Review of the NeedGodNet vs. Joe Heschmeyer Debate on Water Baptism
Saturday, May 31, 2025
Earl J. Richard on the Apocalyptic Background to "Taking his seat in the temple of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4)
The expression “taking his
seat in the temple of God” should be viewed in apocalyptic terms, no matter how
vivid or dramatic the imagery. (1) There is much background in apocalyptic
literature for the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple, whether the activity of
the king of Tyre, who haughtily claimed to be a god (Ezek 28:2), of the
provocative Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; also Mark 13:14), of
Pompey the Roman general who entered the holy of holies (PssSol 2; 17:11–14),
or of Gaius Caligula, who tried “to erect an image of himself in the temple of
God” (Josephus, JA 18:261). Such lore
served as model for end-day conduct of the apocalyptic evil one. (2) Also, the
temple and the divine throne often figure in apocalyptic scenarios as heavenly
realities representing the site of God’s power and presence (Ps 11:4; 2 Bar 4;
T. Levi 5; Rev passim: both heavenly throne and temple). The author therefore
employs temple imagery as symbol for the site of God’s power and the phrase
“taking his seat” to represent the ancient theme of human aspirations to
divinity, whether Adam and Eve (Gen 3:5) or Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:21–23;
Josephus, JA 19:343–47), in addition
to the examples given above. Finally, the addition in some late mss of the
phrase “as God” is both unnecessary in the context and poorly attested
textually (TCGNT, 635–36). (Earl
J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians [Sacra Pagina Series; Collegeville,
Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2007], 328-29)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Friday, May 30, 2025
Examples of Patristic Discussions Concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
2:3–4 The Rebellion,
the Man of Lawlessness
The
Antichrist. Chrysostom: Here Paul discusses the Antichrist and
reveals great mysteries. What is the “falling away”? He calls him Apostasy;
soon he will destroy many and make them fall away.… And he calls him “the man
of sin.” For he shall commit numberless evils and shall cause others to do
them. But Paul calls him “the son of perdition,” because he is also to be
destroyed. But who is he? Satan? By no means. Rather he is a man in whom Satan
fully works. For he is a man.… For he will not introduce idolatry but will be a
kind of opponent to God. He will abolish all the gods and will order men to
worship him instead of God. He will be seated in the temple of God, not that in
Jerusalem only, but also in every church. Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 3.
Masked
Heretics. Cyril of Jerusalem: Such is Paul’s account. And we have
reached the “falling away.” Men, that is, have fallen away from the true faith.
Some proclaim the identity of Father and Son. Others dare to assert that one
should believe Christ has come into existence out of nonexistence. Formerly
heretics were quite evident, but now the church is full of masked heretics. For
men have deserted the truth and want to have their ears tickled.21
Make a plausible case, and everyone is ready to listen to you. Talk of changing
one’s life, and everyone deserts you. The majority have fallen away from the
sound doctrines and are readier to choose what is bad than to prefer what is
good. So there you have the “falling away,” and the coming of the enemy is to
be expected next. Meanwhile, he has begun to send out his forerunners here and
there, so that the spoil may be prepared for him when he comes. Therefore,
brothers, look to yourselves. Watch over your souls carefully. Catechetical
Lectures 15.9.
A
Wise Caution. Augustine: No one can doubt that Paul is
here speaking of Antichrist, telling us that the day of judgment (which he
calls the day of the Lord) will not come without the prior coming of a figure
whom he calls the Apostate, meaning, of course, an apostate from the Lord God.
And if this appellation can rightly be attached to all the ungodly, how much
more to him! There is, however, some uncertainty about the “temple” in which he
is to take his seat. Is it the ruins of the temple built by King Solomon, or
actually in a church? For the apostle would not say “the temple of God” if he
meant the temple of some idol or demon. For that reason some people would have
it that Antichrist means here not the leader himself but what we may call his
whole body, the multitude, that is, of those who belong to him, together with
himself, their leader.… For myself I am much astonished at the great
presumption of those who venture such guesses. The City of God 20.19.2.
His
Own Glory. Augustine: He who speaks on his own seeks his own
glory. This will be that one who is called the Antichrist, “exalting himself,”
as the apostle says, “above all that is called God and that is worshiped.”
Indeed, the Lord, announcing that he would seek his own glory, not the glory of
the Father, said to the Jews, “I have come in the name of my Father, and you
have not received me; another will come in his own name, this one you will
receive.”26 He signified that they would receive the Antichrist, who
would seek the glory of his own name, puffed up, hollow, and so not enduring
but in fact ruinous. But our Lord Jesus Christ offered us a great example of
humility. Tractates on John 29.8.
The
Trial Is Transitory. Basil the Great: In truth, both of our ears
rang on learning of the shameless and inhuman heresy of those who persecuted
you. They had no regard for age, nor for the labors of a life well spent, nor
for the affection of the people. On the contrary, they tortured and dishonored
bodies, handed them over to exile and plundered whatever property they were
able to find, not fearing the censure of men nor foreseeing the fearful
requital of the just Judge.… But, along with these considerations, there came
this thought also: The Lord has not entirely abandoned his churches, has he?
And this is not the last hour, is it? Is apostasy finding an entrance through
them, in order that now the impious one may be revealed, “the son of perdition,
who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped”?
But if the trial is transitory, bear it, noble champions of Christ.… For if all
creation is destroyed and the scheme of the world is altered, what wonder is it
if we also, being a part of creation, suffer the common evils and are given
over to afflictions?… The crowns of martyrs await you, brothers; the choirs of
confessors are ready to reach out to you their hands and to receive you into
their own number. Letters 139. (Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, ed. Peter Gorday [Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000], 109-10)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Thursday, May 29, 2025
Mark Allfree Reflecting the Christadelphian Belief that Christ Offered a Sacrifice For Himself
Makes
reconciliation for the house of Israel
Ezekiel
45:17 indicates that the prince provides sacrifices including burnt offerings,
meat offerings and drink offerings, in the feasts, the new moons and the
sabbaths: “And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat
offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the
sabbaths, and all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin
offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace
offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel”. In addition, he
prepares a daily burnt offering (Ezekiel 46:13). The number of sacrifices provided
by the prince is considerable, as the chart below illustrates.
|
Offerings provided by the prince |
|
|
Occasion |
Offerings provided |
|
Feast of the passover (45:22, 23) |
50 bullocks |
|
Feast of tabernacles (45:25) |
49 bullocks |
|
Every sabbath day (46:4) |
6 lambs |
|
Every new moon (46:6) |
1 bullock |
|
Every day (46:13) |
1 lamb |
What
this indicates is that the prince will be very busy in the sanctuary. HE will
be intimately involved, in a daily basis, in the performance of the ritual in
the temple. But the record is very clear that the prince gives (Ezekiel
45:17) and prepares (Ezekiel 45:17, 22, 23, 24; 46:2, 7, 12, 13, 14,15)
the offerings, but he does not offer them upon the altar. This sacred
duty is reserved from the sons of Zadok, as Ezekiel 44 makes clear: “But the
priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary
when the children if Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister
unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the
blood, saith the Lord God: they shall enter into my sanctuary, and they
shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge”
(Ezekiel 44:15, 16). Nowhere in the inspired record is the prince said to approach
unto the altar. Although the offerings he provides “makes reconciliation for
the house of Israel” (Ezekiel 45:17), the prince is never called a priest, and
he does not appear to perform the duties of a priest.
