Strack and Billerbeck on Jewish/Rabbinical Attitudes Towards Suicide

  

27:5: Went and hanged himself.

 

The ancient synagogue found the prohibition of suicide in Gen 9:5.

Genesis Rabbah 34 (21B): “Yet אַךְ your blood, that of your souls לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, I will require” (Gen 9:5). אַךְ, this intends to include the one who strangles himself החונק עצמו (by hanging).—In this case, Gen 9:5 was interpreted as “Yet your own blood I will require of you yourself,” if you put a hand on yourselves as suicides.—In b. B. Qam. 91B, this interpretation is found in the mouth of R. Eleazar b. Azariah (ca. 100): “Yet your blood I will require לנפשתיכם” (Gen 9:5); R. Eleazar (b. Azariah) said, “From the hand of your souls (i.e., from yourselves) I will require your blood.”

The average opinion about the reprehensibility of suicide is expressed most clearly by Josephus, J. W. 3.8.5:

 

“Suicide, ἡ αὐτοχειρία, is both foreign to the general nature of all living beings and a godlessness towards the God who created us.… Do you not think that God will be angry if a person impiously scorns his (God’s) gift? For we both have received existence from him and must leave our no-longer-existing to him.… Additionally, if someone allows a person’s deposit to be lost or spends it badly, he appears to be evil and unfaithful; but if someone expels the deposit of God (the soul) from his own body, does he suppose that he will remain hidden from the one he has offended?… Their hands have raged against their own life, their souls will be received by the darkest Hades, and God their father will visit the guilt of evildoers on their descendants. Therefore, this (the offense of suicide) is hated by God, and by the wisest lawgiver it has been assigned a penalty. Among us at least it has been found to be good to leave suicides unburied until the sun sets, although it is considered just to bury one’s own enemies. With other nations, though, it has even been commanded to cut off the right hands of such dead people with which they went to battle against themselves, since it is supposed that, as the body must be separated from the soul, so too the hand from the body.…”

 

Mourning suicides is regulated as follows in tractate Semaḥot 2 (beginning):

 

Whoever consciously takes his life המאבד עצמו לדעת, with him one undertakes nothing in respect to him (to mourn him publicly). R. Ishmael († ca. 135) said, “One calls out over him, ‘Woe because of this severity, woe because of this severity!’ ” (We read נַטְלָא instead of the incomprehensible נטלה.) R. Aqiba († ca. 135) said to him, “Leave aside any remark about him; do not honor him and do not curse him. One does not tear one’s garment for him, one does not expose one’s shoulder for him and one does not mourn him publicly; but one may stand in the line because of him (through which the mourners go with comforting statements from the retinue) and say the blessing of mourners (see the excursus “Works of Love”), because this serves to honor the living. The general rule about this is as follows: in everything that serves to honor the living, one may occupy himself with him (the suicide); but in everything that does not serve to honor the living, the multitude may not occupy itself with him. Who is someone who consciously takes his life? Not someone who climbs to the top of a tree and falls down and dies, or someone who climbs to the top of a roof and falls down and dies. Rather the one who says, ‘Behold, I will climb to the top of the roof to the top of the tree and cast myself down to die’; and then he was seen as he climbed up to the top of the tree and fell down and died—behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he consciously took his life, and whoever consciously takes his life, with him one occupies himself (with respect to mourning) in no regard. If he was found strangled חנוק and hanging on a tree תלוי באילן, slain הרוג (with the sword) and laid out with the sword, behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he unconsciously שלא בדעת took his life and nothing (with respect to mourning) is withheld from him.” ‖ In closing, reference may also be made to a later saying. TanḥumaB ויצא § 6 (74B): Let our teacher teach us: What is the difference between the death of the righteous and that of the godless? R. Justa b. Shunam (ca. 400) said in the name of R. Joshua of Sikhnin (ca. 330), “The death of the godless is neither on earth nor in heaven, for so it is written of Ahithophel: ‘He arranged his house and hanged himself’ (2 Sam 17:23). And likewise Haman was neither on earth nor in heaven; see Esth 7:10: ‘Then they hanged Haman on the tree trunk,’ and similarly his sons: ‘He and his sons had been hanged on the tree’ (Esth 9:25). Yet with the death of the righteous, there is something in heaven and on earth; see 1 Sam 25:29: ‘The soul of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living.’ And whence do we know that it is also on earth? See 2 Chr 32:33: ‘He (Hezekiah) was buried on the steep road to the graves of the house of David, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem showed him honor at his death.’ ” (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], 1:1181-83)

