Isaiah 61:1 in Rabbinic Literature (cf. Luke 4:18ff.)

  

4:18f.: Isaiah 61:1 (in the rabbinic literature).

 

On b. ʿAbod. Zar. 20B, see § Matt 5:3, #3, toward the end. There is nothing in the passage that indicates to whom it refers. ‖ For an interpretation of the messianic end time, see Midr. Song. 3:49f. (73A) at § Luke 2:25 C, #3, n. t. ‖ The passage in the targum referring to the prophet Isaiah is related to Isa 61:1. See further Pesiq. 125B at § Matt 7:29, #1.—The LXX, probably because of the consideration that פקח in the OT mostly means “to open the eyes,” also understood the words ולאסורים פקח פוה (“and the unleashing of those bound”) in this sense. They translate, therefore, with καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, and Luke follows them.—On opening the eyes of the blind in the messianic age, see § Matt 11:5, especially Pesiq. 76A at #1, n. a, Pesiq. 55A at #1, n. c, and ‘Ag. Ber. 69 § 1 (47B) at § Matt 11:5, #2. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:181)

 

William Tabbernee and Tertullian on Pope Victor (189-198/99)

  

In Rome, Victor (bishop c.189-c.198/99) had been on the point of officially endorsing the New Prophecy until persuaded to do otherwise. (William Tabbernee, “Diversity around a prophet: The case of Montanism,” in T&T Clark Handbook of The Early Church, ed. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; John Anthony McGuckin; Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 231)

 

 

Probably Victor (a.d. 190), who is elsewhere called Victorinus, as Oehler conjectures, by a blunderer who tacked the inus to his name, because he was thinking of Zephyrinus, his immediate successor. This Victor “acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus,” and kept up communion with the Phrygian churches that adopted them: but worse than that, he now seems to have patronized the Patri-passion heresy, under the compulsion of Praxeas. So Tertullian says, who certainly had no idea that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible judge of controversies, when he recorded the facts of this strange history. Thus, we find the very founder of “Latin Christianity,” accusing a contemporary Bishop of Rome of heresy and the patronage of heresy, in two particulars. Our earliest acquaintance with that See presents us with Polycarp’s superior authority, at Rome itself, in maintaining apostolic doctrine and suppressing heresy. “He it was, who coming. to Rome,” says Irenæus, “in the time of Anicetus, caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics (viz. Valentinus and Marcion) to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the Apostles.” Anicetus was a pious prelate who never dreamed of asserting a superior claim as the chief depositary of Apostolic orthodoxy, and whose beautiful example in the Easter-questions discussed between Polycarp and himself, is another illustration of the independence of the sister churches, at that period. Nor is it unworthy to be noted, that the next event, in Western history, establishes a like principle against that other and less worthy occupant of the Roman See, of whom we have spoken. Irenæus rebukes Victor for his dogmatism about Easter, and reproaches him with departing from the example of his predecessors in the same See. With Elcutherus he had previously remonstrated, though mildly, for his toleration of heresy and his patronage of the raising schism of Montanus. (Tertullian, Against Praxaes, Postcript: Elucidations, II [ANF 3:630-31])

 

Paul M. Blowers: Justin Martyr, Athenagors, Clement of Alexandria and Hermogenes Taught Creation Ex Materia, not Ex Nihilo

  

. . . the text of Gen. 1.2 was clearly vulnerable to the perception of a preexisting, albeit formless, mass awaiting the Creator’s intervention; and certain Christian authors – including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria and Hermogenes – happily conceded that God shaped a preexistent matter. (Paul M. Blowers, “The early church’s developing theology of (new) creation,” in T&T Clark Handbook of The Early Church, ed. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; John Anthony McGuckin; Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 650)

 

The references for the above are:

 

Cf. Justin, 1 Apol., 10, 59; Athenagoras, Leg.,15.1‒3; Clement, Strom., 5.14.90. 92; Hermogenes, as cited in Tertullian, Hermog. (Ibid., 650 n. 21)

