Leslie Baynes on the Relationship Between Luke 16:19-31 and Si-Osiris

The following comes from:

 

Leslie Baynes, “The Parables of Enoch and Luke’s Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boaccaccini (Early Judaism and its Literature 44; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 148-50

 

Luke 16:19-31	Si-Orisis
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and linen and who made merry during his life.	A rich man receives a splendid burial shrouded in fine linen.
And at his gate lay a poor man by the name of Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; And even the dogs would come and lick his sores.	There is no connection between the rich man and the poor one.
The poor man died and was borne away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.	A poor man is buried ignominiously but receives a place of honor in the underworld (Amenti), with the ruler of the underworld, Osiris.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus in his bosom.	The rich man is tormented in the underworld.   The rich man’s torment is a door hinge through his eye. He does not see the poor man in Amenti, and vice versa; they are both observed by third parties, Si-Osiris and his father.
He called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.”	The rich man never begs for mercy. He does not suffer flames.
But Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.   Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.”	The moral of the story: good deeds must outweigh bad in order to enjoy peace in the afterlife.*
He said, “Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.” Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”	Si-Osiris has returned from the dead, but in a manner completely unrelated to any request from the tormented rich man.   Si-Osiris’s father takes to heart the negative example he observed in Amenti.

 

All of the stories we have considered here give different rationales for the rich man/men suffering in the afterlife, a detail Luke does not explicitly articulate. Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the reason for Dives’s torment, but I agree with Bauckham that it is clear, like it or not: the rich man received good in his life, and Lazarus did not. I go beyond Bauckham (“Rich Man and Lazarus,” 232–33) in using internal context clues to infer that Dives’s earthly treatment of Lazarus was callous—literally damning—indifference to him. We do not know if Dives built his wealth unjustly on the backs of the poor, as the rich in the Parables and Epistle of Enoch did. Active oppression of the poor is one important reason for the rich suffering the flame of Sheol in both those books, while the Parables also emphasizes arrogant refusal to acknowledge God and his Chosen One.

 

As the chart demonstrates, the story of Si-Osiris is not a perfect match with Luke 16:19–31. But while it is always possible that Luke did not know this story, either in a written or an oral form, and used instead texts based on it that are no longer extant, or related ideas “in the air” of a common milieu, I believe the text we have at hand precludes the necessity to peer into the void speculating about (currently) nonexistent alternatives. Hence in addition to the Epistle and the Parables of Enoch, I think it is likely that Luke was influenced by the story of Si-Osiris as well.

Charlene McAfee Moss on Matthew 2:23

  

On the one hand, from the biblical texts themselves, there are no compelling reasons to adopt a Nazirite interpretation. First, nowhere in the LXX is Nazirite rendered Ναζωραιος. Second, a Nazirite explanation simply does not fit the Matthean Infancy narrative in its own context, nor is it supported by the picture of Jesus elsewhere in Matthew, Matt 11 presents a notable example:

 

ήλθεν γάρ Ίωάννης μήτε έσθίων μήτε πίνων, καί λέγουσιν· δαιμόνιον έχει. ήλθεν ό υίός του άνθρώπου εσθίων και πίνων, και λέγουσιν· ίδου άνθρωπος φάγος και οινοπότης, τελωνών φίλος και άμαρτωλών.

(Matt 11.18-19) For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came (both) eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."

 

On the other hand, Davidic Branch - 'Ανατολή connections, which complement the Davidic messianic themes prominent in Matthew's first chapter, have also been discerned in Matthew's second chapter. Furthermore, the prophetic plurality of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, from which the unified concept of נַצֶר and צֶמַח, as interchangeable Messianic Branch terms, may also account for the unusual fulfillment formula in Matt 2.23, in which the indirect speech citation, οτι Ναζωραΐος κληθήσεται, fulfills τό ρηθέν διά των προφητών. The prevalence of Davidic imagery, as well as the lacking of convincing Nazirite material, confirms that the Nazareth-Ναζωραιοςwordplay in Matt 2.23 must refer to Jesus as the Davidic Branch, the נַצֶר who came from Nazareth. (Charlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 39-40)

 

 

Phineas Wolcott Cook (1819-1900) on the Failure of William Miller's Prophecy Concerning the Second Coming Taking Place in 1844