 

Examples “Curious Workmanship” in Pre-1830 Literature

 In his article, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” John Tvedtnes noted that:

 

Misconceptions abound concerning the text of the Book of Mormon, among both Latter-day Saints and others.

 

For example, how do people understand the term “curious workmanship” in such passages as 1 Nephi 16:10 and 1 Nephi 18:1? Some undoubtedly take the word “curious” to mean “peculiar, strange,” or, less likely, “inquisitive,” which would be the normal usage of the word in 21st century English. Its original meaning is “skilled” or “artful,” a meaning still retained in Joseph Smith’s day, as seen by Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary of American English. So the expression should be understood as “skilled workmanship.” (John A. Tvedntes, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” September 20, 2010, Meridian Magazine)

 

This is borne out by an examination of how the phrase was used in pre-1830 liteature

 

One of these Maces is of very fine Workmanship, all of Silver, gilt, and very heavy, of fine imagery, and curious workmanship, made at Paris by the Archbishop’s Special Directions, as appears by an Inscription on a Plate, fastened to the Mace by a little Chain, and preserved with it. (Daniel Defoe, Curious and Diverting Journies, Thro' the Whole Island of Great-Britain [1734])

 

The lower part of the border upon the table was neatly engraved, but the outside part excelled in curious workmanship, and was placed fuller to view: . . . (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XII [London: 1754], 273)

 

 

A Diadem of great Value, in the Eastern Taste, such as is wore for the principal Ornaments of the Great Mogul, Nabobs, and Princes of Asia, consisting of very large Diamonds and other fine Jewels of curious workmanship, has lately been made by an eminent Jeweller of this City, designed, as we are informed, for the Lord Clive, as a Present from his Lordship to the Nabob of Bengal. (“An Historical Detail of Publick Occurrences, &c.,” The Weekly Amusement [1765], 4:37)

 

This Morning at ten o’Clock, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor and the Committee, consisting of fix Aldermen and 12 Common Council Men, went in Procession from Guildhall, attended by the Recorder, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, and other City Officers, to Savile House, and presented to his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester the Freedom of this City in a Gold Box of very curious workmanship . . . (“Ode for His Majesty’s Birthday, June 4, 1765,” The Weekly Amusement [1765]: 4:94)

 

 

One of the gateways of this palace has an arch of curious workmanship, and in the tower over it is kept the magazine for the county militia. (England Described: Or, The Traveller’s Companion [London: R. Baldwin and J. Prescott, 1776] 164)

 

 

A sword of Gen. Moreau’s, and one of Marshal Duckner’s.—in another room are various specimens of plate armour, helmets, and weapons, some Indian armour of curious workmanship, composed of steel ringlets, similar to the hauberk worn by the Knights Templars, but not so heavy, and the helmets are of a different construction; . . .  (“The Prince of Wales’s Armoury, at Carlton House,” La Belle Assemblée 2, no. 9 [August 1810], 102)

 

Barabbas (Bar Abba) as a Common Personal Name

  

27:16: Barabbas, Βαραββᾶν.

 

Bar Abba בר אבא “son of Abba,” a common personal name.

