Sunday, April 27, 2025

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

  

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

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

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

  

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

 

. . .

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

Luke Timothy Johnson on Hebrews 11:26

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on Hebrews 11:26

  

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

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Emma's Pearls Episode 17 Brian Hales talks about Polygamy

 

Episode 17 Brian Hales talks about Polygamy





 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

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

Blog Archive