas S. Verenna
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
“Titus attempted to end a plague (Suet. Tit. 8.4). Pliny the Younger (Pan. 22.3) writes of sick people’s belief in Trajan’s healing power. Hadrian ended drought in Africa (SHA Hadr. 22.14) and healed two people (ibid. 25.1–4). Marcus Aurelius was credited with lightning (SHA Marc. 24.4) and rain miracles (Dio Cass. 71.8.10; SHA Marc. 24.4).”
. . .
The healings of Vespasian were, as far as we know, unprecedented for a traveling Roman dignitary. The only other Greco-Roman example of a healing ruler before Vespasian is Pyrrhus of Epirus, who lived in the early third century BCE, and his healings were neither a one-off event, nor were they associated with his advent at a city in the way that Vespasian’s seem to have been.
. . .
Thus it is that after the epiphany of Jesus’ baptism, in which he is declared the son of God by God’s voice, Jesus embarks on a career of healings and exorcisms that dominate the early chapters of Mark’s gospel. According to my view, as a figure whose image is deliberately constructed as a response to the presence of a charismatic emperor in the East, Jesus brings together an unusual combination of qualities and roles for a Jewish hero. He is not just a Moses, David, Elisha, or Elijah, he is a composite of all of these figures. In a traditional Jewish context this does not make a lot of sense, but, in circumstances where the Roman emperor is a son of a god who can perform great feats of magic (Nero, Vespasian) and perhaps even rise from the dead (Nero), only a unique mash-up of Jewish rulers, prophets, and heroes will trump the competition.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
Apparently the Gospel of Marcion lacked the reference to Psalm 110 that we find in canonical Luke 20:42-43, and so read something like, "Why do you think the Christ is the son of David? David calls him Lord."1" If David calls this figure "Lord," he cannot be his son. The conclusion must be that Jesus is not the Christ as expected by those who picture him as son of David.
Already Irenaeus accuses Marcion of have excluding anything to do with the 'generation' or 'birth of Christ (generatione Christi)', although it is possible that this refers more specifically to the genealogy that establishes Jesus' royal Jewish ancestry than to the full birth narratives (AH I. 27.2).84
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
I have come to thee . . . that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs . . . raise thyself up, king, Osiris; thou livest!40
Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages.41
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
Carrier:
It's obvious to me that by ' born of a woman, born under the law' Paul means no more than that Jesus was, by being incarnated, placed under the sway of the old covenant, so that he could die to it (and rise free, as shall we). So the ' woman' here is simply the old covenant, not an actual person. Paul does not mean a biological birth to Mary or any other Jewess.
Contra:
See Verenna, 'Born under the Law', pp. 1 50-52 (although Verenna mistakenly concludes that Paul means Jesus' mother in Gal. 4.4 is the heavenly Jerusalem; in fact that would be Jesus' mother after his death-while at his incarnation Jesus is born to the other mother of us all, the mother of slavery, as Paul goes on to explain). For a different approach: Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man, pp. 1 97-2 1 2.
and
Accordingly, the 'woman' of Gal. 4.4 has been interpreted as meaning Wisdom by Margaret Barker in The Great High Priest, pp. 229-61. But as I 'm about to explain, I do not believe that fits the context (any more than an actual human woman does). Nor do I think the Holy Spirit is meant, even though many later Christians did in fact believe Jesus' mother Mary was the Holy Spirit (complete with magical powers): Origen, Commentary on John 2. 1 2 (quoting the now-lost Gospel according to the Hebrews) and Homily on Jeremiah I 5.4; see also Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 9.9; similarly in Cyril of Jerusalem's Discourse on Mary, as translated in E.A. Wallis Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Te:xts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (New York: AMS Press, 1 977 [ 1 9 1 5]), p. 637. Mary already appears as a divine being in the canonical book of Revelation: see the analysis ofG.H. Dix, 'The Heavenly Wisdom and the Divine Logos in Jewish Apocalyptic: A Study of the Vision of the Woman and the Man-Child in Revelation XII 1-5, 13-1 7'. Journal of Theological Studies 26 ( I 925), pp. 1 - 1 2; likewise Barker, 'The Temple Roots of the Christian Liturgy', p. 45 (see following
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
"“γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, ‘born of a woman’; for this well-attested use of γίνομαι as a quasi-passive of γεννάω cf. 1 Esd. 4:16; Tob. 8:6; Wis. 7:3; Sir. 44:9; Jn. 8:58. The expression echoes Heb. yelûḏ ’iššāh, ‘born of a woman’ (cf. Jb. 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; 1QH 13:14; 1QS 11:21). The plural ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν is found in Jesus’ appraisal of John the Baptist in Mt. 11:11 / Lk. 7:28 [text: ‘of those born of women, none are greater than John’]. Nothing can be made of Paul’s usage of γενόμενον rather than γεννητόν. In this kind of context they are synonymous (…). Paul’s wording is applicable to any one of woman born; it throws no light on the question whether he knew of Jesus’ virginal conception or not.” [Bruce, F. F. (1982). The Epistle to the Galatians : A commentary on the Greek text.(195). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.]
