Adolphe Tanquerey (1854-1932) Affirming the “Debitum Peccati”

  

The Blessed Virgin was preserved from the blemish of original sin, but not from the debt, remote at least, because as a natural descendant of Adam she would have had to contract that debt; and thus she differs from Christ Who was entirely immune from debt. But she was free from the actual infection of original sin and hence was adorned with sanctifying grace from the first moment since there is no medium between the state of sin and the state of grace. (Adolphe Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 2 vols. [trans. John J. Byrnes; New York: Desclee Company, 1959], 2:99, emphasis in original)

 

The Blessed Virgin was not immune from the proximate debt if she has been included in that law under which all the posterity of Adam, because of his sin, must contract sin; but she was immune from it and therefore she had only the remote debt if she has been exempted from the very law of inclusion, although by reason of active descendance from Adam she should have been included in it. Because the solution to a question of this kind depends only on the will of God and nothing certain has been made manifest concerning it, let us cease our mental gymnastics. One thing is certain, namely, the Blessed Virgin did have the reed of the Redemption because only in view of Christ’s merits was she preserved from original sin. (Ibid., 2:99 n. 3, emphasis in original)

 

William P. Le Saint and the (Lack of) Forgiveness for Certain Post-Baptismal Sins in the Early Church

  

The evidence from the De pudicitia that before the year 200 the Church did not grant absolution to the sins of murder and apostasy (idolatry), and that it was only about this time that she began to forgive adultery and fornication may be summarized thus. Tertullian repeatedly insists that his opponents are inconsistent in granting absolution to adultery, while refusing it to murder and apostasy. It is inconceivable that he could have used such an argument if the Church actually did grant pardon to these sins at this time. That adultery was not forgiven before the third century seems clear from the very fact that an edict was issued circa 215 decreeing its forgiveness. Then, too, it is difficult to account for the bitterness of Tertullian’s language in the De pudicitia, if the bishop whose legislation he condemns were simply continuing an earlier tradition of tolerance. (William P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity [Ancient Christian Writers 28; New York: Newman Press, 1959], 48-49)

 

Sanhedrin 89b and Satan Tempting Abraham: A Talmudic Parallel to the Temptation in the Wilderness

  

קְדָמוֹ שָׂטָן לַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֲנִסָּה דָבָר אֵלֶיךָ תִּלְאֶה... הִנֵּה יִסַּרְתָּ רַבִּים וְיָדַיִם רָפוֹת תְּחַזֵּק. כּוֹשֵׁל יְקִימוּן מִלֶּיךָ... כִּי עַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וַתֵּלֶא״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״אֲנִי בְּתֻמִּי אֵלֵךְ״.

 

Satan preceded Abraham to the path that he took to bind his son and said to him: “If one ventures a word to you, will you be weary…you have instructed many, and you have strengthened the weak hands. Your words have upheld him that was falling…but now it comes upon you, and you are weary” (Job 4:2–5). Do you now regret what you are doing? Abraham said to him in response: “And I will walk with my integrity” (Psalms 26:11).

 

אָמַר לוֹ: ״הֲלֹא יִרְאָתְךָ כִּסְלָתֶךָ״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״זְכׇר נָא מִי הוּא נָקִי אָבָד״. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא דְּלָא קָא שָׁמַיע לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְאֵלַי דָּבָר יְגֻנָּב״. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד: ״הַשֶּׂה לְעוֹלָה״ וְאֵין יִצְחָק לְעוֹלָה. אָמַר לוֹ: כָּךְ עוֹנְשׁוֹ שֶׁל בַּדַּאי, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר אֱמֶת אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.

 

Satan said to Abraham: “Is not your fear of God your foolishness?” (Job 4:6). In other words, your fear will culminate in the slaughter of your son. Abraham said to him: “Remember, please, whoever perished, being innocent” (Job 4:7). God is righteous and His pronouncements are just. Once Satan saw that Abraham was not heeding him, he said to him: “Now a word was secretly brought to me, and my ear received a whisper thereof” (Job 4:12). This is what I heard from behind the heavenly curtain [pargod], which demarcates between God and the ministering angels: The sheep is to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, and Isaac is not to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Abraham said to him: Perhaps that is so. However, this is the punishment of the liar, that even if he speaks the truth, others do not listen to him. Therefore, I do not believe you and will fulfill that which I was commanded to perform. (Source)

 

 

Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.5: A Rabbinic Parallel to the Temptation in the Wilderness

In Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.5, Moses is portrayed as having a triple dialogue with an angel concerning his death. This would be interpreted by Rabbi Yitzḥak as having a conversation with his soul. Compare this narrative and the use of scripture with the temptation in the wilderness narratives in the Synoptic Gospels:

 

What is “before his death”? The Rabbis said: What did Moses do? He took the angel of death and cast him before him. He blessed the tribes, each and every one in accordance with its blessing. Rabbi Meir said: The angel of death went to Moses and said to him: ‘The Holy One blessed be He sent me to you, for you are departing today.’ Moses said to him: ‘Go from here, as I seek to laud the Holy One blessed be He.’ From where is it derived? It is as it is written: “May I not die but live, so I may relate the deeds of the Lord” (Psalms 118:17). He said to him: ‘Moses, why are you being arrogant? He has those who will laud him. The heavens and the earth laud him every hour, as it is stated: “The heavens relate the glory of God”’ (Psalms 19:2). Moses said to him: ‘I will silence them and laud him,’ as it is stated: “Listen, heavens, and I will speak, [and the earth will hear the sayings of my mouth]” (Deuteronomy 32:1). He came to him a second time. What did Moses do? He invoked the ineffable Name against him, and he fled. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “For I will call out the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 32:3). When he came to him the third time, he [Moses] said: ‘Since he [the angel of death] is from the Lord, I must accept the judgment.’ From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “The Rock: His actions are perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

 

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Moses’s soul was struggling to depart, and Moses was speaking with his soul, and said: ‘My soul, are you saying that the angel of death is seeking to gain dominion over you?’ It said: ‘No, the Holy One blessed be He would not do so – “For You rescued me from death”’ (Psalms 116:8). ‘Are you saying that you saw them weeping, and you are weeping with them?’ It said to him: “My eyes from tears” (Psalms 116:8). He said to it: ‘Are you saying perhaps that they sought to push you into Gehenna?’ It said to him: “My feet from stumbling” (Psalms 116:8). He said to it: ‘To where are you destined to go?’ It said to him: “I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (Psalms 116:9). When Moses heard this, he gave it permission. He said to it: “Return, my soul to your restfulness…” (Psalms 116:7). Rabbi Avin said: When it departed, the residents of the lower worlds were lauding him and saying: “Torah, Moses commanded us” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The residents of the upper worlds were lauding him and saying: “He performed the righteousness of the Lord…” (Deuteronomy 33:21). And the Holy One blessed be He lauds him: “There has not arisen another prophet in Israel like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10).

