Monday, April 28, 2025

Theodore De Bruyn: The Sub tuum praesidium dates probably to the sixth or seventh century, or even later

  

Much has been made of P.Ryl. III 470, which preserves an early witness to the antiphon Sub tuum praesidium, a prayer for protection addressed directly to the Theotokos. But it is less certain now that this papyrus should be assigned to the fourth century, let alone the third century; it probably belongs to the sixth or seventh century, or even later, though scholars of the cult of Mary have been either unaware of, or slow to accept, recent paleographical examinations of the papyrus. The most common name for churches or other sites dedicated to Mary in Egypt is “holy Mary,” an expression that appears from the fifth century onward. Considerably fewer sites are dedicated to the Theotokos, a name that first appears in the sixth century. In fact, the predominance of “holy Mary,” a form of regard used for other saints as well, has prompted the suggestion that Mary was revered as one saint among many others in Egypt. Indeed, at Oxyrhynchus in the early sixth century, liturgies were celebrated either more frequently or as frequently at churches dedicated to several other saints than at the church dedicated to Mary. (Theodore De Bruyn, “Appeals to the Intercessions of Mary in Greek Liturgical and Paraliturgical Texts from Egypt,” in Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium (4th–9th Century), ed. Leena Mari Peltomaa, Andreas Külzer, and Pauline Allen [Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademia der Wissenschaften, 2015], 116-17, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Wayne A. Mitchell on Amos 9:12

  

Amos 9:12 LXX(H) Mss

למון [ידרשו] [את יהוה] שארית [אדם] וכל הכוים

 

Amos 9:12 that the rest of humankind may seek after the LORD, and all the nations who are called by my name,” says the LORD who does this.

 

Comments: The LXX and GNT (Acts 15:17) read anthropon “humankind” = אדם, whereas MT reads אדום “Edom,” a misreading by one letter in a damaged scroll, or an aural confusion. Also, the above Greek texts read ekzetesosin “seek” יררשו, while MT reads יררשו “possess,” a misreading involving a dalet-yod confusion in a Paleo-Hebrew script. (Wayne A. Mitchell, Scribal Skips: 1700 Words That Fell Out of the Bible [5th ed.; 2025], 219)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Sunday, April 27, 2025

C. H. Roberts Dating the Sub tuum praesidium to the Fourth Century

  

? Fourth century. . . . .This prayer, written in brown ink on a small sheet of papyrus (the verso is blank), is probably a private copy; there are no indications that it was intended for liturgical use. (Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester, ed. C. H. Roberts [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1938], 3:46, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Isaac Wilk Oliver on Luke 2:22 and the Use of the Plural Possessive Pronoun (αὐτῶν "their") instead of the singular (αὐτῆς "her")

  

As many have pointed out, the main problem in Luke’s description concerns his reference to the process of their purification (καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν) when both Mary and Joseph bring Jesus to the temple (2:22). The LXX to Leviticus 12:4 (cf. 12:2b) only explicitly speaks of the days of her purification (καθάρσεως αὐτῆς), that is, the mother’s, while never referring to the potential impurity the infant or the father could acquire during or after the infant’s birth. Does the usage of the plural possessive pronoun reveal Luke’s imprecise knowledge of Judaism?

 

. . .

 

There is more than silence, however, that could lead a Jewish reader of the Second Temple period to interpret Lev 12 as referring to the impurity of the mother as well as the infant. If the impurity of a parturient is comparable to the impurity of a menstruant, then it is reasonable to infer that both types of impurity are imparted in similar ways. Just as a husband who lies with her wife during her menstruation is defiled for seven days (Lev 15:24), so too, through analogy and inference we might conclude that the infant can acquire the impurity of her mother through contact with the blood emitted during childbirth.

 

Most importantly, Thiessen and others before him argue that Jubilees as well as 4Q265 and 4Q266 extend the impurity of the parturient to the infant. Jubilees 3:8–13 refers to a curious story concerning the entry of Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden. Adam has to wait until forty days are over before entering the Garden of Eden. Likewise, Eve waits until eighty days before making her entry. Elsewhere in Jubilees, the Garden of Eden is likened to the temple (Jub. 8:19). The connections with the legislation of Lev 12 are obvious, and, as Thiessen suggests, the author of Jubilees probably would have viewed newborn children as impure, having to wait forty or eighty days before entering the sacred realm, just as Adam and Eve, “newborn” creatures, as it were, wait until the time of their impurity is fulfilled before entering the sanctuary of Eden.

 

After reconstructing 4Q265, Joseph Baumgarten concludes that, like Jubilees, this fragment links the legislation of the parturient in Lev 12 with the entry of Adam and Eve into Eden, viewing the primordial garden as a holy place that functions as a paradigm for the “acceptance of newly born infants of both sexes into the sacred sphere.” Most interesting though is 4Q266 6 ii 10–11, which prohibits a mother from nursing her newborn child and requires instead the service of a wet nurse. Unlike Jubilees and 4Q265, this text denies that a newborn acquires impurity at the moment of childbirth but assumes that an infant can subsequently become impure through contact with the mother during her days of impurity. Basing herself on this Qumranic evidence, Himmelfarb concludes that “P must have shared the view that the parturient conveyed impurity to those who touched her during the first stages of impurity. Surely it would not have escaped P’s notice that the newborn baby could not avoid such contact.” She explains the silence of the issue in Leviticus 12 in the following way: “The consequences of impurity as specified in Leviticus 12 are hardly relevant to a newborn, who is most unlikely to have the opportunity to enter the sanctuary or touch holy things and who is certainly incapable of eating sacrificial meat and other kinds of consecrated food.”