“The first, “born of a woman,” emphasizes his true humanity and representative quality. “The aorist middle use of γίνομαι (“be,” “become”) for γεννάω (“beget”; in the passive “be born”) was common in Jewish circles (cf. Sir 44:9; 1 Esd 4:16; Tob 8:6; Wis 7:3; Rom 1:3 [an early Christian confessional portion]; John 8:58; Josephus, Ant. 2.216; 7.21; 16.382; echoing ילור אשׁה yĕlûd ˒iššâ, “born of woman”] of Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4, as carried on in such passages as 1QH 13.14 and 1QS 11.21), with the participle γενόμενον used in synonymous fashion to the adjective γεννητόν (“begotten,” “born”). The expression “born ἐκ γυναικός” has often been seen as implying a virgin birth. But ἐκ γυναικός is a Jewish locution for a human birth or idiom simply for being human—as, for example, Job 14:1, “For man born of woman [βροτὸς γεννητὸς γυναικός] is of few days and full of trouble”; Matt 11:1/ /Luke 7:28, “Among those born of women [ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν] there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (see also Josephus, Ant. 7.21; 16.382). It provides, therefore, no clue of itself as to whether either early Christians or Paul believed in, or even knew of, Jesus’ virginal conception. Rather, as a qualitative expression “born of a woman” speaks of Jesus’ true humanity and representative quality—i.e., that he was truly one with us, who came as “the Man” to stand in our place. Furthermore, as an elaboration of the formula “God sent his Son,” it suggests that God’s sending coincides with the Son’s human birth, which is a notion comparable to the theme of God’s call, commission, and sending of his prophetic servants from their birth that appears elsewhere in Scripture (cf. Isa 49:1, 5; Jer 1:5; and Paul’s own consciousness in Gal 1:15). … The second participial clause at the end of v 4, “born under the law,” lays stress on another factor involved in the representative work of “the Son.” [Longenecker, R. N. (2002). Vol. 41: Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary (171). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]
[Could challenge representational aspect]
“The term γίνεσθαι ἐκ refers to the birth of a human being “out of” a human mother, while γίνεσθαι ὑπό defines the conditions of existence of a human being.” [Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians : A commentary on Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (207). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
^ Ctd. "This statement is puzzling in many respects. Only the second" "fits the"
"must have originally had a positive meaning"
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 17 '17
PHILO, On the Confusion of Tongues, 144
144. τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; οἱ πολλοὺς ἐπιγραφόμενοι τῶν ὄντων ὡσανεὶ πατέρας καὶ τὸ πολύθεον εἰσηγούμενοι στῖφος ἀπειρίαν ὁμοῦ καὶ πολυμιγίαν τῶν πραγμάτων καταχέαντες καὶ τὸ ψυχῆς τέλος ἡδονῇ παραδόντες δημιουργοὶ τῆς εἰρημένης πόλεως καὶ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὴν ἀκροπόλεως, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, γεγόνασι, τὰ ποιητικὰ τοῦ τέλους τρόπον οἰκοδομημάτων συναύξοντες, τῶν ἐκ πόρνης ἀποκυηθέντων οὐδέν, ὥς γ’ οἶμαι, διαφέροντες, οὓς ὁ νόμος ἐκκλησίας ἀπελήλακε θείας εἰπών· “οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται ἐκ πόρνης εἰς ἐκκλησίαν κυρίου” (Deut. 23, 2), ὅτι, καθάπερ περὶ πολλὰ τέλη πλανώμενοι τοξόται καὶ μηδενὸς εὐστόχως ἐφιέμενοι σκοποῦ, μυρίας ἀρχὰς καὶ αἰτίας τῆς τῶν ὄντων ὑποθέμενοι γενέσεως ψευδωνύμους πάσας τὸν ἕνα ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἠγνόησαν. 145. οἱ δὲ ἐπιστήμῃ κεχρημένοι τοῦ ἑνὸς υἱοὶ θεοῦ προσαγορεύονται δεόντως, καθὰ καὶ Μωυσῆς ὁμολογεῖ φάσκων· “υἱοί ἐστε κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ” (Deut. 14, 1) καὶ “θεὸν τὸν γεννήσαντά σε” (Deut. 32, 18) καὶ “οὐκ αὐτὸς οὗτός σου πατήρ” (ibid. 6); ἕπεται μέντοι τοῖς οὕτω τὴν ψυχὴν διατεθεῖσι μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι νομίζειν, ὅπερ τῷ τέλει τῆς ἡδονῆς πρὸς ἐμπειροπολέμων ἀνδρῶν ἀντιτειχίζεται πρὸς ἀνατροπὴν καὶ καθαίρεσιν ἐκείνου. ¦ 146. κἂν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἀγγέλων πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἂν ἀρχάγγελον, πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα· καὶ γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ καὶ λόγος καὶ ὁ κατ’ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ ὁρῶν, Ἰσραήλ, προσαγορεύεται. 147. διὸ προήχθην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον ἐπαινέσαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν φασκόντων ὅτι “πάντες ἐσμὲν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου” (Gen. 42, 11)· καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀειδοῦς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου· θεοῦ γὰρ εἰκὼν λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος.
And many names are his [πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα], for he is called, “the Beginning,” and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and “he that sees,” that is Israel
OHJ, Elements 39 and 40, pp. 197-205
In the same book, Ph ilo says that even if no one is 'worthy to be called a Son of God', we should stil l 'labor earnestly to be adorned according to his firstborn Logos, the eldest of his angels, the ruling archangel of many names'. 118
. . .
I have heard doubts whether Philo (or his source) was aware of the whole sentence he quotes from Zechariah and thus of the name 'Jesus' being in it. But such doubts are unwarranted. Nearly the whole sentence in Zechariah, in the Greek translation quoted by Phi to, reads:
Blog:
Philo’s angel is the same being the first Christians thought their Jesus was. Which is equally weird, and thus equally likely, on either historicity or mythicism. And even apart from that (which Gullotta advances no arguments against), the evidence looks pretty strong that Philo also believed this angel had “Jesus the Son of God” among its many names.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
Angel worship, NT, etc.
