Some Great News

 Adam's Road Ministry is no more!

This is even greater news than when a clinic of Planned Parenthood closes shop, as Protestantism (and/or anti-Mormonism) is even worse than abortion.

Cecil M. Washington (2005) on the Jewish Practice of Polygamy during the New Testament Period

  

Polygamy was also practiced by the Jews in the Apostolic period. The Catholic Ency. says Polygamy “existed among most of the ancient peoples known to history, and occurs at present in some civilized nations and in the majority of savage tribes. About the only important peoples of ancient times that showed little or no traces of it were the Greeks and Romans.” Vol. 9, page 694, art., Marriage.

 

Hasting’s Bible Dictionary says, “Justin (Dial. 134, 141) reproaches the Jews of his day with having 3, 4 or even 5 wives, and ‘marrying as they wish, or as many as they wish.’ The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this cast, at least, the reproach has some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (C. A. D. 1,000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East, it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan Countries.”—Art., Marriage.

 

Now polygamy is not an unpardonable sin. Rev. W. B. Gobey said, “… amid the darkness of heathendom and Mohammedanism, we consistently come in contact with this unhallowed and pestilential institution … In our missionary work in all these lands, we are CONSTANTLY (my capitals) getting these polygamous people converted to Christianity; in which case the man must select him a wife from the number of his polygamous women, giving the rest such attention and help temporarily and spiritually as duty and ability may permit, at the same time doing his utmost to take care of his children.”—Matrimony, Page 43. (Cecil M. Washington, The Truth About Divorce and Remarriage [Nappanee, Ind.: E. V. Publishing House, 2005], 23)

 

Boyd Seevers on Curved Swords (cimeters/Book of Mormon 'scimitars')

  

Sword

 

The sword went through a somewhat similar evolution over time. Earlier on, swords were shaped rather like a harvesting sickle (Fig. 4.2—left) and thus were called “sickle-swords.” Unlike harvesting sickles with the sharp edge on the inside for cutting grain, sickle-swords had their sharp edge on the outside for slashing an opponent. The biblical expression of striking “with the edge of the sword” (Josh. 6:21, ESV; etc.) probably comes from the use of this type of sword. Sickle-swords started with a relatively long shaft and shorter cutting blade but changed to a much shorter shaft and a relatively long cutting blade (Fig. 4.2—left). Reliefs during the New Kingdom often portray the pharaoh with a sickle-sword, suggesting that it had replaced the mace as the pharaoh’s weapon of authority. Toward the end of the New Kingdom, Egyptians began using straight, tapered swords as well (Fig. 4.2, 4.3, 4.11—on ladder). The straight swords first appear in reliefs in the hands of Sea Peoples (Fig. 5.11), suggesting that the Philistines and related peoples may well have brought this design to the region. (Boyd Seevers, Warfare in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications], 2013], 121)

 

Here are figures 4.2 and 4.3 that are relevant to the above:

 

 

Urban C. von Wahlde on the Preexistence of Jesus and Jesus's use of εγω ειμι in the Gospel of John

  

c. Jesus as Preexistent

 

The belief in the preexistence of Christ is clear in the third edition. It is affirmed first of all in the Prologue, where the Word is said to have existed “in the beginning” (1:1) and to have been with God “in the beginning” (1:2). He was present at creation, and an active intermediary in creation (1:3–4). We have pointed out that the origin of the Prologue is difficult to determine with precision. It was probably a community hymn taken over by the author of the third edition, edited by him, and affixed to the Gospel. Given the prominence of light and darkness imagery, it would seem to have been composed at a time after the composition of the second edition. At any rate, the most important factor in this is that its presence in the Gospel is due to the third author. In the body of the Gospel, preexistence is clear both in general descriptive statements (6:62; 17:5, 24) and in the “divine” I AM statements (8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:6, 8). In 6:62, Jesus speaks of returning “to where I was before.” In 17:5, Jesus speaks of “the glory that I had with you [the Father] before the world existed.” In 17:24, he speaks of the fact that “you loved me before the beginning of the world.”