 

Luke, however, is set on presenting Jesus in the temple, but cannot do so before the days of impurity for both the mother and the infant are over. Otherwise, Luke would run the risk of implying that Jesus and his family defiled the temple of Jerusalem by being present therein before the days of purification were over. Thankfully, Luke is familiar with all of these halakic intricacies to save himself such embarrassment, wisely choosing to have the baby Jesus presented in the temple only after the forty days of purification are over. (Isaac Wilk Oliver, “Torah Praxis after 70 C.E.: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts” [PhD Dissertation; The University of Michigan, 2012], 502, 504-6)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Craig C. Hill on Stephen's Speech in Acts 7 and the Jerusalem Temple

  

It is important to recognize that although the institutions of Judaism are not themselves attacked directly, their value is necessarily deprecated. The Christian church was not, after all, a back—to-Moses movement. The author is not contending that the Jews need simply become better (i.e., more law abiding) Jews. He is not asking, in other words, that they accept their heritage but that they accept the thing to which he believes their heritage should lead. To Luke, Judaism is inherently good but also inherently not good enough.

 

This insight does a long way toward explaining the strangely contradictory attitude of Acts toward the Jews, and it certainly helps to explain the inclusion of verses 48-50 within the Stephen speech. Luke’s perspective encourages a spiritualizing tendency that also appears in verse 51 (uncircumcised in heart and ears) and perhaps in the story of Abraham as well (he [God] did not give him [Abraham] any of it as a heritage not even a foot’s length, v. 5 [Deut. 2:5]; compare Heb. 11:39-40). In a sense this allows him the luxury of denying what he at the same time must of necessity affirm. Christians accept the law and the temple—rightly understood. Johannes Weiss has commented, “The point of the speech is plainly directed against the over-estimation of the temple in Jerusalem.” (Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity 1:169 [123]). Although I cannot agree that this is the point of the speech, I do agree that this them has been taken up by the author in verses 48-50.

 

The tendency to spiritualize is assumed by many to have been common within Diaspora Judaism, and for this reason these verses are sometimes taken as evidence of an Antiochene cum Hellenistic source for the speech of Stephen. But if this sort of spiritualizing was as typically Hellensitc as is often supposed, there is no reason to limit it to Antiochene Christianity, much less to the Stephen circle particularly. Indeed, the point made about the temple in Acts 7:48-50 is repeated (including use of χειροποιητος [made by human hands]) in Paul’s speech on the Areopagus in Acts 17:24. Räisänen’s observation is pertinent: “This makes it probable that verses 48-50 represent Luke’s own point of view.” (Räisänen, The Torah and Christ, p. 274) This confirms an observation made by S. G. Wilson in a somewhat different context: “Luke seems to stand closer to hellenistic Judaism in his understanding of the law, [reflecting] . . . some of the major changes which took place in Judaism after 70 C.E.” (Wilson, Luke and the Law, p. 114)

 

Even if the tendency to minimize the temple is understandable, we have not yet answered the question as to why the theme is brought into the speech. A number of plausible answers could be offered, but I believe that one in particular makes more sense of the presence of the temple, and indeed of its dramatic location within the speech, than any other. The key made be found in the attitude toward the temple expressed in Luke 13:34-35a.

 

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν, ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. 35  ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν. [Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those that are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you.]

 

It is highly likely that the sentiment expressed in this passage lies beneath the treatment of the temple in the Stephen speech. Indeed, a number of key words reappear in Acts 6-7: ‘Ιερουσαλημ, αποκτεινω, οι προφηται, λιθοβολεω, ουκ ηθελησαι, ο οικος (Jerusalem, kill prophets, stone, you would not, house). Viewed in this light, the temple takes on enormous symbolic significance. The destruction of the temple is Luke’s contemporary parallel to the incident in the wilderness, in which “God handed [the Jews] over” for their rejection of Moses (v. 42). If Luke was writing in the years after A.D. 70, the relationship between these events could hardly have been missed by his readers. The Stephen speech is very much as the center of the program of Acts, and the inclusion of the temple is one critical element in its presentation. Verses 46-50 do not fit logically within the speech if they are related only to the occasion of Stephen’s martyrdom; but their logic is inescapable if one looks beyond to the underlying movement of the Book of Acts.

 

Heikki Räisänen has written that “Stephen’s speech does not contain the vehement criticism of the temple and its sacrifices sometimes ascribed to it. . . . The temple section does not really lead anywhere.” (Räisänen, The Torah and Christ, p. 274) We may now appreciate the perceptiveness of the first of these assertions while choosing to disagree with the second. Stephen does not vehemently criticize the temple, but the vehemence his remarks incite does portend the rejection of the temple and of its people. The temple section does indeed lead somewhere.

 

Αcts 7:39-43. It should be noted that the kind of temple criticism most often (and erroneously) attributed to this passage, that “God was happy with a tent but never wanted a house,” does not actually present a fundamental challenge to the law. Some find that challenge instead in the account of Israel’s idolatry in the wilderness in 7:39-40. The impetus for this interpretation comes from the citation of Amos 5:25-27 (v. 42): God was not the object of their sacrifices. Indeed, God never wished to be. Thus the cult and the adulterated law that enshrined it were merely an Israelite extension of the golden calf of Egypt. Stephen “draws a distinction between the divinely ordered ‘lively oracles,’ i.e., the authentic law of Moses, and the ordinances concerning sacrifices and temple, which were invented by the Jews.” For this reason the people of Israel were finally removed by God “beyond Babylon.”

 

The obvious difficulty with this interpretation is the fact that it is not sustained in the verses that follow. In verse 44 the polemic suddenly disappears. The tabernacle was a “tent of testimony” whose construction was directed by God. It was brought by the people into the land that God gave to them. David himself is said to have found favor with God. There simply is no reasonable way to interpret the people as unrelenting idolaters given up by God after the incident with the golden calf.

 

Many who do not go to these lengths still believe that there is an essential link between the wilderness story and the building of the temple. This correspondence is based in part upon the account of the idolatrous Israelites, who rejoiced εν τοις εργοις των χειρων αυτων (in the work of their hands, v. 41); the temple is characterized in verse 48 as χειροποιητοις (made by human hands). Hence it is concluded that “the superstitious attachment of the Jews to their temple is made to appear as a continuation of their idolatry in the desert.” (Jacques Dupont, The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 134 [251])

 

Again, the claim to temple criticism is dubious. For one thing, it ignores the fact that the tabernacle was also handmade. It may be objected that the construction of the tabernacle was, however, directed by God (v. 44). This is true, but it is also true that David, whose idea it was to construct the temple, is treated favorably and is not chastised for his wish. The treatment of Solomon is neutral or else an amazingly subdued criticism. And verses 48-50, as we have seen, minimize the role of the temple (that is, of the notion that God dwells only [or perhaps is uniquely present] in any handmade structure), without attacking it directly.

