Davide's Notes

Greek

Notes

9:33

• διελογίζεσθε, note that the use of the imperfect tense continues, as if to underline the iterative process: on the one hand Jesus who was talking about the passion, and by contrast the disciples who were discussing much more trivial things, namely who was the greatest among them.

9:34

• εσιωπων, impf. ind. act. from σιωπαω, "I am unable to speak". This verb often denotes involuntary ability to speak; better to translate here "I am silent".
• διελεχθησαν, aor. dep. ind. from διαλεγομαι, "I discuss". The aorist here is to be interpreted as a pluperfect.

9:36

• εναγκαλισαμενος, aor. part. dep. from εναγκαλιζομαι, "I take up in arms".

9:37

• ος αν, "whoever". αν is often used to mark a statement as indefinite.
  
• δεξηται, aor. subj. dep. from δεχομαι, "I receive". The following δεχηται is present subj. (dep.) Interesting the use of the aor. in the first part (introduced by ος αν), and of the pres. in the second part (also introduced by ος αν). Progressive/iterative present? (keeps on receiving me)
• αποστειλαντα, part. aor. act. from αποστελλω, "I send".

9:38

• εκωλυομεν, impf. ind. act. from κωλυω, "I forbid". Another imperfect is found in the next verb, ηκολουθει, from ακολουθεω, "I follow".

9:41

• ου μη, emphatic negative future (with aorist subjunctive, απολεσῃ).

9:42

• περικειται, pres. ind. middle/dep. from περικειμαι, "I am bound with, I hang".
• βεβληται, perf. ind. pass. from βαλλω, "I throw". Interesting present followed by perfect (difficult to translate).
  

9:43

• αποκοψον, aor. imp. act. from αποκοπτω, "I cut off".

9:45

• βληθηναι, aor. infinitive pass. from βαλλω, "I throw".

9:48

• ο σκωοληξ αυτων, "their worm". A quotation from Isa 66:24. I am generally not commenting the text here, but for at least a basic understanding of these sentences one has to remember that in the valley of Hinnon (Gehenna) the refuse of the city was burned in a perpetual fire. The worms are those of the dead bodies who have refused God, cf. Isa 66:24, and who are left unburied. The Targum has "their souls shall not die", to make explicit that while the bodies may be burned, the souls will suffer forever in the unquenchable fire. In Hebrew, תולע are the worms generated in corrupting bodies.

9:49

• αλισθησεται, fut. ind. pass. from αλιζω, "I salt". Remember that fut. pass. is formed from aor. pass.

9:50

• αρτυσετε, fut. ind. act. from αρτυω, "I season".

My translation

³³They then came to Capernaum, and when Jesus was in the house he began to ask his disciples, What were you discussing along the road?
³⁴But they remained silent, because on the road they had discussed among themselves who was the greatest.
³⁵Sat down, he called the twelve, saying to them, If anyone wishes to be first, he will have to be the last of all, and servant of all.
³⁶He took a child, put him in the middle of them and, embraced him, he said:
³⁷Whoever receives one of these children in my name, receives me. And whoever receives me, does not receive me, but him, who has sent me.
³⁸John so spoke to him: Master, we saw somebody expelling daemons in your name, and we have forbidden him, because he was not following us.
³⁹Jesus said then: Forbid him not! For there is no one who shall do miraculous work in my name and that will suddenly speak evil of me.
⁴⁰In fact, he who is not against us, is with us.
⁴¹For whoever gives you to drink a cup of water in [my] name because you belong to Christ, Amen, I say to you, he will certainly not lose his reward.
⁴²But whoever scandalizes one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him if he hangs himself a large millstone around his neck, and if he had been thrown into the sea.
⁴³And if your hand scandalizes you, cut it off! It is better for you to enter crippled into life, rather than, with two hands, to go to the Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire.
⁴⁵And if your foot scandalizes you, cut it off! It is better for you enter limping into life, rather than, with two feet, be thrown into the Gehenna.
⁴⁷And if your eye scandalizes you, take it out! It is better for you to enter with one eye into the kingdom of God, rather than, with two eyes, be thrown into the Gehenna,
⁴⁸"where their worm does not die, and the fire does not quench",
⁴⁹because all [everyone] will be salted by fire.
⁵⁰Salt is good, but if salt becomes saltless, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourself, and be at peace with one another.