 

For the third author the theological significance of Jesus’ preexistence is complex. It has its own intrinsic importance; but, in relation to the second edition, it clarifies the sonship of Jesus by extending it to a point beyond any sonship in human time. Thus, Jesus is not a son “born of the Spirit” in time as the believer is. He is distanced from the believer both by his divine qualities and by the fact of his existence with God from the beginning. (Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference, 3 vols. [The Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 1:423–424)

 

(1) Jesus as Egō Eimi

 

There are several texts in the third edition where the divine “I AM” appears (8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:6, 8). It is these texts in which Jesus appropriates the designation for Yahweh in the LXX.⁷² This appropriation of the divine name is one of the distinct characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and there is no title for Jesus that could more definitely attribute divinity in its fullest extent to Jesus. Yet for Jesus to appropriate the title “I AM” is not to claim identity with God the Father. Jesus remains the Son but so completely reveals the Father that to see Jesus is to see “I AM.”

 

The fact that these appear in the third edition is an indication of the third author’s intention to make clear for his readers the full extent of Jesus’ oneness with the Father. The author focuses his attention on the notion of “I AM” in chapter 8.

 

The statement of 8:24 is striking in its simplicity: “… if you do not believe that “I AM,” you will die in your sins.…” In 8:28, the third author combines the title “I AM” with that of “Son of Man” and, at the same time, continues to affirm Jesus’ dependence upon the Father: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and I do nothing of myself, but I speak these things just as the Father taught me.” As divine as Jesus is, his divinity is not independent of the Father. In 8:58, the author combines it with the notion of preexistence: “… before Abraham was, I AM.” Then in 13:19, Jesus informs the disciples that his ability to foretell events happening to him will be evidence that “I AM.” Finally, in the act of being arrested (18:6, 8), Jesus identifies himself as “I AM,” and the power inherent in the title causes the arresting party to fall to the ground. (Ibid., 425-26)

 

 

Excerpt from Autobiography of Mary E. Lightner

  

The Smith family was driven from New York, and a small church had been organized. Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and Ziba Peterson were members. Well, I being anxious, though young, to learn about the plates from those who knew all about it, my mother and I went up to the Smith family the next night after they came to Kirtland. As I went in, there were two or three others present. They were all there, from the old gentleman and his wife to all the sons and daughters. As we stood there talking to them, Joseph and Martin Harris came in. Joseph looked around very solemnly. It was the first time some of them had ever seen him.

 

Said he, “There are enough here to hold a little meeting.” They got a board and put it across two chairs to make seats. Martin Harris sat on a little box at Joseph’s feet. They sang and prayed. Joseph got up and began to speak to us. As he began to speak very solemnly and very earnestly, all at once his countenance changed and he stood mute. Those who looked at him that day said there was a search light within him, over every part of his body. I never saw anything like it on the earth. I could not take my eyes off him; he got so white that anyone who saw him would have thought he was transparent. I remember I thought I could almost see the cheek bones through the flesh. I have been through many changes since but that is photographed on my brain. I shall remember it and see in my mind’s eye as long as I remain upon the earth. (AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARY E. LIGHTNER)

 

John David Lewis (RC) on the Common Belief that Joseph was a Young, not Elderly, When He Married Mary and Remained a Perpetual Virgin

  

Saints spoke on this topic as far back as the 4th century. T. Athanasius (d. 373) that ‘both [Joseph & Mary] remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.’ St. Jerome (d. 420) when defending the virginity of Mary against the heretic Helvidius said that not only was Mary a perpetual virgin but so was Joseph, their virginal marriage producing the virginal Son, Savior of the world. Doctor of the church St. Peter Damian asserts that it’s the ‘faith of the Church’ that God who willed that his Son should have a virgin mother should also have a virgin father on Earth to represent his eternal Virgin Father in Heaven. (The Life and Glories of St. Joseph by Edward Healy Thomson. Burns & Oats, Ltd. 2nd Ed. 1891.) St. Thomas Aquinas the Angelic Doctor says, ‘We believe that just as the Mother of Jesus was a virgin, so was Joseph, because he placed the Virgin in the case of a virgin, and just as he did this at the close of his earthly life, so he did so it at the beginning [of his earthly life]. If the Lord was unwilling to commend his Virgin Mother to the care of anyone except a virgin, how could he have born the fact that her husband had not been a virgin and remained as such.” (“Was Joseph Previously Married” by Phillip Bellini; Catholic Culture Website entered September 4, 2021.) Church Doctor St. Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389), said that the first virgin is the Holy Trinity: God the Father is a virgin; God the Son is a virgin, generated by the Father without a mother; God the Spirit is a virgin, proceeding from both the Father and the Son. Each divine person of the Godhead is ever-virgin. Jean Charlier de Gerson (d. 1429) said it follows then that the earthly trinity of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph must also be all-virginal. (The Life and Glories of St. Joseph by Edward Healy Thompson. Burns & Oats, Ltd. 2nd Ed. 1891.) St Albert the Great said, “Reflect on the vow of virginity of both these spouses, for it is stated that the angel was sent by God to a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph . . . this union would not have continued unless, by mutual consent, they had already made a vow of virginity.” St. Augustine, praising St. Joseph, said, “Oh, holy Joseph! You received from Mary through the Holy Spirit, God’s own Son as your Son, by a means of conception as legitimate as it was sublime. Your virginity and that of Mary, is thereby far from being married. Instead, and rightly so, it is precisely because of your perfect virginity that your spouse Mary, the Virgin of virgins, become the Mother of God! It is due to you, as well as to herself, and therefore, you are also truly a father.” (https://www.apostolatestjoseph.org/spouse-of-mary.php). Thompson also asks how could it not be that Joseph, closer to the incarnation and Hypostatic Union than any other man, would not be a pure virgin if St. John the Baptist the Herald of Christ and St. John the Beloved Disciple were both virgins? St. Paul tells us a “virgin” is “concerned about the Lord’s affairs” and wholly “devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit” and “undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:34-35). (John David Lewis, Journey With Joseph [Macao, China: Claretian Publications, 2021], 212-13 n. 52)