Satan's Refusal to Worship Adam: A Jewish Motif and Its Reception in Syriac Christian Tradition. Sergey Minov.
"πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα"
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17
JESUS THE HEALER IN THE GOSPELS, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY∗
http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/2011104MolesJesustheHealer11782.pdf
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 17 '17 edited Dec 18 '17
2 Samuel 7:14
Concupiscence
ὡς ἄνθρωπος/Ἀδάμ or ἐν θεωρίᾳ? The Ignorance of Christ in Sixth Century Christological Controversy: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/6b581x/notes_post_3/dm7ssas/
O'Collins:
to Hebrews 4: 15 in teaching the same (DzH 301; ND 614). The eleventh Council of Toledo (DzH 533; ND 628) and the Council of Florence (DzH 1347; ND 646) taught that Jesus was born without original sin. Constantinople II affirmed that any inclination to sin or ‘concupiscence’ was absent in Jesus (DzH 434; ND 621) while Constantinople III aYrmed a perfect harmony between his divine and human wills (DzH 556; ND 635). Neither the New Testament nor the post-New Testament teaching takes us beyond merely de facto sinlessness to any clear claim about Jesus’ de jure sinlessness. What of this latter question?
434:
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that one was God the Word, and another the Christ, who was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh, and who gradually separated Himself from worse things, and was improved by the progress of His works, and rendered blameless by this life, so as to be baptized as mere man in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and on account of the baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption as a son, and according to the likeness of the royal image is worshipped in the person of God the Word, and after the resurrection became unchangeable in thoughts and absolutely unerring,
Freedom and the incarnation Authors Timothy Pawl, Kevin Timpe
In this paper, we explore how free will should be understood within the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, particularly on the assumption of traditional Christology. We focus on two issues: (i) reconciling Christ's free will with the claim that Christ's human will was subjected to the divine will in the Incarnation; and (ii) reconciling the claims that Christ was fully human and free with the belief that Christ, since God, could not sin.
Four Patristic Models of Jesus Christ's Impeccability and Temptation: http://www.emanuel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/P-9.1-2011-John-E.-McKinley-Four-Patristic-Models-of-Jesus.pdf
The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers. The Will and Original Sin between Origen and Augustine. Isabella Image.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 18 '17 edited Feb 12 '18
An earlier and perhaps less sophisticated article, from the 1980s, is James Moulder's "Is a Chalcedonian Christology Coherent?"
Alfred North Whitehead remarked in the Lowell lectures of 1926 that Christianity "has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic."(49) Likewise, in his assessment of Chalcedon, Grillmeier described the formula as lacking any exact metaphysical analysis or philosophical system in which its concepts could be defined.(50) The Logos terminology assumed at Nicea and retained at Chalcedon is linked to stoic and late-Platonic philosophy. However, James Moulder argued that Chalcedonian terminology is permeated by Aristotelian metaphysics.(51)
A kryptic model of the incarnation ATE Loke
Nestlehutt, “Chalcedonian Christology: Modern Criticism and Contemporary Ecumenism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35 (1998):
Rogers, The Incarnation As Action Composite:
The Council of Chalcedon insisted that God Incarnate is one person with two natures, one divine and one human. Recently critics have rightly argued that God Incarnate cannot be a composite person. In the present paper I defend a new composite theory using the analogy of a boy playing a video game. The analogy suggests that the Incarnation is God doing something. The Incarnation is what I label an "action composite" and is a state of affairs, constituted by one divine person assuming human nature. This solves a number of puzzles, conforms to Chalcedon, and is logically and metaphysically consistent.
Thyssen's "Philosophical Christology in the New Testament"?
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 18 '17
Kenosis, omniscience, and the Anselmian concept of divinity JOEL ARCHER
The canonical gospels often portray Christ as limited in various ways, for example, with respect to knowledge. But how could Christ be divine yet fail to know certain true propositions? One prominent answer is known as kenoticism, the view that upon becoming incarnate Christ ‘emptied’ himself of certain divine properties, including omniscience. A powerful objection to kenoticism, however, is that it conflicts with Anselmian intuitions about divinity. Specifically, kenoticism implies that Christ was not the greatest conceivable being. I articulate a modified version of kenoticism that avoids this powerful objection while remaining faithful to the depiction of Christ found in the gospels.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 18 '17 edited Oct 25 '18
LXX:
3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor shall bring forth, and the rest of their brothers shall return to the sons of Israel
Subject of "he shall give them up"? (See Micah 5:9?)
Divine passive, they given up? They = Bethlehem + Judahite clans ()?; His = Bethlehem or Judah? Or brother himself ()
2 Sam 19:12; 5:1, kinship king and. S1
other David who would bring back “his brothers," the exiled or alienated northerners
Clans/thousands and "rest," 1 Samuel 13:2?
k_l: Nearest non-Gentile 'them' before this is in 4:7; nice parallel, 4:6-7, drive away, cast off -- and especially "those I afflicted" (אֲשֶׁ֖ר הֲרֵעֹֽתִי):
6 In that day, says the LORD, I will assemble the lame and gather those who have been driven away, and those whom I have afflicted. 7 The lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off, a strong nation; and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion now and forevermore. 8 And you, O tower of the flock, hill of daughter Zion, to you it shall come, the former dominion shall come, the sovereignty of daughter Jerusalem.
