Parallels to the Woman's Exclamation in Luke 11:27 in Jewish/Rabbinical Literature

  

11:27: Blessed is the womb that carried you, and the breasts that nursed you!

 

Genesis Rabbah 98 (62D): R. Abba b. Zutra (ca. 270) said, “… Blessed are the breasts which have nursed you, and the body which brought you forth!” (In context, this is Rachel, who gave life to Joseph.) See Tg. Yer. I Gen. 49:25. ‖ In m. ’Abot 2.8, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai († ca. 80) says with reference to R. Joshua (ca. 90): “Glory be to his mother!” Similarly, in b. Ḥag. 14B with reference to R. Joshua and R. Yose, the Priest, it is said: “Glory be to you and glory be to your mother! Glory be to my eyes which were able to see these things!”—Immediately before this, the same scholar exclaims, “Praise be to you, our father Abraham, that Eleazar b. ʿArakh (ca. 90) has come forth from your loins!” ‖ Exodus Rabbah 45 (100D): “They looked at Moses” (Exod 33:8). What did they say? R. Isaac (ca. 300) said, “Praise be to the one who bore him! What things she experienced from him!”—Exodus Rabbah 51 (103D) with R. Yohanan († 279) as author. ‖ For a blessing on the body from which the Messiah comes, see Pesiq. 149A at § Matt 4:16. ‖ An imprecation. Genesis Rabbah 5 (5A): Cursed be the breasts that have nursed this man! Parallels can be found in Pesiq. 23B; y. Kil. 1.27B.14. ‖ See further at § Matt 13:16. (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], 2:218-19)

 

Openly Challenging Joe Heschmyer to Debate *AGAIN*

As Joe continues to crituqe "Mormonism" (e.g., he appeared on Catholic Answers Live yesterday [April 29, 2026]), I am again openingly challenging him to debate (1) the Immaculate Conception of Mary and (2) if he wishes, the Book of Abraham. The following is from a recent post on my youtube channel where I 'tagged' him (if you are LDS, RC, or 'other' but want to see us debate: share this far and wide). Here is my post from youtube:

The debate with Kelly has been moved to June 9 at his request. However, I do hope to have one or two more debates later this year on: (1) “The Immaculate Conception of Mary is Apostolic in Origin” and (2) “The Book of Abraham is a 19th-century translation of an ancient text” As he continues to critique LDS, I am again openly challenging @shamelesspopery  to debate these topics, esp the first. Structure of both debates (they will be arguing in the affirmative in #1; I will be for #2, of course) Opening: 20 mins each Rebuttals: 10 mins each Cross Ex: 15 mins Each Closing: 7 mins each If Joe will agree to the debates, I will also grant the RC side 50% extra time for the debate on the Immaculate Conception (so instead of a 20 min opening, they can have 30 min, etc). I think these stipulations are more than generous. Robert Boylan Email: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Francisco Marín-Sola on the Cessation of Public Revelation After the Apostles and Development of Doctrine

  

When the Church affirms that revelation was closed with the death of the Apostles, this must not be understood in the sense that the content of revelation was ended then, but only in the sense that God brought to a close the manifestations or the propositions of the teaching. The revealed propositions, the revealed teaching came to an end with the death of St. John; but revelation, that is, the thing or reality revealed continues to grow in the Church without interruption. In the Church there are ceaselessly new revelations, there is a constant communication of the mysteries of the divine life.

 

Theology is embedded in the Church in such a way that it grows apace with the growth of the revealed reality in the Church. Theology is not a dialectical, but an experimental knowledge whereby we are given to know not only the formulae revealed by God in the Scripture and in the divine-apostolic Tradition, but also and above all the divine mysteries that manifest themselves day by day in the life of the Church, of which theology itself is a part.

 

In this conception of theological science three characteristics are clearly discernible. In the first place, its vitalist or mystical character. Theology is, indeed, formally a natural science; nonetheless, its vitalist or mystical90 character may not be ignored since its foundation or starting point is to be found in the infused virtue of faith which is a virtue of the intellect with roots in the will, and thus with affective elements of great significance in its make-up. The defect, then, does not consist in affirming the vitalist character of theology but in stressing it exclusively by assuming that it is an arational knowledge. In the second place, Theology’s starting point is not the revelation that was brought to an end with the death of the Apostles, but the revelation that is constantly made in the Church; that is to say, not the kind of revelation that is formulated and proposed, but the kind that is communicated and lived, or rather, the revealed reality that is constantly being communicated in the Church. And, in the third place, the pointlessness of theological reasoning and of authentic theological conclusions arrived at through study and reasoning. (Francisco Marín-Sola, The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma [trans. Antonio T. Piñon; Manila, Philippines: Santo Tomas University Press, 1988], 55-56)

 

Cyrus H. Gordon on Genesis 20:13

  

Before we pass from the more religious to the more secular considerations, we should note that the monotheistic patriarchs could not completely escape from the polytheistic milieu that had engulfed the Near East since before the dawn of history, and re-engulfed all the area (including post- Ikhnaton Egypt) with the exception of Israel after the Amarna Age. When Abraham speaks with the Gentile Abimelech (Gen. 20:13), he adjusts his language to his listener and speaks of the polytheistic elohim, who had caused (plural hit’u) him to wander from his father's home. However, for Hebraic ears, we find the statement that the monotheistic Elohim healed (singular wayyirpa') Abimelech (v. 17). At the head of the pantheon in Ugaritic text 107:1 is El-Beth-El; with whom the angel of God is identified in Gen. 31:13; cf. 35:7 which has a polytheistic ring also in the statement that the gods were revealed (plural niglu) to Jacob there. (Cyrus H. Gordon, “The Patriarchal Age,” Journal of Bible and Religion 21, no. 4 [October 1953]: 241)

 

Cyrus H. Gordon on the Meaning of 'Almah and Bethulah

  

The role of the divine in the theme of promised progeny hinges on the belief that biological factors, though necessary, are not sufficient to result in conception and childbirth. Jacob reminds Rachel that her barrenness is not due to him but to God who has withheld the fruit of her womb (Gen. 30:2). Nor does the childless Rebecca conceive until Isaac entreats God on her behalf and God grants his plea (Gen. 25:21). This is akin to the Epic of Aqhat, where the virtuous Danel prays to El that his wife should bear him a son; only after El grants his prayer does Danel's wife conceive and give birth, after fulfilling the biological requirements which are as indispensable as the divine blessing. In this regard it may be noted that the miraculous birth of Jesus has no antecedents as such in the extant Canaanite-Hebraic literature. The Immanuel annunciation is, to be sure, anticipated in Ugaritic text 77. But neither the ‘almah of Isaiah, nor the ‘almah or betulah of text 77, nor the parthenos in the Septuagint version of the Immanuel prophecy, implies the virginity of the mother at the time of the childbirth. In Ugarit, the Betulah Anath is not a virgin. Her epithet (Ybmt) seems to be the same word as the Hebrew for "widowed sister-in-law;" and text 132, though fragmentary, seems to describe her amorous exploits with Baal. In an Aramaic incantation a woman having difficulty in bearing her (presumably first) child is nonetheless called betulta ( = Heb. betulah). Dr. E. J. Young calls my attention to the fact that the betulah of Joel 1:8 must have been married for she mourns "the husband of her youth." Dr. H. S. Gehman informs me that parthenos as early as Homer (e.g., Iliad 2:514) may refer to a woman who is no longer a virgin. All this may explain why Rebecca, who is called an ‘almah in Gen. 24:43, and a betulah in 24:16, is (to make matters unequivocally clear) additionally described as a girl that "no man had known" (24:16). Neither ‘almah nor betulah nor parthenos means necessarily what "virgin" means in English. The birth of Jesus is according to Matt. 1:18-25 supernatural, not because v. 23 identifies Mary with the ‘almah/parthenos of Is. 7:14, but because v. 20 specifies that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph. (Cyrus H. Gordon, “The Patriarchal Age,” Journal of Bible and Religion 21, no. 4 [October 1953]: 240-41)

 

Pope Leo III (750-816): The See of Rome/Pope Can be Subject to a Higher Authority (Ecumenical Council)

 The following is taken from Migne, PL 102:971-76, “Acta Collationis Romanae: Descripta A Smaragdo Abbate Santi Michaelis.” The material in bold corresponds to PL 102:971-72. It shows that Leo, a Bishop of Rome/Pope, understood the Papacy/See of Rome to be subject to review by an ecumenical council, which he viewed as being of a higher authority.