 

With respect to Athenagoras, here is the text of Embassy for the Christians 15:

 

15. But suppose they all do admit the same. What then? Since the multitude, not being able to distinguish what a gulf there is between God and matter, approach with reverence material idols, are we on their account to come forward and worship their statues when we know and distinguish created from uncreated, being from not-being, intellect from sense, and give each its proper name? If God and matter are the same, two names for the one thing, then we are atheists for not reverencing as gods stones and wood, gold and silver. But if they are utterly different, as far apart as the craftsman from the materials of his trade, why are we being accused? As with the potter and his clay, the clay is material and the potter is the craftsman; so God is the craftsman and matter serves Him for His craft. The clay cannot become vessels without craft, and matter that is potentially all things did not receive its differentiation and shape and order without God the maker. We do not regard the vessel as more worthy of honour than its maker, nor the cups—even the gold cups—as more honourable than the smith. If there be any skill about their craftsmanship, we praise the craftsman, and he receives the praise for them. Even so, with God and matter, it is not matter that has the just praise and honour for the arrangement of beautiful things, but its maker, God. Therefore, if we consider the forms of matter to be gods, we shall be deemed blind to the true God for equating fragile and mortal things with the eternal. (Athenagoras, Athenagoras: Embassy for the Christians, The Resurrection of the Dead [trans. Joseph Hugh Crehan; Ancient Christian Writers 23; New York: Newman Press, 1956], 45-46)

 

Here is the Greek text:

 

15. Ἀλλʼ ἔστωσαν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄγοντες· τί οὐν, ἐπεὶ οἱ πολλοὶ διακρῖναι οὐ δυνάμενοι τί μὲν ὕλη, τί δὲ Θεὸς, πόσον δὲ τὸ διὰ μέσου (9) αὐτῶν, προσίασι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης εἰδώλοις, διʼ ἐκείνους καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ διακρίνοντες καὶ χωρίζοντες τὸ ἀγένητον καὶ τὸ γενητὸν, τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸ οὐκ ὂν, τὸ νοητὸν καὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὸ προσῆκον ὄνομα ἀποδιδόντες, προσελευσόμεθα καὶ προσκυνήσομεν τὰ ἀγάλματα; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ταὐτὸν ὕλη καὶ Θεὸς, δύο ὀνόματα καθʼ ἑνὸς πράγματος, τοὺς λίθους καὶ τὰ ξύλα, τὸν χρυσὸν καὶ τὸν ἄργυρον οὐ νομίζοντες θεοὺς, ἀσεβοῦμεν· εἰ δὲ διεστᾶσι πάμπολυ ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τοσοῦτον ὅσον τεχνίτης καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὴν τέχνην αὐτοῦ παρασκευὴ, τί ἐγκαλούμεθα; Ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς καὶ ὁ πηλὸς (ὕλη μὲν ὁ πηλὸς, τεχνίτης δὲ ὁ κεραμεύς (10)), καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δημιουργὸς, ὑπακούουσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν τέχνην. Ἀλλʼ ὡς ὁ πηλὸς καθʼ ἑαυτὸν σκεύη γενέσθαι χωρὶς τέχνης ἀδύνατος, καὶ ἡ πανδεχὴς (11) ὕλη ἄνευ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ διάκρισιν καὶ σχῆμα καὶ κόσμον οὐκ ἐλάμβανεν. Ὡς δὲ οὐ τὸν κέραμον προτιμότερον τοῦ ἐργασαμένου (12) αὐτὸν ἔχομεν, οὐδὲ τὰς φιάλας καὶ χρυσίδας τοῦ χαλκεύσαντος· ἀλλʼ εἴ τι περὶ ἐκείνας δεξιὸν κατὰ τὴν τέχνην, τὸν τεχνίτην ἐπαινοῦμεν, καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς σκεύεσι δόξαν καρπούμενος· καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῆς διαθέσεως τῶν κεκοσμημένων, οὐχ ὕλη τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν δικαίαν ἔχει, ἀλλʼ ὁ δημιουργὸς αὐτῆς Θεός. Ὡς, εἰ (13) τὰ εἴδη τῆς ὕλης ἄγοιμεν θεούς, ἀναισθητεῖν τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ δόξομεν, τὰ λυτὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ τῷ ἀϊδίῳ ἐξισοῦντες.