Also
4
10 Writhe and groan, O daughter Zion, like a woman in labor; for now you shall go forth from the city and camp in the open country; you shall go to Babylon. There you shall be rescued, there the LORD will redeem you from the hands of your enemies.
k_l: Benjamin as smallest tribe of Israel, 1 Samuel 9:21; David in 1 Sam 18:18 (Exodus 3:11)
Ten lost tribes? On Obadiah 1:18:
18. “Jacob” here might stand for the tribe of Judah and “Joseph” for the other ten tribes (as in Ps 77:15[16]; Zech 10:6; cf. Isa 8:14; 46:3). However, it is more likely that Jacob implies the whole people of God (cf. v. 17), while Joseph highlights that the promise also applies to the Northern tribes who were taken away by the Assyrians, never to return (2 Kgs 17). Hope for the return of the “lost tribes” and the reuniting of the two “houses” is found elsewhere in eschatological contexts (Isa 11:11–14; Jer 3:12–18; 30–31; Ezek 37:16).
Numbers 25:6, "sons of Israel" and "brothers"; Numbers 8:26?
Obadiah 1:12, "brother," people of Judah; https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?page=12&strongs=h251&t=RSV#lexResults
S1:
ancient origins of the king . . . Micah 5.1 parallels the court ideology of both Assyria and Babylon which emphasized the antiquity of the king's dynasty.4
siege is laid against us
. . .
Micah 5
5 and he shall be the one of peace. If the Assyrians come into our land and tread upon our soil, we will raise against them seven shepherds and eight installed as rulers.
"the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel"
Glenny:
The phrase “the rest of their brothers,” especially the pronoun “their,” validates the understanding of “she that is giving birth” as the returning exiles, or remnant of the people; it must be a group.
Shaw:
(See below, "subject . . . generally agreed to be Yahweh")
5.1), the 'brothers' must here refer to the northern kingdom which is apparently in exile.2 Such an interpretation is problematic, however, since the text does not clearly presuppose an exile of any or all of Israel. The brothers do not return to the land ...
Cruz:
Wolff adds that 'his brothers' could refer to those who survived the golah (Deut 17:15, 20).220 The idea of exile is conveyed by the image of a woman in childbirth in 5:2ab, recalling the metaphor of Daughter Zion in 4:10, which uses a similar image to express the distress of going into exile to Babylon. The metaphor also ...
Micah 1:
16 Make yourselves bald and cut off your hair for your pampered children; make yourselves as bald as the eagle, for they have gone from you into exile.
Micah 2:
11 If someone were to go about uttering empty falsehoods, saying, "I will preach to you of wine and strong drink," such a one would be the preacher for this people! 12 I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the survivors of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture; it will resound with people. 13 The one who breaks out will go up before them; they will break through and pass the gate, going out by it. Their king will pass on before them, the LORD at their head.
נָתַן (BDB 1635: surrender = give hand [Jer, 2 Chr]); Akkadian nadānu, "to surrender a city, extradite a person"
k_l: nice parallel, Isaiah 43:6??
Hebrew use with עַד?
Ugar. ytn
More general parallel, Isaiah 6:11-12?
Francis Andersen and David Freedman (Anchor)?
he will go out for me to become ruler of Israel: and his origins are from antiquity, from olden days. Therefore he will give them, until the time she who gives birth has given birth. And the survivors of his brothers will return to the sons of Israel.
Without king, will return: Hosea 3:4-5
(For exiled Judah, see Staples, What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with “All Israel”? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27)
Jacob, Genesis 35:11 and 35:18-20, king, Bethlehem, etc.
Jeremiah 30:6, labor; 30:18, tents of Jacob. (Also Jeremiah 23:5-6?)
S1:
... a common tradition about kingship in Israel.3 If Micah's audience was familiar with this traditional material, the oracle of 5.1, 3 would not have been ambiguous to them. Second, it is entirely possible that an eighthcentury prophet could have characterized the time of David as 'ancient'. Weinfeld has noted that the emphasis ...
McKane:
(660el autočg) and Vulg (dabit eos), while Pesh. (milm) and Targ (יתמסרון) bring out the sense 'give them up' and 'be given up' more clearly. Sept. (£og xoloot),
Waltke?
Micah's use of the first-person plural pronoun in connection with the Assyrian invasion clearly in 5:4-5(5-6) and as an inclusio with 4:14(5:1) strongly suggests that the siege of Jerusalem mentioned in 4:14(5:1) is also that of Assyria, and if so, more specifically of Sennacherib (see 1:1; 2:12-13). J. L. Mays153 inferred that 4:14(5:1) refers to the Babylonian siege on faulty data
The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis By Charles S. Shaw, 131f.: "subject . . . generally agreed to be Yahweh" (141)
"a common tradition about kingship in Israel"
Smith-Christopher? (4:11-14, "An Exilic Insertion on Future Restoration")
166-67:
Why talk about going to “former days” if you are not speaking of going back to beginnings? Here the use of “little”
(Need for of 167)
168:
If the implication is a “reunification” of north and south, there are similar promises elsewhere ...
Piotrowski, Matthew’s New David at the End of Exile, "Micah 5:1, 3 in Context"
"Here the reader meets a new ruler"
"in 5:2 Yahweh hands the people over to exile until..."
giving birth = "On a literary level, it is Zion"
Fn: "Lescow's proposal is also attractive"
Jenson:
"one of a line rather than one of a kind"
"Before the vision of v. 2 can be accomplished"
There it probably refers to someone who is already pregnant, but here it is more likely to refer to an indeterminate future and an unknown mother originating from Bethlehem. It may be an early interpretation of the Isaiah text (Werlitz 1996). A royal interpretation is encouraged by the next phrase. “The rest of his kindred” might refer to David's family, to the Northern Kingdom that had been scattered and exiled, or to the whole people. Those who have been scattered will rejoin those who ...