 

Graham Twelftree and Ernest Lohmeyer on the Temptation in the Wilderness

  

Mark’s very brief account gives no details of the temptation (Mk 1:12–13), while Matthew’s and Luke’s stories are in the form of a longer, three-part conversation not unlike the debates of the scribes* which utilize proof-texts from Scripture (Mt 4:1–11 par. Lk 4:1–13; cf. the secondary Gos. Heb. [Origen, Comm. Joh. II:12:87]). (G. H. Twelftree, “Temptation of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992], 822)

 

 

. . . Jesus encounters Satan in the wilderness and the two talk together like rabbis, while at the same time this seemingly human conversation becomes the revolutionary event which destroys Satan’s power and might. The fact that Satan appears in this form, that his demands are so human and yet so diabolical, shows the eschatological period of his rule and his life; he emerges from the disguise of the manifold variety of his intrigues, and becomes visible as Satan in person, and this very appearance is also the sign of the nearness of his end. Thus the title ‘the evil one’ is the key to the recognition of his nature and his eschatological defeat. On the one hand, the name makes all men and all the world the seat of his rule, while on the other it does away with this very seat. We may therefore say quite briefly that the name ‘the evil one’ is the counterpart to that eschatological revelation as a result of which men can now pray to God as their Father. (Ernst Lohmeyer, The Lord’s Prayer [trans. John Bowden; London: Collins, 1965], 224)

 

Philip W. Comfort and Roger L. Omanson on the Text of James 2:19

  

James 2:19

 

NU       εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός

“God is one”

𝔓⁷⁴ א A

rsv nrsv esv nasb nltmg nab hcsb net

 

variant 1/WH  εἷς θεος εστιν

“there is one God”

B 614 630 (C 33^vid 81 with def. article before θεος)

kjv nkjv nasbmg niv tniv neb reb njb nlt

 

variant 2/TR    ο θεος εἷς εστιν

“God is one”

Maj

 

The NU reading conforms to the prevailing formula of Jewish orthodoxy. Westcott and Hort followed the reading in B, but this reading may be the result of assimilation to 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5. Most English versions follow this reading because it provides for the smoothest style. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 727)

 

 

2:19 εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (God is one) {B}

 

Among the several readings, the main difference consists of the presence or absence of the article ὁ. Between the readings εἷς θεός ἐστιν (There is one God) and εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (God is one), the second reading agrees with the common Jewish orthodoxy of the time regarding the unity of God and has very good manuscript support. The readings εἷς θεός ἐστιν and εἷς ὁ θεός ἐστιν appear to be changes made in order to agree with the style of the Christian claim (compare 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5). The reading ὁ θεός εἷς ἐστιν is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is clearly a later reading in which ὁ θεός is placed first in order to give ὁ θεός a more emphatic position.

 

There is little difference in meaning among these variant readings. NRSV and NAB translate “You believe that God is one”; REB says “You … believe that there is one God”; and NJB says “You believe in the one God.” The text punctuates the words σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (You believe that God is one) as a statement, but some modern versions translate these words as a question: “Do you believe that there is only one God?” (TEV, similarly TOB and FC). (Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006], 472)

 

Text of the King Follett Discourse in The Zion's Watchman of April 12, 1855 (LDS Periodical in Sydney, Austrlia)

I recently downloaded all the issues of his publication (from 1853 to 1856), so hope to read them in full soon. Until then, I came across the following, where the text of the KFD affirms, not denies, the eternality of God (the Father) being God:

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that they should understand the character and being of God, for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself, the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, . . . (“Joseph Smith’s Last Sermon delivered at the April Conference, 1844,” The Zion’s Watchman 1, nos. 32-33 [April 12, 1855]: 250)

Further Reading:

The Different Accounts of the King Follett Discourse and Whether God (the Father) was God from All Eternity

"Ananus, the son of Ananus" in Josephus, Jewish Wars and Patristic/Patronymic Names

Context: winter of 67 AD and the Jewish War:

 

The leading figure in the moderate government had been Ananus son of Ananus, a former High Priest. Now his corpse was left unburied along with those of his comrades. Josephus mourned his death. He eulogized Ananaus as a patriot, a lover of freedom and democracy, and a realist. Ananus, he wrote, understood the terrible power of Rome. Had Ananus lived, wrote Josephus, he would have negotiated peace or, at the least, delayed Rome’s victory. “I would not be mistaken,” Josephus summed it up, “if I had said that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus.” (Josephus, Jewish War, 4.318; cf. 4.151) (Barry Strauss, Jews vs. Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the World’s Mightiest Empire [New York: Simon & Schuster, 2025], 137)

 

The explication of a “patristic” name appears in Jewish War 4.160:

 

οἵ τε δοκιμώτατοι τῶν ἀρχιερέων Γαμάλα μὲν υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς Ἀνάνου δὲ Ἄνανος πολλὰ τὸν δῆμον εἰς νωθείαν κατονειδίζοντες ἐν ταῖς συνόδοις ἐπήγειρον τοῖς ζηλωταῖς

 

The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamala, and Ananus, the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people from their sloth, and stirred them up against the Zealots; (Whiston translation)

 

Steve Mason offers an alternative English translation:

 

And the most esteemed of the high priests, Gamalas’ son Iesous and Ananus’ Ananus, continually berating the populace in the meetings for their lethargy, kept trying to stir them up against the “Disciples” [Zealots] (Judean War 4 [Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 2A; trans. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 90-91)

 

 For previous discussions of "patristic names" on this blog, see:

Brief Note on Patristic Names in Antiquity

Examples of Patristic Names (Patronymics) in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri

Early 5th century Inscription from Lycaonia Attested to a Patristic Name (Patronymic), “Nestor Son of Nestor”

Herbert Bardwell Huffmon on Patronymics in the Amorite Mari Texts

 

J. Warren Smith on Tertullian's Theology of Baptism

  

Tertullian: Baptism as Spiritual Healing Tertullian, writing a generation after Justin, shares with him the view of baptism as the source of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, but Tertullian places his emphasis on baptism as a spiritual healing or recapitulation of God’s creation of humanity in the beginning. Even as the Spirit of God hovered over the waters of chaos at the creation of the world (Gen 1:2), so too the Spirit hovers over the water of the font. From the Spirit’s hovering, the water borrowed its holiness—“the sacramental power of sanctification”—by which the initiate is cleansed of her sin (Bapt. 4).

 

Tertullian weaves together the Genesis creation narrative with the story of the angel’s disturbing the water in the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-8). Similarly, the baptized were purified by the angel present at the font so that they might be made ready to receive new birth in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that came from the laying on of hands by the bishop and priests (Bapt. 6). This conferral of the Holy Spirit was, Tertullian explained, a symbolic reenactment of the creation of the first man who was fashioned in the image of God when God breathed into him the life-giving Spirit, which was taken away from him in punishment for the first sin (Bapt. 5). (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 21-22)

 

 

J. Warren Smith on Justin Martyr's Theology of Baptismal Regeneration

  

Justin Martyr: Baptismal Rebirth as Illumination By the mid-second century, Justin interpreted baptismal rebirth (anagennēsis) in terms of illumination (phōtismos). He explicitly grounds the imperative for baptism in Jesus’s words, “Except you are born again, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:3), and Isaiah’s words, “Wash, become clean. . . . Though your sins be as crimson, I will make them white as snow” (Isa 1:16, 18).

