J. Warren Smith on Augustine's Misreading of Romans 5:12

  

Central to this argument, for Augustine, is Romans 5:12, which Augustine interprets radically differently from Pelagius. The Old Latin translation of the verse that Augustine read is as follows: “Through one man sin entered the world and through sin death and thus passed on to all human beings in whom [in quo] all have sinned.” Whereas the Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate specify that “death passed on to all” the Old Latin does not specify the subject of “passed on” (pertransiit). Consequently, Augustine inferred that the subject was “sin” not “death.” Thus, he read the passage as “and sin passed on to all” (Pecc. merit. 1.9.9). Moreover, Augustine took the following clause “in whom all sinned” to mean that not only did Adam’s descendants derive their nature from Adam, but they were in Adam when he sinned. (J. Warren Smith, Early Christian Theology: A History [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026], 108)

 

 

Both the Old Latin and the Vulgate are misleading here. They translate the Greek expression eph’ hō, which means “because,” as in quo, which means “in whom.” Thus, Augustien’s text of Rom 5:12 is decidedly different from the sense of the Greek: “and death passed to all people because all people sinned.” Although Augustine’s overall argument does not stand or fall entirely on his reading of this verse, the errors in the Old Latin text contributed to his argument about the transmission of original sin. (Ibid., 108 n. 6)

 

Paul Foster on the Eucharist in the theology of Ignatius of Antioch

  

The Eucharist

 

Ignatius’s understanding of the Eucharist is closely linked to his ecclesiology. The link arises from his claim that the only legitimate Eucharist is that which is conducted with episcopal authorization. Thus Ignatius declares, “Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid” (Ign. Smyrn. 8.1b). It is notable that Ignatius does not state that the bishop must preside at every eucharistic celebration, but rather that those events must take place under his authority or with his delegated permission. In the wider context of this statement, Ignatius suggests that certain people “do not believe in the blood of Christ” (Ign. Symrn. 6.1), thus making themselves liable to judgment. Furthermore, it appears that certain opponents who hold docetic beliefs have abstained from the Eucharist. For Ignatius, refusal to participate in the Eucharist was not merely a rejection of the bishop’s authority, but it reflected deviant beliefs concerning the reality and redemptive nature of Christ’s death.

 

In this context, as a polemical response to those holding the beliefs that Ignatius opposes, he makes his strongest and most direct claim, affirming the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Ign. Smyrn. 6.2). While this statement is certainly compatible with later understandings of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and hence with a more developed notion of transubstantiation, it would nevertheless be unhelpful to take this statement out of its charged polemical context. In other passages, Ignatius perhaps does not go as far in equating the Eucharist with the flesh of Christ. For instance, writing to the Philadelphians, the community is instructed to unite in partaking of one Eucharist. The rational for this instruction is “for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one alter, just as there is one bishop together with the council of presbyters and the deacons, my fellow servants” (Ign. Phld. 4.1). Here the Eucharist, like Christ’s blood, and like church-leadership structures, should lead to unity rather than division. Ignatius does not provide a thoroughgoing theology of the Eucharist. However, what emerges is his strong and repeated belief that only a Eucharist. However, what emerges is his strong and repeated belief that only a Eucharist held under the authority of the bishop or his delegate is legitimate. Furthermore, Ignatius presses the comparison between the eucharistic elements and the flesh and blood of Christ. (Paul Foster, “The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 193-94)

 

 

William P. Le Saint: The Edict Which Occasioned Tertullian's "De Pudicita" was not from a Pope of Rome but an African Bishop

  

The problem of determining the authorship of the edict which occasioned the composition of the De pudicitia has been studied frequently and needs no more than a brief synopsis here. Three principal views have been proposed. Older editors and commentators attributed the decree to Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome from 198 to 217. With the discovery of the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus in 1850, scholars all but unanimously accepted Callistus (bishop of Rome 217–222) as the author, since they considered that the charge of laxity in forgiving sins of impurity which Hippolytus makes against Callistus (Philosoph. 9.12) must be understood as referring to his issuance of the edict of toleration which Tertullian condemns in De pud. 1.6. Other passages in the De pudicitia which are thought to prove the Roman provenance of the edict will be found in cc. 13.7 and 21.5, 9. In recent years, however, scholars have been abandoning the idea that the decree was issued by a bishop of Rome. K. Adam, P. Galtier, B. Poschmann and other authorities on the history of penance argue quite convincingly that it was promulgated by an African bishop, probably Agrippinus of Carthage. This view has, at present, a certain ascendancy, although it is not universally received and the decree continues to be referred to in the literature as the ‘Edict of Callistus.’ (William P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity [Ancient Christian Writers 28; New York: Newman Press, 1959], 47-48)