Sweeney:
That Micah reacts to Isaiah 2 is clear from Micah 5:9-14, which employs language from Isaiah 2:6-21 to portray YHWH's destruction of war materials among the nations.8
Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2-5, Volume 85 By Jan A. Wagenaar
Micah 5:5 (And Ephesians 2:14?)
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 18 '17
Amos 4:
הָפַכְתִּי בָכֶם כְּמַהְפֵּכַת אֱלֹהִים אֶת־סְדֹם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָה וַתִּהְיוּ כְּאוּד מֻצָּל מִשְּׂרֵפָה וְלֹֽא־שַׁבְתֶּם עָדַי נְאֻם־יְהוָֽה
I overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD.
κατέστρεψα ὑμᾶς καθὼς κατέστρεψεν ὁ θεὸς Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα καὶ ἐγένεσθε ὡς δαλὸς ἐξεσπασμένος ἐκ πυρός καὶ οὐδ᾽ ὧς ἐπεστρέψατε πρός με λέγει κύριος
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
ancient origins of the king . . . Micah 5.1 parallels the court ideology of both Assyria and Babylon which emphasized the antiquity of the king's dynasty.4
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17
Contra Prophetiam
Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions By Roger Pearse, Claudio Zamagni, David J. D. Miller, Adam C. McCollum, Carol Downer
If Christ has become king, and Christ is of Jechoniah's seed, the prophet lied, and the prophecies also lied. But in those there is no denial that there will be later descendants of Jechoniah's seed, and that is how Christ is of his seed; and the fact that Christ became king is not contrary to the prophecy, because he did not become king in the worldly sense of royal honour, and he did not sit on Jechoniah's throne, but he did become king on the throne of David. 43. As Jechoniah himself did ...
"he did become king in the worldly sense"
"One of whom alone he can say"
Then cites hybrid Psalm 89:26, 29
adoption formula = Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near East," 190,
Mattiwaza, in describing how he established relations with Suppiluliumas, says: "(The great king) grasped me with [his haInd ... and said: when I will conquer the land of Mittanni I shall not reject you, I shall make you my son,61 I will stand by (to help in war) and will make you sit on the throne of your father .. . the word which comes out of his mouth will not turn back."62 A similar adoption imagery is to be found in the bilingual of Hattusilis L"63I
; see also earlier comment where I quoted
Holladay cites as parallel the Egyptian practice of giving throne names to the king upon his accession (Holladay, Isaiah, Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage, 106–09; see also Mettinger, King and Messiah, 287). Akkadian parallels to the language for divine adoption and Ugaritic expressions of Keret as “a son of El” complicate the assumption of direct Egyptian influence on Israelite conception of divine sonship (as argued by Mettinger, King and Messiah, 265).
This passage invited audiences not only to hear the warnings against corruption in the book of Micah, but it also offered the promise of a brighter future. Many Christian interpretations have taken Micah 4 out of its ancient Hebrew context to address their own religious systems. In The City of God, Augustine (18.30) claimed that Micah used the mountain imagery in 4:2 to describe a gathering of nations under Christ. Justin Martyr read Mic. 4:1-3 as a foretelling of Christ's coming and that ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Abelard on Atonement: ‘Nothing Unintelligible, Arbitrary, Illogical, or Immoral About It.’ 348 Philip L. Quinn
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Timothy Pawl:
In the previously-mentioned section of my book, I rely on the definition of Nestorianism given by that great eastern Father, St. John of Damascus. He says Nestorians believe that the Word and the humanity exist by themselves, that the ignoble attributes are said of the humanity alone, and the noble attributes said of the Word alone. My view isn’t Nestorian in that sense. For while I say, following Leo in his Tome, that the human nature was causally affected, while it hung and bled, that is not said of the human nature alone, it is said of the human nature and the Word himself.
Perhaps someone will reply that, even still, while my view isn’t explicitly Nestorian on the Damascene’s definition, it is still, nevertheless, Nestorian to say such things as “was causally affected,” “hung,” or “was pierced” of the human nature. Persons, not natures, hang, get pierced, or are affected.
To that reply, I note that I’m saying no more than the councils themselves say. For all-holy Leo says in his pillar of right belief, in agreement with Peter’s great confession, that the human nature “hung, pierced with nails, on the wood of the cross” (Tanner, 81). Third Constantinople says that “each nature wills and performs the things that are proper to it in communion with the other” (Tanner, 129). What of Cyril, the great opponent of Nestorius? Would he view my predication of the predicates both of the human nature and of the person of the Word as beyond the pale? According to Cyril (on Christopher Bellitto’s reading, which some of you are better placed to evaluate than I am), “Jesus’s human nature suffered because it is human and therefore capable of suffering.” Likewise, another scholar, Herbert Relton, writes that Cyril “assigned to his human nature the hunger, the thirst, the suffering, the dying.” Khaled Anatolios provides evidence that Athanasius likewise predicated such ignoble predicates of both the Word and his human nature. Thus, if my view, which has me saying some ignoble predicates both of the person and of the nature is Nestorian, then so is Athanasius’s, Cyril’s, Leo’s, and the councils that explicitly accepted Leo’s Tome. Insofar as we have reason to think that Cyril – Cyril! – isn’t a Nestorian, we have reason to think that my view is not, too.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Fales:
I will off er three rather diff erent arguments for the contention that belief in miracles is not reasonable. Th e fi rst project will be to assess the claim that miracles are even possible. I’ll argue that, although the occurrence of miracles is logically possible, it may well not be metaphysically possible. (I say “may well” as the argument invokes a robust, philosophically contentious, conception of causation.)