Greek

Notes

9:30

• κακειθεν, melting of και with εκειθεν, "from that place", typical "from-word" formed from εκεινος with suffix -θεν (other examples: απο μακροθεν, "from afar", εκ παιδιοθεν, "from childhood", ποθεν, "from where"). For another example of και melting with the following word, cf. καγω, "και εγω".
• παρεπορευοντο, imperfect ind. act. from πορευομαι, "I walk, make a journey". The preposition παρα gives the idea of passing "along", not "through" (cf. Jesus' desire to remain concealed).
  
• ηθελεν, imperfect ind. act. from θελω, "I wish/desire". Note the frequent use of the imperfect tense in these verses.
  
• γνοι, aor. subj. act. from γινωσκω, "I know". Subj. because of ινα. Note that  τις has no accent, and so it means "anyone".

9:31

• παραδιδοται, pres. ind. pass. from παραδιδωμι, "I give up, put in prison". Forceful present tense.
• αποκτενουσιν, fut. ind. act. from αποκτεινω, "I put to death". Contrast with the immediately following aorist part. pass. αποκτανθεις.

9:32

• ηγνοουν, imperfect ind. act. from αγνοεω, "I do not know", in this case "I fail to understand". One could translate the imperfect here as an iterative imperfect, "the disciples continued not to understand". This makes particularly sense if one translates ρημα with "topic, matter".
• επερωτησαι, aor. act. infin. from επερωταω, "I inquire".

My translation

³⁰After they came out of that place, they were travelling along Galilee, and he did not want anyone to know.
³¹Jesus was in fact teaching his disciples and saying to them, The son of man is given into the hands of men, they will put him to death, and after they have killed him, three days later he will rise up.
³²But the disciples continued to fail to understand this matter, and were afraid to interrogate him.

Greek

Notes

9:14

• ελθοντες, aor. part. act. from ερχομαι, "I come". I translate the part. here as "when they came".
• ειδον, aor. ind. act. from οραω, "I see". The aorist participle is ιδοντες (in the next verse).

9:15

• ευθυς, adv. "at once".
• εξεθαμβηθησαν, (weak) aor. ind. pass. from εκθαμβεω, "I amaze, astonish". An ingressive aorist; note the θη (plus secondary active terminations, -ν, -ς, -(ν), -μεν, -τε, -ν) of the weak aor. passive; strong aorists do not have the θ. Remember that passive terminations in the aorist are not for the passive form, but for the middle. This word is peculiar to Mark.
  
• ησπαζοντο, imp. ind. deponent from ασπαζομαι, "I welcome". Remember that the imperfect middle/passive takes middle/passive secondary endings, -μην, -σο, -το, -μεθα, -σθε, -ντο.
  

9:16

• επηρωτησεν, aor. ind. act. from επερωταω, obviously from επι + ερωταω.

9:17

• απεκριθη, aor. ind. dep. from αποκρινομαι, "I begin to speak, answer".
• ηνεγκα, aor. ind. act. from φερω, "I bring".  φερω is quite irregular, as there are three different roots to form tense-stems: the present is formed from ΦΕΡ (φερω), the future from ΟΙΣ (οισω), the aorist, perfect and aorist passive from ΕΝ[Ε|Ο]Κ, e.g. aorist ηνεγκα, perfect ενηνοκα.
• εχοντα, pres. part. act. from εχω, "I have".

9:18

• καταλαβῃ, aor. subj. act. from καταλμβανω, "I seize, possess". Just note that the word catalepsy derives from this. Subj. because of the cond. εαν.
• ρησσει, present ind. act. from ρησσω, "I convulse with spasms". The verb also exists in the form ρηγνυμι.
• αφριζει, pres. ind. act. from αφριζω, "I foam, froth at the mouth"
• τριζει, pres. ind. act. from τριζω, "I gnash, grind".
• ξηπαινεται, pres. ind. pass. from ξηραινω, "I dry up", in this case in the sense of "to become rigid".
• ειπα, aor. ind. act. from λεγω, "I say" (another form of ειπον).
• ισχυσαν, aor. ind. act. from ισχυω, "I am able".

9:19

• αποκριθεις, aor. part. dep. from αποκρινομαι, "I begin to speak" (in this case; other times, "I answer").
• εσομαι, fut. ind. from ειμι.
• ανεξομαι, fut. ind. dep. from ανεχομαι, "I put up with".

