Personal Reflections: A Dozen Interesting Reads (Listens) in 2024

 

Personal Reflections: A Dozen or So Interesting Reads (Listens) in 2024

Though I prefer old-fashioned reading of a book to listening I did break down and subscribe to Audible last year and this helped me get back on track for meeting my annual reading goals. I’ve recorded something similar the last couple years (2021, 2022, 2023). Here is a dozen or so highlights from 2024 (in no particular order):

1.    Keith Underhill, Planted by the Providence of God (Broken Wharfe, 2023).

This is three books in one: A memoir of Underhill, a pioneer RB missionary in Kenya; a history of the RB movement in Kenya; and a manual on church planting. Underhill shares transparently and forthrightly about time of peace and conflict, highs and lows, over decades of cross-cultural ministry. I’ve written an extended review which I hope will be published in 2025.

2.    Ibrahim Ag Mohamed, God’s Love for Muslims: Communicating Bible Grace and New Life (Metropolitan Tabernacle, 2015, 2016).

This brief, clearly written booklet is the best and most accessible resource I have found on Christian understanding of and ministry to Muslims.

3.    Hercules Collins, An Orthodox Catechism: Being the Sum of Christian Religion Contained in the Law and Gospel (PBHB, 2020).

Collins was an English Particular Baptist Pastor who penned this Baptistic version of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1680. I used this beautiful hardback edition with KJV Proofs, along with the paperback edition published by RBAP in 2014, as a supplement as I preached through the Heidelberg Catechism at CRBC in 2024.

4.    P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938).

Finally got to read this year this influential little book, which argues that the Fourth Gospel does not demonstrate any knowledge of or dependence upon the so-called Synoptic Gospels. I totally disagree with the thesis.

5.    Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Seputagint, Second Edition (Baker Academic, 2000, 2015).

I was greatly helped by reading this introduction to the status questionis in modern Septuagintal studies, in preparation for the 2024 Reformation Bible Society conference on “The Reformation Text and the Septuagint.” I was also helped by reading Edmund Gallagher’s Translation of the Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint (Abilene Christian University Press, 2021).

6.    John T. McNeil, The Celtic Churches: A History, A.D. 200 to 1200 (University of Chicago Press, 1974).

I started reading this in preparation for a trip to Cornwall and a desire to understand better my own Celtic roots. Solid and intriguing history of Celtic Christianity from Brittany to Cornwall to Wales to Ireland and Scotland. This also sent me on a listening spree, including Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization (Anchor, 1996); Jim Webb, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (Crown, 2005); and J. D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy (Harper Collins, 2026), as well as reading Janet Backhouse, The Lindisfarne Gospel (The British Library, 2000).

7.    Pierre Viret, A Simple Exposition of the Christian Faith (Zurich Publications, 2013, 2017).

I appreciated this devotional instrument of discipleship, under the guise of a dialogue or conversation between two men, Matthew and Peter, originally written in French by Viret, the Reformer of Lausanne. I also enjoyed learning more about the author by reading Jean-Marc Berthoud, Pierre Viret: A Forgotten Giant of the Reformation (Zurich Publications, 2010).

8.    Nicholas P. Lunn, The Gospels Through Old Testament Eyes: Exploring Extended Allusions (Apollos/IVP Academic, 2023).

This book is a creative and fascinating study not of direct quotations or citations but allusions to OT passages and backgrounds in the canonical Gospels. It brought to light various connections I had not previously seen. I plan to write a review of this book, DV, in 2025.

9.    Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Eermans, 2002); and David J. Engelsma, Common Grace Revisited: A Response to Richard J. Mouw’s He Shines in All That’s Fair (RFPA, 2003).

I picked up both these slim volumes for a song at the used section of the Baker bookstore while I was in Grand Rapids in November and got started reading them on the plane ride home. This is an old controversy among the Dutch Reformed that resulted in a cordial public debate between the two men, attended by thousands in Grand Rapids, in the early 2000s regarding “common grace.” Engelsma carries the day in this pamphlet war, IMHO.