 

Appealing to the apostolic practice and teachings of Paul, whom he simply calls “the apostle,” Justin provides the logic behind baptism. Human beings’ first birth is from “wet seed” of their parents’ intercourse from which they are both in ignorance and therefore live as children of necessity reinforced by bad habits and an evil education—perhaps a reference to participation in the pagan rituals that paid honor to demons in the guise of the gods who deceived devotees. The second birth is from the water of baptism, now cleansed of sins by their repentance of sin and illumination in the name of “God the Father and Master of all . . . and of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus” (1 Apol. 61). This last clause, with its reference to the Spirit’s inspiration of the Old Testament prophets’ foretelling Jesus coming, whether intended or not, would have drawn a clear dividing line between Justin’s community and Marcion’s.

 

Justin is quick to distinguish Christian washing from the removal of shoes and the washing before entering pagan temples. The latter initiated by the demons, he explains, was a perverse imitation of baptism and of Moses’s removing his shows before the burning bush and receiving “mighty power from Christ” (1 Apol. 62). Thus, Justin implicitly treats Moses’s putting off his sandals and entry into Christ’s luminous presence in the burning bush as figures of baptismal purification and illumination. (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 21)

 

 

J. Warren Smith on Augustine's Misreading of Romans 5:12

  

Central to this argument, for Augustine, is Romans 5:12, which Augustine interprets radically differently from Pelagius. The Old Latin translation of the verse that Augustine read is as follows: “Through one man sin entered the world and through sin death and thus passed on to all human beings in whom [in quo] all have sinned.” Whereas the Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate specify that “death passed on to all” the Old Latin does not specify the subject of “passed on” (pertransiit). Consequently, Augustine inferred that the subject was “sin” not “death.” Thus, he read the passage as “and sin passed on to all” (Pecc. merit. 1.9.9). Moreover, Augustine took the following clause “in whom all sinned” to mean that not only did Adam’s descendants derive their nature from Adam, but they were in Adam when he sinned. (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 108)

 

 

Both the Old Latin and the Vulgate are misleading here. They translate the Greek expression eph’ hō, which means “because,” as in quo, which means “in whom.” Thus, Augustien’s text of Rom 5:12 is decidedly different from the sense of the Greek: “and death passed to all people because all people sinned.” Although Augustine’s overall argument does not stand or fall entirely on his reading of this verse, the errors in the Old Latin text contributed to his argument about the transmission of original sin. (Ibid., 108 n. 6)

 

Paul Foster on the Eucharist in the theology of Ignatius of Antioch

  

The Eucharist

 

Ignatius’s understanding of the Eucharist is closely linked to his ecclesiology. The link arises from his claim that the only legitimate Eucharist is that which is conducted with episcopal authorization. Thus Ignatius declares, “Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid” (Ign. Smyrn. 8.1b). It is notable that Ignatius does not state that the bishop must preside at every eucharistic celebration, but rather that those events must take place under his authority or with his delegated permission. In the wider context of this statement, Ignatius suggests that certain people “do not believe in the blood of Christ” (Ign. Symrn. 6.1), thus making themselves liable to judgment. Furthermore, it appears that certain opponents who hold docetic beliefs have abstained from the Eucharist. For Ignatius, refusal to participate in the Eucharist was not merely a rejection of the bishop’s authority, but it reflected deviant beliefs concerning the reality and redemptive nature of Christ’s death.

 

In this context, as a polemical response to those holding the beliefs that Ignatius opposes, he makes his strongest and most direct claim, affirming the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Ign. Smyrn. 6.2). While this statement is certainly compatible with later understandings of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and hence with a more developed notion of transubstantiation, it would nevertheless be unhelpful to take this statement out of its charged polemical context. In other passages, Ignatius perhaps does not go as far in equating the Eucharist with the flesh of Christ. For instance, writing to the Philadelphians, the community is instructed to unite in partaking of one Eucharist. The rational for this instruction is “for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one alter, just as there is one bishop together with the council of presbyters and the deacons, my fellow servants” (Ign. Phld. 4.1). Here the Eucharist, like Christ’s blood, and like church-leadership structures, should lead to unity rather than division. Ignatius does not provide a thoroughgoing theology of the Eucharist. However, what emerges is his strong and repeated belief that only a Eucharist. However, what emerges is his strong and repeated belief that only a Eucharist held under the authority of the bishop or his delegate is legitimate. Furthermore, Ignatius presses the comparison between the eucharistic elements and the flesh and blood of Christ. (Paul Foster, “The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 193-94)

 

 

William P. Le Saint: The Edict Which Occasioned Tertullian's "De Pudicita" was not from a Pope of Rome but an African Bishop

  

The problem of determining the authorship of the edict which occasioned the composition of the De pudicitia has been studied frequently and needs no more than a brief synopsis here. Three principal views have been proposed. Older editors and commentators attributed the decree to Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome from 198 to 217. With the discovery of the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus in 1850, scholars all but unanimously accepted Callistus (bishop of Rome 217–222) as the author, since they considered that the charge of laxity in forgiving sins of impurity which Hippolytus makes against Callistus (Philosoph. 9.12) must be understood as referring to his issuance of the edict of toleration which Tertullian condemns in De pud. 1.6. Other passages in the De pudicitia which are thought to prove the Roman provenance of the edict will be found in cc. 13.7 and 21.5, 9. In recent years, however, scholars have been abandoning the idea that the decree was issued by a bishop of Rome. K. Adam, P. Galtier, B. Poschmann and other authorities on the history of penance argue quite convincingly that it was promulgated by an African bishop, probably Agrippinus of Carthage. This view has, at present, a certain ascendancy, although it is not universally received and the decree continues to be referred to in the literature as the ‘Edict of Callistus.’ (William P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity [Ancient Christian Writers 28; New York: Newman Press, 1959], 47-48)

 

Dale C. Allison on the Demonology of James 2:19

  

καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν. Maximus the Confessor speaks in this connection of ‘mere faith’, Schleiermacher of ‘that shadow of faith which even devils may have’. The logic is clear. Demons are not atheists but rather have religious ‘doctrines’ (1 Tim 4:10), among which is monotheism, and shuddering proves their sincerity. But to no avail: τί τὸ ὄφελος Caesarius of Arles puts it this way: ‘The demons believe that God exists, but they do not perform what he commands’.

 

καί = ‘even’. Both δαιμόνιον and φρίσσω appear only here in James. The latter refers to something like fearful amazement, the traditional English rendering being ‘shudder’.²⁸⁷ Here fear must be connoted. Certainly it is fitting that demons, who instill fear in human beings, become the victims of fear before God.