 

Eric D. Svendsen, "Who is My Mother?" (Parts 1 & 2)

 

Eric D. Svendsen, "Who Is My Mother?" (Part 1)

Eric D. Svendsen, "Who Is My Mother?" (Part 2)

Sam K. Williams on Exodus 32:30-32

  

. . . the interpretation that Moses expresses his willingness to die in place of or even on behalf of the people of Israel is incorrect. To be sure, Moses tells the people that he will try to effect forgiveness of their sins before the Lord, but the means to this end is his prayer of intercession, not a willingness on his part to offer himself on their behalf. The alternatives expressed by v. 32 are not: forgive their sins (without any sacrificial act) or accept my life as an expiatory offering for their sin. Rather, the alternative is: forgive these people and let us live or if you will not forgive these people, destroy me with them. By his request to be blotted out of the book of life if the people are not forgiven, Moses expresses his desire to stand with them and to share their fate. The only other interpretation that seems possible is that in v. 32 Moses, the intercessor for his people, is bargaining with God, almost daring Him to destroy His servant (cf. Num. 11:15). In a sense Moses confronts Yahweh in a showdown and forces the divine hand--almost. God's response is: the sinners, not you, will I destroy; but not right now (cf. vv. 33-34): In any case, v. 33 is sufficient rebuttal to the notion that the concept of vicarious expiatory suffering is held by the author(s) of Exodus. (Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept [Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975], 103, emphasis in original)

 

Marius Victorinus Teaching Infused Righteousness in his Commentary on Ephesians 1:8

  

With good cause [is it said] God poured out upon us. For an angel will remain in the state of being an angel, and the same with other beings (whether they are counted among the elements or with matter or among the heavenly lights or in other things of this sort), all of which have been produced and generated by God. But the soul amongst all of these has merited more from God, both the greatest gift and great riches, when knowing God—albeit by means of the will of God infused in it by Jesus Christ—the soul, accepted among the sons of God, is granted to be bear to God and to the Son, that is, to Jesus Christ. Still, [all this comes about] through Christ himself, as the soul, made out as a co-heir of eternity and majesty, is granted the name and position of son. (Marius Victorinus, Commentary on Ephesians, Book 1, in Metaphysics and Morals in Marius Victorinus' Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians [trans. Stephen Andrew Cooper; Series V Philosophy vol. 155; New York: Peter Lang, 1995], 53-54)

 

Excerpt from Oliver D. Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism"

Commenting on the "double payment" objection to universal atonement (within a Penal Substitoinary model), Oliver Crisp wrote:

However, for the objection to have teeth it needs to be able to make good on the claim that (a) Christ’s atonement effectually pays for the sin of all fallen humanity, and (b) those who die without faith and are damned also effectually pay for their sin in their everlasting punishment in hell. In other words, there must be a kind of symmetry between the efficacy of the payment for sin Christ’s atonement and in the punishment of the damned. Both must generate an actual and effectual payment for sin that is atoning. In the case of Christ, this is actual and effectual, and competed in his sacrificial work on the cross. In the case of the damned, it is actual and effectual, and ongoing in their everlasting suffering in hell.