 

Lectis a praedictis missis per ordinem testimoniis, atque a domno apostolico diligentissime auditis, ait: Ita sentio, ita teneo, cum his auctoribus, et sacrae Scripturae auctoritatibus. Si quis aliter de hac re sentire vel docere voluerit, defendo; et nisi conversus fuerit, et secundum hunc sensum tenere voluerit, contraria sentientem funditus abicio. His dictis, novi quod nonnulla colloquendo potius quam disputando praecesserunt: quorum series sensuum, seu verborum, nisi quod inde fuit, non satis memoriae occurrit. Cumque eadem collatio ad hoc usque procederet, ut iam magis certa disputatio, quam ut supra collocutio habenda esset; et si non eadem fuit proprietas sermonum, in quantum recordari valeo, iste tamen fuit cursus sensuum, et summa conclusio novissimarum definitionum. — Missi. Quia vero, ut dicitis, ita certissimum credendum est, credendo immutabiliter tenendum, tenendo vero, sicubi necesse fuerit, constantissime defendendum est, nunquid non id nescientibus docendum, scientibus autem, ut id attentius teneamus, confirmandum est? — Papa. Ita est. — Missi. Si ita est, si quis hoc nescierit, vel ita non crediderit, num salvus esse poterit? — Papa. Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliore pertingere potest, et id scire, aut ita sciens credere noluerit, salvus esse non poterit. Sunt enim multa, e quibus istud unum est, sacrae fidei altiora mysteria subtilioraque sacramenta, ad quorum indagationem pertingere multi valent; multi vero, aut aetatis quantitate, aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti, non valent. Et ideo, ut praediximus, qui potuerit et noverit, salvus esse non poterit. — Missi. Si ergo ita est, imo quia ita est, quod non credere non licet, et non tacendo docere licet, cur non licet cantare, vel cantando docere? — Papa. Licet, inquam, licet docendo cantare, et cantando docere. Sed illicite in prohibitis, nec scribendo, nec cantando licet inserere. — Missi. Quia ergo utrisque notum est, quod ideo a vobis, ut id symbolum cantando vel scribendo inseratur, illicitum ducatur vel dicatur, quia illi qui idem symbolum condiderunt non indiderunt, ut cetera, et sequentes principales synodi, Chalcedonensis scilicet quarta, Constantinopolitana quoque quinta et sexta, ut novum ultra symbolum a quoquam qualibet necessitate, seu salvandi homines devotione, condere, et in volueribus tollendo, addendo, mutando quidquam inserere prohibuerunt, non est ibi diutius immorandum. Sed hoc quaero, hoc ut dicatur rogo: quia id credere bonum est, bonum hodie sicut ad credendum ita ad cantandum tunc esse, si ab eis insertum fuisset. — Papa. Bonum certe, et valde bonum, utpote tam fidei sacramentum magnum; quod non bene est non credere, quisquis ad hoc valet pertinere. — Missi. Nunquid non bene idem tunc auctores fecissent, si quoniam tantum addendo syllabas, tam necessarium fidei sacramentum cunctis ecclesiae secretis perquirentibus redderetur? — Papa. Sicut non audeo dicere non bene fecissent, si fecissent, quia procul dubio sicut ceteri qui vel considerarunt, scientes itaque, et non tam humana quam divina illuminatione sapientes fecerunt, ita quoque non audeo dicere istud eos nobis minus intellexisse; propterea eorum dimiserunt, vel cur dimittere, sic et omnia prohibuerunt. Tu et tui videte quid sentiatis de nobis. Nam et ego non illud non dico praeferram, sed satis illud abest mihi ut conquisire praesumam. — Missi. Absit etiam, Pater, Deo nostro protegente, illud a nobis, ut nos quidquam horum dissentire vel dicamus, vel superbia inflati, vel in divinis rebus humanae laudis cupiditate provocati, nec si hoc nobis fides non tantum praestet, verum etiam ostendere praesumamus: sed tantum secundum in rebus temporum qualitatem, et imbecillitatem fratrum nostrorum caritate compatientes, illud quaerimus, in quo laboremus, ut, quia finis mundi appropinquat, in quo sicut praedicta sunt tempora periculosa, etiam ideo inter cetera maxime fratribus nostris prodesse valeamus. Quo ergo fidei in Domino in sacramento fidei reddere studeamus, et idcirco quia praefatum symbolum a quibusdam ita cantari reperimus, et quod id ecclesiasticae congruere fidei, sicut sentimus, atque per hoc et nunc iam plurimos doctos, et sine fine usque in finem saeculi de tanto mysterio, si ita teneatur, instruendos esse cognovimus, qui nequaquam instrueretur, nisi cantaretur: melius nobis visum fuit cantando indoctos instruere, quam tacendo indoctos relinquere. Si enim sciret paternitas tua, quanta sunt hodie milia id scientium quia cantatur, qui numquam sciturum essent nisi cantarentur, fortasse nobiscum teneres, et id tuo etiam consensu ut cantaretur acquiesceres. — Papa. Interim assentio. Verumtamen, quaeso, responde mihi: Nam universa huiusmodi fidei mystica sacramenta, quae symbolo non continentur, sine quibus quisque, qui ad hoc pertingere potest, catholicus esse non potest, symbolis inserenda, et propter compendium minus intelligendum, ut cuique libuerit, addenda sunt? — Missi. Nequaquam: quia non aeque omnia necessaria sunt. — Papa. Etsi non omnia, certe plurima sunt his similia, quae nisi a sapientibus credantur, catholici esse non possunt. — Missi. Dabisne aliquid, non dico sublimius, sed saltem huic simile symbolo deesse? — Papa. Nempe dabo, et abundanter dabo. — Missi. Da primo unum, et si necesse fuerit, adde alterum. — Papa. Quia amica agitur contentione quod agitur, et pro utramque partem quaeritur salus quod quaeritur (atque utinam quocies aliquid huiusmodi in maioribus seu in minoribus ecclesiasticis vel catholicis utilitatibus quaeritur, ita per omnia pacifice sine perversa intentione quaereretur!), ne quid forte de tam referente mysterio temere loquamur, detur considerandi locus, et dabimus quidquid de his dederit Dominus. — Et meturma dilatione congrua data, ait Papa: Nunquid magis salutare est credere, periculosumve non credere, Spiritum Sanctum a Filio sicut a Patre procedere, quam Filium sapientiam Deum a sapientia Deo, veritatem Deum a veritate Deo genitum esse, et tamen utrumque unam sapientiam, unam veritatem essentialiter Deum esse, cum tamen constet id a sanctis Patribus eidem symbolo inditum non esse? Si ergo haec duo, sicuti sapientes decet, in tam familiari disputatione ad hoc valent, ut nobiscum sentiat et consentiat, tot priores catholicos Patres, qui hoc unde agitur vel symbolis non inseruerunt, vel inserere quemadmodum cetera, ut supra dictum est, prohibuerunt: non praesentis ignorantia, non futura negligentia providentia praetermisisse, et praetermissum ne mitteretur prohibuisse, a coacervandis testimoniis libentissime quiescimus. Sciendum vero, non solum secundum essentiam divinitatis, verum etiam secundum mysterium Dominicae incarnationis, tanta, Deo auctore, et ex eorundem Patrum auctoritate damus et talia, quanta non solum sapientibus satisfacere, sed etiam stultos valent opprimere. — Missi. Non, inquam, necesse est in eo laborare, an nesciamus quod scimus: quia quidquid exinde ceteri sciunt, nos Deo auctore scimus, aut scire possumus, si non scimus. — Papa. Hoc est, inquit, quod miramur, qui sine proficuo labore potestis quiescere, laboratis ne quiescatis. — Missi. Non ideo laboramus ne quiescamus, sed ne propter inertiam pii laboris premium amittamus, et salva diligentiore inquisitione, declinataque pertinaci contentione, adhuc maius aestimamus lucrum, quod per hoc in corde quaerentium acquiritur, quam detrimentum in eo fieri illorum qui addiderunt, ac si per contumaciam contemptores paternarum constitutionum existerent. Aliud est enim per arrogantiam transiliendo bona contemnere, aliud bona per benevolentiam meliora efficere. — Papa. Istud quoque etsi in quibusdam ut agatur bonum est, non tamen ideo ubique agendum est. Qua de re multa id ita esse probantia adduci poterant testimonia: sed res per se admodum patet, quanto melius sit, ut quisque quodlibet bonum ita ut est utile reddere studeat; aut, si forte id ipsum bonum melius efficere nititur, hoc primo caveat, hoc magnopere perpendat, ne et se ultra quam debuit temerarium praesumendo, et illud quod per se salubre erat reddat noxium corrumpendo. Nisi quia forte asserere velit de praesenti unde agitur, vel similibus capitulis, quae sine periculo suo docere licet et discere, ut ordo docendi licitus dimittatur, et ibi deserantur, ubi numquam deinceps docens aut discens innocens, sed semper sane in transgressionis crimine merito culpabilis uterque iudicetur. Quod te fortasse, si non dedigneris audire, non immoratur: qui huc quod hactenus in Ecclesia Dei, et sibi quisque sapiens scire, et sine cogitatione delicti insipienter potuit docere, iam deinceps non dico stultus discere, sed nec ipse sapiens sine praevaricatione possit cantare, cantandove ut vultis quemquam docere, et dum multis alio quam debetis tramite prodesse eligitis, nullum in hac duntaxat parte dimittis, cui si vos secutus fuerit non noceatis.