  

It was the year that the Prophet Miller prophesied the end of the world about the idle of October 1844. [On the predicted day] there was a very singular appearance in the air. It was a cloudy, foggy day and objects such as trees looked red as though the shadow of fire was in the air. Many thought the Day of Judgment had surely come, but soon it passed off and all was natural again. I did not believe Millerism, consequently I was not afraid. Many went crazy and many died with fear or it caused their death. (Phineas Wolcott Cook, Journal, 1844, in Phineas Wolcott Cook: A Legacy of Faith [Phineas Wolcott Cook Family Organization, 2022], 40, comment in square brackets in original)

 

 On whether Joseph Smith prophesied the Second Coming taking place in 1890/91, see the articles at:

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Book of Mormon in Irish (An Leabhar Mhórmoin: Tiomna eile ar Íosa Críost)

A friend of mine here in Ireland has completed a translation of the Book of Mormon into Irish. One can purchase it on Kindle and in paperback:

An Leabhar Mhórmoin: Tiomna eile ar Íosa Críost

As an aside, a friend of mine has produced a fresh translation of the Gospel and Epistles of John from Greek into Tagalog. I am currently reviewing it (*), and it is really good. I hope he will publish it in the near future, so look out for that, too.

(*) for those curious, I have a working knowledge of several languages, both ancient and modern.

H. Daniel Zacharias on the Use of Psalm 69 and 109 in the New Testament

  

Psalms 69 and 109

 

Psalms 69 and 109 are nowhere connected specifically to Ahithophel and his treachery in early Jewish readings, but both psalms are attributed to David and belong in the classification of "betrayal psalms." The most forthright use of Pss 69 and 109 come from Luke in Acts 1:20, which cites these psalms as predictions for the death of Judas. The eternal condemnation from Ps 69:28, applied to Judas, is not unlike other Rabbinic traditions which similarly condemn Ahithophel. Numerous allusions to Ps 109 are noted by Van de Water in Matthew as well: the refusal of Judas' plea (Matt 27:4/Ps 109:7, 12); Judas' remorse and suicide (Matt 27.5) is connected with Ps 109:7 by Jerome; the curse of the betrayer by Jesus (Matt 26.24) echoes the curses in Ps 109:6-19; and the allusion to Ps 109:25 in Matt 27:39 when passersby shake their heads at Jesus. These connections show that the betrayal psalms were drawn upon by Matthew in his Gospel. (H. Daniel Zacharias, Matthew’s Presentation of the Son of David [T&T Clark Biblical Studies; London: T&T Clark, 2017], 155)

 

Norman Powell Williams (1927) on Amrbosiaster Accepting a Doctrine of Original Sin but not Original Guilt

  

(5) 'Ambrosiaster.' This writer clearly indicates by his comments on Rom. v. vi. vii. that he accepts the idea of ' Original Sin'; but he has only one sentence which (apparently) implies the idea of ' Original Guilt.' The sentence to which we refer is, nevertheless, of the most crucial importance in the development of the 'twice-born' Fall-theory, because Ambrosiaster thereby provided, perhaps unwittingly, the doctrine of 'Original Guilt' with what it had hitherto lacked, namely, a Scriptural proof-text to be its formal basis: the ignorance of Greek now prevalent in the West, and the consequent inability of many Latin theologians to read the actual words of the New Testament, effectually screened the fact that the supposed proof-text rested upon a blunder in translation. Its relevant portions run as follows:

 

In whom, that is, in Adam, all sinned. The Apostle said ' in whom ' in the masculine gender (in quo) although he is speaking about the woman, for this reason, that his reference is to the whole race of man, not to the particular sex <which as a matter of fact sinned first>. So then it is plain that all have sinned in Adam as in a lump (quasi in massa); for all the children whom Adam begat, having been himself corrupted by the woman (ipsa) through sin, have been born under sin. From him therefore all are sinners, because from him are we all; for Adam lost the gift of God when he transgressed, having become unworthy to eat of the tree of life, so that he died

 

