John Chryssavgi (EO) on Ireneus of Lyon's Teachings on the See of Rome in Against Heresies 3.3.2

  

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

Ignatius of Antioch does not, however, emphasize the role of the bishop as successor or in relation to the apostles. In fact, Irenaeus is the Church Father par excellence, who is concerned with apostolic succession, considering the local bishop as a direct link between the historical person of Jesus and the contemporary local community. Moreover, by the late second to the early third century, the term “catholic” appears to change in meaning and focus. For Ignatius of Antioch and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, “catholic” implies “local.” Nevertheless, by the time of Hegesippus and Irenaeus, “catholic church” signifies the “Church with the true teaching” in contrast to the heresies; “Catholic” means “Orthodox.” Furthermore, for Irenaeus, the local bishop must be both properly consecrated (thereby retaining outward authenticity) and consecrated for an orthodox Church (thereby maintaining the continuation of truth).

 

With regard to the Church of Rome, Irenaeus remarks that, since he cannot examine all the lists of bishop of local communities, he will limit himself to one local Church, namely Rome. Thus, in Adversus Haereses III, iii, 2, Irenaeus claims that the faithful everywhere—namely, all Churches—should “resort” (convenire) to the See of Rome “on account of its superior origin” (propter potentiorem principalitatem). The fact that other Churches can—or can choose not to—resort to Rome also implies that the Church of Rome is not the only witness to tradition. However, the apostolic tradition, it is claimed, has certainly been preserved in Rome.

 

Some scholars ascribe a stronger sense to the word “convenire,” interpreting it not simply as “restoring to” but as “agreeing with” Rome. This would imply that the Church of Rome lays down what other Churches must believe or adhere to. However, the more vital term here is the word “principalitatem” (origin). Does this mean that Rome is older or more senior in time or that it is supreme in authority? Would the Greek equivalent be αυθεντια or even πρωτειον? Is this again reading too much into a nearly apostolic text? Or would the Greek equivalent be αρχη or perhaps αρχαιοτης? Irenaeus could not possibly have meant the last of these (αρχαιοτης means ancient origin) because Jerusalem was the most ancient and mother of all Churches. Perhaps Irenaeus means αρχη (namely, superior in origin) inasmuch as Rome was founded by the two greatest and chiefs of the apostles. This may well be the case since Irenaeus is keenly interested in the question of apostolicity. In this regard, the Church of Rome is considered to be a norm—one of many—of apostolic faith and orthodoxy; perhaps it is the most illustrious or perhaps it is the most obvious. However, it is not the norm of apostolic faith and orthodoxy. Rome enjoys a certain—but not an exclusive—priority, privilege, and prerogative.

 

Finally, there are two other points of interest in Irenaeus’ understanding of the Church of Rome and its importance: (i) For Irenaeus, Clement is the third bishop of Rome, which means that Linus and Cletus are the first and second bishops respectively—and not Peter or Peter and Paul; and (ii) the foundation of the Church of Rome is not attributed to Peter alone, but to Peter and Paul. (John Chryssavgis, “The Apostolic Tradition: Historical and Theological Principles,” in Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis, 2 vols. [Yonkers, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016], 1:58-59, italics in original)

 

Two New Items from the B. H. Roberts Foundation

 

Black Saints and the Priesthood (1895–1978) (Primary Sources)

Women and the Priesthood (Primary Sources)

Gregory Palamas (1296 – 1359) on How God can be "Seen" and "Unseen"

The following comes from:

 

Tikhon Pino, Essence and Energies: Being and Naming God in St Gregory Palamas (Routledge Research in Byzantine Studies; London: Routledge, 2023), 116-17

 

Seen and Unseen

 