 

Dale C. Allison on the Demonology of James 2:19

  

καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν. Maximus the Confessor speaks in this connection of ‘mere faith’, Schleiermacher of ‘that shadow of faith which even devils may have’. The logic is clear. Demons are not atheists but rather have religious ‘doctrines’ (1 Tim 4:10), among which is monotheism, and shuddering proves their sincerity. But to no avail: τί τὸ ὄφελος Caesarius of Arles puts it this way: ‘The demons believe that God exists, but they do not perform what he commands’.

 

καί = ‘even’. Both δαιμόνιον and φρίσσω appear only here in James. The latter refers to something like fearful amazement, the traditional English rendering being ‘shudder’.²⁸⁷ Here fear must be connoted. Certainly it is fitting that demons, who instill fear in human beings, become the victims of fear before God.

 

James was not the first to link φρίσσω, which is sometimes paired with τρέμω, to the demonic. Indeed, we have here a far-flung topos; cf. 4Q510 1 (a prayer that the ravaging angels may be frightened and terrified); T. Abr. RecLng 16.3 (personified Death shudders and trembles before God, ἔφριξεν καὶ ἐτρομάξεν); T. Sol. 2.1 (τὸν δαίμονα φρίσσοντα καὶ τρέμοντα); Ps.-Ign. Phil. 3.5 (the ruler of this world ‘shudders’ [φρίττει] at the cross); Justin, Dial. 49.8 (‘before whom [that is, before Christ] the demons and all the principalities and authorities of the earth shudder [φρίσσει]’); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.24.125.1 GCS 32 ed. Stählin and Früchtel, 411 (an Orphic fragment: ‘Ruler of Ether … before whom demons shudder [φρίσσουσιν], and before whom the throng of gods fear’); Acts Phil. 132 ed. Bonnet, 63 (‘God, before whom all the aeons shudder [φρίττουσιν] … principalities and powers of the heavenly place stremble [τρέμουσιν] before you’); Lactantius, Ira 23 SC 289 ed. Ingremeau, 208 (‘the Milesian Apollo, consulted about the Jewish religion, introduced this verse into his response: “God, the king and begetter of all, before whom the earth trembles [τρομέει] … whom the depths of Tartarus and demons dread” [δαίμονες ἐρίγγασιν]’); PGM 3.226–27 (‘god’s seal, at whom all deathless gods of Olympus and demons … shudder’, φρίσσουσι … δαίμονες); 4.2541–42 (‘demons throughout the world shudder at you’, δαίμονες … φρίσσουσι), 2829–30 (δαίμονες ἣν φρίσσουσιν καὶ ἀθάνατοι τρομέουσιν); 12.118 (πᾶς δαίμων φρίσσει); 3 En. 14.2 (Schäfer, Synopse 17 = 898: Sammael fears and trembles before God); Ps.-Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ed. Budge, fol. 2a (Death personified is greatly afraid and trembles and shakes before the triumphant Jesus). James was, however, evidently the first to associate this motif with the ‘faith’ of demons, an effective and memorable rhetorical move.

 

Although originally used of both good and bad deities, δαιμόνιον came, in post-exilic Judaism, to refer to malevolent spirits closely associated with Satan. James’ audience was presumably familiar with a large body of lore surrounding them. They were often identified with pagan gods (LXX Deut 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20); held to inflict disease (Sib. Or. 3.331; Mt 12:22); understood as sources of temptation and vice (T. Jud. 23.1); reported to indwell or possess unfortunate human beings (Mk 5:9; 9:26); and said to have issued from the mating of the sons of God with human women (Gen 6:1–4; 1 En. 6–21). But all that matters here is the notion that they, although corrupt, nonetheless recognize the ultimate power in the universe.