The cardinal error in this sentence lies in the mis- translation of St. Paul's phrase έφ' φ πάντες ήμαρτον, 'for that all sinned ' (R.V.), as though it were έν ώ πάντες ήμαρτον, 'in whom, sc. the " one man " just mentioned, all sinned.' Ambrosiaster is, of course, relying on a Latin version which renders έφ' φ as in quo, a translation which has been perpetuated in the Vulgate. This rendering is inexact and ambiguous enough in all conscience, but it does not compel us to assume that quo is masculine; a reader who possessed only the Latin version, without any knowledge of the original Greek, and read it without any preconceived ideas as to 'Original Guilt,' would probably understand in quo as equivalent to quod or quantum, 'in so far as all sinned.' In any case the words unum hominem are too far distant from the relative quo to be its grammatical antecedent. Ambrosiaster has therefore bequeathed to Western Christendom as the supposed Scriptural foundation of its characteristic doctrine of 'Original Guilt ' a gratuitous misunderstanding of a faulty rendering of what St. Paul actually wrote.

 

The fatal legacy was received only too gladly: Augustine quotes this passage, mistranslation and all, as from the writings of 'sanctus Hilarius,' who is undoubtedly 'Ambrosiaster.' Nor has its malign influence even yet come to an end : I have in my possession a Roman Catholic pamphlet in which the words of Rom. v. 12 are quoted in defence of the idea of ' Original Guilt,' in the form ' ... in whom all have sinned,' without the slightest apparent consciousness that St. Paul wrote nothing of the kind.

 

It is, indeed, doubtful whether Ambrosiaster himself really intended to place on this clause (in quo omnes peccaverunt) the sense which Augustine took him to intend, and which has been adopted without question, on Augustine's authority, by so many later writers in Western Christendom. For, in commenting on v. 14 of the same fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he lays down a principle which logically seems to exclude ' Original Guilt ' altogether. His text of this verse runs 'sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, in eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adam'; which, it will be noticed, like Origen's text, presupposes a Greek original not containing the word μή before αμαρτήσαντας. This reading, right or wrong, clearly connects the incidence of death with the commission of actual sin; and Ambrosiaster expounds it to mean that only actual sin deserves the 'second death,' or Gehenna.

 

Moreover, like most Latin writers after Tertullian, he repudiates 'traducianism.' It is, therefore, possible that by the assertion that all men 'sinned in Adam, as in a lump ' he may merely mean that they ' became sinners ' or 'acquired a sinful tendency'; in other words, he may intend to affirm merely 'Original Sin,' and not 'Original Guilt.' But the idea of 'Original Guilt ' had by this time become so popular, and the apparent discovery of a Scriptural basis for it was so welcome, amongst thinkers who knew no Greek, that critical considerations of this kind do not seem to have occurred to any of Ambrosiaster's readers; and his mistranslation of έφ' ώ πάντες ήμαρτον took its place in the armoury of controversial arguments for the ' twice-born' version of the Fall-doctrine. This momentous error, and the emergence of the conception of fallen humanity as a sinful massa, or 'lump,' bring us up to the very threshold of Augustinianism; where it will be appropriate to pause, and survey the ground which has been covered in this lecture. (Norman Powell Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study [London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1927], 307-10)

 

John Wesley on Adam Being Created in Pefect Holiness and the Need for His Being Tried

  

“But if Adam was originally perfect in Holiness,” (say, perfectly Holy, made in the Moral Image of God) “what Occasion was there for any farther Trial?” That there might be Room for farther Holiness and Happiness: Entire Holiness does not exclude Growth: Nor did the right State of all his Faculties intitle him to that full Reward, which would have followed the Right Use of them.

 

“Upon the whole, Regeneration, or gaining Habits of Holiness, takes in no Part of the Doctrine of Original Sin.” But Regeneration is not “gaining Habits of Holiness:” It is quite a different Thing. It is not a Natural, but a Supernatural Change; and is just as different from the gradual “gaining Habits,” as a Child’s being born into the World is, from his growing up into a Man. The New Birth is not (as you suppose) the Progress, or the Whole of Sanctification, but the Beginning of it: As the natural Birth, is not the Whole of Life, but only the Entrance upon it. He that is born of a Woman, then begins to live a natural Life: He that is born of God, then begins to live a spiritual. And if every Man born of a Woman had spiritual Life already, he would not need to be born of God. (John Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin: According to Scripture, Reason, and Experience [Bristol: E. Farley, 1756], 223-24)