 

. . .

 

On this iteration, the concern is that Christ’s atonement pays for all human sin in ordained sufficiency, except for the sin of unbelief. Then, it appears that the hypothetical universalist is committed to the rather implausible theological claim that those who are damned are suffering only for the sin of unbelief, not for other sins because other sins have been atoned for by the work of Christ. But, it would be argued, the damned cannot be held responsible for failing to believe the great things of the gospel because faith is a divine gift. So the hypothetical universalist ends up holding a view according to which the damned suffer only because they lack saving faith, though they cannot be responsible for this lack of faith because faith is a divine gift. It would be like refusing medication to someone who lacks the ability to walk to a pharmacy to pick it up. Such a person can hardly be responsible for not being able to pick up their medicine!

 

This is a stronger version of the objection. In response to the question of whether it is merely unbelief that damns a person, it is clear that all Christians would agree that such a condition is normally a reason to think a person is outside the bounds of salvation, other things being equal (i.e., excepting limited cases such as those discussed earlier). So that cannot be the problem. Rather, the concern is that it is of this alone that damns a person because the rest of her sin has been atoned for in Christ. This the hypothetical universalist need not concede. As we have already seen, the idea of an ordained sufficiency to the atonement is like the idea of a bank of vaccination ready to be mobilized. It has a potency to deal with the disease affecting the populace. But it needs to be applied to them. This is what is meant by the ordained sufficiency of Christ’s work. It has a merit sufficient in the fact to atone for the sin of each and every human sinner. But it is only made efficacious upon being delivered to those to whom the gift of faith is given. So the real problem boils down to the question of the gift of faith. Now, all Reformed theologians agree that faith is a divine gift. So this cannot be the point in dispute. Rather, the concern is that the hypothetical universalist is withholding salvation from those who lack the gift of faith, for which they cannot be held responsible. For the gift is not something that they can attain; its bestowal is an act of unmerited grace. But once again, this is a problem common to all Reformed (and more broadly Augustinian) accounts of salvation. Now, a tu quoque response is not a decisive way of addressing the problem, and this is a tu quoque response. That said, it is a way of pointing out that those who defend a limited atonement doctrine have exactly the same problem to address since on the limited atonement doctrine only those given the gift of faith are able to receive the benefits of Christ’s atonement, and faith is an unmerited divine gift. So this is not a difficulty peculiar to the hypothetical universalist, but a problem common to the sort of Reformed, and more broadly, Augustinian scheme of salvation. (Oliver D. Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology, ed. Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2023], 35, 37-38)

 

   

When Does Translating Change the Meaning of Scripture?

 

When Does Translating Change the Meaning of Scripture?

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 55: The Book of Job (With Adam Stokes)

 

Episode 55: The Book of Job (With Adam Stokes)

Edmon L. Gallagher on Origen's Charges that the LXX Translators May Have Intentionally Altered Some Texts

  

Origen thinks that the Seventy have changed (εναλλασσω; Sel. Ps. 42:3; PG 12.1420d) the grammatical tense from future to past in several messianic prophecies in the Psalms. He observes that the LXX and Theodotion put everything in the past, whereas Aquila makes some things past and some future, and Symmachus makes everything future. ‘Εθος γαρ τοις ‘Εβδομηκοντα πολλακις τας περι Χριστου προφητειας ως ηδη γενομενας απαγγελλειν (“For it is the custom of the Seventy often to announce the prophecies concerning Christ as if they had already happened”). Origen goes on to ascribe this custom to the Seventy’s desire to depict God as omniscient (Sel. Ps. 2:1; PG 12.1104c). The other translators speak σαφεστερον (“more clearly”) because they render these verbs with future tenses (Sel. Ps. 42:3; PG 12.1420d). The change Origen envisions is rather small and, by his own admission, not universal, for he notes that the Seventy translate some messianic prophecies with the future tense (e.g. Isa. 52:13; cf. Sel. Ps. 2:1; PG 12.1104d). Yet, if readers of the LXX interpret the tenses as Origen does (i.e., as displaying God’s omniscience), it is a change that would edify their faith.

 

. . .