 

Nam de eo quod supra docuistis, non aeque judicandus vel habendus sit ille qui tale aliquid devote fructum quaerendo ageret, illo qui hoc contumaci iussione praesumeret. Hac defensio, vel, si dici liceat, tergiversatio, non huc respicit, non istud intendit: quia non idem patres discernendo vel decreverunt, nec sanxerunt, ut ipsum benevolus praesumeret, non malevolus, sed tantummodo nullus. — Missi. Nunquid non a te id ipsum symbolum est data in ecclesia cantandi licentia? Nunquid a nobis hic usus ille cantandi processit? Hinc etenim illuc mos idem cantandi, non a nobis huc advenit: et quomodo illum usque hodie cantamus? — Papa. Ego licentiam dedi cantandi; non autem cantando quidpiam addendi, minuendi, seu mutandi: et ut expressius aliquid, quia vos cogitis, loquar, quandiu vobis in hoc satis fuit, quomodo in huiusmodi cantando vel celebrando sacrosanctis mysteriis sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia, nequaquam aut nobis in talibus laborare, aut aliis laborandi occasionem necesse fuit ingerere. Quod vero asseritis ideo vos ita cantare, quoniam alios in istis partibus vobis priores audistis cantasse, quid ad nos? Nos enim id ipsum non cantamus, sed legimus, et legendo docere, nec tamen legendo aut docendo addere quidpiam eidem symbolo inserendo praesumimus. Quae vero praedictis symbolis fidei tantum non congruentia deesse cognoscimus, non, ut saepe dictum est, inserere praesumimus, sed, locis temporibusve opportunis quibus competit ministrare curamus. —

 

Missi. Ergo, ut video, illud a vestra paternitate decernitur, ut primo illud, de quo quaestio agitur, de saepe fato symbolo tollatur, et tunc demum a quolibet licite ac libere, sive cantando, sive tradendo, discatur et doceatur. — Papa. Ita procul dubio a nostra parte decernitur: ita quoque ut a vestra assentietur, a nobis omnimodis suadetur. — Missi. Quanquam ergo, ut supra ipse dixisti, pro ambarum partium quaeritur salute quod quaeritur, sublatis his quae vultis, bonum est ut idem symbolum cantetur. — Papa. Bonum sane. Quod tamen non imperando, sed ut prius permittendo dicimus: quia illud sicuti tunc ita et nunc, si sincere agatur, utile indigentibus esse posse non ignoramus. — Missi. Quia vero, ut dicitis, et verum dicitis, bonum est cantare id ipsum symbolum, nunquid enim si sermo plenus recta fide e medio tollatur, idem sermo ab omnibus ac si contra fidem sit condemnabitur? Quale ergo dabis consilium, ne idipsum ad aliquod transeat exitium? — Papa. Si priusquam ita cantaretur interrogatus essem, ne insereretur utique respondissem. At nunc, quod tamen non affirmando, sed vobiscum pariter tractando dico, quantum menti occurrit, ita mihi videtur posse utrumque fieri: ut paulatim in palatio, quia in nostra sancta ecclesia non cantatur, cantandi consuetudo eiusdem symboli intermittatur; sicque fiat, ut quod id ipsum ut cantaretur non quaelibet imperantis auctoritas, sed potius audiendi id fecerat novitas; si dimittatur a vobis, dimittetur ab omnibus: et ita fortasse quantum esse potest, non incongrue utrumque fieri possit: ut quod iam nunc a quibusque prius nescientibus recte creditur creetur, et tamen illicita cantandi consuetudo sine cuiusque fidei laesione tollatur.

 

 

After the monks had read out the testimonies in order and the lord pope had listened to them most carefully, he said: “This is my view, this is what I hold, together with these authorities and the authorities of Holy Scripture. If anyone wants to think or teach otherwise about this matter, I oppose it; and unless he is converted and wants to hold to this sense, I utterly reject anyone who thinks differently.” After these words, I know that some things had gone before more by conversation than by formal disputation; the sequence of the ideas, or of the words, I do not now remember clearly except in so far as it happened there. And since that exchange had gone on to the point where it was now more a settled disputation than a mere conversation, and although the wording was not the same, as far as I can recall, the course of the argument and the final conclusion of the latest definitions were as follows.

 

The monks said: “Since, as you say, this must most certainly be believed, immutably held once believed, and when necessary most steadfastly defended once held, ought it not also to be taught to those who do not know it, and confirmed to those who do, so that we may hold it more carefully?” The pope answered, “Yes, it is so.” The monks continued: “If that is so, if someone does not know this or does not believe it thus, can he be saved?” The pope replied: “Whoever can reach this with a more subtle understanding, and knows it, or refuses to believe it even when he knows it, cannot be saved. For there are many things, and this is one of them: the higher mysteries and subtler sacraments of the holy faith, whose investigation many are able to pursue; but many, hindered either by age or by the level of their understanding, are not able. Therefore, as I said, the one who can know it and does know it cannot be saved.”

 

The monks said: “Then if that is so, or rather because it is so, since it is not permitted not to believe it, and it is permitted to teach it not by silence, why is it not permitted to sing it, or to teach by singing?” The pope replied: “It is permitted, I say, yes, it is permitted to sing while teaching, and to teach while singing. But in forbidden matters it is not permitted to insert anything either by writing or by singing.” The monks said: “Since it is clear to both sides that you declare it illicit to insert that creed by singing or writing because those who composed the creed did not include it, as also the subsequent chief synods—the fourth of Chalcedon and also the fifth and sixth of Constantinople—prohibited anyone, for any necessity whatever or even out of zeal to save men, from composing anything beyond the creed, or from adding, removing, or changing anything in it, there is no need to dwell on that further. But I ask this, and beg that it be said: since believing this is good, was it not also good then for it to be sung if it had been inserted by them?” The pope answered: “Certainly it would have been good, and very good indeed, as a great sacrament of the faith; it is not good not to believe it, whoever is capable of attaining to it.”

 

The monks asked: “Would not those earlier fathers have done well then, if by adding only syllables they had made so necessary a sacrament of the faith available to all who investigate the secrets of the Church?” The pope replied in effect that he would not dare say they would not have done well if they had done so, since those men clearly acted with knowledge and not merely with human but with divine illumination. But he did not dare say that they had understood the matter less than we do; rather, they withheld it and forbade everything being added. “You and yours,” he said, “must judge what you think of us. For my part I do not claim to prefer this, nor am I so far from the matter as to presume to investigate it rashly.” The monks responded that they did not say this out of pride or from any desire for human praise, but from charitable concern for the weakness of their brethren and for the times in which they lived, since the end of the world draws near and the times are dangerous, and they wanted to help their brethren as much as possible. Therefore, they said, if the disputed text was found to be sung by some, and if it was seen to accord with ecclesiastical faith, then it would be good to sing the creed; indeed, because many learned men now and in the future would need to be instructed in so great a mystery, it seemed better to instruct the unlearned by singing than to leave them in ignorance by silence. If the pope knew how many thousands already learned it because it was sung, and would never have known it unless it had been sung, perhaps he would agree with them that it should be sung.

 

The pope replied that he agreed for the time being, but asked further: “Are all the mystical sacraments of the faith which are not contained in the creed, and without which no one who can attain to this is able to be a Catholic, to be inserted into the creed and added to it for the sake of brevity, so that anyone may have them?” The monks said, “By no means; not everything is equally necessary.” The pope answered: “Even if not everything, certainly many things are like these, and unless they are believed by the wise, one cannot be Catholic.” The monks asked whether he could give anything, not necessarily more sublime, but at least something similar, that was missing from the creed. The pope said that he certainly could, and abundantly. They replied: “Give one first, and if necessary add another.” The pope said that since the discussion was amicable and salvation was being sought for both sides, and since he wished that any such matter in great or small ecclesiastical or Catholic concerns were always discussed peaceably and without perversity, they should take time to consider, and then he would give whatever the Lord might provide.