10.                        Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death (Baker Academic, 2021).

There are not too many academic NT books available on Audible. I found this one to be a stimulating listen and now must get the book to read. Thiessen challenges conventional readings of “ritual purity” in contemporary NT scholarship. I did not always agree with him but especially want to chase down his sources suggesting that Biblical leprosy (lepra) is not the same as Hansen’s disease.

11.                       Nicholas Orme, The History of England’s Cathedrals (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2017).

I ordered this after my visit to Salisbury Cathedral in October. Not just a history of Cathedrals but really a history of Christianity in England. Of late I’ve also gotten interested in reading about Anglicanism. I’ve gotten a couple works underway but did finish last year Arthur Middleton, Reforming the Anglican Mind (Gracewing, 2008), as well as the somewhat related work, Brad Littlejohn and Chris Castaldo, Why Do Protestants Convert? (Davenant Press, 2023).

12.                       Stephen J. Nichols, R. C. Sproul: A Life (Crossway, 2021).

This was one of my beach reads on summer vacation last year. It was easy to read, full of anecdotes. Enjoyed especially the inside account of Sproul’s work in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I had a harder time getting through Collin Hanson, Timothy Keller: His Spiritual Life and Intellectual Formation, 2023). At the start of the year, I finished Allen C. Guelzo, Robert E. Lee: A Life (Knopf, 2021) and had an animated discussion at a wedding reception with a friend who is also (like Guelzo) a Christian and a Lincoln scholar about the book’s presentation of Lee.

“when thou comest, bring with thee… the books” (2 Timothy 4:13).

JTR

The Vision (11.10.23): The Line of Cain or the Line of Seth?

 

Image: Lamech, Mosaic, 12th-13th century, Monreale, Sicily.

Note: Devotional based on last Sunday's sermon on Genesis 4:16-26.

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch (Genesis 4:17).

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of the LORD (Genesis 4:26).

In Genesis 4, two distinct lines are traced. One is the line of Cain (vv. 16-24), who was “of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12), and the other is the line of Seth (vv. 25-26).

We are left to ponder: Are we part of the line of Cain or the line of Seth? Do we take the broad way to destruction or the narrow way to life (Matthew 7:13-14)?

Will we build our city (our empire), as did Cain (v. 17) trying to make a name or leave a legacy for ourselves?

Will we lead a life with only secular strivings, as did those in Cain’s line, even if we do become skilled at amassing cattle, making music, or becoming a skilled artisan (vv. 19-22), but doing it all apart from any relationship with Christ?

Will we only be able to give our children a material inheritance when we leave this earth, or will we leave them something more?

Will we cast aside the original good design of God, as Cain’s descendent Lamech did when he took two wives (v. 19; contra Genesis 2:24)?

Will we live to have men fear us, as did Lamech (v. 24), vowing to pay back any slight with seventy-seven times the force, breathing out threats, and boasting, living by the creed, “Mess with the best and get burned like the rest”?

Or will we go the way of Seth and be weak and humble before the LORD, asking him to remember that we are but dust.

Will we call upon the name of the LORD (v. 26), seeing the worship of God as the true end of man, and will we pass this truth on to our children and grandchildren?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.3-4: Genealogies

 

Image: Saint Augustine Basilica overlooking the ruins of Hippo Regius.

This is a series of readings from and notes and commentary upon Augustine of Hippo’s Harmony of the Evangelists.

In this episode we are looking at Book 2, chapter 3-4 where Augustine addresses both supposed conflicts between and among the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

2.3: A statement of the reason why Matthew enumerates one succession of ancestors for Christ, and Luke another.