 

James was not the first to link φρίσσω, which is sometimes paired with τρέμω, to the demonic. Indeed, we have here a far-flung topos; cf. 4Q510 1 (a prayer that the ravaging angels may be frightened and terrified); T. Abr. RecLng 16.3 (personified Death shudders and trembles before God, ἔφριξεν καὶ ἐτρομάξεν); T. Sol. 2.1 (τὸν δαίμονα φρίσσοντα καὶ τρέμοντα); Ps.-Ign. Phil. 3.5 (the ruler of this world ‘shudders’ [φρίττει] at the cross); Justin, Dial. 49.8 (‘before whom [that is, before Christ] the demons and all the principalities and authorities of the earth shudder [φρίσσει]’); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.24.125.1 GCS 32 ed. Stählin and Früchtel, 411 (an Orphic fragment: ‘Ruler of Ether … before whom demons shudder [φρίσσουσιν], and before whom the throng of gods fear’); Acts Phil. 132 ed. Bonnet, 63 (‘God, before whom all the aeons shudder [φρίττουσιν] … principalities and powers of the heavenly place stremble [τρέμουσιν] before you’); Lactantius, Ira 23 SC 289 ed. Ingremeau, 208 (‘the Milesian Apollo, consulted about the Jewish religion, introduced this verse into his response: “God, the king and begetter of all, before whom the earth trembles [τρομέει] … whom the depths of Tartarus and demons dread” [δαίμονες ἐρίγγασιν]’); PGM 3.226–27 (‘god’s seal, at whom all deathless gods of Olympus and demons … shudder’, φρίσσουσι … δαίμονες); 4.2541–42 (‘demons throughout the world shudder at you’, δαίμονες … φρίσσουσι), 2829–30 (δαίμονες ἣν φρίσσουσιν καὶ ἀθάνατοι τρομέουσιν); 12.118 (πᾶς δαίμων φρίσσει); 3 En. 14.2 (Schäfer, Synopse 17 = 898: Sammael fears and trembles before God); Ps.-Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ed. Budge, fol. 2a (Death personified is greatly afraid and trembles and shakes before the triumphant Jesus). James was, however, evidently the first to associate this motif with the ‘faith’ of demons, an effective and memorable rhetorical move.

 

Although originally used of both good and bad deities, δαιμόνιον came, in post-exilic Judaism, to refer to malevolent spirits closely associated with Satan. James’ audience was presumably familiar with a large body of lore surrounding them. They were often identified with pagan gods (LXX Deut 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20); held to inflict disease (Sib. Or. 3.331; Mt 12:22); understood as sources of temptation and vice (T. Jud. 23.1); reported to indwell or possess unfortunate human beings (Mk 5:9; 9:26); and said to have issued from the mating of the sons of God with human women (Gen 6:1–4; 1 En. 6–21). But all that matters here is the notion that they, although corrupt, nonetheless recognize the ultimate power in the universe.

 

Why the demons are afraid of the one God goes unsaid. Commentators often assume that they know God will destroy or punish them in the latter days. But that may read too much into the text. Perhaps we have something here like the magic of powerful names: evil cannot tolerate the presence or name or even thought of the divinity; cf. Josephus, Bell. 5.438 (τὸ φρικτόν … ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ); PGM 36.261 (τῶν μεγάλων καὶ φικτρῶν ὀνομάτων ὧν οἱ ἄνεμοι φρίζουσιν); Apost.Const. 2.22.12 ed. Funk, 87 (ὀνόματί σου, ὃν πάντα φρίσσει καί τρέμει); PLond. 46.80–81 (τὸ μέγα ὄνομα … ὅν … πᾶς δαίμων φρίσσει).

 

Ecclesiastical interpreters have often expounded our verse and those surrounding it by associating it or them with the empty confession of Mt 7:21 = Lk 6:46. Bare brain belief comes to naught. (Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle of James [International Critical Commentary; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013], 476-78)

 

David Lincicum on the Christology on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Use of LXX Isaiah 45:1

  

Christology

 

At one point, Barnabas criticizes the view that Jesus might be the son of man or the son of David, the former title important to all the New Testament Gospels, the latter for the Synoptics in particular. In 12.8-10, Barnabas develops a contrast between Jesus (i.e., the Septuagint’s rendering of Joshua) the son of Nun, and Jesus the Son of God. He wants to distinguish the two and, although committed to the view that Jesus was “in the flesh” (εν σαρκι, en sarkí), Barnabas nevertheless emphasizes the fundamental difference between the two: “Observe again that it is Jesus, not a son of man but the Son of God [ουχι υιος ανθρωπου αλλα υιος του θεου, ouchi huios anthrōpou alla huios tou theou].” Rather than a straightforward critique of the title, derived from Daniel 7, that we find in the New Testament, this seems to be a focused contrast to highlight the divinity of Jesus, though it skirts worryingly close to certain forms of Docetism as a bare assertion.

 

Immediately after this, Barnabas goes on to write against an unnamed group of opponents who “say that the Messiah is the Son of David.” To refute this assertion, Barnabas cites Psalm 110:1 [109:1 LXX] (the same text cited in Mark 12:35-37 parr.) and a variant text of Isaiah 45:1, “The Lord said to the Messiah my Lord . . .” (κυριω, kyriō, rather than Κυρω, Kyrō, that is, to Cyrus). He concludes, “Observe how Daid calls him ‘Lord,’ and does not call him ‘son’” (Barn. 12.11). Barnabas seems to evince an anxiety about Jewish messianic conceptions that might not endorse the divinity of the Messiah, and so he denies a title that the Gospels seem at most to qualify. While it is not clear that Barnabas knows the text of Ps 110 [109 LXX] directly through the Synoptic usage of it, and so we cannot be seen to oppose the Christology of the Synoptics in particular, the text demonstrates a worry that is cognate to Barnabas’s general unease with Jewish tradition. (David Lincicum, “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 150-51)

 

In the Göttingen text of Isaiah, we find the following note from the editor concerning the use of Isa 45:1 in the Epistle of Barnabas:

 

Einige innergriechische Verderbnisse sind wichtig für die altchristliche Exegese geworden. 45:1 lag es nahe, Κύρῳ neben τῷ χριστῷ μου im messianischen Sinne in κυριω umzudeuten. Die Hss. lesen alle Κύρῳ; aber bereits im Barnabasbrief XII 11 steht κυριω, so daß diese Stelle neben Ps. 109:1 als messianische Prophezeiung verwendet werden konnte. So haben auch die alten lateinischen Väter (siehe App.) 45:1 als Weissagungsbeweis verwertet. Dagegen nimmt Hieronymus in seinem Is.-Kommentar zu 45:1 Stellung: „Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …“ (Migne PL 24, 440sq.). Als weitere Stelle ist 58:8 zu nennen, wo verschiedene Minuskeln ιματια statt des richtigen ἰάματα lesen. Die Lesart ιματια bietet bereits der Barnabasbrief III 4 und Justin, Dial. XV; auch Clemens von Alexandrien hat ιματια gelesen (Stählin hat zu Unrecht in seine Ausgabe I 285₁₅ ἰάματα aufgenommen; denn der beste Zeuge, die Apologetenhs. des Arethas = P, hat als ursprüngliche Lesart ιματια). In der lateinischen Väterliteratur erscheint dann häufig die falsche Lesart vestimenta; an der Spitze steht Tertullian, der in seiner Schrift De Carnis Resurrectione 27 diese Stelle als Beweis für die Auferstehung des Fleisches verwendet: „Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare“ (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Auch hier zeigt sich wiederum Hieronymus als gesunder Textkritiker, der diesen dogmatischen Beweis ablehnt: „Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur“ (Migne PL 24, 568)¹).

 

Die innerlateinischen Verderbnisse lassen sich gewöhnlich leicht auf Grund der griechischen Lesart erklären, so 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Hier seien einige innerlateinische Verderbnisse angeführt, die in den einzelnen neueren Ausgaben nicht erkannt und notiert worden sind. (Isaias, ed. Joseph Ziegler [Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 100)

 

 

Some internal Greek corruptions became important for early Christian exegesis. At 45:1 it was natural to reinterpret Κύρῳ alongside τῷ χριστῷ μου in a messianic sense as κυρίῳ. The MSS all read Κύρῳ; but already in the Epistle of Barnabas XII.11 it stands as κυριω, so that this passage, together with Ps. 109:1, could be used as a messianic prophecy. In the same way the early Latin Fathers (see App.) also exploited 45:1 as proof of prophecy. By contrast, Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah takes a different view of 45:1: “Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …” (Migne PL 24, 440 sq.).