 

After a suitable delay, the pope asked whether it is more salutary to believe, and dangerous not to believe, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father, than to believe that the Son is begotten as Wisdom, God from God’s Wisdom, Truth from Truth, and yet that both are one Wisdom and one Truth, essentially God, even though the holy Fathers did not insert this into the creed. If these two matters, as is fitting for the wise, are able in so familiar a discussion to bring them to agree with us, then the many earlier Catholic Fathers who did not insert this matter into the creed, or who forbade anything to be inserted into it, must not be thought to have omitted it through present ignorance or future negligence; they forbade its insertion. So, rather than piling up testimonies further, he said he would rest content. But it should be understood, he added, that he was giving such things, with God as author and by the authority of those Fathers, not only to satisfy the wise but even to refute the foolish.

 

The monks said there was no need to labor over this if they already knew what they knew: whatever the others knew about the matter, they knew, or could know, it by God’s help. The pope replied that this was what he found remarkable: that they were able to rest without laboring profitably, while laboring so as not to rest. The monks answered that they did not labor in order not to rest, but so that they might not lose the reward of pious labor through laziness; and, while preserving diligent inquiry and setting aside stubborn contention, they judged the gain greater, because it increases in the heart of those who seek, than the damage done by the innovations of those who added the words, as though they were contemptuous of the Fathers’ constitutions. For it is one thing to trample good things underfoot in arrogance; it is another to improve good things out of goodwill. The pope said that this too is good in some cases, but it is not therefore to be done everywhere. He could offer many proofs, he said, but the matter is plain enough on its own: it is much better for each person to try to preserve whatever good exists in its usefulness; or, if he is trying to make that good even better, he must be careful above all not to presume beyond what is proper and thus turn what was healthy into something harmful. Unless, perhaps, he wishes to speak about the present case or similar cases, which may be taught and learned without danger, so that the ordinary rule of teaching may be suspended there and all remain innocent; but he warned that, once that boundary is crossed, both teacher and learner are guilty of transgression. What they had previously taught, he said, could be understood and taught without sin in the Church of God; but from now on, not only should a foolish person not be allowed to learn it, but even the wise man himself could not sing it without some breach of duty, much less teach anyone by singing it.

 

He then made clear that the issue is not whether someone who seeks the fruit devoutly should be judged in the same way as someone who presumes it with contumacious command. That defense or, if one may say so, evasiveness, does not touch the point here, because the Fathers did not decree or establish that one man should presume it benevolently, another malevolently; rather, they allowed no one to add to the creed. The monks then asked whether he himself had not given permission in the Church for that creed to be sung. Had this practice not come from them? The pope answered: “I gave permission for singing; I did not give permission to add, remove, or change anything by singing. To speak more plainly, since you press me: as long as this was enough for you, in the Roman Church we had no need either to labor in these matters or to provide others with an occasion to labor. As for your claim that you sing it because you heard others in these parts sing it before you, what is that to us? We do not sing it; we read it, and by reading we teach, but we do not presume either in reading or in teaching to add anything by inserting it into the creed. What we know is lacking from the creed, yet does not belong there, we do not presume to insert; rather, we take care to supply it in fitting places and times.”

 

The monks concluded: “Then, as I see it, your Holiness decrees that the disputed phrase should first be removed from the creed, and only then may it be freely and lawfully learned and taught, whether by singing or by instruction.” The pope answered: “That is indeed what we decree on our side; and we also strongly urge your assent.” The monks said that, as he himself had said above, since what is being sought is the salvation of both sides, once the disputed matter is removed it is good that the creed be sung. The pope agreed that this is indeed good, though not as a command but as a permission: he did not deny that it could be useful to those in need, then as now, if it is done sincerely. The monks then argued that if it is good to sing that creed, and if a statement full of right faith is removed from the middle, will not that same statement be condemned by all as though it were contrary to the faith? What counsel, they asked, could prevent it from meeting such a fate? The pope replied that if he had been asked before it was sung, he would certainly have said not to insert it. But now, though not asserting it dogmatically and speaking only in discussion with them, he thought both things could be done: gradually, in the palace, since it is not sung in their holy Roman Church, the custom of singing that creed should cease; and if it is given up by them, it will be given up by all. Then, perhaps, both things could be achieved without impropriety: what is now rightly believed by those who previously did not know it would continue to be believed, and at the same time the unlawful custom of singing it would be removed without harming anyone’s faith.

 

 

Maximus the Confessor, “Question 65: Scholia," PG 90:773, 776-77, 780-81, 784-85

The following is from Maximus the Confessor, “Question 65: Scholia,” in On the Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, in Migne, PG 90:773, 776-77, 780-81, 784-85:

Maximus, Question 65: Scholia — Greek transcription and English translation

 

Greek transcription

α'. Νοῦς εἰς ἄχρον διὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν καθαιρόμενος, τοὺς τῶν ἀρετῶν πέφυκεν εἰκότως ἐκδιδάσκεσθαι λόγους, τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν θειωδῶς χαρακτηρισθεῖσαν γνῶσιν οἰκεῖον ποιούμενος πρόσωπον. Καθ' ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἀνείδεός τε καὶ ἀχαρακτήριστος πᾶς καθέστηκεν νοῦς, μορφὴν ἔχων ἐπίκτητον, ἢ τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἀρετῶν ὑποστᾶσαν ἐν πνεύματι γνῶσιν, ἢ τὴν ἐκ τῶν παθῶν ἐπισυμβαίνουσαν ἄγνοιαν.

β'. Ὁ τὴν νοῦ μορφὴν τὴν ἐξ ἀρετῶν ἐν πνεύματι θείαν δεξάμενος γνῶσιν, τὰ θεῖα λέγεται παθεῖν, ὅτι μὴ φύσει κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν, ἀλλὰ χάριτι κατὰ τὴν μέθεξιν ταύτην προσέλαβεν. Ὁ δὲ τὴν ἐκ χάριτος μὴ δεξάμενος γνῶσιν, κἂν λέγῃ τι γνωστικόν, οὐκ οἶδε κατὰ τὴν πεῖραν τοῦ λεγομένου τὴν δύναμιν. Ψιλὴ γὰρ μάθησις, τὴν καθ’ ἕξιν γνῶσιν οὐ δίδωσιν.

γ'. Καλῶς κατὰ τόνδε τῆς Γραφῆς εἶπε τὸν τόπον λαμβάνεσθαι τὸν Σαοὺλ, διὰ τὸ κατὰ πολλοὺς ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις λαμβάνεσθαι τρόπους, πρὸς τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας ἀναδεικνυμένην θεωρίαν προσφυῶς ἀρμόζον.

δ'. Ὥσπερ, φησὶ, ὁ παλλακῇ συναπτόμενος, νόμιμον οὐ κέκτηται τὸν γάμον· οὕτως ὁ σωματικῶς τὴν νομικὴν ἐξασκούμενος μάθησιν, νόμιμον τὴν πρὸς αὐτὴν οὐκ ἔχει συμβίωσιν· νόθα γεννῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς δόγματα, καὶ τῇ τῆς σαρκὸς ζωῇ συμφθειρόμενα.

ε'. Ὁ πρὸς σῶμα, φησίν, τὴν Γραφικὴν ἐκδεχόμενος μάθησιν, τὴν κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἁμαρτίαν διδάσκεται, καὶ τὴν κατὰ νοῦν τῆς ἁμαρτίας μελέτην, τρυφήν, καὶ συνουσίας ἀκρατεῖς, καὶ φόβους, καὶ πᾶσαν τοῦ Θεοῦ βδελυττέσθαι τὴν κτίσιν ἐκ τοῦ γράμματος τοῦ νόμου μανθάνει.

ς'. Θεωρία κατ’ ἄλλην ἐπιβολήν. Ἀνάθεμα ἦν καὶ ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, ὁ καταδίκης χρόνος· ἢ γυνὴ τῇ προστασίᾳ πέφυκεν, ὁ μὴ πρὸς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ νόμου κατὰ νοῦν διαβαίνων. [A few words uncertain.]

ζ'. Ὅτι πρὸς ὃ σχετικῶς, φησὶ, διακρίνει, τὸ ἐκεῖνο καὶ τὴν κατὰ νοῦν μελέτην κεχτήμεθα.

η'. Κατ’ ἄλλην θεωρίαν, ὅτι ἀνάθεμα ἐστί, καὶ ἡ τῶν παθῶν ἀνείδωλος κίνησις· αἰσχύνη ἢ σώματος, ἢ τὸ πάθος εἰδοποιὸν πρὸς αὔξησιν τῇ νοῦ κινήσει, καὶ ταῖς ἐπινοίαις ὕλην ἀρμόδιον οὕτως θεωροῦσα.

