Petrus De Scala (d. 1295): Commentary on Matthew 16:16-19

  

Respondens autem petrus: Unus pro omnibus, ut dicit interlinearis. Ecce secundum, scilicet confessio dominice incarnationis. Chrysostomus: quando plebis consilium interrogat, alii dixerunt quod interrogatum est; quando autem mentem eorum, petrus os apostolorum et vertex prosiluit et ait: Tu; discretive, quia unigenitus Dei, Ioa. 1. Es: substantive, sine principio et fine, exod. IIIº Ego sum qui sum etc. Christus: (reference to Ambrose) ... exprimit etiam dignitatem regiam et sacerdotalem et gratiae plenitudinem....

 

Respondens autem Jesus dixit ei. Et commendatur ipsa confessio primo ex veritatis simplicitate, cum dicit: Beatus es symon; interlinearis: tam alte fidei confessione, Rom. xº: ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Et significanter dicit symon, quia, ut dicit beatus Cesarius, sicut ignis non est sine calore, ita nec vera obedientia sine caritate. bariona: In hoc ostenditur esse dei filius per gratiam, quia confessus est christum filium dei per naturam; nam bariona interpretatur filius columbe siriace: et ut dicit Jeronimus, quidam volunt, quod hoc nomen bariona sit scriptorum vitio depravatum, ut pro Bariohanna, id est filio iohannis, sit scriptum una syllaba substracta bariona.

 

Secundo commendatur ipsa confessio ex divina revelatione, unde subdit: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, id est, carnalis sensus nec humana sapientia, eccles. XVIIº: quid nequius quam quod excogitavit caro et sanguis. Sed pater meus qui est in celis: non quod ubique non sit, sed in celis dicitur esse, quia ibi refulget nobilior eius actus, phil. III, si quid aliter sapitis, et hoc deus revelavit vobis. Et ego etc.: hic quarto subditur divini muneris promissio; promittit autem stabilimentum ecclesie sibi commissae quantum ad tria. primo quantum ad fidem veritatis; secundo ad gratiam in amore bonitatis: et porte; tertio quantum ad eminentiam collate potestatis: et tibi dabo. dicit ergo: et ego dico tibi, scilicet qui confessus es me filium Dei; quia tu es petrus, ob fortitudinem fidei et confessionis constanciam; augustinus in libro retract. xx: non petro dictum est: tu es petra, sed petrus; petra autem erat christus, i cor. xº quem confessus Petrus a petra nomen hoc accepit.

 

Et super hanc petram: quam confessus est, 1. Cor. iii: fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter illud quod positum est quod est christus ihesus. Vel super hanc petram: id est super fidei firmitatem secundum Jeronimum, ii Thim. IIº: fundamentum fidei stat. Edificabo ecclesiam meam: Jere. XXXI: In caritate perpetua attraxi te miserans et edificaberis in eodem. Ecce dies veniunt, dicit dominus, et edificabitur civitas domino. et porte, id est peccata in me, blandimenta, hereses, secundum Jeronimum et Bedam, et dicuntur porte inferi, quia ad infernum ducunt. Unde Jeronimus: prava infidelium opera ineptaque colloquia porte sunt inferi, in quantum suis vel actoribus vel sequacibus iter perditionis ostendunt; tren. II. defixe sunt in terra porte eius etc.

 

Non prevalebunt adversus eam, scilicet quod de ecclesia deficiat vera fides, luc. xxiiº: ego pro te rogavi, petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; vel deficiat amor divine bonitatis de ecclesia, Rom. viiiº: Quis nos separabit a caritate christi etc. Et enim dabo: hic tertio ponitur ecclesie stabilimentum, quantum ad eminentiam potestatis, ubi primo tangit potestatis collationem, secundo eius executionem, ibi: et quocumque etc.; dicit ergo, quantum ad primum: Et tibi dabo claves regni celorum. Jeronimus et Rabanus: claves sunt scientia discernendi et potentia, qua dignos recipere et indignos excludere deberet a regno; clavis enim hic dicitur potestas iudicandi in foro animarum, non corporum; potestas autem iudicandi integratur ex duobus: ex potestate discernendi in cause examinatione, et diffiniendi in cause determinatione per sententiam condemnatoriam vel absolutoriam. prima potestas appellatur hic scientia, secunda potentia; et sicut in sole una est potentia liquefaciendi et indurandi in sua radice, sed due in effectibus, ita est una clavis in radice sed due in effectibus, propter quod pluraliter dicit: Claves. (Petrus De Scala (d. 1295), Commentary on Matthew 16:16-19, Paris, BN, lat. 15596, ff. 194r-195r, rep. Karlfried Froehlich, “Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan [Papers in Mediaeval Studies 8; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1989], 43-44)

 

 

Peter answers: “One for all,” as the interlinear gloss says. “Here is the second point, namely the confession of the Lord’s incarnation.” Chrysostom says: when he asks the people’s counsel, others give the answer to what has been asked; but when he asks after their mind, Peter, mouth of the apostles and their summit, sprang forward and said, “You”—distinctively, because you are the only-begotten Son of God, John 1. “You are”: substantively, without beginning or end, Exodus 3, “I am who I am,” etc. “Christ”: [a reference to Ambrose]… also expresses royal and priestly dignity and the fullness of grace.