 

Stefano Salemi on Christians Having Fellowship with Christ's Sufferings Through Water Baptism in Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures

 Commenting on the theology of Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures 20:

 

CHRIST’S SUFFERING, A FORM OF FELLOWSHIP (ΚΟΙΝΩΝΊΑ): ΜΊΜΗΣΙΣ, ΕἸΚΌΝΙ, ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ, ὉΜΟΊΩΜΑ

 

In his catechetical lectures, Cyril talks of the experience of all who share the sufferings of Christ as a form of fellowship:

 

O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but while our imitation was in a figure (ἐν εἰκόνι ἡ μίμησις), our salvation is in reality. Christ was indeed crucified and indeed buried, and actually rose again. He has freely bestowed upon us all these things, so that we, by imitation, communicating in his sufferings, might truly gain salvation. O surpassing loving-kindness! Christ suffered anguish and received nails in His undefiled hands and feet. While he freely bestows salvation on me without pain or toil by the fellowship of His pain. (καὶ ἀπονητὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας τὴν σωτηρίαν).

 

Baptism is certainly seen as an antitype of the Passion of Christ in Cyril (τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἀντίτυπον) in the previous paragraphs of this catechesis. He advances a doctrine of baptism as conformity to the Passion and death of Christ, then ultimately to his suffering. Cyril uses the term ‘similitude’ (μίμησις) and ‘participation’ (κοινωνία) in reference to Christ’s Passion. In this sense, blood- baptism or martyrdom is participation (κοινωνία) to the sufferings of Christ through similitude (μίμησις). Paul, quoted by Cyril in this catechesis, confirms it in Rom. 6.5, ‘For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.’ Cyril understands that this death implies the imitation of Christ’s sufferings and, much more, a form of fellowship with him. Paradoxically, if, on the one hand, there is the imitation of the sufferings, on the other, there is also the reality of salvation. In effect, baptism is both a figure of the Passion and of the resurrection. In fact, the development and enrichment given to this concept are worthy of notice. When Cyril explains it, he clearly states that the imitation is effected in an image (ἐν εἰκόνι) while salvation in reality (ἐν ἀλήθεια). While sharing by imitation in Christ’s sufferings, one might truly obtain salvation; by communion in/with his sufferings, Christ imparts the grace of salvation.

 

Cyril continues, in the following paragraphs (6–7), by saying that baptism constitutes the fellowship by the representation of Christ’s true sufferings (ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀληθινῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἐν μιμήσει ἔχον τὴν κοινωνίαν). He says that we may learn that all the pain Christ suffered, he endured it for our salvation in reality, and not in appearance, and that we are partakers in His sufferings. In fact, everything ‘happened really to Him; but in your case, there was only a likeness (ὁμοίωμα) of death and sufferings, whereas of salvation there was not a likeness but a reality’.