Augustine begins by noting in particular a difference between Matthew and Luke in the line between David and Joseph in the two genealogies. They follow different directions with Matthew offering a series “beginning with David and traveling downwards to Joseph,” and Luke, on the other hand, having “a different succession, ”tracing it from Joseph upwards….” The main source of the difference, however, is in the order between Joseph and David and the fact that Joseph is listed as having two different fathers. Augustine explains that one of these was Joseph’s natural father by whom he was physically begotten (Jacob, in Matthew), and the other was his adopted father (Heli, in Luke). Both of these lines led to David.

Augustine further notes that adoption was an ancient custom. Though terms like “to beget” generally indicate natural fatherhood, Augustine notes that natural terms can also be used metaphorically, so Christians can speak of being begotten by God (e.g., cf. John 1:12-13: “to them he gave power to become the sons of God”). Augustine thus concludes, “It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted.” Nevertheless, he sees significance in the fact that Matthew says “Jacob begat Joseph” (Matthew 1:16; indicating he was the natural father) and Luke says, “Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23; indicating he was the adopted father of Joseph). Those unwilling to seek harmonizing explanations of such texts “prefer contention to consideration.”

2.4: Of the reason why forty generations (not including Christ Himself) are found in Matthew, although he divides them into three successions of fourteen each.

Augustine begins by noting that consideration of this matter requires a reader “of the greatest attention and carefulness.” Matthew who stresses the kingly character of Christ lists forty names in his genealogy. The number forty is of obvious spiritual significance in the Bible. Moses and Elijah each fasted for forty days, as did Christ himself in his temptation. After his resurrection, Christ also appeared to his disciples for forty days. He sees numerological significance in the fact that forty is four time ten. There are four directions (North, South, East, and West) and ten is the sum of the first four numbers.

Matthew intentionally desires to list forty generations, but he also suggests three successive eras (Abraham to David; David to Babylonian exile; Babylonian exile to Christ). This would be fourteen generations each for a total of forty-two, but Matthew, Augustine suggests, offers a double enumeration of Jechonias, making it “a kind of corner” and excluding it from the overall count, resulting then in the more spiritually significant number forty.

Augustine suggests that Matthew’s genealogy stresses Christ taking our sins upon himself, while Luke, who focuses on Christ as a Priest, stresses “the abolition of our sins.” He sees significance in Matthew’s line from David through Solomon by Bathsheba, acknowledging David’s sin, while Luke’s line flows from David through Nathan, whom Augustine erroneously ties to the prophet Nathan, by whose confrontation with David, God took away sin.

He also sees numerological significance in the fact that Luke’s genealogy includes seventy-seven persons (counting Christ and God himself). He sees the number seventy-seven as referring to “the purging of all sin.” Eleven breaks the perfect number ten, and it was the number of curtains of haircloth in the temple (Exodus 26:7). Seven is the number of days in the week. Seventy-seven is the product of eleven times seven, and so it is “the sign of sin in its totality.”

Conclusion:

The harmonization of the genealogies has been a perennial issue in Gospel studies from the earliest days of Christianity (see Eusebius’ citation of Africanus in his EH). Augustine maintains the continuity and unity of both Gospel genealogies while also noting the uniqueness of each individual Gospel account. In both genealogies Augustine offers pre-critical insight into the intentional use of spiritually significant numbers (forty in Matthew; seventy-seven in Luke) to heighten what he sees as the theological perspectives and intentions of the Evangelists.

JTR

Addendum:

Here's a chart showing Augustine's breakdown of the genealogy in Matt 1:1-17 which yields 40 names according to his calculation. He excludes in his scheme Jechonias as "a kind of corner" and Jesus Christ as "the kingly president" over the whole.

Hippolytus of Rome: On the Twelve Apostles & On the Seventy Disciples

 

Notes:

This is a reading of two short annotated lists that are among the literary remains of an early Christian writer name Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236). The two briefly annotated lists are of the twelve apostles and then of the Seventy Disciples sent out by Christ (cf. Luke 10:1-20).

First, a brief biography of Hippolytus of Rome. I am making use here of the entry on Hippolytus from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.

He is described there an ecclesiastical writer and Doctor (teacher) of the church.