 

Another passage to be mentioned is 58:8, where various minuscules read ιματια instead of the correct ἰάματα. The reading ιματια is already attested in the Epistle of Barnabas III.4 and in Justin, Dial. XV; Clement of Alexandria also read ιματια (Stählin wrongly included ἰάματα in his edition I 28515; for the best witness, the apologetic manuscript of Arethas = P, has as its original reading ιματια). In the literature of the Latin Fathers the erroneous reading vestimenta then frequently appears; foremost among them is Tertullian, who in his work De Carnis Resurrectione 27 uses this passage as proof for the resurrection of the flesh: “Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare” (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Here again Jerome appears as a sound textual critic who rejects this dogmatic proof: “Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur.” (Migne PL 24, 568)¹)

 

The internal Latin corruptions can usually be explained easily on the basis of the Greek reading, for example 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Here are some internal Latin corruptions that have not been recognized and noted in some of the more recent editions.

 

 

Brian J. Arnold on Redemptive Almsgiving in the Apostolic Fathers

  

Redemptive Almsgiving

 

Redemptive almsgiving would answer the question of atonement for sins committed after baptism, though, in each instance in the Apostolic Fathers, it is said nearly in passing. Redemptive almsgiving appears in 2 Clement, Didache, Polycarp’s To the Philippians, and Barnabas. In 2 Clement, “Almsgiving is better than both prayer and fasting, for it covers a multitude of sins” (2 Clem. 16.4). The Didachist gives a veiled Ference: “If you earn something by working with your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins” (Did. 4.6). Barnabas suggests that you “work with your hands for a ransom for your sins” (Barn. 19.10). And for Polycarp, “giving charity . . . can deliver one from death” (Pol. Phil. 10.2). Although the doctrine is never developed in these writings, the seeds were planted for how to deal with post-baptismal sin that would blossom as time went on. (Brian J. Arnold, “Soteriology in the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 343)

 

Travel & Debate Fund for April

For those who know, I hope to be in Utah in April for something big. While I wait on the ESTA and other issues to be confirmed, I have set up a travel fund for those who wish to pitch in:

Travel & Debate Fund

One can also donate via:

Paypal

Venmo

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 92: Blake Ostler on the "Worshipworthiness" God in Latter-day Saint Theology

 

Episode 92: Blake Ostler on the "Worshipworthiness" God in Latter-day Saint Theology

Andrew Perry Presenting a Christadelphian Understading of James 2:19

For those who are curious as to how informed Christadelphians approach Jas 2:19 vis-à-vis the existence or non-existence of demons, consider the following from one of the best Christadelphian apologists on Satan & Demons, Andrew Perry (others include Jonathan Burke and Duncan Heaster):

 

Trembling Demons

 

One common argument used for the existence of demons is based on James 2:19: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble”. It is argued that James pre-supposes the existence of demons, and as he is an inspired author, we must accept this pre-supposition.

 

If we focus on this single verse, James’ apparent assertion could establish a belief in demons on his part. However, the context of the verse indicates that James is conducting an argument with hypothetical opponents, and that this verse is part of the opponent’s argument. This part of his letter is structured in the following way: (1) “A man may say ...” (verse 14); (2) “Yea, a man may say ...” (verse 18); (3) “But wilt thou know, O vain man ...” (verse 20).

 

The first man (verse 14) presents a “faith only” position. The second man presents a “works” position, and James counters the first and second man with a “faith and works” position.

James counters the arrogance of the “I have faith” man in verse 17 when he says, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”. He then introduces an argument from another type of man, one who bases his confidence in works, so that he can show the vulnerability of the “I have faith” claim. This “faith only” man is wide open to attack by those who place their confidence in works. James produces the “works” argument from “a certain man” in verses 18 and 19. What does this opponent say?

 

Firstly he argues, “Thou hast faith, and I have works ...”. Here the “works man” addresses the “faith only man” as the one who has claimed to have faith. In contrast, he claims to have works. His position is one that values works above faith in some way. His next statement builds on his emphasis on works: “Shew me thy faith without thy works”. Here he challenges the “faith only” man to show him his faith without mentioning any works. By this he is aiming to prove that works are what counts. He goes on, “I will shew thee my faith by my works”. James’ “works only” man has “faith”, but it consists in his works. His argument now adopts a sarcastic tone toward the “faith only” man: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well”. Here he continues to address the “faith only” man, who believes in (has faith in) God. Continuing the thrust he says, “The demons also believe (have faith) and tremble”. This statement belongs to James’ “works only” man and it is part of his rhetorical argument that aims to expose the fallacious thinking of the “faith only” man.

 

The next verse has James taking up the gauntlet and addressing the “faith only” man. “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James puts to one side the argument of verses 18 and 19, as he gives more examples of how real faith gives rise to works and is manifested in works. This stress places faith in the foreground, with a natural consequence of works.

 

From this analysis, the following points emerge:

 

•          James, in 2:19, does not express a belief in demons on his part; he reproduces a hypothetical argument voiced in his day.

•          James constructs a rhetorical comparison for effect, and the effect he is trying to elicit is the recognition that there is more than just believing in God.

•          James’ comparison has a sarcastic overtone—“even the demons believe”.

On the basis of these points, it is clear we have a mention of demons not dissimilar to Jesus’ mention when in argument with the Jews of his day over Baal-Zebub. Jesus’ arguments also deployed effective comparisons using the Jewish belief in Baal-Zebub. One cannot therefore use this verse to establish a Biblical belief in demons, nor to suggest that it was a belief that James personally held. (Andrew Perry, “Trembling Demons,” The Christadelphian 136, no. 1623 [September 1999]: 333)

 

Further Reading:

 

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Thomas Farrar, “Even the Demons Believe and Shudder: Demonology in the Epistle of James,” Dianoigo Blog, February 12, 2018

Excerpts from Richard A. Ware, "The Doctrine of Being Born Again" (1989) in "The Research Report"

  

Kingdom of God

 

Since rebirth is essential to entering the kingdom of God, we need to define what that kingdom is so that we will know what a person must be born into.

 

What is the kingdom of God? Joseph answered: “Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives His oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not.” [TJPS, p. 272, emphasis added) Again from Joseph: “It is evident the kingdom of God [referred to in John 3:3-5] was on the earth.” (TPJS, p. 272) According to these statements, the kingdom of God exists on earth, and although some have quoted John 3:3-5 to prove that baptism admits a person into the first level of the celestial kingdom, Joseph here states that Christ was speaking of a kingdom on earth, not in heaven, and that baptism admits a person into the earthly kingdom. (Christ was speaking to Cornelius, a non-member, instructing him that he would have to adhere to the articles of adoption in order to enter the kingdom of God. As saints today know, additional temple ordinances are necessary to pass through the celestial veil into the first level of the celestial kingdom. Baptism merely puts a person on the path leading to it [See 2 Nephi 31:17-20])

 

Since the kingdom of God was on the earth at that time, what constituted that kingdom? Joseph said:

 

Some say the kingdom of God was not set up on the earth until the day of Pentecost, and that John did not preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; but I say, in the name of the Lord, that the kingdom of God was set up on the earth from the days of Adam to the present time. Whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name, and where there is a priest—a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God there is the kingdom of God. (TPJS, p. 271. Adam was a righteous man and held the fulness of the priesthood. Within him rested the kingdom of God. John the baptist only held a portion of the priesthood, known as the Aaronic priesthood. Yet because heh was the only righteous man on earth unto whom God had given his authority, there dwelt in the kingdom of God.)