 

Following this concept, water baptism symbolizes the suffering of Christ (τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων ἀντίτυπον), as well as blood-baptism, and unites in a κοινωνία by imitation of the real sufferings of Christ. What the believers live in a figurative way through baptism, mirroring what Christ truly lived is in a certain sense a ‘likeness’ (ὁμοίωμα) of Christ’s suffering. This is here presented as in comparison and contrast with the reality (ἀλήθεια) of what Christ suffered. This particular form of typological language is open to a sacramental realism constituted by the use of μίμησις, εἰκόνι, ἀλήθεια, ὁμοίωμα, to describe the symbiotic experience of Christ and his people in suffering as a form of κοινωνία. This concept acquires a more articulated nature in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. (Stefano Salemi, “The Suffering of Christ: Suffering of People,” in T&T Clark Handbook of The Early Church, ed. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; John Anthony McGuckin; Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 669-70)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 98: Jabra Ghneim on the Gathering

 

Episode 98: Jabra Ghneim on the Gathering

Strack and Billerbeck on the Negative Attitude Towards Shepherds (cf. Luke 2:8)

  

2:8 A: Shepherds were nearby.

 

Shepherds were despised. Others suspected that they did not hold fast to the principle of what is mine and what is yours. Therefore, they were excluded from giving testimony in court.

 

Midrash Psalms 23 § 2 (99B): R. Yose b. Hanina (ca. 270) said, “You will find that there is no more contemptible occupation in the world than that of the shepherd הרועה, for throughout his life he walks with his staff and his bag. And yet, David calls God a shepherd (Ps 23:1).” ‖ Tosefta Sanhedrin 5.5 (423): They added to the list in m. Sanh. 3.3 of those unsuitable for the office of judge and the role of witness: robbers, shepherds, violent people, and (entirely) everyone who is suspected of loving money. Their testimony is always invalid. A parallel passage can be found in b. Sanh. 3.3: They added to them (those named in m. Sanh. 3.3): shepherds, the tax collectors, and publicans. It was initially thought that the shepherds did it accidentally (feeding their flocks on other people’s land), but when they believed it to be on purpose making them guilty of robbery, the rabbis determined (that they were not to be permitted to testify). ‖ Mishnah Baba Qamma 10.9: One was not allowed to buy wool, milk, (or goats) from shepherds (because you never know if it is stolen).—A less stringent judgment is found in t. B. Qam. 11.9 (370). There, the rule is set out as follows: Everything that a shepherd can steal without the owner noticing may not be purchased from him. But what he cannot steal without the owner noticing may be purchased from him. ‖ Mishnah Qiddušin 4.14: Abba Gurion of Sidon (ca. 180?) said in the name of Abba Saul (ca. 150), “A man should not train his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a barber, a skipper, a shepherd, or a grocer. For their trade is the trade of robbers.”—It is similarly said in a baraita in y. Qidd. 4.66B.26. ‖ Exodus Rabbah 2 (68B): “Moses was a shepherd of small livestock for his father-in-law” (Exod 3:1). In Prov 30:5, this means, “Every word of God is refining” (according to the Midrash). God does not give greatness to a man until he has tested him in a minor matter. Then he leads him up to greatness. Behold, you have two great men in the world, whom God has tested in a little matter, and since they were faithful, he led them up to greatness. He tested David with small livestock, and he drove them into the wilderness to keep them away from robbers. For Eliab said to David in 1 Sam 17:28, “For whom have you left those few sheep in the desert?” This teaches that David adhered to the judgment in the Mishnah, “You are not permitted to raise small livestock in the land of Israel” (m. B. Qam. 7.7). God said to him, “You were found to be faithful with the small livestock, come and feed my sheep” (Ps 78:71). And likewise, Moses says, “He drove the small livestock in the west side of the wilderness” (Exod 3:1) to keep them from the robbers. Then God took him to feed Israel; as it says, “You led your people like sheep by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Ps 77:20). (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:131-32)

 

François Bovon on Κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28

  

Κεχαριτωμένη is rare in profane Greek, but fairly frequently attested in biblical Greek. The Vulgate translation gratia plena (“full of grace”) is deceptive, because the word in Luke alludes to God’s favor, not to the grace that makes humans holy. Mary is first addressed by name in the angel’s second speech (v. 30). Like Gideon long ago (Judg 6:12), she receives here a divinely appointed, salvation-historical address. God has already expressed his favor to her in the mere fact of his visit. (François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002], 50)