He is called “the most important 3^rd cen. theologian of the Roman Church.”

Little is known of his early life, though there is a questionable anecdote from Photius suggesting he was a disciple of Irenaeus of Lyons (so we could trace a line from Hippolytus to Irenaeus to Polycarp to the apostle John). He was not far removed from the time of the apostles.

An indication of his esteem includes the fact that when the celebrated Origen visited Rome in c. 212 he is said to have attended Hippolytus’s sermons.

He is said later to have come into conflict with some of the bishops of Rome, but was later reconciled and died as a martyr.

In 1551 a statue of Hippolytus was discovered in Rome that included a list of his many writings, most of which have not survived. His principal work, “Refutation of All Heresies,” exists only in part. Other works include a commentary on Daniel and on the Song of Songs, as well as a manual on church order, “The Apostolic Tradition.”

The two documents we will be reading may be found in the translation by J.H. MacMahon. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.). Found online here.

On the Twelve Apostles

On the Seventy Disciples

JTR

WM 169: Who Wrote the Epistle of James?

In WM 169 I explore the question of who wrote the epistle of James, in connection with my commencement of a new sermon series through James on Lord’s Day mornings at CRBC. Last Sunday I preached the first message in the series on James 1:1-4 (listen here).

In that introductory message I necessarily spent some time teaching on the question of authorship. In v. 1a the author is identified: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ….”

“James” is the anglicized form of the Hebrew name Jacob.

He describes himself as a “servant [doulos, slave] of God” and a servant/slave of “of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But the problem is, Who is this James?

The Gospels tell us that that there were two disciples of the twelve apostles who were named James (see the lists of the twelve in Matt 10; Mark 3; and Luke 6; cf. Acts 1).

The first was James, the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. He was one of the closest friends and companions to the Lord Jesus, along with Peter and John. This James is sometimes called James the Major or Greater.

The second was a disciple named James the son of Alphaeus, who is mentioned much less frequently in the Gospels, and has sometimes been called James the Minor or Lesser.

In addition, however, there is mention made in the Gospels of one who was a brother of Jesus named James (see Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”).

It is sometimes suggested that this was a third James, the brother of the Lord. It was said of some early writers that he has been among the seventy sent out by Christ (Luke 10) and that he was sometimes called Oblias and “James the Just.” It was he, they suggest, who is the James became the leader of the early church in Jerusalem, who stood up to speak in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13).

I might add that there is what we could call a fourth James, the brother (or father?) of the apostle Judas (literally “Judas of James”) (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13; this is the Judas “not Iscariot” of John 14:22). Note: For the view of this person as a "fourth" James see D. E. Hiebert, James, 27. The traditional Protestant orthodox view (reviewed below) would see this James as James the son of Alphaeus and the Judas (Jude) here as the author of Jude and the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Jude 1:1).

Which James wrote this epistle?

Here are some observations that help us make a judgement:

First, notice that the author does not identify himself as James the brother of John, or James the son of Alphaeus, or as James the brother of Jesus. He does not identify himself as an apostle but simply as a slave.

Second, we know it is not likely that the author was James the brother of John, because that James died very early on as a martyr, the first among the apostles to die for his faith, at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2).

Third, it is possible that James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of the Lord were the same person, so that there were not three prominent men among the early Christians but only two.

So, how can we say that James the son of Alphaeus was also the brother of the Lord?

The key here would be to understand the word “brother” not with the nearest sense as “sibling” but more broadly as a kinsman or “cousin.” Those who hold this view say that this James was the son of the sister of Jesus’s mother, also named Mary, the wife of Cleophas (another name for Alphaeus). See:

John 19:25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 27:56: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 15:40: There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Mark 16:1: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Luke 24:10: It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

This view that the author of James was the apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, who was also the brother (kinsman) of Christ, was held by many ancient men in the church, including Jerome (see his Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 2) and of many of the early Protestant exegetes.