Directly connected to the theme of ‘knowing’ God is the language of ‘seeing’ or beholding God. This theme, too, lies at the center of an important antinomy in Christian tradition that Palamas maps on to the distinction between essence and energies. It includes the affirmations in scripture that God is both seen and not seen and that in different ways. “To see God,” Palamas points out, “is both forbidden and promised.” [93] The angels, we are told in the Gospel of Matthew “behold the face of God” (Mt 18:10), while Moses is told that the face of God will not be shown to you. Instead, Moses was allowed to see “the things behind” God (Ex 33:23). Indeed, Moses is told, You will not be able to see my face, for man may not see (μὴ ἴδῃ) my face and live (Ex 33:20), whereas St Paul states that now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12). In the Beatitudes, too, it is said that the pure in heart shall see God (τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται) (Mt 5:8), although in the Gospel of John it is said that no one has ever seen God (ἑώρακεν πώποτε) (Jn 1:18). [94] St Paul also insists that no one is able to see God (ἰδεῖν δύναται) (1 Tim 6:16), although Solomon declares that the Creator is seen (θεωρεῖται) proportionally from the magnitude and beauty of creatures (Ws 13:5). In Genesis, Jacob likewise proclaims that he has seen God (εἶδον γὰρ θεὸν) face to face (Gen 32:31). [95] Especially in the context of the hesychast controversy, the explanation that God could, in fact, be seen is of central importance for Palamas.

 

Although some of these biblical texts in question seem to be in tension with one another, if not outright opposition, still, according to Palamas, “these things do not contradict one another.” [96] Rather, the nuances introduced by the seemingly inconsistent language point to the distinction between God’s incomprehensible essence, on the one hand, and the energies or attributes that are manifested in and through the created order, on the other. The fact that God is not and cannot be seen refers to God’s unapproachability at the level of essence (κατ’ οὐσίαν), [97] since God is “invisible in his ousia.” [98] Yet it is also the case that God is seen. He is the object of mystical visions, for example, and is beheld in his illuminations (ἐλλάμψεις) [99] so that he becomes visible “according to energy and grace to those who have become Godlike.” [100] Thus, it is necessary to conceive of God beyond the category of his invisible essence. Without this distinction, it would certainly be a mere contradiction to say that the same thing is both invisible and visible in itself. [101] Yet Palamas affirms that God is both seen in his energies and not seen in his essence so that the antinomy of scripture might be maintained and the simultaneous revelation of transcendence of God might be upheld.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

93 Akind. 5.3.7 (PS 3:292.15–16).

 

94 Theo. 27 (PS 2:254.17–27).

 

95 Akind. 5.3.7 (PS 3:292.15–16).

 

96 Akind. 5.3.7 (PS 3:292.26–29).

 

97 Athan. 8 (PS 2:419.14–18); Akind. 5.5.15 (PS 3:297.27–29).

 

98 Theo. 27 (PS 2:255.12); cf. Tr. 3.2.4 (ed. Meyendorff, 669.12–16).

 

99 Tr. 3.2.4 (ed. Meyendorff, 669.12–16). This is not to say that the divine energy is not also ‘invisible’ in the sense of being immaterial and beyond sensation; cf. Introduction, p. 8, n. 20, and Chapter 1, p. 56.

 

100 Theo. 27 (PS 2:255.2–3).

 

101 Asan. 4 (PS 2:366.10–12): ἀόρατον καθ’ ἐαυτὴν καὶ ὁρατὸν καθ’ ἐαυτήν

 

 

Luke Leuk Cheun on the Addressee of the Epistle of James as the Diaspora of the Twelve Tribes

  

The Addressee as the Diaspora of the Twelve Tribes

 

Reference to the twelve tribes evokes a central point in Israel’s eschatological hope. The return of the twelve tribes associated with the hope for the future restoration of Israel originates with the exilic and post-exilic prophets and can be found in the later apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings. According to Isa. 49:6, the servant of the Lord is ‘to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel.’ God will eventually gather his people with his great mercy (Isa. 54:7; 56:8). The prophet begs God to regather the tribes of God’s heritage (Isa. 63:17). The understanding of the people in exile as the poor is also connected with the eschatological hope that God will eventually deliver them from captivity among the gentile nations. Ezek. 37:15–28 predicts a time that the tribes of Israel and Judah will be reunited with David as their king and with God dwelling among them. Once again, the land will be divided among the twelve tribes as their inheritance (Ezek. 47:13). The new Jersualem in Ezekiel’s portrayal will have gates named after the tribes of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35).