 

The changes that Origen attributes to the Seventy translators constitute providentially guided alterations that point toward a sense beyond the literal. At the same time, they are very limited in scale, consisting of the substitution of a single word, or merely a tense, or at the most omitting a few words. Nevertheless, the only change that Origen confidently attributes to the Seventy is that of the tense of some prophecies, whereas the other proposed changes are only possibilities that could have other explanations. Origen allows that the Seventy translators did not always adhere strictly to the text before them, but he actually invokes this option rather infrequently. (Edmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theology: Canon, Language, Text [Supplements to Vigilae Christianae 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 183-84, 185)

 

The MT of Ps. 3:8 (Eng.: 3:7) contains the phrase כי הכית את כל איבי לחי (“for you have struck all my enemies on the cheek”), for which the LXX has οτι συ επαταξας παντας τους εχθραινοντας μοι ματαιως   (“for you struck all those hostile to me without cause”). Origen wonders about the difference between “cheek” (לחי) in the Hebrew text, as reflected in the newer Greek translations, and “without cause” (ματαιως) in the LXX (Sel. Ps. 3:8; PG 12.1129b–c). Some ‘Εβραιοι have suggested to him that the Hebrew text itself may have changed, but he also considers the possibility that the Seventy intentionally altered the text: η [sc. εικος εστι] το ευτελες περιισταμενους τους ‘Εβδομηκοντα της λαξεως, τετολμηκεναι αντι του ‘σιαγονα’ ποιησαι ‘ματαιως’ (“or [it is possible] that the Seventy, avoiding the poverty of the letter, have dared to put ‘without cause’ instead of ‘cheek’”). In any case, he accepts the LXX reading and proceeds to interpret it. His suggestion that the Seventy ‘dared’ to replace ‘cheek’ with ‘without cause’ attributes to the translators the motive of ‘avoiding the poverty of the letter’ (το ευτελες περιισταμενοι [. . .] της λαξεως). Here, λαξεις does not refer only to the words ‘cheek’ and ‘without cause’ but to literalism as opposed to the more spiritual ways of reading texts. The Seventy have produced a good interpretation of the OT not because they found fault with the Hebrew text but because they eschewed rendering it literalistically (at least, in this case). For this reason, their translation is rich (not ευτελης) in meaning. (Ibid., 184)

 

Edmon L. Gallagher on Sextus Julius Africanus (160-240) and the Book of Susanna

  

We have no list of canonical books from Julius Africanus. Nevertheless, his letter to Origen against the authenticity of Susanna preserves certain statements of principle relevant to the present discussion. Africanus intends his letter to demonstrate that Susanna is no genuine part of the Book of Daniel: το μερος τουτο βιβλιο κιβδηλον ον (“this part of the book is spurious”; §2).( The paragraph divisions follow those in the most recent edition of the correspondence: N. de Lange (ed.), Origène, La Lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, in Origène, Philocalie, 1–20: Sur les Écritures, SC 302 (ed. M. Harl; Paris, 1983), 469–578.) He assembles seven arguments in support of this aim.

 

1. The form of prophetic inspiration is inconsistent with that of the genuine parts of Daniel (§3)

2. Daniel’s cross examination of the two villains is silly (§4)

3. The Greek play on words is proof that there is no Hebrew original (§5)

4. Historical inaccuracies preclude the sixth-century prophet from having

composed Susanna (§6)

5. The story is absent from the Jewish version of Daniel (§7)

6. Contrary to the nature of true prophecy, Daniel quotes scripture in the

story (§8)

7. The style of the story diverges from the rest of Daniel (§9)

 

One should note carefully that Africanus’ third argument concerns the language in which Susanna was composed, while the fifth argument concerns the Jewish reception (rather, rejection) of Susanna. Africanus draws no explicit connection between these two points; in fact, he does not even juxtapose them, but inserts a historical argument in the middle. I stress this here because students of this correspondence have sometimes combined these two arguments and Origen’s response to them, as we will see. The third argument regarding the language of composition will feature prominently in our discussion in the next chapter. Here, we are concerned with the fifth argument.

 

According to Africanus, the absence of Susanna in the Jewish version of Daniel, more than anything else, condemns the story as inauthentic.

 

Προ δε τουτων απαντων ηδε η περικοπη συν αλλαις δυο ταις επι τω τελει παρα των 'Ιουδαιων ειλημμενω Δανιηλ ουκ εμφερεται.(§7)

 

Before all these things, this pericope along with two others at the end [= Bel and the Dragon] does not circulate in the [version of] Daniel received from the Jews.