The Protestant men, in particular, pointed to Galatians 1:19 where Paul wrote of his early trip to Jerusalem, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.”

Then they look to Galatians 2:9 where Paul refers to James, Cephas, and John “who seemed to be the pillars” and conclude that this James must have been an apostle, otherwise, he would not have been accepted as a “pillar” alongside Peter and John.

Here is the conclusion reached in Matthew Poole’s commentary (1685):

“It is not certain that there were three Jameses, two of them apostles and the third (called Oblias and James the Just) one of the seventy disciples; the scripture mentioning but two, one the son of Zebedee, the other of Alphaeus, called the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19), as being of kin to his family; and said to be a pillar (Gal 2:9), and joined with Peter and John. And though some have thought the James mentioned here to have been the third James, called Oblias, and one of the seventy; yet it is more probable that he was indeed no other than the son of Alphaeus, and one of the twelve; nor is it likely, that one of the disciples should be numbered as one of the three pillars, and therein preferred above so many apostles. This James, therefore, upon the whole, I take to be the penman of this Epistle….”

Thomas Manton in his commentary on James (1693):

“For indeed there were but two Jameses, this latter James being the same with him of  Alphaeus; for plainly the brother of the Lord is reckoned among the apostles (Gal 1:19); and called a pillar (Gal 2:9); and he is  called the brother of the Lord, because he was in that family to which Christ was numbered…. Well then, there being two, to which of these is the epistle ascribed? ….Well, then, James the Less is the person whom we have found to be the instrument which the Spirit of God made use of to convey this treasure to the church” (12-13).

And Matthew Henry’s commentary (expanded upon and published after his death in 1714):

“The writer of this epistle was not James the son of Zebedee; for he was put to death by Herod (Acts 12) before Christianity had gained so much ground among the Jews of the dispersion as is here implied. But it was the other James, the son of Alphaeus, who was cousin-german to Christ, and one of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3). He is called a pillar (Gal 2:9), and this epistle of his cannot be disputed, without loosening a foundation stone.”

I must note, however, that in John Calvin’s commentary on James of 1551 he concluded that whether James was written by James the son of Alphaeus or another James who was “the rule of the church at Jerusalem,” “it is not for me to say.” He prefaced this conclusion by saying, “It is enough for men to receive this Epistle, that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ.”

Though Manton is much firmer in his convictions that James the son of Alphaeus and “brother of the Lord” is author, he nevertheless refers to the human author as “the subordinate author or instrument.” His point being that whoever wrote it, whether an apostle or not, the true author was the Lord himself by his Holy Spirit.

This consensus of the Protestant orthodox appears out of step with the view of most contemporary Protestant evangelicals who see the author of James as the “third” James, not James the son of Alphaeus, but James of Jerusalem.

Here, for example, is the discussion of authorship from the introduction to James in the MacArthur Study Bible: “Of the 4 men named James in the NT, only two are candidates for authorship of this epistle. No one has seriously considered James, the Less, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3; Acts 1:13), or James the father of Judas, not Iscariot (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Some have suggested James the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Matt. 4:21), but he was martyred too early to have written it (Acts 12:2). That leaves only James, the oldest half-brother of Christ (Mark 6:3) and brother of Jude (Matt. 13:55), who also wrote the epistle that bears his name (Jude 1)” (1924).

The Introduction to the ESV Study Bible also makes this assumption and makes no mention of the possibility that the author was the apostle James, son of Alphaeus: “The title of this book derives from the name of its author, James the Just (as he was called), the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55) and leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15)” (2387).

The older Protestant men seemed more intent to settle James as an apostolic work (written by an apostle: James of Alphaeus). They were not apparently troubled by suggesting that James was not a sibling of Christ but a kinsman, nor did they attempt to defend the proposition that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.

Modern Protestants and evangelicals seem to rush past the idea of James as directly apostolic, in favor of the suggestion that the letter was written by one who was not an apostle (James the Just).