Offers
a sin offering for himself and for the people
One
particular offering that the prince prepares on the day of the Passover is a
sin offering for himself and for the people: “In the first month, in the
fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the Passover , a feast of seven
days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall the prince
prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a
sin offering” (Ezekiel 45:21, 22). Together with the people, the prince is in
need of a sin offering. Clearly he is acting on behalf of the people, and in
this regard a parallel can be drawn with the sin offering that Aaron had to
offer on the day of atonement: “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering,
which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house”
(Leviticus 16:6).
Whilst
in the days of his flesh Jesus was “made sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians
5:21), on account of his partaking of our death-stricken nature (see Hebrews
2:14; Romans 8:3), and the therefore in need of personal redemption (see Hebrews
9:12 RV: “Nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood,
entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption”),
and salvation (see Hebrews 13:20, 21: “Now the God of peace, that brought again
from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the
blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to
do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through
Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”) the fact remains that
he has now been “highly exalted” (Philippians 2:9), and “raised . . . from the
dead, now no more to return to corruption” (Acts 13:34). When he comes gain he
will “appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
IT does not therefore seem appropriate that the immortal, perfected Christ
should be required to offer sin offerings for himself. Hebrews 7 very clearly
states that the exalted Christ does not need to offer any further offerings for
himself: “But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable
priesthood. Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high
priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high
priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the
people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Hebrews
7:24-27). (Mark Allfree, The Restoration of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Ezekiel
40-48 [Nottinghamshire: Bible Study Publications, 2018], 121-23)
Further Reading:
Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues
Charles H. Giblin on the Temple (ναος) in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 being the Church, not the Jerusalem Temple
ΝΑΟΣ in
Verse 4b
The temple (ναός, sanctuary) in v. 4b has been
interpreted as the temple of Jerusalem or in various symbolic ways as a
heavenly temple, as the Church, and simply as part of an expression depicting
the hostile figure’s attempt to arrogate to himself all divine prerogatives
(Knabenbauer, Vosté, Steinmann, Amiot) .
The first of these
interpretations is more logically associated with the view that Paul has in
mind some figure like Emperor Caligula, who attempted to have his statue set up
in the temple , or Nero. This interpretation suffers from the general weaknesses
of any theory of strictly historical interpretation of the figures in this
chapter (cf. remarks in Part One, pp. 17–19). And it suffers from still others.
For Caligula died in 41 A.D., a decade before this letter was written, and Paul
in writing 2 Thes 2:3–4 is looking ahead to the parousia, not backwards. Nero
was alive at the time Paul wrote, but became Emperor in 54. G. R.
Beasley-Murray’s remarks on the way the Caligula-episode has been used in
explaining Mk 13:14 ff. (and 2 Thes 2:4) are applicable to the Nero-hypothesis
too: “the method employed by proponents of this theory is to pin down a
prediction to a likely event and then insist that on this account the saying
must be ex eventu” . But, apart from
the method employed, such a line of interpretation misconstrues the perspective
in which the imagery is used. It assumes that the imagery is merely a disguised
form of predicting physical events. Actually, the context into which the imagery
is integrated is a pastoral admonition against deception on a point of faith.
Even apart from the
Emperor-hypothesis, the view that the earthly temple of Jerusalem is in
question does not find anything in Paul to commend itself. For, as we shall see
shortly, his references to the temple have a different scope. We can find no
grounds for supposing that in Paul’s catechesis, to which reference is made
within two lines of his reference to the temple in v. 4, the temple or earthly
city of Jerusalem figured at all. At the very least, the view that the earthly
temple is meant does not accord with the view of Jerusalem in Gal 4:25–26.
The theory that a heavenly
temple enters Paul’s ken seems a bit less gratuitous. But, again, such a
“localized” heavenly temple is mentioned nowhere else in Paul’s own works. An
interpretation based on the use of this image in Apoc would first have to explain the sense of the
texts in that unique work and then relate them to the far less visual imagery
of 2 Thes 2. Furthermore, the ἄνομος is
depicted as a human figure who is undone at the Lord’s parousia. His
pseudo-parousia is opposed to that of the Lord himself, and the temple which is
the object of his self-assertion should presumably be “located” not in heaven
but in the realm directly affected by the Lord’s coming. In a sense, this
latter “area” is not strictly earthly, for it involves men (who believe or
disbelieve) rather than place But it is difficult to see how Paul’s
representation of the anti-God figure fits with a conception of ναός as an altogether non-terrestrial temple
situated in the heavens.
The position of Knabenbauer et al is less vulnerable to specific
objections, since it is basically a refusal to designate the meaning of the
term beyond the minimum that must be inferred from other elements in the
immediate context. But this minimal position does not seem to be warranted by
Paul’s repeated use of the temple (ναός,
sanctuary) in other letters.
These other Pauline
texts solidly base the view that the
Church is meant, though further qualifications are called for. We would not say
that Paul is speaking of the Church as God’s temple in the sense that he is presenting
its organizational-juridical aspects. In Eph 2:21 and 4:16, for example, where
the image of the temple is tied closely to the image of the Church as a body,
the ‘organization’ that is directly affirmed is affirmed in function of the
idea of ordered growth. This growth is said to be according to a power (scl.,
the spirit, as coming from Christ risen) which is at work in the Church and
brings it to spiritual maturity. For Paul, the Church is largely the
dwelling-place of the Spirit; it is the sphere of sanctification conceived as God’s special possession,
something purchased through the redemption (1 Cor 6:19–20). An ecclesial
interpretation is supported by the wider context of Paul’s use of cult-imagery,
scl., in reference to the faith or sanctification of the community or in
connection with his own apostolic work . Again, the temple-image seems to have
figured in Paul’s catechesis, to which we have a reference in the text before
us (v. 5).