θ'. Κατὰ συναίρεσιν τὰς τρεῖς θεωρίας τοῦ πράγματος ἐξέδωκεν.

ι'. Ὁ πεισθεὶς θείαν εἶναι διαταγήν, ὃς σωματικῶς κατὰ νόμον πρυτᾶν, τὴν γαστριμαργίαν ὡς θεοῦ δῶρον λαμβάνει μετὰ χαρᾶς πρὸς σάρκα, ἐξ ἧς γεννᾷ τοὺς μολύνοντας τῇ παραχρήσει τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν αἰσθήσεων τρόπους.

ια'. Ἐπίτομος τῶν προθεωρηθέντων ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, δι’ ἧς δείκνυσιν ὅτι σωματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνων τὸν νόμον, τὴν αὐτοῦ παλλακεύεται μάθησιν, καὶ τὴν τῶν παθῶν ἕξιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ θείαν εἰσικίζεται τὴν γαστριμαργίαν, τὴν γένεσιν τῶν ῥυπαινόντων τῇ παραχρήσει τὰς αἰσθήσεις, εἰς ἀναίρεσιν τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι φυσικῶν τε καὶ σπερμάτων.

ιβ'. Ὁ τοῖς συμβόλοις τοῦ νόμου, φησίν, ἐνικένων, οὐ δύναται κατὰ λόγον τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν ὁρᾶν, καὶ τοὺς τεθέντας οὐσιωδῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ νομοθέτου λόγους περιποιεῖσθαι, διὰ τὸ τῶν συμβόλων πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν ξένον.

ιγ'. Ξυλογοροῦσι μὲν οἱ λόγοι τῆς φύσεως, οἳ πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν θείων γινόμενοι, ἐξίτηλον ἐξ ῥύπον ποιοῦντες παθῶν, καὶ διάθεσιν τῆς ἐν σώματι ζωτικῆς ἐνεργείας.

ιδ'. Ἄλλη θεωρία τῶν αὐτῶν, εἰσηγουμένη διὰ τῶν Γαβαωνιτῶν τὴν κλῆσιν τῶν ἐθνῶν.

ιε'. Ὅτι πάθος καὶ φύσις κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον οὐδαμῶς ἀλλήλοις συνυπάρχουσιν.

ις'. Ὁ μὴ πιστεύων, φησί, τὴν Γραφὴν εἶναι πνευματικήν, τὴν οἰκείαν κατὰ τὴν γνῶσιν οὐκ αἰσθάνεται.

ιζ'. Ὅταν, φησίν, ὁ Δαυὶδ εἰς τὸν νόμον λογίζεται, κατ’ Ἰουδαίους τὸ γράμμα δηλῶν, ἑρμηνεύεται ἐξουδένωσις, διὰ τὴν πρὸς σάρκα τῶν βίων νομίμων παράβασιν· κατὰ δὲ Χριστιανοὺς ὑψομένη, ἑρμηνεύεται ἰσχυρὸς ὁράσει, διὰ τὴν κατὰ τὴν θεωρίαν τῆς γνώσεως.

ιη'. Ψυχὴ τῆς Γραφῆς εἶπεν, τὸ πνεῦμα· σῶμα δὲ τὸ γράμμα.

ιθ'. Τούς τρεῖς ἐνιαυτοὺς λέγει τοὺς τρεῖς νόμους, τὸν τε γραπτόν, καὶ τὸν φυσικόν, καὶ τὸν χάριτος, κεχωρισμένους ἀλλήλων. Ὁ τοίνυν τὸν γραπτὸν νόμον λαμβάνων σωματικῶς, ἀρεταῖς τὴν ψυχὴν οὐ διατρέφει· καὶ ὁ τοῖς λόγοις τῶν ὄντων οὐκ ἐπιβάλλων, τῇ φυσικῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίᾳ τὸν νοῦν οὐκ εὐφραίνει· καὶ ὁ τὸ μέγα τῆς καινῆς χάριτος μὴ γινώσκων μυστήριον, ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι τῆς μελλούσης θεώσεως οὐκ ἀγάλλεται. Οὖν ἡ ἔλλειψις τῆς κατὰ τὸν γραπτὸν νόμον πνευματικῆς θεωρίας ἔχει παρεπομένην αὐτῇ τὴν ἔνδειαν τῆς κατὰ τὸν φυσικὸν νόμον γνώσεως, τῆς φυσικῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχουσαν ἐπομένην καὶ τὴν κατὰ τὸ καινὸν μυστήριον χάριτι δωρηθησομένης θεωρίας πνευματικῆς τὴν ἄγνοιαν.

κ'. Ὁ πνευματικῶς μὴ νοῶν τὸν νόμον, κἂν ἀποθνήσκῃ τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τὸ μὴ λατρεύειν σωματικῶς, ἀλλὰ τὰ χαμαίζηλα ἔχει τοῦ νόμου νοήματα· τὸ τείχος τοῦ Σαοὺλ περιέπει καὶ τὰ ἔκγονα· διὰ τῷ φωτὶ τῆς γνώσεως βασανίζεται. [Some words uncertain.]

κα'. Ὁ μὲν σωματικῶς, φησίν, κατὰ νόμον λατρεύων, καθάπερ ὕλην γεννᾷ τὴν κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ἁμαρτίαν· καὶ ὡς εἶδος, τὴν ἐπ’ αὐτῇ κατὰ νοῦν συγκατάθεσιν ταῖς προσφόροις ἡδοναῖς τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὑλικῶς διαπλάττεται. Ὁ δὲ πνευματικῶς τὴν Γραφὴν ἐκδεχόμενος, ὡς μὲν ὕλην, τὴν ἐνέργειαν· ὡς εἶδος δὲ, τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν συγκατάθεσιν μετὰ τῶν κατὰ παράχρησιν πρὸς ἡδονὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως τρόπων, ὡς υἱοὺς καὶ υἱωνοὺς τοῦ νομικοῦ γράμματος θανατοῖ διὰ τῶν φυσικῶν λογισμῶν ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῆς θεωρίας.

κβ'. Ὅτι χωρὶς φυσικῆς θεωρίας, οὐδεὶς τὴν πρὸς τὰ θεῖα τῶν νομικῶν συμβόλων ἀπέμφασιν διαγινώσκει.

κγ'. Τὸ ἐξηλιάσαι γέγονε, ἀντὶ τοῦ φανερώσαι κατὰ τὸ ὕψος τῆς θεωρίας τὸ γράμμα τοῦ νόμου νεκρόν, διὰ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι γνώσεως.

κδ'. Ὅριον Ἰσραὴλ γενήκης, πάντα λόγον τε καὶ τρόπων πνευματικῆς θεωρίας· ἐν ᾧ στῆναι οὐ δύναται παντελῶς ἡ σωματικὴ τοῦ νόμου παράδοσις.

κε'. Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα, φησί, ζωῆς ὑπάρχει παραιτικόν· τὸ δὲ γράμμα, ζωῆς ἐστιν ἀφαιρετικόν. Οὖκουν οὐ δύναται καὶ τὸ γράμμα πράττειν κατὰ τὸ αὐτό, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα· ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ζωοποιοῦν τῷ φθοροποιῷ συνυπάρχει.

κϛ'. Ὁ μὲν σωματικῶς, φησί, κατὰ νόμον λατρεύων, καθάπερ ὕλην γεννᾷ τὴν κατ' ἐνέργειαν ἁμαρτίαν· καὶ ὡς εἶδος, τὴν ἐπ' αὐτῇ κατὰ νοῦν συγκατάθεσιν ταῖς προσφόροις ἡδοναῖς τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὑλικῶς διαπλάττεται. Ὁ δὲ πνευματικῶς τὴν Γραφὴν ἐκδεχόμενος, ὡς μὲν ὕλην, τὴν ἐνέργειαν· ὡς εἶδος δὲ, τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν συγκατάθεσιν μετὰ τῶν κατὰ παράχρησιν πρὸς ἡδονὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως τρόπων, ὡς υἱοὺς καὶ υἱωνοὺς τοῦ νομικοῦ γράμματος θανατοῖ διὰ τῶν φυσικῶν λογισμῶν ἐν τῷ ὕψει τῆς θεωρίας.

κζ'. Ὅτι χωρὶς φυσικῆς θεωρίας, οὐδεὶς τὴν πρὸς τὰ θεῖα τῶν νομικῶν συμβόλων ἀπέμφασιν διαγινώσκει.

κη'. Τὸ ἐξηλιάσαι γέγονε, ἀντὶ τοῦ φανερώσαι κατὰ τὸ ὕψος τῆς θεωρίας τὸ γράμμα τοῦ νόμου νεκρόν, διὰ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι γνώσεως.