Though ultimately in agreement with Manton that the most important thing is the fact that God himself is the primary author and that the human author is only “subordinate,” at this point I am persuaded by Poole, Manton, and Henry that James the son of Alphaeus is the likely author.

Addendum: At the close I noted the commentaries I am reading as I preach through James: two older (pre-critical) works: Calvin and Manton, and one contemporary work by Edmund J. Hiebert. For Hiebert’s intriguing bio on theopedia, look here.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.1-2: From Decius to Gallus & the Death of Origen

Image: Bronze statue of Trebonianus Gallus who lived from 206-253, and ruled as emperor from 251-253. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapters 1-2. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These opening chapters describe transitions that began to take place after the Decian persecution. Book seven begins with a preface in which Eusebius tells the reader he will continue to draw the writings of Dionysius as he conveys his narrative.

Chapter one begins by describing the murder of the emperor Decius and his sons and the rise of Gallus.

It also gives a brief note on the death of Origen, who had been the focus of so much attention in Book 6. Origen is said to have died at age 69 (“seventy save one”). Oulton points out in the note that the date here is vague, since Origen apparently died later in 255, during the reign of Valerian (who ruled from 253-260).

Citing a letter of Dionysius to a certain Hermammon, Gallus is described as little better than Decius in that he rebuffed even the prayers of the Christians on his behalf.

Chapter two shifts from the emperors to the bishops. In Rome Cornelius was succeeded by Lucius, who died after only eight months in office, to be succeeded by Stephen.

It is noted that Dionysius had written the first of his letters to Stephen on baptism, in response to another controversy that arose after the Decian persecution and Novatian controversy, in that some were saying that the lapsed and those who had fallen into heresy had to be (re)baptized, while others said they could be restored only by prayer and the laying on of hands.

Conclusion:

These brief chapters set the stage for Book 7 and its description of Christian life following the Decian persecution. How to handle the restoration of the lapsed and heretics continues to be a major problem, as the Novation controversy was followed (or accompanied by) a baptismal controversy.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.6.16-17: Origen's Hexapla

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 6, chapters 16-17. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters discuss perhaps Origen’s most celebrated work, the Hexapla.

Chapter 16 notes how Origen learned the Hebrew language and collected editions and translations of the Hebrew Bible, including that of the Septuagint (the “Seventy”), Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian.

This was his celebrate Hexapla. Oulton notes that is was arranged in six columns: (1) the Hebrew; (2) a transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotian.

Eusebius says that in the Psalms of this edition three other Greek translations were added (a fifth, sixth, and seventh).

He also produced an edition that only held the main four Greek translations, called the Tetrapla.

Chapter 17 provides further details about Symmachus. He is described as part of the Ebionite heresy. The Ebionites denied the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus, as well as advocating the strict keeping of the Jewish law. Eusebius says that Symmachus’ memoirs were extant and in his writings he opposed the Gospel of Matthew. He adds that Origen had gotten his material by Symmachus from a woman named Juliana.

Conclusion:

Origen’s Hexapla was indeed a key work in the history of early Christianity. Its production reflected and influenced the centrality of Hebrew as the authoritative original language text for the Old Testament, by which Greek translation of it were to be measured. This would, in turn, influence Jerome in his translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, and this view would eventually influence the Protestant Reformers who saw Hebrew as the immediately inspired language for the Old Testament.

JTR

Book Note: Gregory of Nyssa's The Life of Moses: Part 2 of 4

More from Gregory of Nyssa’s The Life of Moses:

Gregory sees the death of the firstborn in Egypt as teaching “when through virtue one comes to grips with any evil, he must completely destroy the first beginnings of evil” (57).

Here he draws on Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5 on anger/murder and lust/adultery, noting Christ here commands us “to abolish lust and anger and to have no more fear of the stain of adultery or the guilt of murder” (57). He adds: “Take for an example a snake: when one crushes his head, he kills the rest of the body at the same time” (57).