 

“Jesus answering said to him.” This confession itself is commended first from the simplicity of truth, when he says, “Blessed are you, Simon”; the interlinear gloss: in so lofty a confession of faith, Romans 10: “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” And he says “Simon” significantly, because, as blessed Caesarius says, just as fire is not without heat, so neither is true obedience without charity. “Bariona”: by this it is shown that he is the Son of God by grace, because he confessed Christ, the Son of God, by nature; for Bariona is interpreted as “son of the Syrian dove”; and as Jerome says, some want this name Bariona to be corrupted by scribal error, so that in place of Bariohanna, that is, “son of John,” it is written with one syllable removed, Bariona.

 

Second, this confession is commended from divine revelation, whence it adds: “because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you,” that is, not carnal sense nor human wisdom, Ecclesiasticus 17: “What is more wicked than what flesh and blood devised?” “But my Father who is in the heavens”: not because he is not everywhere, but he is said to be in the heavens because there his nobler activity shines forth, Philippians 3: “if you think otherwise, God has revealed this to you.” “And I etc.”: here, fourth, the promise of a divine gift is added; and he promises the establishment of the church entrusted to him in three respects: first as to the faith of truth; second as to grace in the love of goodness: “and the gates”; third as to the eminence of conferred power: “and I will give you.” He says therefore, “and I say to you,” namely, you who have confessed me as the Son of God; “because you are Peter,” on account of the strength of faith and the steadfastness of confession. Augustine in the book Retractations 20: it was not said to Peter, “You are the rock,” but “you are Peter”; but the rock was Christ, 1 Corinthians 10, whom Peter confessed, and from the rock he received this name.

 

“And upon this rock”: namely, the one he confessed, 1 Corinthians 3: “No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Or “upon this rock,” that is, upon the firmness of faith, according to Jerome, 2 Timothy 2: “the foundation of faith stands.” “I will build my church”: Jeremiah 31: “In everlasting love I have drawn you, being merciful, and you shall be built in the same [love]. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and a city shall be built for the Lord.” “And the gates,” that is, sins in me, enticements, heresies, according to Jerome and Bede, and they are called the gates of hell because they lead to hell. Hence Jerome: the evil works of unbelievers and foolish conversations are the gates of hell, insofar as they show the way of destruction to their agents or followers; Lamentations 2: “Her gates are sunk into the earth,” etc.

 

“They will not prevail against it,” namely, that true faith should fail from the church, Luke 22: “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail”; or that the love of divine goodness should fail from the church, Romans 8: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ,” etc. “And I will give”: here the third support of the church is set forth, as to the eminence of power, where first he touches on the conferral of power, second on its exercise, there: “and whatever etc.” He says therefore, as to the first: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jerome and Rabanus: the keys are the knowledge of discerning and the power by which one ought to receive the worthy and exclude the unworthy from the kingdom; for here “key” means the power of judging in the forum of souls, not of bodies. But the power of judging is made up of two things: the power of distinguishing in the examination of a case, and of determining in the case by a condemnatory or absolving sentence. The first power is here called knowledge, the second power; and just as in the sun there is one power of liquefying and hardening in its root, but two in its effects, so there is one key in the root but two in its effects, for which reason he speaks in the plural: “Keys.”

 

J. Wanless Southwick (2024) on Nephi's Three Day Trek in the Wilderness

  

Nephi recorded his personal trek experiences of traveling 3 days “in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea,” but a thousand years later, when Mormon wrote an introductory heading to Nephi’s record, Mormon generalized by simply saying Lehi took “three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family.” Mormon had no personal knowledge of the geography of Arabia, thus his introduction to Nephi’s record was a non-specific summary of what he had read in Nephi’s account, but it confuses some modern readers into thinking the whole trip from Jerusalem to the Valley of Lemuel took only three days. (J. Wanless Southwick, Arabia’s Mountain of God: Where Moses, Elijah, and Lehi Met with God [2024], 23)

 

 

Nephi wrote the First Book of Nephi, but not the heading to the First Book of Nephi, so the summary statement in the heading that says Lehi took “three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family” came from Mormon, not Nephi. Nephi’s personal record says the three days journey was “in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea.” (Ibid., 64 n. 110)

 

 

 