The principal difficulty
against taking ναός of
v. 4 as the Church is perhaps the expression αὐτὸν … καθίσαι: “to seat himself”. Does not this term
itself (καθίσαι),
in spite of its infinitive form after ὥστε
(which may easily be taken as indicating a tendency instead of an accomplished
fact), suggest establishment of the
Rebel in some way in the Church? We do not think it follows that establishment
or actual exercise of power is implied by the very term καθίσαι. In the first place, it should be noted
that, though καθίσαι is
printed in bold-face type in Nestle’s text, with a marginal reference to Ez
28:2, it does not occur in Ez 28:2 or in any of the other texts which are
considered to lie behind 2 Thes 2:3–4. In Ez 28:2, in fact, we find a far more
“local” image (κατοικίαν
θεοῦ κατῷκηκα) which Paul does not use and may even
be avoiding.
In the second place, the
term καθίζω is frequent enough
in texts which describe a form of exercising power by way of teaching or
judging so that its locative sense virtually disappears . The term itself,
then, need not suggest physical presence but may denote function. Only its
form, considered in connection with other features of the text and context,
will be able to tell us whether Paul considers the function as actually
exercised or successful. The term alone will not do so. The determining factors
are Paul’s evident confidence that God’s prerogatives will not be usurped and
that his calling men to the faith will not be substantially frustrated. The
features of the text in v. 4 can easily be explained as describing an intended,
unrealized attempt (ὥστε +
inf., conative ptc. ἀποδεικνύντα).
One may add that the preposition εἰς,
which here keeps its sense of motion or direction , would certainly be less apt
than ἐν, with which καθίσαι is usually construed, if Paul had
thought of expressing achieved result.
Lastly, if the connotation
“false prophet” be accepted for “Man of Rebellion”, it is much easier to see
the appropriateness and precise scope of the term καθίσαι: the Rebel would set himself up as
teacher or judge in the Church. It is also easier to account for the boldness
of Paul’s image (even granting that he does not say the attempt is
accomplished). For in Mk 13:22 we find it said of false Christs and false
prophets: ποιήσουσιν
σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν [Mt 24:24: ὥστε πλανῆσαι], εἰ δυνατὸν, τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς.
“If possible” indicates for Mk-Mt the gravity of the threat; ὥστε κτλ. for Paul indicates rather the gravity of
the affront to what is God’s.
In conclusion, then, we see
no cogent reason for interpreting ναός
along other lines than those indicated by Paul’s regular use of the term. The
context of 2 Thes 2 does differ from that of other texts (except for the use of
ναός in 2 Cor 6:16) on the score that 2 Thes
2 is markedly apocalyptic. But we think that the ecclesial interpretation faces
fewer difficulties than any other known interpretation and better safeguards
the theological character of Paul’s pastoral admonition. A more thorough
investigation of the temple-image, since it requires extensive examination of
extremely difficult texts on the Son of Man and related images of the heavenly
assembly (and accordingly careful study of various authors and strata in the NT
tradition). cannot be handled in this monograph. (Charles H. Giblin, The Threat
to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-Examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 [Analecta
Biblical 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], 76-80)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Wednesday, May 28, 2025
T. C. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025)
Today, I read the following book:
T. C. Schmidt, Josephus & Jesus: New Evidence
for the One Called Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025)
I highly recommend it. It is a really solid defense
of the Testimonium Flavianum. Here is the abstract of the book:
This book brings to light an
extraordinary connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish historian
Josephus. Writing in 93/4 ce, Josephus composed an account of Jesus known
as the Testimonium Flavianum. Despite this being the oldest
description of Jesus written by a non-Christian, scholars have long doubted its
authenticity due to the alleged pro-Christian claims it contains. The present
book, however, authenticates Josephus’ authorship and then reveals a startling
discovery. First, the opening chapters demonstrate that ancient Christians read
the Testimonium Flavianum quite differently from modern
scholars, considering it to be basically mundane or even vaguely negative, and
hence far from the pro-Christian rendering that most scholars have interpreted
it to be. This suggests that the Testimonium Flavianum was
indeed written by a non-Christian. The book then employs stylometric analysis
to demonstrate that the Testimonium Flavianum closely matches
Josephus’ style. The Testimonium Flavianum appears, therefore,
to be genuinely authored by Josephus. The final chapters explore Josephus’
sources of information about Jesus, revealing a remarkable discovery: Josephus
was directly familiar with those who attended the trials of Jesus’ apostles and
even those who attended the trial of Jesus himself. The book concludes by
describing what Josephus tells us about the Jesus of history, particularly
regarding how the stories of Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection developed.
Abraham J. Malherbe on the Problems with Identifying the "Temple" of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 with the Temple in Jerusalem
so
that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
The extent of his arrogance becomes evident in its result (hoste plus the infinitive; cf. 1:4; 1 Thess 1:7). He (auton is emphatic) takes his seat (kathisai is intransitive) in God’s
temple. What Paul means by “temple,” or more precisely “shrine,” (naos) is not clear. The word is used of
the physical body (1 Cor 6:19), but that does not fit this context. The church
also is called God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21), and this
interpretation has had its patristic as well as modern proponents (see Giblin,
76–80). It has also been thought by some patristic and modern commentators that
Paul is referring to the heavenly temple, where God sits (Ps 10:4, “The Lord is
in his holy temple; the Lord, his throne is in heaven”; cf. Isa 66:1; Mic 1:2;
Hab 2:20; 1 En 14:17–22; 2 Bar 4:2–6; cf. Frame, 256).
The most obvious
identification is the Jerusalem temple and it is held by most commentators, but
problems attach to it. Although certain individuals in the OT (Isa 14:3–4; Ezek
28:2) and Nero (Sib Or 5.29–34) made
divine claims for themselves, and Gaius Caligula considered himself a god and
wished to have his statue erected in the temple (Josephus, Jewish War 2.184–85), nobody actually entered the temple
proclaiming himself to be God. It would appear that it is still the figure of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes as described in Daniel that is behind Paul’s language
here. The figure so described will halt worship to God and install the
abomination that makes desolate (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) and speaks against God
(11:36–37). Paul uses this language apocalyptically, as Matthew also does
(24:15).