 

From this statement, we find the kingdom of God has always existed on earth, from the days of Adam and Eve, throughout the centuries of time, even when there was only one man on earth who held the power of God. We also discover that the kingdom of God is not necessarily a Church of Christ. The kingdom of God can apparently exist without a church organization. For example, at the time John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing, the Church of Jesus Christ did not exist on earth, for the Savior had not yet organized his church. Yet John’s converts were being baptized into the kingdom of God, according to Joseph. (See TPJS, p. 274) Perhaps this is why the Savior said: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation [no outward organization]: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you”. (Luke 17:20-21). (Richard A. Ware, “The Doctrine of Being Born Again: Becoming the Sons and Daughters of God with Power to Become the Sons and Daughters of God,” The Research Report 1, no. 2 [September/October 1989]: 25)

 

 

 

Seeing the Kingdom

 

After discussing John 3:3-5, Joseph Smith said: “it is one thing to see the kingdom of God, and another thing to enter it. We must have a change of heart to see the kingdom of God, [but] subscribe to the articles of adoption to enter therein.” (TPJS, p. 328. Although Joseph did not specify that the articles of adoption were, we can surmise from the statement that he meant baptism of water and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost, since that is what is required froor entrance into the kingdom of God on earth) Thus a non-member of the church who investigates the gospel, and who reads and prays about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the gospel, cane come to “see” (spiritually speaking), in his heart, the kingdom of God. According to Moroni, such a person can know, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that the things which he has spiritually seen are true. (Moroni 10:4-5) This is the case with Cornelius before he was baptized. Joseph said that Cornelius:

 

received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign of ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. (TPJS, p. 199)

 

There are other scriptural accounts of individuals who, like Cornelius, received the outpouring of the Holy Ghost prior to their baptism, and became changed in the inner person. For instance, after hearing the gospel preached to him by Ammon, King Lamoni repented of his sins and then “fell unto the earth, as if he were dead”. During the two days and two nights that he lay motionless, Ammon “knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind . . . had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God.” On the morning of the third day, King Lamoni arose and said: “For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer . . .” The king’s heart was swollen and he sank “again with joy”, and the queen also “sunk down, being overpowered by the spirit.” Ammon was also overcome and sunk to the earth. Later, after arising, King Lamoni and his wife, along with all the king’s servants, declared “that their hearts had been changed; that they had no more desire to do evil.” All those who believed on the words of Ammon and King Lamoni “were baptized and they became a righteous people, and they did establish a church among them.” (Alma 19:1-36)

 

It is important to note that at the time of their spiritual conversion, all these people had not yet been baptized yet they had been changed in the inner person. They had been spiritually changed. However, if they had not gone ahead and received the articles of adoption, the Holy Ghost would have left them, according to Joseph’s statement. (Richard A. Ware, “The Doctrine of Being Born Again: Becoming the Sons and Daughters of God with Power to Become the Sons and Daughters of God,” The Research Report 1, no. 2 [September/October 1989]: 26-27)

 

 

Michael J. Kruger on the Text of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers

In response to William Petersen who argued that there “is abundant Patristic evidence for the text of the New Testament, much of it very ancient:

 

. . . despite the optimism of Petersen, there are significant doubts about whether the Apostolic Fathers can tell us much about the state of the New Testament text during this time period. The following should be considered:

 

1.     Identifying citations. A fundamental challenge in extracting a patristic citation is determining whether an author intended to cite his source, or whether he is simply offering an allusion, reminiscence (echo), or locution. Exegetical (e.g., commentaries) or polemic patristic works—most of them arose around the time of Irenaeus or later—are more likely to provide actual citations. This presents real challenges for the Apostolic Fathers, which generally lack these characteristics and are significantly earlier.

2.     Citation practices: Even if we might conclude that an author intended to cite a source, there is still the question of the manner of citation. Charles Hill—surveying the traditions of Homer, Herodotus, Philo, Plutarch, Philo and others—has argued that “Christian writers inherited from Greco-Roman and from Jewish culture an approach to literary borrowing which did not prize exact replication of the text.” In other words, Christian authors, even when citing a text, would often adapt, modify, conflate, or make other stylistic changes, in order to make that text more applicable to their particular contexts. Moreover, Hill observes that such imprecise quotation have little to do with whether a text was considered sacred. Even for texts regarded as Scripture, adaption or paraphrase was not uncommon. The principle here is fundamental: there is a difference between the way a patristic writer might cite a New Testament writing and the way a scribe would copy an actual manuscript of a New Testament writing. The difference, as Barbara Aland has observed, is “der größeren Freiheit des Zitierenden im Vergleich mit dem Kopisten eines Manuskripts [RB: the greater freedom of the person quoting compared to the copyist of a manuscript].” If so, then it is difficult to see how the Apostolic Fathers would provide reliable data about the state of the text in this early period.

3.     Intermediate sources. One of Petersen’s primary arguments that second-century writers (including the Apostolic Fathers) were in fact citing directly and precisely from their sources (as opposed to paraphrasing or adapting) is because the “variants” readings in these citations would also appear in other patristic texts. However, we should not forget that it was not uncommon for church fathers to either cite one another or to cite a common source such as a testimonia book or collection of excerpts—which themselves may have been conflated or harmonized. The use of such “intermediate” sources is evident in the way the fathers cited the Old Testament, but also in the way they cited the New Testament. Thus, such shared variant readings do not necessarily reflect the state of the New Testament text itself.

4.     Oral Tradition. When it comes to citations of Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers (the NT epistles are another matter), we cannot be sure the author is actually drawing upon one of our canonical Gospels as opposed to oral tradition about Jesus which continued to be utilized well into the second century and beyond. Thus, what appears to be a citation from one of the Gospels may in fact be an appeal to an oral version of the same story or saying. We will explore this further below, but for now it’s worth noting that divergent citations of Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers cannot prove that “textual chaos” marked the transmission of the Gospels if these citations are not from the Gospels in the first place.