 

The solution to the difficulties of verses 39-43 should now be clear. The severity of these verses is directly attributable to the severity of the judgment awaiting the Jews (from the perspective of Stephen’s—and realized by Luke’s—day). If Israel’s rejection of Moses led to God’s rejection of Israel (v. 42), what other consequence might the reader expect of present Jewish rejection of the “prophet like Moses?” The corollary works only if the first judgment can be made to parallel and thus to justify the second. Thus the finality of God’s judgment in verses 42-43, while making a logical nonsense of verses 44-45, makes its own admirable sense. To regard these verses as the tokens of some obscure theology of the two laws encompassing a rejection of the sacrificial system is to miss the point entirely. (Craig C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division Within the Earliest Church [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], 76-80)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Luke Timothy Johnson on Hebrews 11:26

  

The phrase oneidismon tou Christou (“reproach of the Messiah”) is difficult, and almost impossible to translate adequately, but two points can confidently be made. First, in the honor-shame world of the author, oneidismos falls emphatically on the side of shame (see Josh 5:8; 1 Sam 17:26; Neh 5:9; Hos 12:14; Joel 2:19; Jer 6:10; 23:40; T. Reu. 4.7; T. Jud. 23.3). Second, just as the hearers were reminded that in earlier days they had been exposed to afflictions and oneidismoi and were partners of people who lived that way (Heb 10:33), so Moses here serves as a model of identifying with the shame of those who are being shamed.

 

The hard question concerns the identification with the Messiah (Christos). The author of Hebrews clearly regards the crucifixion of Jesus as something shameful in human eyes. He says that Jesus endured the cross, “despising its shame” (12:3). Christians who experience shame are, in turn, associated with the shame of the Christ. The hearers are told to go “outside the camp, bearing his reproach (ton oneidismon autou)” (13:13). The link between Christ and Christians is similarly made in Rom 15:3, which quotes lxx Ps 68:10, “the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen upon me.” But how are Moses and the Christ connected, so that the shame Moses embraces is the “shame of the Messiah”?

 

Here we can look at another psalm where the language of reproach appears. In Ps 88:51 the theme of the Davidic dynasty is prominent: God made a covenant with David his chosen one (88:3–4), whom he anointed (88:19–21), and to whom he promised an everlasting kingdom (88:27–37). He is the christos, the anointed one. But the king has been brought low by enemies, who “are full of wrath against your anointed” (88:39), so that “he has become the scorn (oneidos) of his neighbors” (88:42). The psalm concludes with David asking the Lord to remember “the reproach of your servants” (in the plural: oneidismou tōn doulōn sou), by which they “have taunted (ōneidisan) your anointed one (tou christou sou)” (88:51–52). According to the psalm, the reproach of the people and of the Christ are the same. Therefore, if Moses took on the reproach leveled at his people, he also took on the reproach leveled at the Messiah about whom the later psalmist would speak. It is quite likely that this is precisely what the author meant by his statement in Heb 3:5 that Moses was a servant “in order to give evidence about things yet to be spoken.”

 

Moses’ choice, like that of the earlier heroes of faith, was based on a calculation or a “knowing” of a reality that could not be seen with the eyes. He “looked forward” to the reward (misthopodosian), thus demonstrating the truth enunciated by the author in 11:6 that God is the rewarder of those who seek him. Moses is also a model for the hearers because, like them, his allegiance to God’s people meant being associated with shame and facing the loss of material possessions (“the treasures of the Egyptians”; see 10:32–33). Above all, his faith was exemplary, for he acted not in view of a temporary advantage but in view of an eternal reward. (Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012], 300-1)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on Hebrews 11:26

  

11:26 suffered for the Christ: Moses preferred to suffer with his people rather than cling to his possessions as an Egyptian prince. For the author, solidarity with the Hebrews is solidarity with the Hebrew Messiah destined to come from them. This speaks directly to the original readers, who also suffered affliction and sustained losses of their property (10:32-34) (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis J. Mitch [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024], 2173)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Emma's Pearls Episode 17 Brian Hales talks about Polygamy

 

Episode 17 Brian Hales talks about Polygamy





 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

 

Matthew J. Grey and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel on Luke 22:43-44

  

Several aspects of Luke’s version of events reflect his distinct themes and perspectives. For Luke, unlike Mark and Matthew, does not tell his gentile audience that the name of this location was Gethsemane; he simply refers to it as “the place” at the Mount of Olives. This is consistent, however, with Luke’s literary style—it was his practice to avoid Semitic names and expressions, likely because they were not as meaningful to his readers as they were to Mark’s and Matthew’s.

 

Second, and even more significant, are Luke’s stunning additions to the story that, while praying, Jesus was in “anguish” or “agony” (Greek: agōnia); that his agony caused his sweat to “be like” (hōsei) great drops of blood falling to the ground; and that God strengthened him in this agony by sending an angelic messenger (Luke 22:43-44). To modern readers this series of additions might make it seem like Luke is intensifying the suffering of Jesus during his prayer. However, within the Greco-Roman literary context which Luke was writing, the simile of sweat-like-blood and the strengthening messenger likely carried a different significance.