 

Why the demons are afraid of the one God goes unsaid. Commentators often assume that they know God will destroy or punish them in the latter days. But that may read too much into the text. Perhaps we have something here like the magic of powerful names: evil cannot tolerate the presence or name or even thought of the divinity; cf. Josephus, Bell. 5.438 (τὸ φρικτόν … ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ); PGM 36.261 (τῶν μεγάλων καὶ φικτρῶν ὀνομάτων ὧν οἱ ἄνεμοι φρίζουσιν); Apost.Const. 2.22.12 ed. Funk, 87 (ὀνόματί σου, ὃν πάντα φρίσσει καί τρέμει); PLond. 46.80–81 (τὸ μέγα ὄνομα … ὅν … πᾶς δαίμων φρίσσει).

 

Ecclesiastical interpreters have often expounded our verse and those surrounding it by associating it or them with the empty confession of Mt 7:21 = Lk 6:46. Bare brain belief comes to naught. (Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle of James [International Critical Commentary; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013], 476-78)

 

David Lincicum on the Christology on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Use of LXX Isaiah 45:1

  

Christology

 

At one point, Barnabas criticizes the view that Jesus might be the son of man or the son of David, the former title important to all the New Testament Gospels, the latter for the Synoptics in particular. In 12.8-10, Barnabas develops a contrast between Jesus (i.e., the Septuagint’s rendering of Joshua) the son of Nun, and Jesus the Son of God. He wants to distinguish the two and, although committed to the view that Jesus was “in the flesh” (εν σαρκι, en sarkí), Barnabas nevertheless emphasizes the fundamental difference between the two: “Observe again that it is Jesus, not a son of man but the Son of God [ουχι υιος ανθρωπου αλλα υιος του θεου, ouchi huios anthrōpou alla huios tou theou].” Rather than a straightforward critique of the title, derived from Daniel 7, that we find in the New Testament, this seems to be a focused contrast to highlight the divinity of Jesus, though it skirts worryingly close to certain forms of Docetism as a bare assertion.

 

Immediately after this, Barnabas goes on to write against an unnamed group of opponents who “say that the Messiah is the Son of David.” To refute this assertion, Barnabas cites Psalm 110:1 [109:1 LXX] (the same text cited in Mark 12:35-37 parr.) and a variant text of Isaiah 45:1, “The Lord said to the Messiah my Lord . . .” (κυριω, kyriō, rather than Κυρω, Kyrō, that is, to Cyrus). He concludes, “Observe how Daid calls him ‘Lord,’ and does not call him ‘son’” (Barn. 12.11). Barnabas seems to evince an anxiety about Jewish messianic conceptions that might not endorse the divinity of the Messiah, and so he denies a title that the Gospels seem at most to qualify. While it is not clear that Barnabas knows the text of Ps 110 [109 LXX] directly through the Synoptic usage of it, and so we cannot be seen to oppose the Christology of the Synoptics in particular, the text demonstrates a worry that is cognate to Barnabas’s general unease with Jewish tradition. (David Lincicum, “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 150-51)

 

In the Göttingen text of Isaiah, we find the following note from the editor concerning the use of Isa 45:1 in the Epistle of Barnabas:

 

Einige innergriechische Verderbnisse sind wichtig für die altchristliche Exegese geworden. 45:1 lag es nahe, Κύρῳ neben τῷ χριστῷ μου im messianischen Sinne in κυριω umzudeuten. Die Hss. lesen alle Κύρῳ; aber bereits im Barnabasbrief XII 11 steht κυριω, so daß diese Stelle neben Ps. 109:1 als messianische Prophezeiung verwendet werden konnte. So haben auch die alten lateinischen Väter (siehe App.) 45:1 als Weissagungsbeweis verwertet. Dagegen nimmt Hieronymus in seinem Is.-Kommentar zu 45:1 Stellung: „Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …“ (Migne PL 24, 440sq.). Als weitere Stelle ist 58:8 zu nennen, wo verschiedene Minuskeln ιματια statt des richtigen ἰάματα lesen. Die Lesart ιματια bietet bereits der Barnabasbrief III 4 und Justin, Dial. XV; auch Clemens von Alexandrien hat ιματια gelesen (Stählin hat zu Unrecht in seine Ausgabe I 285₁₅ ἰάματα aufgenommen; denn der beste Zeuge, die Apologetenhs. des Arethas = P, hat als ursprüngliche Lesart ιματια). In der lateinischen Väterliteratur erscheint dann häufig die falsche Lesart vestimenta; an der Spitze steht Tertullian, der in seiner Schrift De Carnis Resurrectione 27 diese Stelle als Beweis für die Auferstehung des Fleisches verwendet: „Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare“ (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Auch hier zeigt sich wiederum Hieronymus als gesunder Textkritiker, der diesen dogmatischen Beweis ablehnt: „Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur“ (Migne PL 24, 568)¹).