κθ'. Ὅριον Ἰσραὴλ γενήκης, πάντα λόγον τε καὶ τρόπων πνευματικῆς θεωρίας· ἐν ᾧ στῆναι οὐ δύναται παντελῶς ἡ σωματικὴ τοῦ νόμου παράδοσις.

λ'. Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα, φησί, ζωῆς ὑπάρχει παραιτικόν· τὸ δὲ γράμμα, ζωῆς ἐστιν ἀφαιρετικόν. Οὖκουν οὐ δύναται καὶ τὸ γράμμα πράττειν κατὰ τὸ αὐτό, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα· ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ζωοποιοῦν τῷ φθοροποιῷ συνυπάρχει.

λα'. Ὅρος τῆς κατὰ περιτομὴν μυστικῆς θεωρίας.

λβ'. Ὅρος τῆς κατὰ Σάββατον μυστικῆς νομοθεσίας, ἐν ᾧ, τί τὸ Σάββατόν ἐστι, παρίστησι κυρίως, καὶ τίς ὁ κατ’ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸς λόγος ἐστίν, ὅτι παθῶν καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν φύσιν τῶν ὄντων τε κινήσεώς ἐστιν ἀνάπαυσις.

λγ'. Θεὸν δῆλον ὅτι.

λδ'. Τί σημαίνουσιν αἱ νεομηνίαι.

λε'. Ὅρος τοῦ στεφάνου τῆς χρηστότητος.

λς'. Ἄλλος ὅρος τοῦ αὐτοῦ μυστικώτερος.

λζ'. Ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐγκράτειαν ἔργον εἶναι λέγει τῆς Προνοίας, ὡς τῶν γνωμικῶν καθαρτικὴν στῆναι, τὴν ὑπομονὴν δὲ τῆς κρίσεως εἶναι κείνην, ὡς τοῖς ἀκουσίοις ἀντιτασσομένην πειρασμοῖς.

λθ'. Πρώτην ἑορτήν, τὸ Πάσχα λέγει.

μ'. Δευτέραν ἑορτὴν λέγει τὴν Πεντηκοστήν.

μα'. Τρίτην λέγει, τὴν ἐν ἑβδόμῳ μηνὶ τὴν τοῦ Ἱλασμοῦ.

μβ'. Σκόπει, πῶς ὁ νόμος ἀπόλλυσι τοὺς σωματικῶς αὐτὸν ἐκδεχομένους, τῇ κτίσει λατρεύειν παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα πείθων· καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι φύσει σεπτὰ τὰ δι’ αὐτοὺς γεγονότα, τὸν δὲ ὄντα αὐτὴν γεγόνασιν ἀγνώστως.

μγ'. Πῶς ἔστι Σάββατον ὁ Θεός.

μδ'. Πῶς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πάσχα ἐστὶ μυστικῶς.

με'. Μυστήριον τῆς κατὰ τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν ἑορτῆς, ἐν ᾧ μυστικῶς τὴν τῶν δηλουμένων πνευμάτων ἐμυσταγώγησε δύναμιν, τὸν Θεὸν Πεντηκοστὴν προσαγορεύσας. Ὡς γὰρ ἡ μονὰς στάσιμον μένουσα μέχρι τῆς εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἐβδοματικῆς τῆς ἑβδομάδος συνειλίξεως, ἀποτελοῦσα τὴν Πεντηκοστήν, καὶ πάλιν ταῖς εἰς αὐτὴν προσόδοις γινομένη δεκάς διὰ πεντάδος ἐποπτασιασθείσης αὐτῇ τοιούσῃ τὴν Πεντηκοστήν, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος ἐστὶ τῶν ἑαυτῆς· τὸ μὲν ὡς πρὸ παντὸς ποσού, τὸ δὲ ὡς ὑπὲρ ποσόν. Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεός, ᾧ τὴν μονάδα κατ’ εἰκασίαν τυπικὴν ἀναλόγειν ἔοικεν, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος ἐστὶ τῶν ὄντων, καὶ λόγος, ᾧ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκεν· ἀρχὴ μὲν, ὅτι πρὸ πάσης οὐσίας ἐστὶ καὶ κινήσεως· τέλος δέ, ὅτι ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν καὶ κίνησιν· λόγος δέ, ὅτι πάντων κατ’ αἰτίαν προνοητικῶς ἐστίν, ὡς πρὸς ὑποκείμενον εἶδος συνδεδεμένος, καθ’ ἓν τῶν ὄντων ἕκαστον ἔχει τὴν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ διαμονήν. Ὅταν οὖν λάβωσι πέρας οἱ χρόνοι καὶ οἱ αἰῶνες, εἰς ἀναλογεῖν τὴν ἑβδομάδα ἀφικνούμενοι, αὐτὸς ἔσται τότε μονώτατος ὁ Θεός, εἰκάζοντας τῶν οὐκ ἄνευ, τουτέστι τόπων καὶ χρόνων μεσιτεία, συγχρατῶν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθῆ τῶν ἐν τοῖς συζυγομένοις ὑπαρξιν· ἤγουν τὴν φύσιν γενητήν, ἣν τῇ πεντάδι παρείχασιν. Οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν, αἷς ὑποπίπτειν πέφυκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστήμῃ, ἥτις ἐν τῇ περιλήψει τῶν τε γαργῶν καὶ λογικῶν, αἰσθητικῶν τε καὶ ζῴων, πάντων ἁπταίστου καθέστηκε γνώσεως. Οὐκ οὖν παύεται ποτέ ὁ κατὰ τόπον στάσεως καὶ τῆς κατὰ χρόνον κινήσεως, ὡς ὑπὲρ τὰ δι’ αὐτὴν γεγονότα (τουτέστι τόπον καὶ χρόνον) διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, δι’ ὃν καὶ γέγονεν, ἀληθοῦς συναφείας ἐν τοῖς συζυγομένοις γινομένη τῶν ὄντων ἡ φύσις. Αὐτὸν γὰρ τὸν Θεόν, κατὰ τὸν τῆς Προνοίας λόγον, τῇ δεκάδι τῶν ἐντολῶν ἴσον τοιουμένην ποιὸν (τουτέστι τῆς ἐκ χάριτος κατὰ τὴν θέωσιν ἰδιότητος γνώρισμα), τῆς τε κατὰ τὴν στάσιν ἐν τόπῳ περιγραφῆς καὶ τῆς ἐν χρόνῳ κατὰ τὴν κίνησιν ἐλευθερωθήσεται, στάσιν ἀκίνητον λαβοῦσα, τὴν ἀπέραντον τῶν θείων ἀπόλαυσιν, καὶ κίνησιν στάσιμον, τὴν ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἐχφορητὸν ἔφεσιν.

μς'. Τῷ ἑβδόμῳ μηνὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν ἑορταί· σαλπίγγων καὶ ἱλασμοῦ καὶ σκηνοπηγίας· ὧν ἡ μὲν σαλπίγγων, νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν κεκτημένης γνώσεως τύπος ἐστίν· ὁ δὲ ἱλασμὸς τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ σαρκώσεως σύμβολον ὑπάρχει καταλλαγῆς. Ὁ γὰρ ὑπιδὺς ἑκουσίως τὴν τοῦ κατακριθέντος κατάκρισιν, διελύσατο τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν κυρωθεῖσαν ἔχθραν. Ἡ δὲ σκηνοπηγία, προτύπωσίς ἐστιν ἀναστάσεως, καὶ τῆς πάντων πρὸς ἀτρεψίαν μεταποιήσεως.

μζ'. Ὁ ψαῖς ταῖς ἐναίμοις χαίρων θυσίαις, φησίν, περὶ τὰ πάθη σπουδάζειν, ὡς ἐμπαθῆς παρασκευάζει τοὺς θύοντας· φησὶ γὰρ χαίρειν τὸ γνησίως σέβον, οἷς χαίρει τὸ προσκυνούμενον.

μη'. Ὅτι θυσίας οἶδεν ὁ λόγος, φησίν, τὴν τῶν παθῶν σφαγὴν, καὶ τὴν τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων προσαγωγήν· ὧν τοῦ μὲν λόγου τύπος ἐστὶν ὁ κριός· τοῦ δὲ θυμοῦ φέρει σύμβολον ὁ ταῦρος· τῆς δὲ ἐπιθυμίας ἡ αἴξ ὑπάρχει δήλωσις.