9:20

• συνεσπαραξεν, aor. ind. act. from συσπαρασσω, "I convulse" (trans.).
• εκυλιετο, imp. ind. middle/passive from κυλιοω, "I roll".

9:22

• απολεσῃ, aor. subj. act. from απολλυμι, "I destroy, die". Subj. because of ινα, purpose clause.
• δυνῃ, pres. ind. act. from δυναμαι, "I am able". Alternative form of δυνασαι.
• βοηθησον, aor. imperative act. from βοηθεω, "I help".
• σπλαγχνισθεις, aor. part. dep. from σπλαγχνιζομαι, "I feel compassion".

9:25

• επετιμησεν, aor. ind. act. from επιτιμαω, "I rebuke". The derivation of the verb is interesting: τιμαω is "to fix a valuation upon something, to prize" (and by implication, "to value/honour"); επιτιμαω becomes "to tax upon", that is, "to forbid/charge/rebuke".
• επιτασσω, "I command".
• εξελθε, aor. imperative act. from εξερχομαι, "I go/come out".
• μηκετι εισελθῃς, the verb is aor. subj. dep.; note μη + ετι (more), subj. to express prohibition. Remember that the aor. subj. is used to express a prohibition for an action that has not yet begun. In this sense, the spirit could be interpreted to have been already out when Jesus uttered these words.

9:26

• πολλα σπαραξας, aor. part. act. from σπαρασσω, "I convulse". πολλα to be translated there as an adverb.
• εγενετο, aor. ind. act. from our old friend γινομαι, "I become". Pps γινομαι, γενησομαι, εγενομην, γεγονα, γεγενημαι, εγενηθην.

9:27

• κρατησας, aor. part. act. from κρατεω, "I hold" (+ G). From κρατος, "vigor, strength".
• ηγειρεν, aor. ind. act. from εγειρω, "I waken/raise up".
• ανεστη, aor. ind. act. from ανιστημι, "I stand up".

9:28

• εισελθοντος, aor. part. act. from εισερχομαι, "I enter into". Genitive absolute.
• κατ'ιδιαν, "privately", vulg. "secreto interrogabant".
• επηρωτων, imp. ind. act. from επερωταω, "I inquire, seek". The aorist is επηρωτησα. The imperfect here suggests a dynamic action, probably the common progressive imperfect, "were asking" (rather than an ingressive impf., "began to ask").
• ηδυνηθημεν, aor. ind. pass. from δυναμαι, "I am able".

My translation

¹⁴When they came [back] to the disciples, they saw a big crowd around them, and scribes discussing with them.
¹⁵And immediately the whole crowd, seeing him, was amazed; and running toward him they welcomed him.
¹⁶Jesus then asked the disciples, What are you discussing with them?
¹⁷One of the multitude answered him, Master, I brought my son to you because he has a dumb spirit.
18And wherever this spirit takes him, he convulses with spasms, foams, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to cast him out, but they were not able to do it.
¹⁹Jesus started to speak to them and said, O unfaithful generation, for how long will I be with you? For how long will I put up with you? Bring him to me.
²⁰And they brought him to Jesus; having seen him, the spirit all of a sudden started to convulse and, fallen on the ground, was rolling and foaming.
²¹Jesus then asked his father, Since when is all this happening to him? He replied, Since his youth.
²²And many times the spirit threw him into fire and into water, to kill him. But if you can do anything, have mercy on us and help us.
²³Jesus said to him, If you can! To the believer, everything is possible!
²⁴And at once the father of the young man, crying, started to say, I do believe! Help my unbelief!
²⁵Jesus, having seen that the crowd ran [towards them], rebuked the impure spirit saying to him, Mute and deaf spirit, I order you, come out from him and never return back [into him].
²⁶And after crying out and violently convulsing, the spirit came out. The man became as dead, so that everybody said that he died.
²⁷Jesus then, taken him by the hand, raised him up; and he stood up.
²⁸After the man entered into the house, the disciples were asking him privately, Why were not we able to expel the spirit?
²⁹He said to them, It is only possible to expel this type [of spirit] through prayer.

There's an interesting exhibition on Costantine taking place in Rimini, Italy, from March 13 till September 4, 2005. The exhibition will be at beautiful Castel Sismondo, a castle built in the XV century by Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta.