 

Die innerlateinischen Verderbnisse lassen sich gewöhnlich leicht auf Grund der griechischen Lesart erklären, so 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Hier seien einige innerlateinische Verderbnisse angeführt, die in den einzelnen neueren Ausgaben nicht erkannt und notiert worden sind. (Isaias, ed. Joseph Ziegler [Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 100)

 

 

Some internal Greek corruptions became important for early Christian exegesis. At 45:1 it was natural to reinterpret Κύρῳ alongside τῷ χριστῷ μου in a messianic sense as κυρίῳ. The MSS all read Κύρῳ; but already in the Epistle of Barnabas XII.11 it stands as κυριω, so that this passage, together with Ps. 109:1, could be used as a messianic prophecy. In the same way the early Latin Fathers (see App.) also exploited 45:1 as proof of prophecy. By contrast, Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah takes a different view of 45:1: “Scio in hoc capitulo non solum Latinorum, sed Graecorum plurimos vehementer errare, existimantium scriptum esse: Sic dicit Dominus Christo meo, Domino … Neque enim κυρίῳ, quod Dominum sonat, sed Cyro dicitur, qui Hebraice appellatur CHORES …” (Migne PL 24, 440 sq.).

 

Another passage to be mentioned is 58:8, where various minuscules read ιματια instead of the correct ἰάματα. The reading ιματια is already attested in the Epistle of Barnabas III.4 and in Justin, Dial. XV; Clement of Alexandria also read ιματια (Stählin wrongly included ἰάματα in his edition I 28515; for the best witness, the apologetic manuscript of Arethas = P, has as its original reading ιματια). In the literature of the Latin Fathers the erroneous reading vestimenta then frequently appears; foremost among them is Tertullian, who in his work De Carnis Resurrectione 27 uses this passage as proof for the resurrection of the flesh: “Habemus etiam vestimentorum in scripturis mentionem ad spem carnis allegorizare” (ed. Kroymann p. 64). Here again Jerome appears as a sound textual critic who rejects this dogmatic proof: “Pro eo quod Septuaginta transtulerunt τὰ ἰάματά σου, id est, sanitates tuae, Latini interpretes ducti nominis similitudine, ἱμάτια, id est, vestimenta posuerunt. Unde multi translationis falsitate decepti ad resurrectionem corporis comprobandam hoc utuntur testimonio, quo scilicet vestimentum animae corpus accipi velint, quod in die resurrectionis oriatur.” (Migne PL 24, 568)¹)

 

The internal Latin corruptions can usually be explained easily on the basis of the Greek reading, for example 29:3 sicut avis Wirc. = sicut david. Here are some internal Latin corruptions that have not been recognized and noted in some of the more recent editions.

 

 

Brian J. Arnold on Redemptive Almsgiving in the Apostolic Fathers

  

Redemptive Almsgiving

 

Redemptive almsgiving would answer the question of atonement for sins committed after baptism, though, in each instance in the Apostolic Fathers, it is said nearly in passing. Redemptive almsgiving appears in 2 Clement, Didache, Polycarp’s To the Philippians, and Barnabas. In 2 Clement, “Almsgiving is better than both prayer and fasting, for it covers a multitude of sins” (2 Clem. 16.4). The Didachist gives a veiled Ference: “If you earn something by working with your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins” (Did. 4.6). Barnabas suggests that you “work with your hands for a ransom for your sins” (Barn. 19.10). And for Polycarp, “giving charity . . . can deliver one from death” (Pol. Phil. 10.2). Although the doctrine is never developed in these writings, the seeds were planted for how to deal with post-baptismal sin that would blossom as time went on. (Brian J. Arnold, “Soteriology in the Apostolic Fathers,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2025], 343)

 

Travel & Debate Fund for April

For those who know, I hope to be in Utah in April for something big. While I wait on the ESTA and other issues to be confirmed, I have set up a travel fund for those who wish to pitch in:

Travel & Debate Fund

One can also donate via:

Paypal

Venmo