μθ'. Ὑλικὸς δῆλον ὅτι νοῦς τῆς Γραφῆς κρατῶν τῆς ψυχῆς τοὺς φυσικοὺς ἀποβάλλεται λόγους, τῇ παραχρήσει τῶν κατὰ φύσιν δυνάμεων αὐτοὺς ἐξ ἀφανίζων.

ν'. Ἅμα τις, φησὶ, τρέψεται κατ’ αἴσθησιν πρὸς σῶμα τὴν Γραφὴν ἐκδεχόμενος, ἅμα καὶ πρὸς πνεῦμα κατὰ νοῦν διὰ μέσης ἀνατρέχει τῆς φύσεως, ἐκεῖνα πράττων πνευματικῶς, ἅπερ ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπιτελεῖ ἔχων τὸν Θεὸν ὀργιζόμενον.

να'. Τίς ἐστιν χεὶρ τῶν Γαβαωνιτῶν, ᾗ παρεδίδου Δαυὶδ τοὺς ἐκ σπέρματος Σαοὺλ;

νβ'. Τὸν ἐξηλιασμὸν εἶναι λέγει, τὴν ταπείνωσιν ἣν τὰ πάθη πάσχουσιν, ὑπὸ τῶν ζηλῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας λογισμῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ θεωρίαν θριαμβευόμενα.

νγ'. Ἡ πρὸς σῶμα τοῦ νόμου διδαχὴ, φησὶ, καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχουσα διὰ μετανοίας νεκρὰ τὰ συμβολικὰ τοῦ νόμου νοήματα, τῷ κατὰ Χριστὸν λόγῳ παραχαθισμένη, δίκην υἱῶν τοὺς οὐρανίους δέχεται τῆς γνώσεως φωτισμούς.

νδ'. Σῖτος δῆλον ὅτι.

νε'. Οἴνῳ δῆλον ὅτι.

νς'. Ἐλαίῳ δῆλον ὅτι.

νζ'. Τὸν οἶτον ἔφη ψυχῆς εἶναι στήριγμα, ὡς γνῶσιν ὄντα πνευματικήν· τὸν οἶνον δέ, καρδίας εὐφραντικόν, ὡς τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν ἐρωτικῆς ἐνώσεως ποιητικόν· τὸ δὲ ἔλαιον, προσώπου πληρωτικὸν εὐφροσύνης εἴρηκεν, ὡς τῆς λαμπρύνουσης τὸν νοῦν κατὰ τὴν ἀπάθειαν πνευματικῆς χάριτος χαρακτηριστικόν.

νη'. Ὁ Ἀμαλὴκ ἐστὶν ἡ γαστριμαργία· ταύτης ἐστὶ βασιλεύς τὸ φρόνημα τὸ χοϊκόν· τοῦτο βασίλειά ἐστι καὶ ποίμνια, αἱ θρεπτικαὶ τῶν παθῶν ὕλαι· ἄμπελος δέ, ἡ προπετὴς τοῦ λογισμοῦ κίνησις· ἐλαία δέ, ἡ κατ’ ἡδονὴν ἐκπυρωτικὴ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἐνεργεία, ἅπερ μεταφέρει ὡς εἰς γῆν ἁγίαν τὴν ἕξιν τῆς θεοσεβείας ὁ τῷ σωματικῷ τοῦ νόμου δουλεύων· ὅπερ ὧν καθάπερ μισθὸν δέχεται τὴν θείαν ἀποστροφήν.

νθ'. Μωρὰς ὡς ἄθεος ἐκλήθη ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λαός· ἀσύνετος δέ, ὡς κακοτράπελος, ὅπερ ἴσον ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός.

ξ'. Τὸ τῆς γαστριμαργίας πάθος, φησὶ, τὰ διὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἀποκτέννειν γεννήματα πέφυκεν· αἴτιον δὲ, ἡ τε χάρις τῆς πίστεως, καὶ ἡ ὑπακοὴ τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν, διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν γνῶσιν ἀποκτόννειν λόγου.

ξα'. Πῶς ἔστιν σῶς.

ξβ'. Πῶς ἔστιν ἑτοιμασία κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν ὁ Κύριος.

ξγ'. Πῶς ἔστι καὶ δόξα τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ Κύριος.

ξδ'. Κατ’ ἄλλην θεωρίαν, τίνες οἱ λαοὶ, καὶ τίς ἡ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν ἑτοιμασία τοῦ λαοῦ.

ξε'. Τίνα πάλιν τὰ ἔθνη τυγχάνουσιν, ὅπερ ἀποκαλύπτει παραγινόμενος ὁ Λόγος.

ξζ'. Πῶς δόξα λέγεται πάλιν τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ Λόγος.

ξη'. Ἄμα, φησίν, ἀποκτείνει τις τὸν ἐν τῷ γράμματι τοῦ νόμου σωματικὸν νοῦν, βασιλεύοντα δέχεται τὸν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι λόγον.

ξθ'. Τὸν Δαυὶδ ᾄδε καὶ εἰς τὸν Κύριον, καὶ εἰς τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ εἰς τὸν πνευματικὸν νόμον, καὶ εἰς τὴν γνῶσιν, καὶ εἰς τὴν θεωρίαν, καὶ εἰς τὴν λεγομένην πρᾶξιν, καὶ εἰς τὸν νέον λαόν· καὶ κατὰ ποικίλους θεωρίας τρόπους, προσφόρως τοῖς τόποις πρὸς τὴν ὑποκειμένην ἑρμηνεύει χρείαν.

ο'. Τοὺς τύπους ἀλλὰ μὴ τὰ ἀρχέτυπα τῶν μυστηρίων ἔχων, καὶ τὴν ἐρώτησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν ἐν πνεύματι φωτισμῶν, εἰλητὼς δάνειον, τὸ ὁμολογούμενον τοῖς προειρημένοις, τὴν κατ’ αἴσθησιν ἐν τοῖς συμβόλοις τοῦ νόμου πεῖραν· κατὰ ψυχὴν τυφλὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ τὴν ὥσπερ ἐξηγίαν τῆς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν γνώσεως μωπάζων.

οα'. Ἔξυμλογία ἐστὶ, τὸ ἐν ᾧ τυχόν ἐστι πολλάκις καὶ πλάνησις.

οβ'. Ἡ κακιότητος δῆλον ὅτι, τοὺς κατὰ μέθεξιν αὐτῆς ἀξιωθέντας χαρακτηριζούσης, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς γνώριμους αὐτοὺς καθιστῶσα.

 

English translation

α. A mind purified toward incorruptibility through the virtues naturally learns the words of the virtues and makes the divinely characterized knowledge that comes from them its own face or image. For every mind considered in itself is without form and without character, having only an acquired shape: either the knowledge arising from the virtues in the spirit, or the ignorance that comes from the passions.

β. The one who receives in the spirit the divine knowledge that is the form of the mind from the virtues is said to “experience divine things,” not by nature as part of his being, but by grace through this participation. But the one who does not receive such knowledge by grace, even if he says something “knowledgeable,” does not know the power of what is said by experience. For mere learning does not give habitual knowledge.

γ. Scripture rightly says that Saul was “taken” in this way, because “taking” is used in many senses in other places, and this suits the meaning disclosed from the history.

δ. As the man joined to a concubine does not possess a lawful marriage, so the man who practices scriptural study only bodily does not have lawful union with it; he generates illegitimate doctrines from it, and doctrines that are corrupted by the life of the flesh.

ε. One who receives Scripture as bodily teaching learns the sin that comes from it in action, and the inward study of sin: pleasure-seeking, unrestrained intercourse, fear, and even how to regard all of God’s creation with disgust from the letter of the law.

ς. A second interpretation: this world is anathema, a time of condemnation; or perhaps the “wife” is the one who belongs to the protection of the law, and the one who does not pass through the law’s season in accordance with understanding.

ζ. He says that what is related to this in a fitting way is the thing itself and the inward contemplation of it.

η. Another interpretation: anathema also means the passion-driven motion without image—either the shame of the body, or the movement of the mind that gives form to passion and supplies material suitable for imaginations.

θ. He gives the matter in three interpretations combined.

ι. One who is persuaded that this is a divine ordinance and who governs bodily according to the law receives gluttony as though it were a gift of God, and with joy turns it toward the flesh, from which he produces ways of corrupting the operation of the senses by misuse.

ια. A brief recapitulation of what has gone before, showing that the one who understands the law bodily makes its teaching into a concubine, together with the habitual state and activity of the passions, and installs gluttony as divine, generating those things that by misuse stain the senses and destroy the natural powers and seeds found in beings.

ιβ. One who lingers among the symbols of the law cannot, by reason, see the nature of beings or properly preserve the meanings laid down essentially by the lawgiver, because the symbols are foreign to the nature of beings.