 

For instance, throughout Greek literature, the meaning of the word agōnia has less to do with suffering and more to do with an “athlete’s state of mind before the context.” Furthermore, in this same literary tradition, athletes heavily sweating in agōnia are often attended by trainers or servants who help them prepre for the approaching struggle

 

Therefore, rather than emphasizing Jesus’s suffering and despair (as seen in Mark and Matthew), Luke seems to be presenting Jesus as an athlete getting ready for a competition against a formidable opponent. In this case, though, Jesus’s approaching confrontation is not with a fellow athlete in a stadium but with the powers of sin and death on the cross. Further support for this reading is found in Luke’s description of Jesus’s prayer posture—rather than depicting Jesus as lying prostrate on the ground in his sufferings (as depicted in Mark and Matthew), Luke depicts Jesus as composed, in a kneeling position, preparing with the help of his strengthening servant (the angel) to enter the great arena. While unfamiliar to a modern audience, this allusion would have been understood by Luke’s Greco-Roman readers and would have presented Jesus in a way that set a profound example for their own journeys of discipleship. (Matthew J. Grey and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Place Called Gethsemane: Seeing the New Testament Story and Site in Its First-Century Context [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2025], 49-50)

 

On the authenticity of Luke 22:43-44, see:

 

 Lincoln H. Blumell, Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Karen Nelson on Psalm 16:10 (15:10 LXX) and Acts 2:27; 13:35

  

Two contentious issues concerning the interpretation of Ps 16:10 (15:10 LXX) and its appropriations in Acts are particularly relevant when identifying elements of the category hsyd. First, there is the question of whether the psalmist expected to be kept from untimely death,18 hoped to be preserved after death, or spoke of the messiah being resurrected from death19 when he said, “You will not give your ḥsyd [LXX: hosios] to see šḥt [LXX: diaphthora].” If yhwh does not give his ḥsyd to see šḥt (the “pit”), then ḥsyd does not go to the place of the dead, but continues on the path of life (vv. 10–11 MT). If the Lord does not give his hosios to see diaphthora (“corruption”), then the hosios may expect to be raised to life, after death but before decay sets in (vv. 10–11 LXX; Acts 2; 13). However, if šḥt can be legitimately translated by “corruption,” as some argue,20 there is no difference between the original Hebrew meaning and the LXX / New Testament interpretation. John Goldingay challenges that translation: “LXX and Jerome translate šaḥat with words such as ‘corruption,’ as if it came from šāḥat, which would be plausible if there were not the ordinary noun šaḥat, meaning ‘pit,’ from šûaḥ.”

 

Šḥt is used in parallel or grouped with šʾwl (“Sheol”), a name for the underworld (Ps 16:10; Job 17:13–14). Other Hebrew Bible occurrences of šḥt also indicate that it refers to a dark, confining object or location, below ground level, not a state. This information suggests that, in Ps 16, the psalmist expected yhwh to stop him from going to the place of the dead (šḥt; v. 10) and to spare his life (v. 11). On the other hand, the New Testament nuances of diaphthora include both the location and the state of the dead. Aside from the quotations from Ps 15:10 LXX in Acts 2:27 and 13:35, the noun diaphthora occurs within the New Testament only in Acts 2:31 and 13:34, 36–37. In 2:31, it probably denotes a state of decay (“nor did his flesh see [eidon] diaphthora”; cf. 13:36–37). But the combination of hypostrephō and diaphthora in 13:34 suggests a specific location is in mind. Thus, the LXX translator may have had the place of the dead in mind, but Luke’s use of diaphthora highlights the ambiguity.

 

The other debated issue is the referent of hosios. Peter and Paul indicate that the psalmist (David) was speaking about Jesus when he said, “You will not give your hosios to see corruption” (Acts 2:22, 25, 27; 13:33–35). But it is debatable whether the psalmist referred to his descendant or not when he said, “You will not give your ḥsyd to see the pit” (Ps 16:10 MT). In the psalm, “your ḥsyd” is set in parallel with “my npš.” If this is synonymous parallelism, then verse 10b is the only place in this psalm that the author refers to himself in any way other than the first- person singular pronoun. Other occurrences of ḥsyd (esp. Ps 86:2 [85:2 LXX], which is attributed to David) suggest that it is proper when addressing yhwh to refer to oneself or one’s group using relational descriptions (e.g., “your servant,” “your ḥsydym”). In addition, David is associated with ḥsd more than any other individual in the Hebrew Bible apart from yhwh.

 

While this evidence does not preclude the possibility of the psalmist referring to someone else as ḥsyd, it seems more likely that he is referring to himself, perhaps as a representative of all yhwh’s ḥsydym. Furthermore, since both Peter and Paul explain why David could not have spoken of himself in that verse (Acts 2:29–36; 13:36–37), it seems reasonable to infer that the traditional interpretation gave at least some grounds to think otherwise. Therefore, resurrection from death was probably not the expectation of the psalmist. That was a distinctive experience of the Messiah (cf. Acts 2:30–31).

 

How then does one account for the discrepancy between the psalmist’s expression of confidence that yhwh would spare his life and the New Testament interpretation that the psalmist (King David) was speaking about his descendant Jesus, whom God resurrected? As David’s descendants failed to live up to ideals for the royal dynasty, “a latent messianic sense” surfaced in psalms like this. Thus, the difference between the original sense and the latter interpretation of Ps 16 could have been the result of rabbinic hermeneutical processes (i.e., midrash or pesher), or reading “through the lens of the New Testament” to gain the fuller sense of the words (cf. Isa 7:14). (Karen Nelson, esed and the New Testament: An Intertextual Categorization Study [University Park, Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2023], 139-41)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Open Debate Challenge to Bradley Campbell of “God Loves Mormons”

The following is the email I just sent earlier today to Bradley Campbell of "God Loves Mormons." If you want them to take up the debate challenges, their email is: godlovesmormons@gmail.com


Bradley,

 

Zach Doumit reached out to you when the Book of Abraham video dropped. I was one of the two LDS apologists willing to debate/dialogue the matter. However, it appears you did not respond. As the Book of Abraham has been receiving a lot of attention due to Capturing Christianity focusing on it, I thought I would send the following debate proposals to you. As someone who does ministry to Latter-day Saints, I am sure you would be game for the following.

 

Just fwiw, I am more than willing to debate you (and/or anyone else at GLM) on the following two debate topics:

 

(1) Thesis: "Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, which teaches that the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith to which all other standards of faith are to be subordinated, is taught by the Bible."

 

(2) The Book of Abraham is an authentic, ancient text and is God-breathed/inspired Scripture

 

Structure of both debates to be:

 

20 mins opening statements each

 

10 mins rebuttals each

 

15 mins cross ex each

 

7 mins concluding statements

 

I am currently back in Ireland, but am happy to have this via Zoom with a neutral moderator. I am even willing to allow a Reformed Baptist, Jeremiah Nortier (personal friends with James White) moderate the debate (we are on good terms as I helped him prep for a debate on Mariology a few years ago). Alternatively, atheist Emerson Green I am sure would be talked into hosting/moderating such debates.