He sees the soul as divided into “the rational, the appetitive, and the spirited” (58; cf. 66).

Gregory’s allegorical style is on full display in his description of the departure from Egypt:

The thorns of this life are sins; the shoes “the self-controlled and austere life”; the tunic “the full enjoyment and pursuits of this life”; the belt “reason” and “prudence”; the staff “the message of hope”; the food “warm and fervent faith”; etc.

Gregory’s method: “The loftier meaning is therefore more fitting than the obvious one” (63).

On the crossing of the Red Sea: The army of Egypt represents “the passions of the soul”; the stone from the sling, “reviling”; the spear point, “the spirited impulse”; the horses, “the passion for pleasures”; etc.

The meaning: “Since the passions naturally pursue our nature, we must put to death in the water both the base movements of the mind and the acts which issue from them” (67).

In baptism one drowns “the whole Egyptian person” and emerges alone “dragging nothing foreign in our subsequent life” (67). Those who receive baptism in ignorance, “bring along the Egyptian army, which still lives with them in their doings” (68).

“For uncontrolled passion is a fierce and raging master to the servile reasoning” (68).

If there are negative allegories in Gregory, there are also positive. The wood placed in the bitter water to make it sweet represents the cross. To throw the wood in the water is to receive “the mystery of the resurrection” which begins with the wood. Gregory adds as an aside: “(you of course understand ‘the cross’ when you hear ‘wood’)” (69).

The springs in the wilderness are the twelve disciples and the seventy date palms, the other appointed apostles. The campsite are the virtues.

Before taking the manna, one has to empty “the sack of his soul of all evil nourishment prepared by the Egyptians” (71).

When Moses held his hands aloft, it signified “the contemplation of the law with lofty insights” but when he let his hands hang to earth it meant “the lowly literal exposition and observance of the Law” (75).

“He who would approach the knowledge of things sublime must first purify his manner of life from all sensual and irrational emotion” (78).

The tabernacle is Christ. The skin dyed red used to decorate the tabernacle represent the mortification of sinful flesh and “the ascetic way of life” (89). “This teaches that grace, which flourishes through the Spirit, is not found in men unless they first make themselves dead to sin” (89).

The priestly vestments represent the virtuous adornments of the soul. The golden bells are “the brilliance of good works” (91).

The “philosophical life” may be “outwardly austere and unpleasant”, yet it is “full of good hopes when it ripens” (92).

“The head adorned with the diadem signifies the crown reserved for those who have lived well” (94).

To be continued…

Eusebius, EH.5.8: Irenaeus on the Canon of the NT and the Septuagint

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Here is Book 5, chapter 8. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In this chapter Eusebius discusses Irenaeus’s comments on the canon of Christian Scripture.

First, he cites Irenaeus’s description of the four Gospels and their Evangelists:

Matthew is described as a “written” Gospel, first published among the Jews in their own language. This reinforces the traditional view that Matthew was first written for a Jewish audience.

Mark is described as “the disciple and interpreter (herméneutés) of Peter.”

Luke was a “follower of Paul” and conveyed Paul’s understanding of the gospel.

John was disciple of the Lord and the one who rested on his breast (thus the “beloved” disciple), who later lived at Ephesus.

Next, he cites Irenaeus’s reference to Revelation and the number of the Antichrist (Rev 13:18). Irenaeus noted that the proper number (presumably 666) is found in all the “good and ancient copies [antigraphoi].”

Reference is also made to Irenaeus’s citation of 1 John and 1 Peter.

Next, however, Eusebius notes that Irenaeus held some non-canonical books to be “Scripture.” This included the Shepherd of Hermas and perhaps the Wisdom of Solomon.

Eusebius also notes that Irenaeus cited the Apostolic Fathers Justin Martyr and Ignatius, and he mentions that Irenaeus “promised” to refute Marcion.