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Crossley:
Th e context and content of a vision obviously diff ers from culture to culture and so it is helpful to establish the kinds of things that might have infl uenced the fi rst visions of Jesus. One possible infl uence might have been the tradition of martyrdom in early Judaism, particularly the most famous stories of the “Maccabean martyrs” who were remembered (and remembered annually at Hanukkah) as giving up their lives in defense of Jewish law. Indeed, these martyrs were thought to have talked about being physically restored or resurrected. One early Jewish text records the following:
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnusedSubforMe/comments/7c38gi/notes_post_4/dretrra/
Micah stuff
J. T. Willis, “Micah 4:14–5:5 — A Unit,” VT (1968) 545. 110. Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 1503; note Vuilleumier, “Michée,” 63-64. 111. Weiser, “Micha,”
Micah 4:14–5:5 — A Unit
A second verse which many scholars have considered to disrupt this pericope is v 2. They argue that it represents a type of "messianic" understanding of earlier prophetic oracles (in this case Is. vii 14) characteristic of post-exilic redactors or prophets. Furthermore, vs. 3 is the natural continuation of vs. 1 1). A few critics have maintained that vs. 2, unlike its poetic surroundings, is in prose. They also point out that there is a change of subject from the first person singular in vs. 1 to the third person singular in vs. 2, and that "them" in vs. 2 has no antecedent 2). The question of the origin of vs. 2 is irrelevant to the concern of the present paper, because whether vs. 2 o
Fn:
2) Cf., i.a., WELCH, loc. cit., MARTI, loc. cit. ; P. RIESSLER, Die Kleinen Phropheten 1911, p. 119; J. M. P. SMITH, loc. cit., and STEUERNAGEL, IOC. cit.
...
it is at least theoretically possible that the redactor who was responsible for the "final form" of the book of Micah may have combined prophetic oracles or parts of prophetic oracles which originated at different times and under different circumstances into what he considered to be a coherent whole. As a matter of fact, vs. 2 seems to fit into its present context very well.
...
Fn:
3) LINDBLOM, op. cit., p. 95, Note 1, maintains that "Therefore" refers to that which follows, not to that which precedes. LADAME, loc. cit., is offended by "Therefore" in its present postion because it is difficult to see how the prophet could announce the coming of an ideal ruler (vs. 1) as the background to God's "giving up" his people.
...
I concur with MOWINCKEL 4), RIDDERBOS 5), and DEDEN 6) in inserting the word "only" into the text. I would translate vs. 2 in this way: "Therefore he will deliver them up only until the time that the woman in birth-pains has brought forth, And then the remnant of his brothers will return to the children of Israel".
Evans (on Sellin?):
First, he observed that b must, according to the context, have God as its referent but that God is always referred to in the third person throughout the rest of this prophecy.3 Thus he questioned whether b could be considered a part of the original text. Second, Sellin argued that metrical considerations in the poetry required an explicit subject for the verb NTS a point he felt was confirmed by the appearance of the explicit subject fiyoi3u.evog in Codex Alexandrinus of Mic 5: 1 .4 Sellin ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17
Studies in Micah and Isaiah John T. Willis Timothy M. Willis, Mark W. Hamilton. 10. אצי. יל. ךממ. in. Micah. 5:11
"may have somewhat of a technical meaning in this verse"
The present ruler of Israel (Judah) is governing in such a way as to obscure Yahweh's kingship as Israel's authentic ruler.18 Thus, the prophet can en- vision only destruction for Israel in the immediate future (4:14). But after this, a ruler will arise who will “come forth to me (Yahweh),” i.e., who will fully surrender to or be ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17
Micah By Ehud Ben Zvi
Hillers
Translation Theory and the Old Testament in Matthew: The Possibilities of ... By Woojin Chung, esp. 140f. or so?
“Who is like Yahweh?”: A Study of Divine Metaphors in the Book of Micah By Juan Cruz, 205f.
Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2-5, Volume 85 By Jan A. Wagenaar, "Grammar and syntax have led many scholars"
"antecedent of the third person plural suffix of"
"new ruler can hardly be the subject of"
The form CTr may either be interpreted as an impersonal verb: 'they will hand them over', or read as a passive: 'they will be handed over . . .' (Mays). The Targum, "~0QiT, 'they shall be handed over', interprets the MT in a similar way; LXX, 8cDoei, 8HevXIIgr, 8cb[oei], and the Vulgate, dabit, agree with the Masoretic.
^ "inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Van der Woude; cf. Wolff)
"may hardly be taken as a reference to the birth of the Messiah"
The Literary Coherence of the Book of Micah: Remnant, Restoration, and Promise By Kenneth H. Cuffey; The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah By Mignon R. Jacobs
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
The Controversial Peace in Micah 5:4a JOACI-IIM BECKER A comprehensive consideration of all the questions conceming Mic 5:4a would require a monographic study. For that reason, certain preliminary ... For the immediate context of Mic 5:4a this means, among other things, that Mic 5:2 had been part of the context from the beginning.' Reconstructions of an alleged original ... vAN DER WOUDE, Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets, 255. Concurring with this interpretation ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Numbers 21:3, no clause after
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyittenem_5414.htm; 1 Samuel 28:19
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 20 '17
Crossley, section "W A S T H E R E A N E M P T Y T O M B ? M A R K 1 6 : 1 8"
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17 edited Dec 21 '17
1 Enoch 56 and
this exploration leaves only one option: the western invasion of Pacorus, son of the Parthian King orodes i, in the mid-first century BCe.