 

As you and the others at GLM are active in trying to “save” Latter-day Saints to your (Reformed) Protestantism, I am sure you are more than willing to do such.

 

Robert Boylan

ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

M.-J. Lagrange on the Abraham and the Justification of the Impious in Romans 4

  

Quant a l'impie justifie dont l'exemple nous a aidés a comprendre le cas d'Abraham, l'objet de sa foi est précisément Dieu qui justifie limpie έπi τόν δικαιούντα τόν άσεβη. Les termes n'autorisent aucune échappatoire. On ne peut pas dire qu'il croit à celui qui lui par- donne, car duxaiów à l'actif ne peut signifier que deux choses : décla- rer juste ou rendre juste. Que Dieu le déclare juste, c'est-à-dire affirme ce qui n'est pas dans l'ordre moral, c'est une proposition blasphématoire. Si au moins on disait que Dieu le déclare juste, non plus en lui-même, mais parce qu'il le voit comme couvert par la justice de Jésus-Christ, on pourrait s'expliquer. Mais où est-il question dans ces textes de la justice de Jésus-Christ imputée? Il faut donc com- prendre que Dieu a le pouvoir de rendre juste celui qui ne l'est pas, ce qui est fort simple, surtout si l'on songe à la formule qui pré- cede de peu: είς το είναι αύτον δίκάιον καί δικαιούντα τόν έκ πίστεως Ίησού (Rom. III, 26). Une fois la formule de la Genese bien comprise, elle -peut nous etre appliquee, a nous οις μέλλει λογίζεσθαι «auxquels doit être faite une semblable mise à notre avoir », non pas au jugement dernier, mais lorsque nous faisons l'acte de foi décisif, de même que l'acte de foi d'Abraham a été enregistré de son vivant.

 

Mais par ailleurs Paul ne dit pas que ce fut le premier et qu'a ce mo- ment Abraham passa du péché à la justice. L'éloge qu'il fait de la foi d'Abraham suppose bien plutót que le patriarche était déjà alors le modèle des justes. Et en effet l'argument de doctrine vise beau- coup moins le fait relaté par le texte, que le texte lui-même. On voit la différence. Dans le premier sens : la justice fut conférée alors à Abraham en retour de la foi. Dans notre sens : que dit l'Écriture d'Abraham ? Quand elle parle de l'approbation donnee' par Dieu à sa justice, elle fait entendre clairement que cette justice était gratuite; c'est tout ce qui importe pour montrer qu'Abraham rentre dans l'or dre de la grâce développé dans le christianisme.

 

Quant à l'impie, il est parlé très clairement de sa première justification, mais comment pourrait-on l'identifier à Abraham?

 

Son cas est plus clair que celui d'Abraham et sert a expliquer la formule employee par la Genese, mais ce n'est pas une raison pour assimiler les deux cas en tout. Ce point est si délicat que je vais essayer de l'expliquer en d'autres termes.

 

II ne parait pas possible de traduire ή πίστις ελογίσθη είς δικαιοσύνην: La foi a été si agréable à Dieu qu'il a donné en retour la justice. Nous devons nous contenter de montrer que Paul n'a pas pensé à une justice extérieure. En s'arrêtant à cette pensée, il eût contredit l'Ancien Testament de front au lieu de l'amener à ses vues. Ce qui lui suffisait, c'était de montrer que la justice de l'A. T. était une justice venant de la foi, que ce qui comptait devant Dieu, c'était la foi et non les œuvres. Il semble que le texte de Gen. xv, 6 suffirait pour cela, puisque ce qui plut à Dieu dans Abraham, ce qui le détermina à compter et à inscrire justice, ce fut sa foi.

 

Mais de plus Paul tient à montrer que dans ce compte la foi seule entrait en ligne, et non les œuvres, ce qui supposait au fond une faveur de Dieu. Il le prouve par une comparaison qui n'est pas une allégorie, c'est-à-dire dans laquelle le salaire ne représente pas la justice. La parabole procède ainsi : celui qui travaille après un con- trat, a droit à un salaire; mais celui qui ne travaille pas? si on porte un salaire à son compte, comme s'il avait travaillé, ce ne peut etre que par faveur. Que dit-on d'Abraham? on a porté à son compte la justice, seulement parce qu'il a cru, sans parler d'œuvres ... Dieu lui a donc fait une faveur ... De même l'impie : Dieu lui a compté la justice sans les œuvres; faveur, quand bien même il aurait eu la foi, ce qui est bien le moins. Maintenant cette faveur se traduit-elle par le don de la justice ou parce que Dieu en dispense, c'est ce que ces textes ne disent pas, mais qui est clair par toute la doctrine de saint Paul. Et mème, à propos de l'impie, il est dit clairement, mais par manière de parenthèse, que Dieu rend juste celui qui était impie.

 

Pas plus que Cornely et Prat nous ne voyons ici l'imputation d'une justice extérieure, qui n'y est certainement pas, et cela suffit à rejeter l'objection; mais nous ne jugeons pas non plus que le don de la justice, a cause de la foi, soit contenu vi verborum dans l'expression ή πίστις έλογίσθη είς δικαιοσύνην.

 

D'ailleurs, l'interprétation que nous avons proposée n'est pas nouvelle. Sans parler des Pères qui ont parlé du texte relatif à Abraham d'une façon vague, et peut-être seulement d'après la Genèse, voici ce que dit saint Jérôme dans son commentaire sur l'épitre aux Galates (III, 6) : Recte tali reputatur fides ad iustitiam, qui Legis opera supergressus, Deum non metu sed dilectione promeruit. On voit que la foi d'Abraham est censée animée par la charité; il n'est donc point question de donner la justice en retour de la foi. Saint Chrysostome est encore plus explicite. Il insiste sur la parfaite justice d'Abraham, et distingue admirablement les deux cas proposés par saint Paul : que celui qui n'a rien fait de bon soit justifié par la foi, cela n'est pas tellement admirable, mais que cet homme grand par ses actes ne soit juste que par la foi, voilà l'éloge suprême de la foi (sur Rom. IV, 3). Les disciples ont suivi, comme on peut le voir par exemple dans Euthymius.