Finally, Eusebius discusses Irenaeus’s treatment of the Greek OT. He makes references to conflict over the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14, noting that rather than “virgin [parthenos]”, some translators (Theodotian and Aquila) used “young woman [neanis]”, a rendering preferred by the Ebionites, who denied the deity of Christ.

Eusebius then relays Irenaeus’s account of the legend of the origins of the Septuagint, as produced by seventy Jewish scholars for the library at Alexandria by Ptolemy.

He closes by noting Irenaeus’s statement that it was little wonder for the Lord to so inspire Scripture, since he had also inspired Ezra the priest to restore the Scriptures after the time of the Babylonian exile.

Conclusion:

This chapter continues Eusebius’s periodic interest in the EH of giving accounts of how the canon of Scripture came to be recognized by the early church (cf. earlier descriptions of Papias of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis). According to Eusebius, Irenaeus acknowledged, most importantly, the Gospels, as well as Revelation, 1 Peter, and 1 Joh, but no mention is made of the rest of the canonical books of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), and it is noted that he also accepted non-canonical works (at least the Shepherd). This emphasizes the fact that the canon was only slowly recognized among early Christians This account also stresses the value of the Septuagint among some early believers as the preferred translation of the Greek OT.

JTR

Eusebius. EH.1.13: Thaddaeus & King Abgar

Image: Icon of King Abgar, tenth century, St. Catherine's Monastery, Mt. Sinai. Abgar is depicted holding the "Mandylion" or "Image of Edessa," a piece of cloth upon which supposedly the face of Christ appeared.

I have another installment to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 1, chapter 13: Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In this chapter Eusebius relays a tradition about the ministry of Thaddaeus [described in EH 1.12 as one of the seventy apostles of Luke 10, rather than one of the twelve as in Matthew 10:3]. This ministry involves taking the gospel to King Abgar, “the celebrated monarch of the nations beyond the Euphrates.”

Eusebius claims to have taken this information from Syriac documents taken from the archives of Edessa.

They include a letter sent by Abgar to Jesus asking him for healing, through the courier Ananias and a reply letter from Jesus by the same courier in which he promised to send to Abgar one of his disciples after he is “taken up.” This material is clearly legendary, though Eusebius accepts it as authentic. If authentic it would be the only extant written material from Jesus.

It also includes a report that after Christ’s ascension, Judas/Thomas sent Thaddaeus to Abgar. Thaddaeus heals Abgar and other of this subjects and preaches to them. The report ends by saying this happened in the 340^th year. A note from Lake explains this means the 340^th year of the Edessene era, which began in 310 BC, and which would date Thaddaeus’s mission as taking place in AD 30.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.1.12: The Seventy

Image: Icon of the "Seventy Apostles."

A new installment has been posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 1, chapter 12 (Listen here).

Notes and Commentary:

Eusebius here discusses the “Seventy” who were sent out by Jesus, as recorded in Luke 10:1-20 (see vv. 1, 17).

Note: Eusebius is a witness for the traditional text reading of “seventy” (alongside Aleph, A, and W). Some modern translation, like the ESV and NIV, (following p75 and Vaticanus) read “seventy-two.” For my analysis of the text critical issues involved here, see this blog post.

Eusebius says there are no extant lists of the seventy, but suggests they included Barnabas, Sosthenes, “Cephas” (though according to Clement, not the Cephas [Peter] of Galatians 2:11), Matthias (who replaced Judas), and Thaddeus.

He then suggests Jesus has many other disciples, noting Paul’s reference to the more than five hundred brethren who saw the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:6.

Of 1 Corinthians 15:7: “After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.”, he takes James as a reference to “one of the alleged brethren of the Lord.” He also assumes there were “numberless apostles, on the model of the twelve.” Here he takes “apostle” broadly, as in Acts 14:4, 14 (Barnabas and Paul), 2 Corinthians 8:23 (Titus), and Philippians 2:25 (Epaphroditus).

Later church traditions did, in fact provide a more extensive list of these disciples or apostles (see the Wikipedia article on “The Seventy Disciples”).

JTR