 

In Sir. 36:13, 16, probably alluding to Ezek. 47:13, Ben Sira prays to God to ‘gather all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance as at the beginning.’ However, whether the prayer in 36:1–17 is Ben Sira’s own composition remains uncertain. Yet, in 48:10, it is unmistakable that Ben Sira citing Mal. 3:13–14 with Isa. 49:6 is referring to a coming Elijah who will inaugurate a time to restore Israel.

 

The Qumran literature shows particular interest in the number ‘twelve’: the community council which consists of twelve laymen along with three priests (1QS 8.1–2), the twelve chief priests and twelve representative Levites, ‘one per tribe’ (1QM 2.2–3), the twelve commanders of the twelve tribes, along with the ‘prince’ (1QM 5.1–3), and twelve loaves of bread offered by the heads of the tribes (11Q19 18.14–16). In 1QM 1.1–2, ‘the Sons of Levi, the Sons of Judah and the Sons of Benjamin’ and ‘the Exiled of the Desert,’ that is, the exiled sons of light, will wage war against the sons of darkness, the army of Belial, the company of Edom and Moab and the sons of Ammon. A pesher on Isa. 10:24–27 links this return from the desert or wilderness with the arrival of the Leader (נשׂיא) of the nation, probably the Davidic Messiah (4Q161 frgs. 2–6 2.14–25). The exiled sons of light are the members of the sectarian community and constitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Also 4Q164 interprets Isa. 54:11 as concerning ‘the chiefs of the tribes of Israel in the las[t d]ays.’ Jackson-McCabe (1996:513) notices that 1QSa, with its heavy reliance on Numbers, suggests ‘the sect expected an eschatological reenactment of the conquest.’

 

A significant number of references are found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings relating to the hope of the regathering of God’s people in the land of Israel. Tobit speaks of the gathering of the children of Israel by God from the exile (13:5) and how all will dwell in Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham (14:7). Sib. Or. 2.154–175 sees one of the eschatological signs as ‘the gathering together’ when ‘a people of ten tribes will come from the east to seek the people, which the shoot of Assyria destroyed, of their fellow Hebrews.’ Then the nations will perish after all these signs and the ‘faithful chosen Hebrews will rule over exceedingly mighty men.’ In Pss. Sol. 17:21–34, the psalmist intercedes for a messiah who will gather a holy people and judge the tribes of the people (cf. 8:28). Like the Davidic king of Israel, he will also ‘distribute them upon their land according to their tribes.’ T. Benj. 9:2 promises a time when ‘the twelve tribes shall be gathered there [God’s temple] and all the nations, until such time as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of the unique prophet.’ This idea of the unique prophet finds its origin in Deut. 18:15 and figures importantly in messianic expectation. Some Qumran texts also refer to an eschatological prophet, possibly a messianic figure, someone similar to Elijah (1QS 9.10–11; lQ28a 2.11–12; 4Q175; 4Q521). For 4 Ezra 13:1–13, the one like a son of man in the dream will bring about the ingathering of the exiles of Israel (esp. vv. 12–13). The northern ten (or nine and a half; in Syr., Eth., and Ar. translations) tribes will be regathered in peace (4 Ezra 13:29–39; see Stone 1990:404). In 2 Bar. 78:6–7, Baruch speaks to those who were carried away to captivity in his letter, saying that if they remove from their hearts the idle errors, God ‘will not forget or forsake our offspring, but with much mercy will assemble all those again who were dispersed’ (cf. 68:2–7; 85:3–9).

 

In Philo’s exposition of Lev. 26 and Deut. 28–30, he seems to assume that Israel will eventually repent and return to the Land and enjoy greater prosperity than ever before (Praem. Poen. 162–172). This may be connected with his messianic expectation of the coming of a ‘man’ (cf. LXX Num. 24:7) as the commander-in-chief of Israel to win the victory over all her enemies (Praem. Poen. 79–97; cf. Vit. Mos. 1.290). Then there will be universal peace based on the keeping of the law of God (Virt. 119–120).

 

The institution of the ‘Twelve’ in the gospel traditions in all probability has to do with the hope of Israel’s restoration and probably goes back to Jesus himself (Sanders 1985:98–106; Horsley 1993A: 199–200, 206; Wright 1996:430–31). Lk. 22:30//Mt. 19:28 speak of the twelve disciples/apostles sitting on (twelve) thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The saying very likely is derived from Q. Jesus’ mission is to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Isa. 53:6; Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34) which implies the regathering of Israel. Mk 13:27 alludes to Zech. 2:2–8 (LXX: 6–12) that envisages a regathering and restoration of the exiles.⁸ In Revelation, the saints are identified as 144,000 evenly drawn from the twelve tribes of Israel (7:4–8; 14:1, 3; cf. 21:12–13).

