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