So, how did the ancients travel in a day while using camels to carry their provisions and tents? Assuming a standard walking speed of 3 miles (5km) per hour, a day’s travel with camels would be about 25 miles (40 km). Alois Musil, a Czech explorer, analyzed records of various ancient camel treks, noting caravans with merchandise, and migrating tribes during a lengthy journey, averaged about 14 miles (22 km) per day, but “a day’s march on the Pilgrim Route [to Mecca] always amounts to about [37 miles] sixty kilometers”. He commonly noted travel of 28 miles (45 km) per day. (J. Wanless Southwick, Arabia’s Mountain of God: Where Moses, Elijah, and Lehi Met with God [2024], 23)

 

Southwick references in the note the work of Alois Musil, The northern Ḥeǧâz, a topographical itinerary (American Geographical Society: Oriental Explorations and Studies 1; New York: Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1926):

 

From the še’îb of al-ḥrob to Petra is nearly two hundred and twenty kilometers, so that one day’s march would amount to about twenty-two kilometers. That is the distance covered in one day by the caravans with merchandise and by the migrating tribes during a lengthy journey. (pp. 263-64)

 

 

The length of the daily march between Ma ân and Tebûk would be still greater, amounting to nearly one hundred kilometers, if between these two places there were two and not (as given by Codex Constantinopolitanus; ibid., p. 250, note b) three night halts (manâhel). As, however, a day's march on the Pilgrim Route always amounts to about sixty kilometers, we must agree with the Constantinople codex and assign, not two, but three manâhel between Ma ân and Tebûk. If the author reckons four halting places from Tebûk to Tejma, he fixes a day's march at about fifty-five kilometers and the same also for the march from Tejma to the valley of al-Kura'. (pp. 327-38)

 

 

In the year 1313 A. D. Abu-l-Feda' (Muhtasar [Adler], Vol. 5, pp. 280 f.) made the journey on a camel from Mecca to Hama' in twenty-five days. He estimated the time occupied by his stay at al-Medîna, al-'Ela', Birke Zîza, and Damascus as three days, so that he traversed the whole distance in twenty-two days but changed his animal on the journey. From Mecca to Hama' is more than nine hundred kilometers, so that Abu-l-Feda' must have traveled forty-five kilometers a day. As is clear from the halting stations mentioned by him, he also proceeded on the highroad of at-Tebûkijje. (p. 328)

 

Edmund P. Clowney (Reformed) on the Holy Spirit Beign Active During the Old Testament Period

  

The relation of Old Testament saints to the Lord required the presence of the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. There were, to be sure, episodes of the Spirit’s presence as God empowered or overcame individuals: the Spirit came upon the elders under Moses, upon Samson, even upon King Saul. The prophets, too, were possessed of the Spirit to utter oracles of God. But the work of the Spirit is not limited to such visitations. God’s Spirit instructed Israel in the desert (Ne. 9:20) and was grieved by Israel’s behaviour, for it was he who had led them and cared for them in the wilderness (Is. 63:1-11; Acts 7:51). God’s covenant at Sinai promised his abiding presence with his people, a promise he kept through the abiding of the Spirit (Hg. 2:5). (Edmund P. Clowney, The Church [Contours of Christian Theology; Leicester, U.K.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995], 54)

 

Robert Alter on Zechariah 14:5

  

shall be blocked. The Masoretic Text reads wenastem, “and you shall flee,” but the strong scholarly consensus is that the word should be revocalized to show wenistam, as it does in some Hebrew manuscripts and in three ancient versions.

 

. . .

 

with Him. The Masoretic reading is “with you,” but almost all the ancient versions have “with Him.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1382, 1383)

 

Robert Alter on Zechariah 11:13

  

the potter’s kiln. The Hebrew noun hayotseir is opaque. Many interpreters understand it as though it were , “the treasury,” but haʾotsarthere is scant evidence for interchangeability between those two terms, despite a limited phonetic similarity, and the violent verb “fling” for putting something in a treasury would be surprising. Yotseir means “potter,” and perhaps here, through metonymy, it refers to the potter’s kiln, where the weights of silver would be smelted. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1378)

 

Robert Alter on Zechariah 10:2

  

wandered. The Masoretic Text reads yaʿanu, “answered” or “were afflicted.” This translation supposes a reversal of consonants and reads instead yanuʿu. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1374)

 

Robert Alter on Zechariah 9:8, 15

  

Zech 9:8:

 

I have seen their affliction. The Masoretic Text has “I have seen with My eyes” (beʿeynay), but the Septuagint seems to have used a Hebrew text that showed beʿonyam, “their affliction,” and that makes better sense. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1372)

 

 

Zech 9:15:

 

drink blood like wine. The Masoretic Text has “drink and roar [hamu] like wine,” but the Septuagint reads dam, “blood,” which is more plausible. Drinking blood like wine is a topos of ancient Hebrew martial poetry. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1373)