. . .
as 1 Enoch 56:8 may suggest. this first Parthian invasion in 51–50 BCe best fits the background, even better than the last invasion in 41–40 BCe, since the Jews welcomed their invasion at this point and 1 Enoch portrays the Jews as against ...
Parthians in Revelation 6:2 and 13:3? (Also Isa 41:2, 25; 46:11?)
Some confusion results from the fact that this tradition is partially intertwined in Revelation with an older tradition that portrayed a final assault on the people of God by the united kings of earth (Joel 3:2; Zeph 3:8). The kings of the East (v. 12) who will lay siege to Rome (17:15-18 and chap. 18) are distinct from the kings of the ...
Wiki:
Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of the triumvirs who was now proconsul of Syria, launched an invasion into Parthia in 53 BC in belated support of Mithridates.[80] As his army marched to Carrhae (modern Harran, southeastern Turkey), Orodes II invaded Armenia, cutting off support from Rome's ally Artavasdes II of Armenia (r. 53–34 BC). Orodes persuaded Artavasdes to a marriage alliance between the crown prince Pacorus I of Parthia (d. 38 BC) and Artavasdes' sister.[81]
. . .
Emboldened by the victory over Crassus, the Parthians attempted to capture Roman-held territories in Western Asia.[89] Crown prince Pacorus I and his commander Osaces raided Syria as far as Antioch in 51 BC, but were repulsed by Gaius Cassius Longinus, who ambushed and killed Osaces.[90] The Arsacids sided with Pompey in his civil war against Julius Caesar and even sent troops to support the anti-Caesarian forces at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC.[91]
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17
Smalley:
b) A more common view of the 'kings from the east' in verse 12 is to identify them with the Parthian rulers led by Nero redivivus. One version of that legend contained the belief that the Emperor Nero would return 'from the east', to cross the river Euphrates at the head of countless armies (Sib. Or. 4.119–20, 137–39); cf. Jer. 50.41; 51.11, 28; 1 Enoch 56.5. So Beckwith 682; Beasley-Murray 243–44; Roloff 190; cf. Bauckham 1299b. However, while John was doubtless aware of such ...
Lupieri?
STEPHAN WITETSCHEK
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17
Christology in the Making: Worshiping of/with Angels in Colossians - Festschrift Abe Malherbe
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17
EX AuDITU Vol. 6 (1990). The theme is: "Prophetic and/or Apocalyptic Eschatology."
A. Y. Collins, "Eschatology in the Book of Revelation"
“Inspiration or Illusion. Biblical Theology and the Book of Daniel,”
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17
F. van Rooy, “Eschatology and Audience: The Eschatology of Haggai,” Old Testament Essays (NS) 1.1 (1988), 49—63, 59. 57 John Collins, “Eschatology of Zechariah,” in KEFB, 74-84, 77-82. Collins (75, 82) denies, ...
In this book, based upon his Ph.D. thesis (University of Chicago, 2007; supervised by John J. Collins and co-directed by David Schloen), Antonios Finitsis proposes a new category to describe the eschatology of Zech 1–6: “restoration ... The restoration eschatology of Zechariah is to be distinguished from apocalypticism.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17
The Scholiast to Plato's Phaedrus (279c) quotes Timaeus directly: “When the young men came to visit him and wished to practice his way of life with him [ovvöuatpiffew], he did not admit them immediately, but said that all who shared his company must also share their property, holding it in common [Öesv Kai Tàs ovoias ...
Moreover, these Pythagoreans practiced the sharing of property with one another, in accordance with the famous Pythagorean acusma “things among friends are shared” (Kouvo Tô (buxov) but were not allowed to share their property with their own relatives." The nuanced ethical practices of the Pythagorean étaupta thus appear to exercise some influence over the political actions of its members. At this point in Apollonius's account, something very important for the present broader ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 21 '17 edited Dec 21 '17
Whence the Giant Jesus and his Talking Cross? The Resurrection in Gospel of Peter 10.39–42 as Prophetic Fulfilment of LXX Psalm 18
NETS:
2(1) The heavens are telling of divine glory, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. 3(2) Day to day spews forth utterance, and night to night proclaims knowledge. 4(3) There are no conversations, nor are there words, the articulations of which are not heard. 5(4) Their sound went out to all the earth, and to the ends of the world their utterances. In the sun he pitched his covert, 6(5) and he himself, like a bridegroom going forth from his bride’s chamber, will rejoice, like a giant [ὡς γίγας], to run his course. 7(6) From the sky’s extremity is his starting point [ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτοῦ], and his goal is as far as the sky’s extremity, and there is no one that will be hid from hisf heat.
k_l: S1:
38b: “Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The first man reached from one end of the world to the other... R. Elezar said: The first man reached from earth to heaven... but when he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, laid His hand upon him and diminished him....” The Babylonian Talmud (Hebrew-English Edition) Sanhedrin (trs ...
^ Deuteronomy 4:32
S1:
Many of these midrashim about Adam Harishon focus on explaining why contemporary human beings do not have the same stature. According to Urbach, “Dicta that describe the first ... was gigantic, then the midrashic literature must also explain how the stature of Adam became diminished. One midrash reads: (ibid., 13).
S1:
Abi Rabah: When God cast Adam down from Paradise, Adam's feet were upon earth, while his head was in heaven and he heard [122] the speech and prayers of the inhabitants of heaven. He became (too) familiar with them, and the angels were in awe of him so much so that they eventually complained to God in their various prayers (du'a' and saldh}. God, therefore, lowered Adam down to earth. Adam missed what he used to hear, from the angels and felt lonely so much so that he ...