 

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 18B: Funds for orphans had been deposited with the father of Samuel († 254). When his soul entered into rest, Samuel was not with him. He was called a son who consumes orphan funds (from the deposit). He went out to his father at the cemetery. He cried out to them (the dead), “I’m looking for Abba” (so his father was called). They answered, “There are many Abbas here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba!” (Samuels grandfather was also called Abba.) They answered, “There are also many Abbas bar Abba here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel. Where is he?” They answered, “He has ascended into the heavenly academy.… (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], 1:1186)

 

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears

 I am cross-posting this from youtube. As of writing, I hope to join Blake Ostler on Jacob Ryder's youtube channel to interact with the book.

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears The first half of the book was okay; lot of problems, but was hopeful it would be at least decent. Second half was a huge let down. Here are the good points: (*) I believe that Beshears is a good-faith actor. (*) He admits some popular arguments against LDS theology and other claims are not that good. Consider, for e.g., the following from p. 67: ==It is unlikely Smith intentionally revised his First Vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to secure power, as some critics have suggested. The church’s explanation is more convincing, which suggests differences between the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” = (*) Beshears does not believe that Joseph Smith (or Solomon Spalding et al) wrote the Book of Mormon (see pp. 112-13 Some of the cons of the book: (*) The exegesis offered in favor of his (Reformed Protestant) understanding of doctrines (e.g., forensic justification; perseverance of the saints) is lacking--the MO is just throw out a proof-text and expect one's readers to agree with it (*) One would not know from the book that the overwhelming evidence from modern biblical scholarship supports LDS theology on God being substantially anthropomorphic in nature in the Old Testament and that the biblical authors did not hold to creation ex nihilo. Ditto for the "number" of God(s) in the Old and New Testaments. To use Deut 6:4 as evidence for strict monotheism is a joke (*) Relating to the above, not quoting/interacting with/critiquing Blake Ostler's 2005 response to Copan and Craig? Even if you think Blake is wrong about his interpretation of the KFD & Sermon in the Grove, he is not "outside the LDS mainstream" on the nature of creation. Also, May's work (who is not LDS) is not interacted with, too. (*) Beshears claims that the "gospel" (as he understands it) has always been present since the end of the NT period, ergo, no Great Apostasy, ergo, LDS claim of a need of a restoration through Joseph Smith is nullified. Outside eisegesis, there is no evidence of any patristic author holding to an understanding of sola fide similar to that of Protestantism (yes, Ambrosiaster and even Aquinas used 'sola fide' approvingly, but they both held to baptismal regeneration and transformative justification; also, Aquinas used that phrase in the context of a hymn in favor of Transubstantiation [which is intimately related to the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice!]). (*) The chapters on soteriology were a disappointment. No meaningful defense of his Reformed understanding of baptism, wrestling with the fact that baptismal regeneration is the unanimous teaching of the patristics and even medievals, and no meaningful exegesis of texts such as Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-7, etc. *Sola Scriptura Assumed, Never Proven* Throughout his book, Beshears assumes (his Reformed understanding of) Sola Scriptura. Whenever he tries to defend it, even in passing, it is lame. 2 Tim 3:15 is speaking of the Old Testament writings Timothy knew since his childhood, and as he was living during times of public revelation, "scripture" (which would not have been exhausted by the Protestant 66 book canon at the time [even if Sola Scriptura is true]) was not the sole infallible authority or the sole authority that could immediately bind the conscience of believers. Furthermore, one would not know there is a debate throughout history of Heb 4:12 is about "scripture" (which Beshears reads into this as being "the Bible" a la tota scriptura, which is anachronistic eisegesis) or the person of Christ (the latter is supported by it having volition of will [being able to discern thoughts]). And to read biblical sufficiency into 2 Pet 1:16 (which again, was revealed during times of public revelation) is eisegesis to the extreme. With that being said, I will happily interact with Kyle on the topic of Sola Scriptura. As with so many Protestant treatments of “Mormonism,” that is something he assumes/reads into the Bible (such as Heb 4:12; 2 Pet 1:19; 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc). If anyone can swing a debate between us on that topic, I will be appreciative. Robert Boylan ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

R. Alan Culpepper on Matthew 27:15-16 and the Barabbas Event

  