 

C'est à cause de ces autorités et pour couper court à toute justice imputée, qu'Estius a cru que Paul parlait d'une justification progressive d'Abraham et non de sa première justilication. Je n'irai pas jusque- là. Je dis seulement que dans son argumentation Paul fait abstraction de toute application historique précise, comme serait la première justification, sauf que l'éloge donné par l'Écriture est antérieur à la circoncision. Il s'occupe moins de ce qui s'est passé dans l'åme d'Abraham à un moment donné que d'un texte que peut-être on lui avait opposé et dont il tire parti sans nier son sens propre; la constatation de la justice d'Abraham devient la constatation de la justice sans les œuvres.

 

La question, encore une fois, n'est pas de savoir comment, ni pourquoi, ni même si la justice a été donnée à Abraham; mais seule- ment de savoir si la constatation de l'Écriture porte sur une justice propre ou sur une justice qui ne procede pas des œuvres, mais de la foi.

 

S'il semble, au premier abord, que cette exégèse est moins favorable à la thèse catholique, puisqu'elle ne trouve pas explicitement dans le texte le don de la justice, peut-être est-elle plus solide, puisqu'il est vraiment bien difficile d'expliquer le texte dans ce sens; et, comme celle d'Estius, elle est beaucoup plus radicalement opposée à la justice imputée, puisqu'il n'y a pas proprement d'imputation.

 

A défaut d'imputation, faut-il voir dans le ch. IV la preuve que la justification est un acte forensique? Ce serait encore une méprise.

 

Il y a bien la une sorte de constatation divine. Mais Dieu qui constate ne prononce pas un jugement, surtout definitif. L'idee est bien plutot d'une inscription sur le grand-livre d'après lequel le jugement final sera rendu. Ce concept est bien connu. On le trouve sous une forme assez semblable dans le livre des Jubilés à propos de l'action de Siméon et de Lévi à Sichem. Cette action « leur fut (comptée) pour justice, et cela est, consigne en leur faveur par ecrit pour justice ... ». Et spécialement de Lévi : « Ainsi on écrivit comme un témoignage en sa faveur sur les tables divines, bénédiction et justice devant Dieu » (1).

 

Il n'y a pas là de jugement qui donne entrée aux biens messianiques ou autres. Spécialement dans le cas d'Abraham ce serait un contresens. (M.-J. Lagrange, “La Justification D’Après Saint Paul (fin)Revue Biblique 11, no. 4 [November 1914 ]: 500-3)

 

English Translation :

 

As for the ungodly who is justified—whose example has helped us to understand Abraham’s case—the object of his faith is precisely God who justifies the ungodly ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιούντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ. The terms permit no loophole. One cannot say that he believes in the One who pardons him, for δικαιόω in the active can only mean two things: “to declare just” or “to make just.” To say that God declares him just—that is, to affirm what does not exist in the moral order—is a blasphemous proposition. If at least one were to say that God declares him just, not intrinsically, but because He sees him as covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, one could make sense of it. But where in these texts is there any mention of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ? We must therefore understand that God has the power to make just one who is not, which is perfectly simple—especially if one considers the closely preceding formula: εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιούντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (Rom. III.26). Once that formula in Genesis is well understood, it can be applied to us οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι—“to whom a like reckoning is to be applied,” not at the final judgment, but when we perform the decisive act of faith, just as Abraham’s act of faith was recorded during his lifetime.

 

But elsewhere Paul does not say that this was the first time Abraham passed from sin to righteousness. The praise he lavishes on Abraham’s faith rather implies that the patriarch was already then the model of the righteous. Indeed, his doctrinal argument concerns far less the narrated event than the text itself. You see the difference. In the first sense: righteousness was conferred on Abraham then in return for his faith. In our sense: what does Scripture say about Abraham? When it speaks of the approval given by God to his righteousness, it clearly implies that this righteousness was gratuitous; that is all that matters to show that Abraham is included in the order of grace developed in Christianity.

 

As for the ungodly, we read very clearly of his first justification; but how could one identify him with Abraham? His case is clearer than Abraham’s and serves to explain the formula used by Genesis, but that is no reason to assimilate the two cases in every respect. This point is so delicate that I shall try to explain it in other terms.

 

It does not seem possible to translate ἡ πίστις ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην as “Faith was so pleasing to God that He gave, in return, righteousness.” We must be content to show that Paul did not think of an external righteousness. To stop at that thought would have put him in open contradiction with the Old Testament, instead of bringing it to his views. What sufficed him was to show that the righteousness of the O.T. was a righteousness that came from faith, that what counted before God was faith and not works. It would seem that the text of Gen. xv.6 would suffice for that purpose, since what pleased God in Abraham, what determined Him to count and to register righteousness, was his faith.

 

Moreover, Paul insists on showing that in that reckoning faith alone entered into account, and not works—which implied, at bottom, a favor on God’s part. He proves it by a comparison that is not an allegory, that is to say, in which wages do not represent righteousness. The parable runs thus: the one who works under a contract is entitled to a wage; but the one who does not work—if a wage is credited to his account as if he had worked, it can only be by favor. What do we say about Abraham? Righteousness was credited to his account solely because he believed, without mention of works… God therefore showed him favor… Likewise with the ungodly: God credited righteousness to him without works; favor, even if he had faith, which is the least of things. Now, does that favor consist in the gift of righteousness or in God’s dispensing it? These texts do not say, but the whole of Saint Paul’s doctrine makes it clear. And indeed, with regard to the ungodly, it is said quite explicitly, almost as a parenthesis, that God makes just the one who was ungodly.