 

In Lev. R. 7:3, one of the merits of studying the Mishnah is that all the exiles will be gathered. In 9:6, R-Eleazar is supposed to interpret ‘Awake, O north’ as ‘when the exiled communities stationed in the north will be awakened, they will come and find rest in the south’ (cf. Jer. 31:8). This interpretation is paralleled with two others: when ‘the Messianic King whose place is in the north will come and rebuild the sanctuary which is situated in the south;’ in this world, north and south winds do not blow at the same time, but in the time to come, the brightening, clearing wind will blow in which the two winds function. These interpretations associate the regathering of the dispersed with the coming of the Messiah or the age to come. A similar understanding can also be found in the Isaiah Targum with the Lord’s servant Messiah bringing the exiles back to Israel (6:13; 42:1–7; 53:8; 54:7; 66:9; cf. Targ. 1 Sam. 2:5; Targ. Jer. 31:23). The hope of the regathering of the tribes is also expressed in the tenth benediction of the ʾAmidah in the synagogue liturgy. Midr. Ps. 122:4 also looks forward to a time when God’s presence will rest on Israel and will testify to the twelve tribes that they are truly God’s people, in reply to the question of whether the twelve tribes had indeed been preserved through the time of exile. Such expectation of the twelve tribes is also found in t. Sanh. 13:10.

 

This does not mean that ‘the twelve tribes in the diaspora’ is only a symbol of the Christian church (pace, e.g., Konradt 1998:64–66). The word διασπορά (‘dispersion’) seems to be used in a literal sense here as the land outside Palestine. Such usage is different from 1 Pet. 1:1 where the word is used metaphorically to refer to the Christian people of God. As Bauckham has shown, the whole diaspora in the west and the east, consists of the twelve tribes which were contemporaneous with the author of James. In addition, our author has not distinguished the addressees as Christians probably because:

 

He does not see it [the early Christian group] as a specific sect distinguished from other Jews, but as the nucleus of the messianic renewal of the people of Israel which was under way and which would come to include all Israel. Those Jews who acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah are the twelve tribes of Israel, not in an exclusive sense so as to deny other Israelites this title, but with a kind of representative inclusiveness. What James addresses in practice to those Jews who already confess the Messiah Jesus, he addresses in principle to all Israel (Bauckham 1997:154; see also Verseput 1998:702).

 

The initial aim of the early messianic movement founded upon Christ concerned still about one people of God, one holy community (Schlatter 1956:61).

 

Taking the analogy with Qumran community based on the similarities between James and 1QS, Penner (1996:279; cf. pp. 234–41) argues that James reflects ‘an early Christian community which most likely practiced its own civil/religious law within the confines of the community, and which saw itself as fulfilling to a fuller degree the requirements of the ancestral Jewish faith.’ It is, however, precarious to take every mention of conflict found in James as evidences of conflict between the messianically renewed community with some rival Jewish group, as Penner (1996:269–78) tends to think. Our author may simply be arguing against the dominant system of values which are diametrically opposed to the values of God’s kingdom. (Luke Leuk Cheun, The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James [Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003], 240-45)

 

Matthew C. Genung on the use of the plural "dreams" in Genesis 37:19-20

  

The displaced problem of the plural “dreams”

 

One final consideration is the tension in v. 8b adduced by Weimar to consider this passage as redactional, i.e. the plural term dreams used after only one dream had been recounted. By considering v. 8b redactional this problem seems to be resolved, although when the second dream in its entirety is also considered redactional, the problem arises once again, only this time as it pertains to the plural dreams used in Gen 37,19–20.

 

‎ ¹⁹ וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו הִנֵּ֗ה בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת הַלָּזֶ֖ה בָּֽא׃²⁰ וְעַתָּ֣ה׀ לְכ֣וּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵ֗הוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵ֙הוּ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד הַבֹּר֔וֹת וְאָמַ֕רְנוּ חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ וְנִרְאֶ֕ה מַה־יִּהְי֖וּ חֲלֹמֹתָֽיו׃

 

19 They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. 20 Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams”.