5.     Transmission of the Apostolic Fathers. Perhaps most overlooked in discussions of the New Testament text in the Apostolic Fathers is whether the text of the Apostolic Fathers itself has been reliably transmitted. Metzger raised this issue years ago, and it has been rightly raised again by Paul Foster: “None of the manuscripts that preserve the writings of the Apostolic Fathers comes from the second century. . . . The reality is that even the limited manuscript evidence that attests the transmission of these writings shows that the copying of these documents [the Apostolic Fathers] was at times extremely unstable.” In other words, when we find a textual variant in what appears to be a citation of a New Testament writing by the Apostolic Fathers, we cannot know whether that variant comes from the writing being cited or comes from a later scribe who copied the text of the Apostolic Fathers. (Michael J. Kruger, “The Writings of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 467-69, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Brian J. Arnold on Water Baptism in the Apostolic Fathers

  

Baptism

 

It is too early to speak of sacraments in the Apostolic Fathers, but the emphasis on baptism is worth noting. The Didache gives the rites of baptism but does not delve into its soteriological meaning (Did. 7). Whether baptism is necessary for salvation, or what baptism is precisely doing, is left untouched. In 2 Clement, baptism must be an unbroken seal (2 Clem. 7.6), and the reader is instructed to keep their baptism pure and undefiled (6.9). Ignatius takes Paul’s metaphor of spiritual armor and says, “Let your baptism serve as a shield, faith as a helmet, love as a spear, endurance as armor” (Ign. Pol. 6.2). The Shepherd teaches baptismal regeneration, saying, “Your life was saved and will be saved through water” (Herm. Vis. 3.3.5), and of the repentance attached to it “when we descended into the water and received forgiveness of our previous sins” (Herm. Man. 4.3.1). For the Apostolic Fathers, the significance of baptism was taking shape and would continue to become more prominent in the centuries that followed. (Brian J. Arnold, “Soteriology in the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 343)

 

What Genesis 1 Is Actually Saying About Creation (Hebrew Bible Study for Come Follow Me)

 

What Genesis 1 Is Actually Saying About Creation (Hebrew Bible Study for Come Follow Me)

Note on the Textual Variant in Matthew 8:31

  

Matthew 8:31

 

ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς

 

The demons begged him, “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.”

Some of the earliest manuscripts have “send us into,” but other early manuscripts and related later witnesses have “permit us to go away into.” The difference is between actively sending and passively permitting. The parallel account in Mark 5:12 uses “send,” but the alternate parallel in Luke 8:32 uses “permit.” (Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

Matthew 8:31

 

WH NU            ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων

“send us into the herd of pigs”

א B Θ 0242 f 33

nkjvmg rsv nrsv esv nasb niv tniv neb reb njb nab nlt hcsb net

 

variant/TR       επιτρεψον ημιν απελθειν εις την αγελην των χοιρων

“allow us to be sent into the herd of pigs”

C L W f Maj

kjv nkjv

 

The variant is probably the result of scribal conformity to Luke 8:32, a parallel verse. It was included in TR and has been popularized by kjv and nkjv. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 24)

 

The Book of Abraham Question That Shakes People’s Faith (with Stephen Smoot)

 

The Book of Abraham Question That Shakes People’s Faith

Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell on the Demonology of James 2:19

  

But James insists that correct doctrine by itself is insufficient. With biting sarcasm he praises the objector’s theology: “You do well” (καλῶς ποιεῖς). Unlike the earlier use of this expression in 2:8, where it may have been genuinely positive or at worst mild irony, here he bitterly mocks the hollowness of their faith. “Such belief is indeed necessary, but not enough for salvation.”

 

To show that correct doctrine is not enough, James appeals to demonic “faith.” Satan and all his evil hordes are monotheists; even they know there is only one God and that his loyalties remain undivided. The demons do something about their belief: they tremble violently when faced with the one true God of the universe. The word “tremble” (φρίσσουσιν) means more than just slight shuddering; it refers to uncontainable, uncontrollable, violent shaking from extreme fear. James asserts that the demons can match the original challenger’s theology point for point, and they are overwhelmed by the truth of these doctrines, but they remain condemned. Thus one cannot have “workless” doctrine, because that leaves one salvifically in the same position as the demons! The comparison, however, should not be pressed to say that the objector is actually demonized. Rather, James uses an extreme example to make his point that the demons are so certain of the existence of the one God that they are horrified, but even that does not bring them to salvation (because their knowledge does not change their behavior?). (Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James [Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008], 135)

 

With respect to “tremble” (φρίσσουσιν):

 

Moo (The Letter of James, 131) points out that this verb “refers to the reaction of fear provoked by contact with God or the supernatural. It occurs particularly frequently in the papyri to describe the effect that a sorcerer aims to produce in his hearers.” It is a NT hapax. Dibelius (James, 159–60) provides a good sampling of extrabiblical texts to demonstrate the force of the verb. Recall the reactions of the demons to Christ in Mk 1:23–28; 5:1–20; and similar texts. (Ibid., 135 n. 51)

 

The Seven Uses of "Co-redemptrix" by John Paul II

  

The Seven Uses of “Co-redemptrix”

 

Perhaps most significantly, John Paul II used the term “Co-redemptrix” (corredentrice in Latin) at least seven times in various audiences and addresses between 1979 and 1997. These weren’t in formal magisterial documents like encyclicals, but they were public papal statements carrying weight:

 

Representative Examples:

 

1. September 8, 1982 (Sancta Maria della Lega, Rome):

 

“Mary, though conceived and born without the stain of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be co-redemptrix of humanity.”

 

2. May 8, 1983 (General Audience):

 

“Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Gal 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen Gentium, 58)… Thus she cooperated in a totally singular way with the work of the Savior, co-redemptrix of humanity.”

 

3. March 31, 1985 (Sanctuary of Our Lady of Pompeii):

 

“Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity… In fact Mary, who conceived Christ, brought forth, nursed him, presented him to the Father in the temple, and suffered with him as he died on the cross, ‘in a wholly singular way cooperated by her disobedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace’ (GL 61). This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of redemption reaches its culmination on Calvary, where Christ ‘offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God’ (Heb 9:14) and where Mary stood near the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), ‘suffering grievously with her only-begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart to his sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which she herself had brought forth’ (GK 58), and also offering him to the Father.”

 

4. January 1, 1987 (Angelus Address):

 

“Mary goes before us on the path of holiness in her unique and perfect way, because at the Immaculate Conception, as the Mother of God, and as co-redemptrix of mankind, she stands in a singular relationship to Jesus Christ and shares in his redemptive mission.”

 

5. April 9, 1997 (General Audience – The Last Use):

 

“The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary’s co-operation, instead, took place during the event itself and in the capacity of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.” (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 153-53)

 

 

Commenting on the above, Martin notes that:

 

This was maximalist theology—not the extreme maximalism that would make Mary equal to Christ, but the moderate maximalism that attributed genuine salvific causality to her cooperation. (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 154; note that this book is a discussion of Mater Populi Fidelis, November 11, 2025, and the subsequent theological debates after it was issued)

 

 

Clayton N Jefford on the Jewish Roots of the Eschatology of the Apostolic Fathers

  

Jewish Roots

 

The Apostolic Fathers as a corpus feature ancient Jewish traditions reflective eschatological orientations, apocalyptic tracts, and oral teachings arising within the late Persian (intertestamental) period. Such tendencies are apparent in works such as the Didache, Barnabas, 1 Clement, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and fragments of Papias, which from the outset give indication of the broad influence of such trajectories. Simultaneously, though opposed to the influence of Judaism as a culture generally, even comments by Ignatius and the Martyrdom of Polycarp indicate how broad an impact Jewish principles had on the early patristic landscape. On the other end of this evolution are texts like Diognetus and 2 Clement, which offer little to no sign of Jewish eschatological or apocalyptic thought, preferring instead a definitive, philosophically oriented image of the institutional church constructed within the boundaries of what was seen within the second century as a more socially acceptable Greek and Roman matrix of images and cultural identities. This is ultimately echoed in the voice of the author of Diognetus, who advocates for a believer’s need to assume some mimetic tradition of discipleship rather than promises of future reward—to a great extent akin to what appears later in the literature of Clement of Alexandria and beyond.