The destruction of the
temple in a.d. 70 has also posed problems for interpreters who think that Paul
had the Jerusalem temple in mind. Patristic commentators overcame the problem
by claiming that the temple would be rebuilt. Some commentators, who hold that
the letter is pseudonymous, have seen in this a difficulty for their theory, if
the letter were written after the temple was destroyed (see discussion in
Wrede, 94–114; Trilling 1972: 126). This problem is more apparent than real;
other writings dating after a.d. 70, including Hebrews, convey an impression
that the temple was still standing (cf. Attridge, 8). Irenaeus, who thought
that Paul was referring to the Jerusalem temple and also echoed the passages in
Daniel, saw no problem in his position (Against
Heresies 5.25.4; see von Dobschütz 1909: 276–77). The usurpation of the
temple of God as the locus for claiming himself to be God symbolizes the
gravest act of defiance imaginable, and to express that is Paul’s intention as
he writes in starkly apocalyptic language. (Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters
to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
[AYB 32B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 420-21)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Isidore of Seville (d. 636) on Abraham instructing the Egyptians in Astrology
In “Astronomy (De astronomia),” found in The Etymologies, III.xxiv, Isidore of Seville wrote:
xxv. The inventors of
astronomy (De inventoribus eius) 1. The Egyptians were the first to
discover astronomy. However, the Chaldeans were the first to teach astrology
(astrologia)and observations concerning nativities. But the author Josephus
asserts that Abraham instructed the Egyptians in astrology. The Greeks say that
this art was earlier conceived by Atlas, and that is why he was said to have
held up the sky. 2. Yet whoever the inventor was, he was stirred by the
movement of the heavens and prompted by the reasoning of his mind, and through
the changing of the seasons, through the fixed and defined courses of the
stars, through the measured expanses of their distances apart, he made
observations of certain dimensions and numbers. By defining and discerning
these things, and weaving them into a system, he invented astrology. (The
Etymologies of Isidore of Seville [trans. Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis,
J. A. Beach, and Oliver Berghof; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006],
99)
Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Thomas B. Dozeman on the Covenant in Joshua 9:1-15b and the Oath in Joshua 9:15b-27
Covenant in Josh 9:1–15a
The theme of covenant signifies a
conditional alliance in the book of Joshua, rather than an unconditional
pledge. The term bĕrît, “covenant,”
occurs twenty-two times in Joshua. Thirteen references are to the “ark of the
covenant” (Josh 3:3, 6 [twice], 8, 11, 14, 17; 4:7, 9, 18; 6:6, 8; 8:33), where
it symbolizes the conditional presence of Yahweh with the Israelite army. The
conditional nature of covenant is illustrated in the story of Achan, where his
breaking of the covenant results in the army’s defeat. The Deity tells Joshua:
“Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant” (7:11, 15). Joshua’s speech
in Josh 23:16 and the subsequent covenant at Shechem in Josh 24:25 also
reinforce its conditional nature: “If you transgress the covenant of Yahweh,
your God, … you will perish.”
The conditional nature of
covenant in the book of Joshua aids in interpreting Josh 9, where the theme is
concentrated in the first half of the narrative (9:6, 7, 11, 15, 16). The
masquerade of the Gibeonites in Josh 9:1–15a is aimed at Joshua and the “men of
Israel.” The Gibeonites introduce the theme of covenant in Josh 9:6, when they
say, “From a faraway land we have come. Now make a covenant with us.” The theme
reappears in the unfolding negotiations (vv. 7, 8), until the success of the
trick is indicated in Josh 9:14–15a, when the men of Israel eat food with the
Gibeonites and Joshua makes “peace” with them through a “covenant.” Although
Joshua violates the rules for war in Deut 20:10–18, the conditional nature of
covenant in the book of Joshua indicates that it is not the central theme of
the story. If the central theme of the chapter were the making of a covenant
under false pretenses, Joshua would be free to destroy the Gibeonites, just as
Yahweh was free to abandon the Israelite army at Ai after Achan broke the
covenant (7:11, 15).
Oath in Josh 9:15b–27
The theme of swearing an oath
signifies a permanent and irrevocable promise or curse in the book of Joshua
that, once made, cannot be abrogated. The term šāba‘, “to swear,” occurs sixteen times in the book: five times in
the Hiphil form of the verb (2:12, 17, 20; 6:26; 23:7), and eleven times in the
Niphal (1:6; 5:6 [twice]; 6:22; 9:15, 18, 19, 20; 14:9; 21:43, 44). The Niphal
occurrences describe unconditional oaths that invoke the Deity or are stated by
God. Yahweh promises the land to the ancestors with an oath (1:6; 21:43, 44)
and denies the fulfillment of the promise to the first generation with a
similar oath (5:6 [twice]). These promises are unchangeable. Caleb also demands
land on the basis of Moses’ unconditional oath (14:9). The Hiphil form of the
verb describes the negotiations between Rahab and the spies for an oath of
rescue (2:12, 17, 20), which, once agreed upon, also becomes irrevocable (the
Niphal form of the verb in 6:22). Joshua’s permanent curse on the city is also
stated with the Hiphil form of the verb (6:26), as is the command not to make
an oath by invoking any other deity than Yahweh (23:7).
The unconditional nature of the
oath in the book of Joshua aids in interpreting Josh 9, where the theme is
concentrated in the second half of the narrative (9:15, 18, 19, 20). It appears
unexpectedly in v. 15b, when the leaders of the congregation suddenly and
without clear cause swear an oath to the Gibeonites after Joshua had already
made a conditional covenant with them in v. 15a. Once the oath is sworn, it
becomes the central theme in the second half of the narrative, as opposed to
the conditional covenant Joshua and the men of Israel made in the first half.
When the masquerade of the Gibeonites is discovered (9:16–17), the Israelites
are forced to spare them—not because they had made a covenant with them, but
“because the leaders of the congregation had sworn an oath to them by Yahweh
the God of Israel” (9:18). The oath is unconditional. The leaders state: “We
have sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel. So now we are not able to
strike them” (9:19). Thus, it is the leaders of the congregation, not Joshua,
who create a condition in which the Gibeonites must be spared, because of their
unconditional oath. The leaders wish to avoid the divine wrath that would
accompany the breaking of the oath and thus they make the Gibeonites permanent
cultic personnel: “And the leaders
said to them, ‘Let them live.’ And they were woodcutters and drawers of water
for the entire congregation, as the leaders
stated to them” (9:21). The speech of Joshua in vv. 22–23 follows the decision
of the leaders and thus must be read as commentary on the leaders’ solution
regarding the fate of the Gibeonites. Joshua reframes that solution as a curse:
“Now you are cursed. Slavery will not be cut away from you. You will be
woodcutters and drawers of water for the house of my God” (9:23).