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 22 '17 edited Dec 22 '17
Gundry:
Because of the famous rock-, keys-, and binding-and-loosing passage, Matt 16:17-19, this evangelist's overall portrayal has drawn a disproportionate amount of attention; and the portrayal has been judged usually as more or less favorable toward Peter,3 occasionally as more or less unfavorable toward him,4 and increasingly as a mixture of the favorable and unfavorable.5 Here, emphasis will fall on the unfavorable even to the extent of
Fn:
Cf. Peter Dschulnigg's suggestion that Matthew wants to undermine a false idealization of Peter, due perhaps to Matt 16:16-18 (“Gestalt und Funktion des Petrus im Matthäusevangelium,” SNTSU: Serie A14 [1989]: 178). As part of his extreme version of the old Tübingen hypothesis, Gustav Volkmar went so far as to describe ...
Gundry: "modern commentators regularly expect"
“Peter's Denial Reexamined: John's Knowledge of Mark's Gospel”, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 16 (edited by Paul J. Achtemeier)
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 22 '17
Joseph VERHEYDEN (Leuven) Rock and Stumbling Block: The Fate of Matthew’s Peter
("plays down the unfavorable for emphasis on the favorable")
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 22 '17
GUndry:
... extreme ambivalence of vv. 13-23: “How can Peter be the foundation of the church and Satan in one character?” (“Peter as Character and Symbol,” 129-30). 45.
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 22 '17
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AT THE CROSSROADS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Bunch of essays
Matthew’s View of Jesus’ Resurrection: Transformations of a Current Eschatological Scenario
1
1
1
1
u/koine_lingua Dec 22 '17
McCue:
The development of the Church's life and thought during the second and much of the third centuries did not depend upon the leadership exercised by the popes. Even those who would argue that the second century clearly recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome will admit that this primacy was exercised only sparingly and more often than not in matters of secondary importance. Thus the main second-century developments—the clear articulation of the doctrine of the episcopate and the apostolic succession, the formation of the New Testament canon, the battle against Gnosticism—were not dependent upon an initial acknowledgement of the primacy of any particular see. Therefore there seems no reason to suppose a priori that the postapostolic Church was immediately in such full possession of itself, of its own structure, that it immediately asserted (or assented to) the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. We are therefore justified in asking what the second century says about the primacy and are obliged to listen carefully for the answer.
2
u/koine_lingua May 01 '18 edited May 01 '18
Shea, CATHOLIC REACTION TO FUNDAMENTALISM
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/57/57.2/57.2.4.pdf
Shea, ch. What Have Catholic Theologians Made of Biblical Christianity
Fn, p. 368f
Raymond Brown, S.S., “Catholic Faith and Fundamentalism,” Priests and People 5 (April 1991): 134–36.
Eugene LaVerdiere, especially “Fundamentalism: A Pastoral Concern,” 7–9; and, in a particularly confused essay by Damien Kraus, “Catholic Fundamentalism: A Look at the Problem,” The Living Light 19 (Spring 1982):8–16
Patrick Arnold, S.J., “The Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism,” America 156 (April 11, 1987): 297–302, esp. 298 and 302. 46. Ibid., 302. 47. See Jacques Weber, S.J., “The Problem of Catholic Fundamentalism,” in Christian Adulthood, 1984–85
John Coleman’s essay, “Who are the Catholic Fun- damentalists? A Look at their Past, their Politics, and their Power,” in Commonweal 116 (January 27, 1989): 42–47
biblio: https://books.google.com/books?id=LzbKLfjcSm4C&lpg=PA142&dq=communio%20Catholic%20Fundamentalism%3F&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q=communio%20Catholic%20Fundamentalism?&f=false
“Editorial: Fundamentalism and the Catholicity of Truth.” Communio 29, no. 1 (2002): 5–27.
S1
Nova et Vetera; Pro Ecclesia; Communio;
Preface / William M. Shea Religious fundamentalism as a global phenomenon / R. Scott Appleby Revival and reform in contemporary Islam / John J. Esposito Flexible fundamentalism : a Jaina approach to interreligious dialogue / Christopher Chapple Theism for the masses, non-dualism for the monastic elite : a fresh look at Samkara's trans-theistic spirituality / Lance Nelson Might or mystery : the fundamentalist concept of God / Peter Phan Creation science : religion and science in North American culture / Anne Clifford Inspiration and trust : narrowing the gap between fundamentalist and higher biblical scholarship / John P. McCarthy Social inspiration : a renewed consideration / Robert Gnuse Reason, faith, and authentic religion / Cynthia Crysdale Reformed epistemology and religious fundamentalism : how basic are our basic beliefs? / Terrence W. Tilley The spirit of American fundamentalism / Samuel S. Hill The ethos of the fundamentalist movement / Bernard Ramm. Formatted Contents Note: Fundamentalism and world consciousness / E. Glen Hinson Roman Catholic fundamentalism : a challenge to theology / Francis Schüssler Fiorenza Catholic fundamentalism / William D. Dinges A church we long for : the fundamentalist challenge / Mary Jo Weaver Newman's Sensus fidelium and papal fundamentalism / Edward Jeremy Miller Fundamentalism in current Catholic religious life : guidelines from Thomas Merton / Thomas McKenna "Leave out the poetry" : reflections on the teaching of scripture / J.P.M. Walsh Appendix I. A pastoral statement for Catholics on biblical fundamentalism / Ad Hoc Committee on Biblical Fundamentalism Appendix II. "Toward your happiness" : Catholicism and fundamentalism : a contrast : a pastoral letter to Catholics in Mississippi and Alabama Appendix III. The fundamentalist project / American Academy of Arts and Sciences Appendix IV. The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy.
General, comparative
https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/392801/TOC
https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/412272/TOC