 

The roots of this tradition as adopted by the Apostolic Fathers can hardly be determined with specificity, though hints at motifs from 4 Ezra, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and Odes of Solomon are evident in writings such as 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas, and likely even stood behind and against the perspectives of Ignatius as he developed his own awareness of eschatological meaning. Most prevalent here are themes such as “two city” (earthly and heavenly) orientation, reclamation of the earth, reward and punishment in an afterlife, hope within history of a meaningful future, and motivations for personal piety and self-sacrifice that are supported by numerous Jewish authors outside the canon. At the same time, of course, authors of Hebrew Scripture such as Second Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Malachi, and Zechariah (and others) conveyed parallel ideas speedily embraced by the Didache, 1 Clement, Barnabas, etc. The extent to which New Testament writers tapped into this same trove of literature (both canonical and noncanonical) necessarily suggests that both corpora of texts relied on Jewish works and motifs for their ideas. Eschatological ideas in the lips of Jesus in the Gospels, Paul’s use of end-time imagery in his letters to the churches at Thessalonica and Corinth, dependence on oral traditions by Jude, and apocalyptic imagery in Revelation all provide evidence of this trend. The problem for research into the Apostolic Fathers is identifying the extent to which its own authors drew from a comparative cache of eschatological literature rather than from the New Testament authors directly. The answer to this question must vary from text to text; author to author, but in either case, clearly Jewish motifs lie at the foundation of relevant eschatological questions. (Clayton N Jefford, “Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 396-97)

 

Mark Grundeken on Baptism in The Shepherd of Hermas

  

Baptism

 

In Hermas, baptism is regarded as the initiation rite that leads to incorporation into the church (Esp. Sim. 9.31.1, where the “seal” sigillum, refers to baptism). The concept resembles that in, for instance, 1 Corinthians 12:13 (“we were all baptized into one body,” εις εν σωμα εβαπτισθημεν, eis hen sōma ebaptisthēmen)), but the terminology differs. The reference in Visions 3.7.3 to those who heard the word and wanted to be baptized in the name of the Lord (presumably Jesus, see esp. Sim. 9.12.4-5, 8; 9.13.2-3, 7; 9.16.3-4; cf., e.g., Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5) reminds us of several New Testament passages about catechumens (cf., e.g., Mark 4:14-20 parr.; Acts 2:37-38; 10:44-48; 19:5). The baptismal statement in Visions 3.3.5 that “your life was saved [εσωθη, esōthē] and will be saved [σωθησεται, sōthēsetai] through water (δια υδατος, dia hydatos]” calls to mind 1 Peter 3:20-21 (cf. esp. διεωθησαν δι’ υδατος . . . σωζει βαπτισμα, diesōthēsan di hydatos . . . sōzei baptisma, “were saved through water . . . baptism saves”). The connection made in Mandates 4.3.6 (cf. v. 1) between calling (κλησις, klēsis) and baptism is analogous to that in Ephesians 4:1, 4-5. The way in which Similitudes 0.16 speaks of death and life in relation to baptism resembles that in Romans 6:1-11. Yet, unlike Paul, Hermas does not use this language to describe the process of being baptized into Jesus Christ’s death associated with the belief that one will live to God, but to contrast the pre-baptismal with the post-baptismal state. The description (in Sim. 9.16) of how deceased Christian preachers convert and baptize deceased pre-Christian righteous ones, parallels the motif of the descensus ad infernos (“descent into hell”; cf. Christ’s role in esp. 1 Pet 3:19-21; 4:6) and in some way also the notion of baptism for the deceased mentioned by Paul (1 Cor 15:29). (Mark Grundeken, “The Shepherd of Hermas,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 124-25)

 

D. L. d’Avray on Innocent III Rejecting Self-Baptism and Teaching Baptism of Desire in his August 28, 1206 Letter

  

Self-baptism?

 

To minimize doubtful cases, Innocent III continued his predecessors’ work of defining what was and what was not a baptism, and the consequences in the latter case. One source of uncertainty, until Innocent III resolved it—supporting document [f]—was self-baptism. ON 28 August 1206 the pope was asked to decide whether the self-baptism of a Jew from Metz was valid. Apparently he had baptized himself when he thought he was dying—evidently he wanted to become a Christian. The question was, did he have to be baptized again? Repeating a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament was considered wrong. Innocent III ruled that he must be baptized afresh—apparently he had not died after all. Had anyone even posed the question to an authority before this case? Is the answer self-evident within the system? Probably not, on both counts. Equally unobvious was the much earlier solution given by Nicholas I in his response to the Bulgars, that an unbaptized Jew could actually baptize another person validly. Uncertainty on such issues is a central theme in Christian history and should be in modern historiography. Innocent III recognized that the answer he had given was not self-evident, and he explains his rationale at some length, noting on the way that if the Jew had died as he had expected, he would have gone to heaven because of his faith in the sacrament. He is navigating the area of the law and theology of baptism where custom and core religious values flow together, so the stakes are high as the answers are uncertain to anxious questioners. (D. L. d’Avray, Debating Papal History, c. 250-c. 1300: Responsive Government and the Medieval Papacy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025], 201-2, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

[f] Invalidity of self-baptism (by a Jew, incidentally), Innocent III, 1206, August 28 and Liber Extra (1234).

 

Translated from X.3.42.4, Friedberg, Corpus, ii, cols 646-647. Optthast, 2875. As usual, note that passages in diamond brackets (in the translation as in the Friedberg edition) were not incorporated into the Liber Extra.

 

The same [Innocent III] to the bishop of Metz.

 

<you carry out> the duty of the pastoral office<, when you ask to be instructed concerning doubtful articles of law by a response from the apostolic see.> Indeed, you have intimated to us <through your letter,> that a certain Jew, when he was near to death, since he was in the company only of Jews, immersed himself in water, saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.’ <Now however you ask, whether the same Jew, persevering in devotion to the Christian faith, ought to be baptized.> We <however> reply <as follows to you, brother:> that since there should be a distinction between the baptizer and the baptized, as may be clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when he said to the apostles: ‘Go, and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit’, the aforementioned Jew should be baptized anew by someone else, so that it may be shown that there is one person who is baptized and another who baptizes. To make this clear, Christ himself wished to be baptized not by himself but John, although, if this man has passed away straightaway, he would have ascended directly to the heavenly homeland because of the faith in the sacrament, even if not because of the sacrament of faith. In baptism, indeed, that spiritual begetting is solemnized about which the Truth said (John 3:5 & 7): ‘It is necessary for you to be reborn, since, unless a person has been born again of water and the holy Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven’. Therefore just as in carnal begetting, though which offspring is born of man and woman, there is one who begets carnally, and there is another who is carnally begotten, so too in sacramental begetting, by which offspring is reborn from water and the holy Spirit, there should be one who spiritually procreates, and another who should be procreated spiritually. Indeed, when the body is baptized externally, or when the heart is baptized externally (‘quum corpus exterius, sive quum cor interius baptizatur’), it is necessary that paternity and offspring, by which the baptizer and the baptized are related to each other, be able to be found. . . .

 

Given at Ferentino, 5 Kal Sept. ninth year 1206. (D. L. d’Avray, Debating Papal History, c. 250-c. 1300: Responsive Government and the Medieval Papacy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025], 208-9; emphasis in bold added)