Joshua 9 is a unified narrative.
The setting of its composition is the postexilic period. The evidence is the
author’s interweaving of Deuteronomistic notions of holy war and conditional
covenant (vv. 1–15a) with Priestly views of leadership and cultic service. The
aim of the author is to write a polemical story against the “leaders of the
congregation,” who are judged to be responsible for the cultic service of the
Gibeonites, which is a violation of the rules for holy war in Deut 20:10–18
that dominates the first half of the narrative. The rules for war represent the
perspective of the author, who would prefer to destroy the foreign Gibeonites
for making a covenant under false pretenses but is restrained by the
unconditional oath of the leaders of the congregation that guarantees their
cultic status. The best that the author can do is to curse this situation
through the speech of Joshua. (Thomas B. Dozeman, Joshua 1-12: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 6B; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2015], 412-13)
Interpretation of Apostolic Canon 85 in "The Rudder"
English:
CANON LXXXV
To
all you Clergymen and Laymen let the following books be venerable and sacred:
Of the Old Testament, the five of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; the one of Jesus of Nave (commonly called Joshua in
English); the one of Judges; the one of Ruth; the four of the Kingdoms; two
Paralipomena of the Book of Days; two of Esdras; one of Esther; three of the
Maccabees; one of Job; one Psalter (commonly called the Psalms in English and
also in Greek); three of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song
of Songs; twelve of the Prophets; one of Isaiah; one of Jeremiah; one of
Ezekiel; one of Daniel; outside of these it is permissible for you to recount
in addition thereto also the Wisdom of very learned Sirach by way of teaching
your younger folks. Our own books, that is to say, those of the New Testament,
comprising four Gospels, namely, that of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of
John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three Epistles of John;
one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Injunctions
addressed to you Bishops through me, Clement, in eight books, which ought not
to be divulged to all on account of the secret matters they contain) and the
Acts of us Apostles.
Interpretation
After teaching and
legislating in their sacred Canons in what manner it befits those in holy
orders and lay Christians in general to conduct themselves as a matter of
policy, the Apostles lastly teach also what books they ought to read. Thus in
their c. IX they taught us not to read books that are uncanonical and falsely
entitled and ascribed to others than their real authors, while in the present
Canon they teach us to read the canonical and holy books which they also
enumerate, as they appear listed here. These books are also mentioned in c. IX
of the Council held in Laodicea, and in c. XXXII of that held in Carthage.
Moreover, Athanasius the Great in his 39th festal letter, and St. Gregory the
Theologian, in his Epic Verses, and Amphilochius the Bishop of Iconion in his
Iambic Lines also mention them. In fact Athanasius the Great in his said letter
divides all the books of the Old Testament into two groups: the canonical, and
the readable. As regarding the ones in the Old Testament called canonical he says
that they are twenty-two books, in agreement with the number twenty-two of
letters in the Hebrew alphabet (as is stated also by St. Gregory the Theologian
and by divine John of Damascus), being named as follows: 1, Genesis; 2, Exodus;
3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Jesus of Nave (or Joshua); 7,
Judges; 8, Ruth; 9, Kingdoms first and second taken together (which are also
known as the Books of Samuel among the Jews); 10, Kingdoms third and fourth
(called also the First and Second Books of Kings, respectively); 11,
Paralipomena first and second taken together (called in English “the First Book
of the Chronicles” and “The Second Book of the Chronicles,” respectively); 12,
the First and the Second Book of Esdras, taken together; 13, The Psalms; 14,
Proverbs; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The twelve
lesser Prophets, named as a single book; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah together with
Lamentations, and Baruch, and an epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. Readable
books to be studied by the recently catechized are the following: Wisdom of
Solomon, which is also called all-virtuous according to Eusebius (Book 11, ch.
7, concerning Evangelical preparation); Wisdom of Sirach, which is also called
all-virtuous, according to George Syngelos (note, however, that Sirach is
called by Westerners “Ecclesiasticus”); Esther; Judith; and Tobias Take note,
however, of the fact that the book of Esther, which is but one, is also
included among the Canonical Books, just as the present Apostolical Canon also
lists it among the canonical books; and so does the council held in Laodicea,
and that held in Carthage. But even the Wisdom of Solomon, and Judith, and
Tobit are enumerated among the canonical books by the council of Carthage. In
the present Ap. c. the first three books of the Maccabees are also listed as
canonical books. Of the New Testament the canonical books are the following:
The four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Epistles General, namely,
one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude; fourteen Epistles
of Paul; and the Book of Revelation, concerning which, however, divine
Amphilochius in his Iambics says that though many approve it as genuine, most
authorities deem it spurious. The Book of Revelation was nevertheless accepted
by the Council of Carthage as a canonical book, as attested by its c. XXX; and
by Athansius the Great in his aforesaid letter No. 39; and by divine Dionysius
the Areopagite, who calls it a mystical intuition; and the scholiast of St.
Dionysius divine Maximus mentions in many places in his scholia; it is also
approved by St. Jerome, who calls it the most sublime book in the world. But if
St. Gregory the Theologian fails to mention it in his Epic Verses, yet in the
constituent address which he made to the one hundred and fifty bishops
composing the Second Ecumenical Council he expressly mentioned it, saying: “For
I am persuaded that other ones (i.e., angels) supervise other churches, as John
teaches me in Revelation.” Origen, too, had a communication on Revelation.
Cyril of Alexandria also mentions it (in p. 679 of the Pentateuch); and
likewise does Clement of Alexandria (in p. 856 of the Pentateuch); it is
accepted also by Apollinaris, Ephraim, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Lactantinus, Severus, Sylpicius, Augustine, Methodius, Hippolytus, Andrew of
Caesarea, and the Second Ecumenical Council itself, before which St. Gregory
the Theologian delivered his constituent address in which he mentioned the book
of Revelation. It is also recognized by Meliton the bishop of Sardis, and by
Theophilus the bishop of Antioch, and by others. As for the two Epistles of
Clement mentioned in the present Apostolical Canon, they were addressed to the
Corinthians on the part of the Church of Rome, and were published in the
collection of the first volume of the Records of the Councils; but the second
one is deemed spurious by Photius (folio 156 of the Myriobiblus). As for the Injunctions of the Apostles, which are
also called the Didache of the
Apostles by Athansius the Great, they were rejected by c. II of the 6th
Ecumenical Council, on the ground that they had been garbled by heretics. But
since not all of them were garbled, but only certain parts of them, therefore
many of the Fathers even before the Sixth, among whom St. Gregory the
Theologian in particular, but also sacred Maximus as well, adopted sayings
taken therefrom. Thus the Theologian in his discourse on Easter, with reference
to the proposition saying, “I will be on my guard,” explain the word sheep as
representing Christ allegorically on account of the coat of imperishability,
which saying was gleaned from the Injunctions,
according to Micetas; while divine Maximus uses whole excerpts from the Injunctions in his scholia on Dionysius.