 

Unfortunately, Africanus keeps his comments rather terse, leaving his readers to wonder why he considered this particular argument so powerful, how exactly he conceived of the relationship between the Christian OT and the Jewish Bible, and what implications this statement has for other books of the Bible. (Edmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theology: Canon, Language, Text [Supplements to Vigilae Christianae 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 30-31)

 

There is very little extant information for Africanus’ views on the OT canon, but he does make two important statements on the topic in his letter to Origen. The second of these we have already examined, finding that §7 of his letter does not necessarily contain a general endorsement of the synagogal criterion, though Origen so understands it. The first statement comes at §5, which, in the edition of Walther Reichardt, closes with these words: εξ ‘Εβραιων δε τοις ‘Ελλησι μετεβληθη πανθ’ οσα της παλαιας διαθηκης φερεται (“everything that circulates as part of the OT was translated from Hebrew to Greek”).

 

This statement forms the conclusion to a discussion of the puns contained in the Greek text of Susanna 54–55 and 58–59. Daniel interrogates separately the two villainous elders, cleverly inducing them to implicate themselves. Theodotion’s version of Daniel contains the following account of these interviews, with the crucial puns italicized.

 

First Interview (Sus. 54–55)

 

νυν ουν ταυτην ειπερ ειδες, ειπον ‘Υπο τι δενδρον ειδες αυτους ομιλουντας αλληλοις; ο δε ειπεν ‘Υπο σχινον. ειπε δε Δανιηλ ‘Ορθως εψευσαι εις την σεαυτου κεφαλην ηδη γαρ αγγελος του θεου λαβων φασιν παρα του θεου σχισει δε μεσον.

 

“Now therefore, if you really saw this woman, tell: Under what tree did you see them having intercourse together?” Then he said, “Under a mastich.” Then Daniel said, “Truly you have lied to the detriment of your own head, for already as the angel of God receives the sentence from God he will split you in two.”

 

Second Interview (Sus. 58–59)

 

νυν ουν λεγει μοι ‘Υπο τι δενδρον κατελαβες αυτους ομιλουντας αλληλοις; ο δε ειπεν ‘Υπο πρινον. ειπε δε αυτω Δανιηλ ‘Ορθως εψευσαι και συ εις την στεαυτου κεφαλην μενει γαρ ο αγγελος του θεου την ρομφαιαν εχων πρισαι σε μεσον, οπως εξολεθρευση υδας.

 

“Now, therefore, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them having intercourse together?” Then, he said, “Under an evergreen oak.” Then Daniel said to him, “Truly you also have lied to the detriment of your own head, for the angel of God is waiting with the sword to saw you in two so as to destroy you.”

 

Africanus points out to Origen that the play on words indicates that the story of Susanna was written in Greek. ‘Εν μεν ουν ελληνικαις φωναις τα τοιαυτα αμοφωνειν συμβαινει, παρα την πρινον το πρισαι και σχισαι παρα την σχινον, εν δε τη εβραιδι τω παντι διεστηκεν (“Now, using Greek words, such things happen to sound alike, prisai alongside prinos and schisai alongside schinos, but in Hebrew they are completely different”; §5). He is not alone in his recognition of this point; in fact, Origen responds by saying that he has already perceived the problem (Ep. Afr. 10; cf. Origen, apud Jerome, Comm. Dan. 13:54–55). Jerome reports that a certain Jewish teacher mocked the story due to the presence of the Greek puns (Praef. Dan. 23–27), and he says that the puns led Porphyry to conclude that the entire book of Daniel was a Greek document (Comm. Dan., prol.). (Ibid., 63-65)

 

Edmon L. Gallagher on Tertullian and 1 Enoch

  

Tertullian is the earliest Christian author who makes his criterion for canonicity explicit. In his treatise De cultu feminarum, Tertullian comments on the value of 1Enoch as a source for the cohabitation of angels with women (1.3). He is aware that the Jews do not accept 1Enoch as scripture, which has led some Christians to doubt the document’s worth. Tertullian even provides a supposition for why the Jews have rejected it: Enoch lived before the flood, and so anything he wrote would have presumably perished in the deluge. Tertullian himself rejects all this reasoning.

 

Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de Domino praedicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est, quod pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem diuinitus inspirari.

 

But since Enoch in the same scripture preached also concerning the Lord, what pertains to us is most definitely not to be rejected by us. And we read, “all scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.”