 

Just as neither Cornely nor Prat do we see here the imputation of an external righteousness—which certainly is not here—and that suffices to dismiss the objection; but we do not think either that the gift of righteousness on account of faith is contained viva verbis in the expression ἡ πίστις ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

 

Besides, the interpretation we have proposed is not new. Apart from the Fathers who spoke of the Abraham text in a vague way, perhaps merely following Genesis, here is what Saint Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (III.6):

 

Recte tali reputatur fides ad iustitiam, qui Legis opera supergressus, Deum non metu sed dilectione promeruit.


You see that Abraham’s faith is said to be animated by charity; there is therefore no question of giving righteousness in return for faith. Saint Chrysostom is even more explicit. He insists on Abraham’s perfect righteousness and admirably distinguishes the two cases proposed by Saint Paul: that one who has done no good should be justified by faith is not so remarkable; but that this man, great in his deeds, should be just only by faith—that is the supreme praise of faith (on Rom. IV.3). The disciples followed suit, as one sees for example in Euthymius.

 

It is on account of these authorities and to cut short any notion of imputed righteousness that Estius believed Paul spoke of a progressive justification of Abraham rather than of his first justification. I will not go so far. I say only that in his argument Paul abstracts from any precise historical application, such as would be the first justification, except that the praise given by Scripture is prior to circumcision. He is less concerned with what happened in Abraham’s soul at a given moment than with a text that perhaps had been opposed to him and from which he draws profit without denying its proper sense; the affirmation of Abraham’s righteousness becomes the affirmation of righteousness apart from works.

 

The question, again, is not how, nor why, nor even if righteousness was given to Abraham; but only whether Scripture’s assertion concerns an inherent righteousness or a righteousness that does not proceed from works but from faith.

 

If at first glance this exegesis seems less favorable to the Catholic thesis—since it does not find explicitly in the text the gift of righteousness—perhaps it is firmer, for it is indeed quite difficult to explain the text in that sense; and, like Estius’s, it is far more radically opposed to imputed righteousness, since there is no proper imputation.

 

In the absence of imputation, must one see in chapter IV proof that justification is a forensic act? That too would be a misunderstanding. There is indeed a kind of divine affirmation. But God who affirms does not pronounce a judgment, especially a definitive one. The idea is rather of an inscription in the great book according to which the final judgment will be rendered. This concept is well known. One finds it in a similar form in the Book of Jubilees regarding the action of Simeon and Levi at Shechem. Their action “…was counted for righteousness, and it is recorded in their favor in writing for justice…” And especially of Levi: “…Thus it was written as testimony in his favor on the divine tablets, blessing and justice before God.”

 

There is no judgment here that admits one to messianic goods or anything else. Especially in Abraham’s case, that would be a misunderstanding.

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

 

M.-J. Lagrange on 1 Timothy 3:16

  

I Tim. III, 16 se dit du Christ, et n'a rien à faire avec la justification. On le voit, le passif n'exige jamais le sens déclaratif quand il s'agit de la justification, non point eschatologique, mais chretienne. Le sens de devenir juste, par un don de Dieu évidemment, et dans le Christ, dans son sang, par sa rédemption, ce sens est souvent exigé et suffit toujours. D'autre part nous avons vu ce sens courant dans l'A. T pour traduire l'intransitif צדק, et dans les apocryphes, surtout dans l'apocalypse de Baruch. Cette concordance paraît tout à fait décisive, d'autant que Paul, admettant chez le fidèle une justice de Dieu com- muniquée, lui donnait ainsi une expression traditionnelle. Seulement, d'après sa doctrine, devenir juste, c'était, en réalité, être mis par grâce en possession de la justice. (M.-J. Lagrange, “La Justification D’Après Saint Paul (fin)Revue Biblique 11, no. 4 [November 1914 ] : 485-85)

 

English Translation :

 

I Tim. III, 16 is spoken of Christ, and has nothing to do with justification. As you can see, the passive never demands the declarative sense when it comes to justification—not the eschatological kind, but the Christian. The sense of “becoming just,” by a gift of God, of course, and in Christ, in His blood, by His redemption—that sense is often required and always sufficient. Moreover, we have observed this common usage in the O.T. to translate the intransitive צדק, and in the Apocrypha, especially in the Apocalypse of Baruch. This agreement seems altogether decisive, all the more since Paul, admitting in the believer a righteousness of God communicated, thereby gave it a traditional expression. Yet, according to his doctrine, to become just really meant to be, by grace, put into possession of righteousness.

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

M.-J. Lagrange on 1 Corinthians 6:11

  

I Cor. VI, 11 αλλά απελούσασθε, άλλά ηγιάσθητε, άλλά εδικαιώθητε ... «mais vous avez été lavés, vous avez été sanctifiés (vous êtes devenus saints), vous avez été justifiés (vous êtes devenus justes) » ... Quoi de plus clair pour prouver que la justification n'est pas une déclaration exté- rieure distincte de la sanctification qui est intérieure? (M.-J. Lagrange, “La Justification D’Après Saint Paul (fin)Revue Biblique 11, no. 4 [November 1914 ]: 483)

 

English Translation:

 

“I Cor. VI, 11 ἀλλά ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιασθήτε, ἐδικαιωθήτε … ‘but you have been washed, you have been sanctified (you have become saints), you have been justified (you have become just)’ … What could be clearer to prove that justification is not an external declaration distinct from sanctification, which is internal?”

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

M.-J. Lagrange on Transformative Justification, οω- verbs, and the δικαι- and צָדַק-word Groups

  

 

ÉTRE JUSTIFIÉ, JUSTIFIER, JUSTIFICATION.

 

Puisque Paul reconnait une justice, à la vérité une justice qui vient de Dieu, qui n'est pas acquise par les œuvres, mais communiquée par lui, n'est-il pas vraisemblable qu'il a employé un verbe pour exprimer cette situation? C'est la question du sens de δικαιουν, à l'actif et au passif.