ιγ. The reasons of nature, when they lead to knowledge of divine things, wipe away the stain of passions and dispose the vital activity in the body.

ιδ. Another interpretation of the same things, introduced through the Gibeonites as a figure for the calling of the nations.

ιε. Passion and nature, in what is proper to each, by no means coexist with one another.

ις. One who does not believe that Scripture is spiritual does not perceive what belongs to knowledge in the proper way.

ιζ. When David is spoken of in relation to the law, among the Jews it signifies the letter and is interpreted as humiliation because of the transgression of legal life according to the flesh; among Christians, it is interpreted as “strong in vision,” because of the contemplative knowledge it conveys.

ιη. The Spirit was called the soul of Scripture, and the letter its body.

ιθ. The “three years” refer to the three laws: the written, the natural, and the law of grace, distinct from one another. Whoever receives the written law bodily does not nourish the soul with virtues; whoever does not attend to the logoi of beings does not delight the mind with God’s natural wisdom; and whoever does not know the great mystery of new grace does not rejoice in the hope of future deification. Therefore, lack of spiritual contemplation of the written law brings with it a lack of knowledge of the natural law, that is, of the natural wisdom of God, and this in turn carries ignorance of the spiritual contemplation given by grace in the new mystery.

κ. One who does not understand the law spiritually, even if he dies to the law in the sense that he does not serve it bodily, still has its low and earthbound meanings. The “wall of Saul” surrounds him and his offspring; he is tormented by the light of knowledge. [Some words uncertain.]

κα. One who serves the law bodily generates, as it were the matter, sin in action; and as form, he shapes in himself the consent of the mind to the pleasures of the senses. But the one who receives Scripture spiritually takes as matter the activity, and as form the consent to sin together with the perverted movements toward sensory pleasure; and by spiritual reasoning he puts to death, as it were, the sons and grandsons of the legal letter while living in contemplation.

κβ. Without natural contemplation, no one can discern the divine meaning of the symbols of the law.

κγ. “To make it desolate” means, instead of “to make manifest,” to show at the height of contemplation the letter of the law as dead, through knowledge in the Spirit.

κδ. “You have become the boundary of Israel,” in every word and manner of spiritual contemplation; within it the bodily tradition of the law is utterly unable to stand.

κε. The spirit, he says, is life-giving; the letter is life-removing. So the letter cannot act in the same way as the spirit, just as what gives life cannot coexist with what destroys life.

κϛ. One who serves according to the law in a bodily way begets, as it were as matter, sin in action; and as form, the mind’s consent to it is molded materially by the pleasures of the senses that present themselves. But one who receives Scripture spiritually takes, as matter, the activity; and as form, the consent to sin together with the modes that, by misuse, turn toward the pleasure of sensation. Thus he slays, by means of natural reasonings in the height of contemplation, the sons and grandsons of the legal letter.

κζ. Without natural contemplation, no one discerns the divine meaning of the symbols of the law.

κη. “To make it desolate” means, instead of “to make manifest,” to show at the height of contemplation the letter of the law as dead, through knowledge in the Spirit.

κθ. “You have become the boundary of Israel,” in every word and manner of spiritual contemplation; within it the bodily tradition of the law is utterly unable to stand.

λ. The spirit, he says, is life-giving; the letter is life-removing. So the letter cannot act in the same way as the spirit, just as what gives life cannot coexist with what destroys life.

λα. A definition of the mystical contemplation of circumcision.

λβ. A definition of the mystical legislation concerning the Sabbath, which properly shows what the Sabbath is and what its spiritual meaning is: rest from passions and from the movement that belongs to the nature of beings.

λγ. God—clearly.

λδ. What do the new moons signify?

λε. A definition of the crown of kindness.

λς. Another, more mystical definition of the same.

λζ. Here he says that self-control is a work of Providence, as a cleansing of dispositions, and patience is the exercise of judgment, opposing involuntary temptations.

λθ. The first feast is Passover.

μ. The second feast is Pentecost.

μα. The third is the feast in the seventh month, the Day of Atonement.

μβ. Consider how the law destroys those who receive it bodily, persuading them to worship creation rather than the Creator and to regard as naturally holy the things that came to be for their sake, while failing to know the One by whom they themselves came to be.

μγ. How God is the Sabbath.

μδ. How God is mystically also Passover.

με. The mystery of the feast of Pentecost, in which he mystically introduced the power of the manifested spirits and called God “Pentecost.” Just as the unit, remaining at rest until the sevenfold folding of the week into itself, produces Pentecost, and then again by its returns becomes ten through a fivefold manifestation, so too God, to whom the unit is fittingly likened, is the beginning and end of beings, and the reason in which all things consist. He is beginning because He is before every essence and motion; end because He is beyond every essence and motion; reason because He provides for all things according to cause. Joined to the underlying form, each being has its abiding in that same reason. When the times and ages reach their end and arrive at the pattern of the seven, then God alone will remain, freeing beings from the mediation of place and time and gathering into true unity the existence of the beings that have been joined. He will free them from spatial circumscription and temporal motion, giving unshakable rest, the boundless enjoyment of divine things, and a motion that is itself at rest—the longing that is carried toward them.

μς. In the seventh month there are three feasts: Trumpets, Atonement, and Booths. The feast of Trumpets is a type of the law and the prophets and the knowledge gained from them. Atonement is a symbol of reconciliation between God and human beings through the incarnation. The one who willingly took the condemnation of the condemned dissolved the enmity that had been established against us. Booths is a type of resurrection and of the transformation of all things into incorruptibility.

μζ. One who rejoices in bloody sacrifices, he says, is eager for the passions and prepares the sacrificers as passionate men; for he says that the one who is truly revered rejoices in what the worshipped one rejoices in.

μη. The Logos, he says, knows sacrifices as the slaughter of passions and the offering of natural powers. The ram is the type of reason; the bull symbolizes anger; the goat indicates desire.

μθ. A fleshly mind that clings to Scripture casts off the natural logoi of the soul, destroying them through misuse of the powers according to nature.

ν. If someone takes Scripture only according to sense and bodily meaning, he at the same time passes beyond nature in mind toward spirit, doing spiritually what the Jew does while having God angered.

να. What is the hand of the Gibeonites, by which David handed over the descendants of Saul?

νβ. He says the “exaltation” is the humiliation suffered by the passions when they are triumphed over by the zeal of pious thoughts in true contemplation.

νγ. The bodily teaching of the law, he says, when seen by eyes made dead through repentance to the symbolic meanings of the law, and set beside the word according to Christ, receives the heavenly illuminations of knowledge like sons.

νδ. Grain—clearly.

νε. Wine—clearly.

νς. Oil—clearly.

νζ. He says that grain is the support of the soul, as spiritual knowledge; wine is a cheerer of the heart, as producing love’s union with God; oil, he says, fills the face with gladness, as characteristic of spiritual grace that illumines the mind in apatheia.

νη. Amalek is gluttony. Its king is the earthly mindset. Its kingdom and flocks are the nourishing materials of the passions; the vineyard is the rash movement of thought; the olive tree is the fiery energy of desire according to pleasure. One who serves the bodily law carries these things into the “holy land,” that is, into the habit of godliness, and receives divine aversion as his reward.

νθ. The Jewish people were called foolish as atheists; and “without understanding” as wayward, which is the same as impious and sinful.

ξ. The passion of gluttony naturally kills the offspring produced through the virtues. Its causes are the grace of faith and obedience to the divine commandments, through the word that slays according to knowledge.

ξα. How is He holy?

ξβ. How is the Lord a preparation before the face of all peoples?

ξγ. How is the Lord also the glory of Israel?

ξδ. Another interpretation: who are the peoples, and what is the preparation of the people before their face?

ξε. What are the nations, which the Logos reveals when he comes?

ξζ. How is the Logos again called the glory of Israel?

ξη. At the same time, he says, when one kills the bodily mind in the letter of the law, he receives as king the word in the spirit.

ξθ. Sing David both to the Lord and to the Gospel, and to the spiritual law, and to knowledge, and to contemplation, and to what is called practice, and to the new people; and in various ways of contemplation, adapt the explanation fittingly to the places and to the need of the subject.

ο. Possessing the types but not the archetypes of the mysteries, and the question but not the knowledge of the illuminations in the Spirit, receiving only the loan, he has the sense-experience of the symbols of the law that agrees with the foregoing; blind in soul to the spirit, and mocking the accuracy of knowledge according to truth.

οα. Exaltation is something in which, often, there is also wandering.

οβ. Wickedness clearly characterizes those who have been deemed worthy of sharing in it, and makes them known by it.