But why am I speaking of individuals? The Fifth Ecumenical Council itself bears
witness to the Injunctions, in the letter of Justinian, to the effect that alms
ought to be given in behalf of the dying, p. 392 of the second volume of the
collection of the councils. But even after the Sixth Council the Council
assembled in St. Sophia adopted testimony from the Injunctions. Michael, too, the patriarch of Constantinople,
surnamed Cerularius, together with the synod attending him, living a.d. 1053,
adopted testimony against the cutting off of the beard which is found in Book I
of the Apostolical Injunctions, ch.
3, reading as follows: “Ye shall not depilate your beards: for God the Creator
made this becoming in women, but unsuited to men.” See also page 978 of volume
II of the Conciliar Records. Besides, as they are now found printed, it does
not appear to me that they contain anything spurious or improper. The Shepherd, which Athanasius the Great
mentions in his often-cited epistle, was a book which has not been preserved to
our times. Perhaps it was such an affair as the discourse which John of Climax
attributes to a shepherd, and, briefly speaking, there was such a book teaching
the shepherd of rational sheep how to shepherd them towards a pasture conducive
to salvation, and how to keep them safe from the clutches and claws of rational
wolves, and of demons and cacodoxical human beings as well. We have been
informed that this Shepherd is found
as a very old book in some monastery in Greece and that it is a work of
Quartus, one of the seventy Apostles. The
Shepherd is mentioned also by St. Maximus in his scholia on divine
Dionysius. Its size is about that of the Psalter. Note that c. LIV of Carthage
commands that besides the books of the Old and New Testaments the Lives of the
Martyrs are to be read which contain an account of their ordeals on the days of
their festivals. (D. Cummings with Agapios, Orthodox Eastern Church
and Nicodemus, The Rudder [trans. D. Cummings; Chicago: Orthodox
Educational Society, 1957], 145-54)
Greek:
ΚΑΝΩΝ ΠΕʹ.
Ἔστω ὑμῖν
πᾶσι Κληρικοῖς καὶ Λαϊκοῖς βιβλία σεβάσμια καὶ Ἅγια. Τῆς μὲν
παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, Μωϋσέως πέντε· Γένεσις· Ἔξοδος· Λευϊτικόν· Ἀριθμοί· Δευτερονόμιον· Ἰησοῦ
Ναυῆ ἕν· Κριτῶν
ἔν· Ροὺθ
ἕν. Βασιλειῶν
τέσσαρα. Παραλειπομένων τῆς βίβλου τῶν ἡμερῶν δύω. Ἔσδρα δύω. Ἐσθὴρ ἕν·
Μακκαβαίων τρία· Ἰὼβ ἔν· ψαλτήριον ἓν, Σολομῶντος τρία, Παροιμίαι. Ἐκκλησιαστὴς
καὶ Ἆσμα Ἀσμάτων· Προφητῶν δώδεκα· ἒν Ἡσαΐου· ἓν Ἰερεμίου· ἒν Ἰεζεκιήλ· Δανιὴλ ἕν.
ἔξωθεν δὲ ὑμῖν προσιστορείσθω μανθάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους, τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ
πολυμαθοῦς Σειράχ. Ἡμέτερα δὲ, τουτέστι τῆς καινῆς Διαθήκης, Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα,
Ματθαίου, Μάρκου, Λουκᾶ καί Ἰωάννου. Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσσαρες· Πέτρου ἐπιστολαὶ
δύο· Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολαὶ τρεῖς· Ἰακώβου μία· Ἰούδα μία· Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύω·
καὶ αἱ διαταγαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς Ἐπισκόποις διʼ ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν ὀκτὼ βιβλίοις
προσπεφωνημέναι, (ἂς οὐ χρὴ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων διὰ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς μυστικὰ) καὶ
αἱ Πράξεις ἡμῶν τῶν Ἀποστόλων.(2)
Ἑρμηνεία
Ἀφʼ οὕ οἱ Ἀπόστολοι ἐδίδαξαν καὶ ἐνομοθέτησαν διὰ τῶν ἱερῶν αὐτῶν Κανόνων
τίνι τρόπῳ ἁρμόζει εἰς τοὺς ἱερωμένους καὶ ἁπλῶς εἱς τοὺς λαϊκοὺς Χριστιανοὺς νὰ
πολιτεύωνται, τελευταϊον διδάσκουσι, καὶ ποῖκ βιβλία πρέπει νὰ ἀναγινώσκωσι. Καὶ
τὰ μὲν ἀκανόνιστα καὶ ψευδεπίγραφα βιβλία ἐδίδαξαν εἰς τὸν ξʹ. αὐτῶν Κανόνα
νὰ μὴ ἀναγινώσκωμεν, τὰ δὲ κανονισμένα καὶ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ παρόντος Κανόνος διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς νὰ ἀναγινώσκωμεν, ἄτινα καὶ ἀπαριθμοῦσιν, ὡς ἐδῶ φαίνονται καταστρωμένα. Μέμνηται δὲ τῶν βιβλίων τούτων καὶ ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ
σύνοδος, Καν.
ξʹ. καὶ ἡ
ἐν Καρθ. Καν.