 

Les verbes en οω ont le sens de rendre tel que l'indique leur racine. Ainsi dxatow devrait proprement signifier « rendre juste ». Ce sens ne se trouve pas dans le grec profane, et la raison en est assez naturelle. Quel que soit le sens de δικαιος, qu'il exprime une disposition droite à l'égard des autres ou plus généralement une disposition générale à bien remplir ses devoirs, cette disposition ne s'impose pas du dehors, parce qu'elle est propre à la personne. On peut employer οσιοω dans le sens de purifier, mais pourvu qu'il soit question d'une purification exterieure. Chez les Grecs δικαιοω signifiait donc simplement regarder comme juste, comme convenable, trouver bon; mais aussi rendre justice a quelqu'un ou le condamner. Le sens déclaratif large est le plus courant, mais le sens spécial de déclarer juste par un jugement est assez rare, et le mot se prête à de nom-breuses combinaisons.

 

C'est aussi ce qu'on constate dans le grec de l'A. T., où il traduit des mots hébreux variés et avec des acceptions différentes. On ne l'a pas suffisamment constate.

 

. . .

 

La forme piel est rendue par l'actif Jer. III, 11; Ez. XVI, 51. 52, dans le sens de se montrer innocent, en comparaison d'un autre plus coupable (Jer.), ou d'innocenter une autre personne, à force d'être mauvais soi-même (Ez.). Ce n'est pas le juge qui prononce l'innocence (relative!) d'une des parties; c'est l'autre partie qui la fait ressortir. Ce n'est déjà plus le sensus forensis déclaratif, mais c'est sans utilité pour l'explication de saint Paul. Le piel est rendu par le passif dans Job XXXIII, 32 : « Parle, car je désire te donner raison » de lhebreu, devient: θέλω γάρ δικαιωθήναί σε, « parle, car je veux que tu aies raison ». Traduire comme M. Feine : « car je voudrais que tu fusses déclaré juste » comme une preuve que les Septante avaient en vue ordinairement le sensus forensis, c'est donner trop d'importance à Elihou qui n'est pas le juge officiel de la cause de Job.

 

Ce qui d'ailleurs nous autorise à traduire comme nous l'avons fait, c'est le cas très fréquent du passif signifiant simplement « etre juste », qui est précisément le fait méconnu que nous voudrions mettre en lumière. C'est, croyons-nous, le cas presque toutes les fois que δικαιουσθαι- ata traduit le qal hébreu צָדַק dont le sens incontestable est « être juste ».

 

. . .

 

Si Dieu est le sujet du verbe actif, il va sans dire qu'il ne reconnait ou déclare juste que celui qui l'est réellement. Nulle part un acquit- tement par grâce n'est exprimé par l'idée de rendre justice. L'usage des apocryphes comporte les mêmes nuances. Évidemment saint Paul devait tenir compte de l'usage reçu de son temps, mais on voit combien cet usage était flottant. Il lui était donc permis de se servir d'un mot très vague pour exprimer ses idées nouvelles. Et ce serait sans doute une autre exagération de penser qu'il lui a donné dès le premier emploi un sens précis, toujours le même. S'il aime les situations franches, il ne répugne pas non plus à l'emploi des nuances. D'après certains auteurs, on dirait que δικαιουν à l'actif et au passif doit nécessairement avoir le sens de déclarer juste ou de rendre juste. Les exégètes catholiques concèdent en général l'emploi des deux sens. Il pourrait bien y en avoir d'autres. (M.-J. Lagrange, “La Justification D’Après Saint Paul,” Revue Biblique 11, no. 3 [July 1914 ]: 337, 338, 442-43)

 

 

English Translation:

 

Being justified, to justify, justification

 

Since Paul acknowledges a righteousness—truly a righteousness that comes from God, which is not acquired by works but communicated by him—is it not likely that he employed a verb to express this reality? That is the question of the meaning of δικαιουν, in both its active and passive forms.

 

Verbs in -οω carry the sense “to make into” whatever their root denotes. Thus δικαιοω properly means “to make just.” This nuance does not occur in secular Greek, for a simple reason: whatever the sense of δικαιος—whether it denotes a right disposition toward others or, more broadly, a general inclination to fulfill one’s duties—such a disposition cannot be imposed from without, since it belongs to the person. One can use ὁσιοω in the sense “to purify,” but only when referring to an external purification. Among the Greeks, δικαιοω therefore simply meant “to regard as just or fitting,” “to approve”; but it could also mean “to administer justice to someone” or “to condemn.” The broad, declarative sense is most common, while the specific sense of “to pronounce just by a formal judgment” is quite rare, and the word is used in many compound forms.

 

The same is observed in the Greek of the Old Testament, where δικαιοω translates various Hebrew terms with differing senses—a fact that has not been sufficiently noted.

 

 

The Piel form of צָדַק is rendered by the active in Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51–52, in the sense of “to show oneself innocent in comparison with another more guilty” (Jer.), or “to vindicate another person by being wicked oneself” (Ezek.). Here it is not the judge who pronounces the (relative!) innocence of one party, but the other party who brings it out. This is no longer a declarative sensus forensis, and it is of no relevance to Saint Paul’s usage. The Piel appears in the passive in Job 33:32: the Hebrew “Speak, for I desire to vindicate you” becomes θέλω γάρ δικαιωθήναί σε, “Speak, for I want you to be vindicated.” To follow M. Feine in translating “for I would wish that you were declared just,” as though the Septuagint regularly carried the sensus forensis, places undue weight on Elihu, who is not Job’s official judge.

 

What permits us to render it as we have is the very frequent use of the passive simply meaning “to be just,” which is precisely the neglected fact we wish to highlight. We believe this is almost always the case when δικαιούσθαι translates the Hebrew qal צָדַק, whose indisputable meaning is “to be just.”

 

 

If God is the subject of the active verb, it goes without saying that he recognizes or declares just only the one who truly is just. Nowhere does the notion of acquittal by grace appear under the idea of “making just.” The usage in the Apocrypha shows the same nuances. Clearly, Saint Paul had to take into account the contemporary usage of his time, but one sees how fluid that usage was. He was therefore permitted to employ a rather vague term to express his novel ideas. It would be another exaggeration to suppose that he assigned it a precise, fixed meaning from its first use. Though he favors clear-cut statements, he does not shrink from nuanced expression. According to some authors, one would think that δικαιουν in both active and passive must necessarily mean “to declare just” or “to make just.” Catholic exegetes generally admit the employment of both senses—and perhaps others besides.

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Blog Archive