 

If Joseph had only one dream in the original narrative, how can the use of dreams in the plural be explained here? In my opinion there is no need to advert to any diachronic explanation of the passages. This because the plural is sometimes used in Hebrew for a single event or idea in order to express something about that event or idea, such as individual components from which the action or idea is composed. In the case of Gen 37,19–20, the use of dreams in the plural can be understood as a plural of composition, or plural of internal multiplication, in reference to the parts of the dream. This makes sense in that Joseph’s first dream (37,7) consists in three distinct actions. In this case the passage would indicate that the brothers conspired against Joseph for what the dream constituents represented. The same phenomenon is encountered in Dan 2,1–2, where Nebuchadnezzar has one dream, yet the term used in these verses in reference to his dream is found in the plural. Analogously, see Gen 46,2; Ezek 1,1; 8,3; 40,2; 43,3, where מָרְאֹת (plural, visions) is used in reference to a single theophany. (Matthew C. Genung, The Composition of Genesis 37 [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 133-34)

 

Joseph's Coat in Genesis 37 being a "Special Tunic" having Priestly Connotations

  

The meaning of ‎כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים is uncertain. ‎כְּתֹ֥נֶת occurs 29 in the MT (eight times in Genesis 37). It is most often associated with the priestly garb (sixteen times), and is worn by the king in one text (Isa 22,21). It was made by God for Adam and Eve. Job wore one—he was grabbed by its collar. Two women near it: the woman in Canticles, and David’s daughter Tamar, in the only other text where the term appears in construct state with פַּסּים. Even more mysterious is פַּסּים. Its meaning is not known, and its etymology is equally uncertain. In MT it occurs five times, only in one context outside of Genesis 37 (Gen 37,3.23.23; 2 Sam 13,18.19), and always as the nomen rectum of כֻּתֹּנֶת.

 

. . .

 

Mendenhall offers the most interesting proposal, based on a comparison of the Ugaritic and Akkadian texts. The term is in poetic parallelism with ‘anan, which he states is equivalent to the Akkadian melammū, the essence of the divine character that the king embodies and exerts in both war and peace. In the ANE cult a special tunic is one artifact commonly used to express this underlying theological reality. The Ugaritic text corresponds to the Assyrian idea that this divine character can be removed from a king. If Mendenhall is correct, the Baal Cycle text indicates a divine power struggle in which the pḏ represents the character given by El to Baal that is sought by Yamm in order for him to take the prime position in the pantheon.

 

In Genesis 37, this meaning given to Joseph’s tunic may correspond well with his dreams and explain the basis of the brothers’ reactions. The translation then would be tunic of divine authority, or the like. It must be noted that this is merely a suggestion of the etymology of the difficult term. The absence of cultic motifs and direct divine action in the J[oseph]S[tory] speak against adopting this translation. Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting a late date for the original JS, at least in its literary form, genetic connections to these early Ugaritic and Akkadian texts are ruled out. Because of the uncertainty of the meaning of the term, in our translations we have chosen to use special tunic based on the context, which also seems preferable to long sleeved or multicolored. (Matthew C. Genung, The Composition of Genesis 37 [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 217), 218-19; the work Genung is following is that of G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore, MD – London 1973) 53–56)

 

Matthew V. Novenson on Wordplay in Galatians 2:16 and 3:5

Commenting on similar word plays one finds in Galatians as one does in 2 Cor 1:21-22, Matthew Novenson wrote that Paul

 

does something similar with the root εργον, “work,” in Gal 3:5: ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; “Does he who supplies the spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from the hearing of faith?” (and cf. the same root in Phil 2:12-13). It may be that πιστις in Gal 2:16 is another example: εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, “We know that a person is not justified from works of the law, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we had faith in Christ, in order that we might be justified from the faith of Christ and not from works of the law.” On the objective-genitive hypothesis, the middle clause is a play on what comes before and after: “Because a person is justified form Christ’s faith, we put our faith in Christ.” (Matthew V. Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012], 148 n. 44)