λβʹ. Ἀλλὰ καὶ
ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος
ἐν τῇ λθʹ. ἑορταστικῇ αὐτοῦ
ἐπιστολῇ, καὶ Γρηγόριος
ὁ Θεολόγος ἐν
τοῖς ἔπεσι, καὶ Ἀμφιλόχιος
ὁ Ἰκονίου διὰ
στίχων Ἰάμβων. Ὁ τοίνυν
μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τῇ ρηθείσῃ ἐπιστολῇ εἰς δύω διαιρεῖ τὰ βιβλία ἄπαντα τῆς παλαιᾶς Γραφῆς· εἰς κανονιζόμενα, καὶ εἰς ἀναγινωσκόμενα. Καὶ κανονιζόμενα μὲν τῆς παλαιᾶς Γραφῆς λέγει, ὅτι εἶναι
βιβλία εἰκοσιδύω, κατὰ τὸν
ἀριθμὸν τῶν εἰκοσιδύω γραμμάτων τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν (καθὼς αὐτὸ
τοῦτο λέγει καὶ ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἰωάννης
ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς), τὰ
ὁποῖα εἷναι ταῦτα. 1. Γένεσις. 2. Ἔξοδος. 3. Λευϊτικόν. 4. Ἀριθμοί. 5. Δευτερονόμιον. 6. Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ. 7. Κριταί. 8. Ρούθ. 9. Βασιλειῶν πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα ὁμοῦ (ἅτινα, καὶ
Σαμουὴλ ὀνομάζονται παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις. Ἡ δέ
Γʹ. καὶ Δʹ. Βασιλ. ά.
καὶ βʹ. Βασιλειῶν ὀνομάζονται)
10. Βασιλειῶν τρίτη καὶ τετάρτη ὁμοῦ.
11. Παραλειπομένων πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα ὁμοῦ. 12. Ἔσδρα πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον ὁμοῦ.
13. Ψαλμοί. 14. Παροιμοίαι. 15. Ἐκκλησιαστής. 16. Ἆσμα Ἀσμάτων. 17. Ἰώβ. 18. Οἱ
δώδεκα μικροὶ Προφῆται ὀνομαζόμενοι βιβλίον ἕν. 19. Ἡσαίας. 20. Ἱερεμίας ὁμοῦ
καὶ Θρῆνοι, καὶ Βαροὺχ, καὶ ἐπιστολή. 21. Ἰεζεκιήλ. 22. Δανιήλ. Ἀναγινωσκόμενα
δὲ βιβλία ἀπὸ τοὺς νεωστὶ κκτηχουμένους ταῦτα εἱσί· Σοφία Σολομῶντος, ἥτις καὶ
πανάρετος λέγεται κατὰ τὸν Εὐσέβιον (βιβλ. 11. κεφ. 7. περὶ Εὐαγγελικῆς
προπαρασκευῆς), Σοφία Σειρὰχ, ἥτις καὶ αὐτη πανάρετος λέγεται, κατὰ Γεώργιον τὸν
Σύγγελον. (Σημείωσαι δὲ ὅτι ὁ Σειρὰχ Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς παρὰ τοῖς Δυτικοῖς ὀνομάζεται.)
Ἐσθὴρ, Ἰουδὴθ, καὶ Τωβίας. Σημείωσαι ὅμως ὅτι καὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς Ἐσθὴρ ἕν ὄν,
μετὰ τῶν Κανονιζομένων βιβλίων συναριθμεῖται, καθὼς καὶ ὁ παρὼν Ἀποστολικὸς Κανὼν
ἐν τοῖς κανονιζομένοις τοῦτο συγκαταλέγει, καὶ ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ σύνοδος, καὶ ἡ ἐν
Καρθαγ. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος, καὶ Ἰουδὶθ. καὶ ὁ Τωβὶτ, τοῖς
κανονιζομένοις βιβλίοις συναριθμοῦνται ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν Καρθαγένῃ συνόδου. Ὡς κανονικὰ
δὲ βιβλία καταλέγονται ἀπὸ τὸν παρόντα Ἀποστολικὸν, καὶ τὰ τρία βιβλία τῶν
Μακααβαίων.(1) Τῆς δὲ νέας Γραφῆς, Κανονικὰ βιβλία εἰσὶ ταῦτα· Τὰ δʹ. Εὐαγγέλια·
Αἰ Πρἀξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων· Αἰ ἑπτὰ καθολικαὶ Ἐπιστολαί· Ἰκαώβου μία, Πἐτρου δύω.
Ἰωάννου τρεῖς. Ἰούδκ μία· Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσοαρες· Καὶ ἡ Ἀποκάλυψις. Περὶ
τῆς ὁποίας ἀγκαλὰ καὶ λέγει ὁ θεῖος Ἀμφιλόχιος ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις, ὅτι πολλοὶ μὲν ἐγκρίνουσιν
ὡς γνησίαν, οἱ περισσότεροι δὲ τὴν κρἰνουσιν ὡς νὀθον. Ὅμως ὠς κανονιζόμενον
βιβλίον ταύτην δέχεται ἡ ἐν Καρθαγ. σύνοδος, Καν. λʹ. καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν
τῇ λθʹ. προρρηθείσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, καὶ ὁ θεῖος Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης, μυστικὴν ἐποψίαν
ταύτην ὀνομάζων, καὶ ὁ σχολιαττὴς τοῦ ἁγίου Διονοσίου θεῖος Μάξιμος πολλαχοῦ τῶν
σχολίων αὑτοῦ ταύτης μνημονεύουσι. Καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἱερώνυμος λέγων αὐτὴν τὀ ὑψηλότερον
βιβλίον τοῦ κόσμου. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ θεολόγος Γοηγόριος δὲν ἀναφέρει ταύτην εἰς τὰ ἔπη
του. ἀλλʼ εἰς τὸν συντκκτἡριον λόγον ὁποῦ κάμνει πρὸς τοὺς ρνʹ. Ἐπισλόπους τῆς
βʹ. συνόδου, φσνερῶς ἀνκφέρει αὑτὴν, λέγων· πείθομκι γὰρ ἄλλους (Ἀγγέλους) ἄλλης
ἐπιστατεῖν Ἐκκλησίας, ὡς Ἰωάννης διδάσκει με διὰ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Ὡριγένης
εἶχεν ἔκθεσιν εἰς τὴν Ἀποκάλυψιν. Μέμνηται αὐτῆς καὶ Κύριλλος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας
(τελ. 679. τῆς Πετατεύχ.) καὶ Κλήμης ὁ Στρωματεὺς (σελ. 856. τῆς Πεντατ.)· δέχονται
αὐτὴν καὶ Ἀπολινάριος, Ἐφραὶμ, Παπίας, Ἰουστῖνος, Εἰρηνατος, Τερτυλλιανὸς,
Λακτάντιος, Σεβῆρος, Συλπίχιος, Αὐγουστῖνος, Μεθόδιος, Ἱππόλυτος, Ἀνδρέας ὁ
Καισαρείας, καὶ αὑτὴ ἡ Οἰχουμενιχὴ βʹ. σύνοδος, ἕμπροσθεν τῆς ὁποίας ὁ Θεολόγος
Γρηγόριος τὸν περἰ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως ἀναφέροντα συντακτήριον ἐξεφώνησε λόγον. Ὁ
Σάρδεων Μελίτων, καὶ Θεόφιλος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας, καὶ ἅλλοι. Αἱ δύω δὲ τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ,
τἀς ὁποίκς ἀνκφέρει ὁ παρὼν Ἀποστολικὸς Κανὼν, πρὸς Κορινθίους εἰσὶν ἐπιστελλόμεναι,
ὡς ἀπὸ μέρπους τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ἐκδεδομέναι ἐν τῇ συλλογῇ τοῦ αʹ.