 

The Vulgate of 2 Timothy 3:16 reads omnis scriptura diuinitus inspirate et utilis (“all scripture is divinely inspired and suitable […]”). Tertullian relies here on a rather loose paraphrase of the verse. The standard derived therefrom is rather broad, and it is unclear how Tertullian actually implemented it. Both the criterion and the rendering of 2 Timothy seem specially designed for his argument here. Despite this idiosyncratic formulation, we can include Tertullian broadly with those who adhere to the ‘ecclesiastical’ criterion [of canonicity]. (Edmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theology: Canon, Language, Text [Supplements to Vigilae Christianae 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 20-21, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Joshua John Van Ee, "Death and the Garden" (PhD Thesis, 2013)

I just thought I would plug a really useful PhD thesis:

Joshua John Van Ee, "Death and the Garden: An Examination of Original Immortality, Vegetarianism, and Animal Peace in the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia" (PhD Thesis; UC San Diego, 2013)

Excerpts from “On the Holy Virgin Theotokos” by Proclus of Constantinople (d. 446)

The following comes from “Homily 1: On the Holy Virgin Theotokos Delivered while Nestorius was seated in the Great Church of Constantinople”:

 

II. Who ever saw, who ever heard, of God dwelling without restriction in a woman’s womb> Heaven itself was born from a woman, God but not solely God, and man but not merely man, and by his birth what was once the door of sin was made the gate of salvation. Through ears that disobeyed, the serpent poured in his poison; through ears that obeyed, the Word entered in order to build a living temple. From the place where Cain, the first disciple of sin, emerged, from there also did Christ, the redeemer of the race, sprout unsown into life. The loving God was not ashamed of the birth pangs of a woman, for the business at hand was life. He was not defiled by dwelling in places which he himself had created without dishonor. If the mother had not remained a virgin, then the child born would have been a mere man and the birth, no miracle. But if she remained a virgin after birth, then indeed he was wondrously born who also entered unhindered “when the doors were sealed,” whose union of natures was proclaimed by Thomas who said, “My Lord and my God!” (Nicholas Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Homilies 1-5, Texts and Translations [Supplements to Vigilae Christianae 86; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 139)

 

VII. A mere man could not save; for he would have needed a savior himself, since as Paul said, “all have sinned.” (‘Ανθρωπου τοινυν ψιλου το σωσαι ουκ ην και γαρ αυτος εδειτο του σωζοντος κατα Παυλον τον λεγοντα “παντες γαρ ημαρτον.”) By sin we were delivered to the devil, and by the devil handed over to death. Our affairs were in utmost peril; and there was no means of rescue. This was the verdict of the physicians who were sent to us. (Ibid., 143)

 

Protestant Commentaries on 1 Timothy 1:4 and "endless genealogies"

  

 

Myths and Genealogies

 