While releasing a prisoner would have been appropriate for the observance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, it is not attested outside the Gospels. The Mishnah allows slaughtering a Passover lamb “for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison” (m. Pesaḥ. 8:6). A papyrus text records the governor of Egypt releasing a prisoner named Phibion and declaring, “You were worthy of scourging, … but I give you to the crowds.”⁸³ Josephus also records instances of procurators releasing prisoners and crowds demanding the release of a prisoner on various occasions (Ant. 17.204; 20.215). The custom is credible, therefore, although the evidence for it is inconclusive. It is the kind of gesture that the prefect might have made as a way of maintaining good relations with the chief priests and the pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem. (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Lousiville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 544)

 

Ulrich Luz and R. Alan Culpepper on the Use of both Psalm 22 and Wisdom of Solomon in Matthew 27:43

 

 

■ 43 The Jewish leaders go even further with their ridicule and in so doing use words of the godless from Ps 21:9 LXX. The words are even more malicious than those of v. 42. There the Jewish leaders challenged Jesus to save himself; now they speak of God: “He trusts in God.” God should save him, and he should do it right away! They thereby expose themselves in their own godlessness. They end by referring also to Jesus’ divine sonship and state that he claims to be God’s Son. We probably have echoes here of the mocking words of Wis 2:18: “If the righteous man is God’s son (υἱὸς θεοῦ) … , he will deliver him (ῥύσεται αὐτόν).” Matthew is probably thinking of the way of the suffering righteous man depicted in Wis 2:5. However, for him “God’s Son” is much more than an exemplary righteous man from the Bible. He is the one whom God himself has revealed as his only Son (Matt 3:17; 17:5), who is intimately united with the Father (11:27), whom people confess as their savior (14:33; cf. 16:16). It is this one who in the manner of the biblical righteous man goes the way of obedience. Only when “God’s Son” (θεοῦ υἱός) is invested with all of the connotations of the Matthean understanding of Son of God, of which his obedience to God’s will is only one, does it become clear what it means that the Son of God, Jesus, does not come down from the cross but goes the way of obedience. Then it also becomes clear how deep the truth is that the Jewish leaders in their malicious irony unknowingly state. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005], 539)

 

 

In 27:43, Matthew quotes Ps 22:8 with echoes from the Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous one “calls himself a child of God” (2:13) and God “will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:18). Twice in Matthew the voice from heaven has said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (3:17; 17:5). The verb “to deliver” (hryomai, 27:43) links Matthew with both Ps 22:8 and Wis 2:18 while echoing the Lord’s Prayer (6:13; see also 26:39–42). Not surprisingly, the hope of deliverance is repeated frequently in the NT (Luke 1:74; Rom 15:31; 2 Thess 3:2; 2 Pet 2:9). (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 558)

 

A. T. Robertson on the Present Participle

  

5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative.

 

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντες ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. Cf. πωλήσας ἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶν δύναται (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10:22), ὁ βλέπων ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.

 

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3:26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15:27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, ἐξῆλθεν διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the pres. part. is coincident with the verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτιζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. part. is common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408).

 

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).

 

(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. as in πείθων (Ac. 28:23) or τοὺς εἰσερχομένους (Mt. 23:14).

 

(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). So τυφλὸς ὣν ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo. 12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. ὁ βαπτίζων (Mk. 1:4).

 

(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres. part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of sensation) is found in εἴδαμέν τινα ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1; 13:1, 11; 14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκει τὴν πόλιν οὖσαν.

 

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁ κλέπτων (Eph. 4:28)=‘the rogue.’ Cf. ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27:40); οἱ ζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kühner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, τοῖς γαμοῦσι, C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.d.). Cf. τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, ἡ οὑ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα.

 

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.

 

(i) “Subsequent” Action. Blass finds “subsequent” action in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν—ἐπιστηρίζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, the aorist ind. is “effective” and accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the “effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.

 

(j) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Logos Bible Software, 2006], 891-92)