The exhibition web site is here (in Italian only, I'm afraid). Several artifacts on loan from various important museums will be on view. So, an excellent reason to visit Rimini.

Incidentally, this fits quite neatly with my studies on early Church history; and I can't help remembering that the controversial council of Rimini took place in 359 under the auspices of Constantius II (Constantine's son), and had as its main topic the debates on arianism. Read Jerome's account in Contra Luciferianos 17-19 (this is where the famous phrase "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian" is).

---

Categories: Church_History

In preparation for the NT Greek exam, I've put together a Greek Verb Review page, listing some of the Greek NT irregular verbs, plus some of the principal parts for most of the verbs occurring in Mark 8-10 and John 18-21 (the prescribed texts for the exam). In order to see the principal parts, you need to have Javascript enabled in your browser.

The sources I've used are the very useful List of irregular NT verbs by Carl W. Conrad and (for the list of the verbs in the prescribed texts) the U of London NT Greek study guide.

Greek

Notes

9:1

• τινες, "some"; note that there is no accent, so it is not τίς.
• εστηκοτων, part. perf. act. from ιστημι, "I stand, make to stand". The part. perf. act. has the typical οτ as tense formative, normally redup. (e.g. λελυκοτων), 3-1-3, here ἑστηκως, ἑστηκυια, ἑστηκος; note that the meaning in this case is in the present tense.
• ου μη γευσωνται, aor. subj. middle from γευομαι, "I taste, eat". Primary endings middle/passive (-μαι, -σαι, -ται, -μεθα, -σθε, -νται). The subj. with ου μη is used to express an emphatic negative future.
• ιδωσιν, aor. subj. act. from ειδω, "I see".  Subj. required after εως αν.
• εληλυθυιαν, perfect part. act. from ερχομαι, "I come". Note the redup. typical of the perfect (εληλυθα), lit. "having come". Not very easy to render in translation.

9:2

• παραλαμβανει, pres. ind. act. from παραλαμβανω, "I take along, bring along"
• κατ' ιδιαν μονους, "by themselves".
• μετεμορφωθη, aor. ind. pass. from μεταμορφοω, "I change in manner visible to others, be transfigured".

9:3

• εγενετο, aor. ind. dep. from γινομαι, "I become".
• στιλβοντα, pres. part. act. from στιλβω, "I flash". Note the participle used as adjective.
• λιαν, "much".
• γναφευς, -εως, ο. "Fuller". Only found here in the entire NT. The BDAG says it is "generically a specialist in one or more of the processes in the treatment of cloth, incl. fulling, carding, cleaning, bleaching." The suggested translation is then "cloth refiner".
• δυναται, pres. ind. dep. from δυναμαι, "I am able".
• λευκαναι, aor. infinitive act. from λευκαινω, "I make white". The aorist pres. ind. is ελευκανα.

9:4

• ωφθη, aor. ind. dep. from οπτανομαι, "I appear".
• συλλαλουντες, pres. part. act. from συλλαλεω, "I talk with".

9:5

• αποκριθεις, aor. part. dep. from αποκρινομαι, "I begin to speak, I answer".
• ποιησωμεν, aor. subj. act. from ποιεω, "I make". This is a cohortative subjunctive.
• μιαν, acc. sing. fem. from εις, "one".

9:6

• ηδει, pluperfect ind. act. from οιδα, "I know". The meaning is to be rendered in the imperfect.
• αποκριθῃ, subj. aor. dep. from αποκρινομαι, "I answer". Deliberative subjunctive; the translation should render the uncertainty. There is some variation in the manuscripts: TS have λαλησῃ, B has λαλησει.
• εκφοβοι, "exceedingly frightened".

9:7

• επισκιαζουσα, pres. part. act. from επισκιαζω, "I overshadow; cast a shadow upon". Adjectival function.

9:8

• εξαπινα, "suddenly"
• περιβλεψαμενοι, aor. part. dep. from περιβλεπομαι, "I look around".
• ουκετι, adv, "after that"
• ουδενα, adj. from ουδεις, "no one"

9:9

• καταβαινοντων αυτων, gen. abs.
• διαστειλατο, aor. ind. dep. from διαστελλομαι, "I order"
• μηδενι, adj. from μηδεις, μηδεμια, μηδεν, "anyone"
• διηγησονται, aor. subj. dep. διηγεομαι, "I relate fully, declare". Subj. because of ινα.
• ει μη οταν, here "not until". οταν is lit. "whenever", cf. 8:38.
  