The coupling of the terms myths and genealogies is already found in Plato and elsewhere. In the passage under discussion the use is, to be sure, not specifically literary. “Myth” (μῦθος) is used here, as is frequently the case elsewhere, to denote false and foolish stories. As a formal parallel, cf the reproachful question in Epictetus Diss. 3.24.18 “And do you take Homer and his tales as authority for everything?” (σὺ δʼ Ὁμήρῳ πάντα προσέχεις καὶ τοῖς μύθοις αὐτοῦ;), cf Plut. Mor. 348a–b. See also the double meaning of “myth” in Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. salv. 42: “Hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the Apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory” (ἄκουσον μῦθον, οὐ μῦθον, ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀπόστολου παραδεδομένον καὶ μνήμῃ πεφυλαγμένον). “Endless” (ἀπέραντος) is used in the same sense in the criticism of “those who want to speak at length” (μακρολογεῖν ἐθέλοντες) in Galen (ch. VIII, p. 748.8 [Kühn]). What are we to understand by “genealogies”? Is the commonly heard alternative between Gnostic enumerations of aeons and Jewish, Biblical speculations adequately formulated in this way? Philo (Vit. Mos. 2.45–47) designates a portion of the historical presentation of the Pentateuch as “genealogical matters” (γενεαλογικόν): “One division of the historical side deals with the creation of the world, the other with genealogical matters, and this last partly with the punishment of the impious, partly with the honouring of the just.” (ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν, τοῦ δὲ γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν, τὸ δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων) [Loeb modified]. The word is not used here to designate a literary genre, but rather refers only to the content. Moreover there is no corresponding “mythological part” (μυθολογικόν)—which is an impossibility for Philo. Since the genealogies are mentioned together with “myths,” they cannot, in this passage, refer to the Jewish proof for kinship of Abraham, nor to the demonstration of Israel’s historical continuity. Neither Paul nor a pseudo-Paul could mention such things in the same breath with “fables.” Kittel has pointed out that in post-exilic Judaism genealogical speculations about Biblical persons led to discussions which could under certain circumstances be regarded as heretical, in view of their criticism of Biblical accounts. That Christians too could be involved in these discussions is shown by Baba Batra 91a, where statements are made about the mothers of the men of the OT: “Why does one have to know about that? To answer the Minim (that is, the heretics).” To be sure, in the Pastorals it is not a question of debates within the frame of (rabbinic) interpretation of scripture, as the whole controversy shows, but rather of a gnosticizing Judaism. (Cf. Tit 1:14; 3:9 on the one hand; 1 Tim 4:3; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:18; Tit 1:16 on the other.). Gnosticizing interpretations in which Old Testament genealogical registers are understood mythologically (Iren. Adv. haer. 1.30.9) and, moreover, mythical speculations about sequences of principalities and aeons are as fundamental to the theology of Gnosticism (see below the excursus to 1 Tim 4:5) as they are destructive to the belief in the divine education for salvation (οἰκονομία) which is held by the writer of the Pastorals. To be sure, Irenaeus and Tertullian are wrong to refer such passages from the Pastorals to the advanced Gnosticism of their time; they naturally took the statements as prophecy. Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. 1, Preface 1: “Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, ‘minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith’ … 2 … I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus ….)” (ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παραπεμπόμενοί τινες ἐπεισάγουσι λόγους ψευδεῖς καὶ γενεαλογίας ματαίας, αἵτινες ζητήσεις μᾶλλον παρέχουσι, καθὼς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν, ἢ οἰκοδομὴν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει … 2 … ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν). Cf. also Tertullian, Praescr. haer. 33. Rather, we must think of early Jewish or Judaizing forms of Gnosticism, which are reflected elsewhere within the horizon of deutero-Pauline literature. Characteristic are: speculations about the elements, but no systematic cosmology; a tendency towards soteriological dualism and the observation of ascetic rules. All this applies to the false teachers opposed by the Pastorals; a similar picture emerges from the epistles of Ignatius. Thus we may view the different reproaches (“teachers of the law,” “ritualists,” “Jews,” “Gnostics,” and “speculators”) as forming a unified picture. A surprising parallel, which points in the same direction, is found in the Manual of Discipline from Qumran: “For the man of understanding, that he instruct and teach all the sons of light concerning the succession of the generations of all the sons of men, all the spirits which they possess with their distinctive characters; their works with classes; and the visitation with which they are smitten, together with the times when they are blessed.” (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972], 16–17)

 

genealogies—not merely such civil genealogies as were common among the Jews, whereby they traced their descent from the patriarchs, to which Paul would not object, and which he would not as here class with “fables,” but Gnostic genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of Gnostic emanations” [ALFORD]. So TERTULLIAN [Against Valentinian, c. 3], and IRENAEUS [Preface]. The Judaizers here alluded to, while maintaining the perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law, joined with it a theosophic ascetic tendency, pretending to see in it mysteries deeper than others could see. The seeds, not the full-grown Gnosticism of the post-apostolic age, then existed. This formed the transition stage between Judaism and Gnosticism. “Endless” refers to the tedious unprofitableness of their lengthy genealogies (compare Tit 3:9). Paul opposes to their “aeons,” the “King of the aeons (so the Greek, 1 Ti 1:17), whom be glory throughout the aeons of aeons.” The word “aeons” was probably not used in the technical sense of the latter Gnostics as yet; but “the only wise God” (1 Ti 1:17), by anticipation, confutes the subsequently adopted notions in the Gnostics’ own phraseology. (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], 2:404)

 

These myths were legendary tales characteristic of the false teachers in Ephesus and Crete. See parallels in 1 Tim 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; and Titus 1:14. They were perhaps built by speculation from the patriarchal narratives in the OT; hence the connection with genealogies and with wanting to be teachers of the law (v. 7). (Note to 1 Tim 1:4, The NET Bible)