τόμου τῶν Πρακτικῶν τῶν συιόδων, ἐκ τῶν ὁποίων ἡ βʹ. νόθος κρίνεται ἀπὸ τὸν
Φώτιον, φύλλ. 156 τῆς Μυριοβίβλου. Αἱ δὲ τῶν Ἀποστόλων Διαταγαὶ, αἵτινες καὶ διδαχὴ
τῶν Ἀποστόλων ὀνομάζονται ὑπὸ τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ βʹ. τῆς ϛʹ., ἀπεβλήθησαν
μἐν ἀπὸ τὸν βʹ. Κανόνα τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς ϛʹ. συνόδου, ὡσὰν ὁποῦ ἐνοθεύθησαν ὑπὸ
τῶν Αἱρετικῶν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὄχι ὅλαι ἐνοθεύθησαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς μέρη τινὰ, διὰ τοῦτο
πολλοὶ τῶν Πατέρων καὶ πρὸ τῆς ϛʹ, οἶος μάλιστά ἐστιν ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, ἀλλὰ
δὴ καὶ ὁ ἱερὸς Μάξιμος, ρητὰ ἐξ αὑτῶν προεχειρίσθηταν. Καὶ ὁ μἐν Θεολόγος ἐν τῷ
περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ τῷ, ἐπὶ τῆς φυλακῆς μου στήσομκι, πρόβκτον ἀλληγορὲῖ τὸν
Χριστὀν διὰ τὸ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἕνδυμα, ὅπερ ρητὸν ἐκ τῶν διατανγῶν ἠραίσθη, κατὰ
τὸν Νικήταν, ὁ δὲ θεῖος Μάξιμος περικοπὰς ὁλοκλήρους ἐκ τῶν διαταγῶν
μεταχειρίζεται εἰς τὰ τοῦ Διονυσίου σχόλια. Τί λέγω τοὺς μερικούς; αὐτὴ ἡ Οἰκουμενικὴ
έ. σύνοδος μαρτυρίαν φέρει ἀπὸ τὰς διαταγὰς, ἐν τῇ τοῦ Ἰουστινιανοῦ ἐπιστολῇ, ὅτι
πρέπει ὑπὲρ τῶν τελευτώντων νὰ δίδωνται ἐλεημοσύναι, σελίδι 392. τοῦ βʹ. τόμ. τῆς
συλλογῆς τῶν συνόδων. Ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ϛʹ. ἐκ τῶν διαταγῶν μαρτυρίαν
προεχειρίσθη ἡ ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ Σοφίᾳ σύνοδος. Καὶ Μιχαὴλ δὲ ὁ Κηρουλλάριος καὶ
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Πατριάρχης, μετὰ τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν συνόδου, ζῶν ἐν ἔτει 1053,
μαρτυρίαν προεχειρίσατο κατὰ τῆς κουρᾶς τῶν γενείων, χειμένην ἐν τῷ αʹ. βιβλ. τῶν
Ἀποστολικῶν διαταγ. κεφ. γʹ. οὕτω λέγουσαν· «Οὐκ ἀπομαδαρώσετε τοὺς πώγωνας ὑμῶν·
γυναιξὶ γὰρ εὐπρεπὲς ὁ κτίσας ἐποίησε Θεὸς, ἀνδράσι δὲ ἀνάρμοστον ἐδικαίωσε.»
Καὶ ὅρα σελ. 978. τοῦ βʹ. τόμ. τῶν συνοδικ. Καὶ νῦν καθὼς εὑρίσκονται
τετυπωμέναι, δὲν μοὶ φαίνεται νὰ ἔχουν κᾀνένα νόθον ἢ ἄτοπον. Ὁ δὲ ποιμὴν ὁποῦ ἀναφέρει
ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τῇ πολλάκις ρηθείσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, βιβλίον ἐστὶ μὴ σωζόμενον εἰς
τοὺς καθʼ ἡμᾶς καιρούς. Ἴσως δὲ νὰ ἧτο τοιοῦτον, οἶός ἐστι καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁποῦ
κάμνει ὁ τῆς Κλίμακος Ἰωάννης πρὸς τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ συντόμως εἰπεῖν, βιβλίον τοῦτο
ἧτο, διδάσκον τὸν ποιμένα τῶν λογικῶν προβάτων, τίνι τρόπῳ νὰ ποιμαίνῃ ταῦτα πρὸς
νομὴν σωτηριώδη, καὶ πῶς νὰ φυλάττῃ ταῦτα ἀβλαβῆ ἐκ τῶν ὀνύχων τῶν νοητῶν
λύκων, δαιμόνων τε καὶ κακοδόξων ἀκθρώπων. Ἀνήγγειλαν δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς ὅτι, ὁ ποιμὴν
οὗτος εὑρίσκεται β.βλίον παμπάλαιον ἔν τινε Μοναστηρίῳ τῆς Ἐλλάδος, ποίημα
Κουάρτου, ἑνὸς τῶν Οʹ. Ἀποστόλων. Τὸν ποιμένα ἀναφέρει καὶ ὁ ἅγος Μάξιμος ἐν τοῖς
σχολίοις τοῦ θείου Διονυσίου, ἔστι δὲ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ, ὅσον ἐστί τὸ τοῦ Ψαλτῆρος.
Σημείωσαι ὅτι ὁ νδʹ. τῆς Καρθαγ. κοντὰ εἰς τὰ βίβλία τῆς Παλαιᾶς καὶ Νέας,
προστάζει νά ἀναγινώσκωνται, καὶ οἱ βίοι τῶν Μαρτύρων, οἱ τὰ μαρτύρια αὐτῶν
περιέχοντες, εἰς τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἑορτῶν τους. (Agapios, Orthodox Eastern Church, and Nicodemus, The
Rudder: Greek Text [Athēnai: Vlastou Ch. Varvarrētou, 1886], 98-103)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)