• αναστῃ, aor. subj. act. from ανιστημι, "I rise (again)". Subj. because of οταν.

9:10

• εκρατησαν, aor. ind. act. from κρατεω, "I retain".
• συζητουντες, pres. part. act. from συζητεω, "I dispute, reason, enquire".
• αναστηναι, aor. inf. act. from ανιστημι, cf. v.9.

9:11

• επηρωτων, imp. ind. act. from επερωταω, "I inquire, seek".
• οτι, in the first occurrence it means here "why" (like τί), in the second "that".
• δει, cf. 8:31.
• ελθειν, aor. inf. dep. from ερχομαι, "I come". Again, the aor. is ηλθον or ηλθα.

9:12

• εφη, aor. ind. act. from φημι, "I say". The aor. is εφην (3rd sng εφησεν) and it means the same as ειπεν. In the present, the 3rd sng is φησιν and the 3rd pl is φασιν.
• ελθων, aor. part. act. from ερχομαι, "I come".
• αποκαθιστανει, infinitive act. from αποκαθιστημι, "I restore".
• γεγραπται, perf. ind. pass. from γραφω, "I write".
• παθῃ, aor. subj. act. from πασχω, "I suffer". Subj. because of ινα.
• εξουδενηθῃ, aor. sub. pass. from εξουδενοω, "I despise". Subj. because of ινα. From ουδεν = "nothing", i.e. literally the verb has the meaning "treat as nothing".

9:13

• εληλυθεν, perf. ind. dep. from ερχομαι, "I come".
• οσα, "all the things that"/
• ηθελον, imp. ind. act. from θελω, "I wish".

My translation

¹And he began to tell them, Amen, I say to you, because there are some of those standing here who will certainly not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.
²Then, six days later, Jesus takes with him Peter, Jacob and John and leads them up on a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them,
³and his clothes became of a white so exceedingly shining that no cloth refiner on earth would be able to make so white.
⁴And to them appeared Elijah with Moses, and they were speaking to Jesus.
⁵Peter answered [to this event] and said to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
⁶Indeed he did not know what to answer, for they were very frigthened.
⁷And there came an overshadowing cloud on them, and a voice from the cloud saying, This is my beloved son, listen to him.
⁸Suddenly after that they did not see anyone except Jesus, alone with them.
⁹Coming down from the mountain, he ordered them not to relate to anyone the things they had seen until the son of man had risen from the dead.
¹⁰And they kept the word for themselves, reasoning about what "raising from the dead" meant.
¹¹They were asking him, Why do the scribes say that it is necessary for Elijah to come first?
¹²He said then to them, Elijah did come first to restore all things, and how is it written about the son of man, that he should suffer many things and be despised?
¹³I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they made to him all the things that they wanted, as it is written of him.

Greek

Notes

8:27

• εξηλθεν, aor. ind. act. from εξερχομαι, in this case "I leave".
• επηρωτα, aor. ind. act. from επεροταω, "I ask, demand, inquire".

8:29

• αποκριθεις, aor. part. pass. (dep.) from αποκρινομαι, "I answer". Remember that θε is often a tell-tale sign of an aor. part. passive. While in general the aorist part. indicates past tense relative to the main verb (here λεγει), here the participle action happens contextually to the main verb.

8:30

• επετιμησεν, aor. ind. act. from επιτιμαω, "I rebuke", or "warn in order to prevent an action, or bring one to an end". Weak aorist επετιμησα.
• μηδενι, dative of μηδεις, μηδεμια, μηδεν, "no-one". Note that the following verb is subj. because of ινα (and an indicative tense would have had ουδενι here).

8:31

• ηρξατο, aor. ind. dep. from αρχομαι, "I begin". Secondary endings middle/passive (-μην, -σο, -το, -μεθα, -σθε, -ντο).
• δει, third person sing. active present (impersonal) of δεω, "it was necessary". δεω literally means "to bind, to knit, to tie". δει is followed by accusative and infinitive.
  
• παθειν, aor. inf. active from πασχω, "I suffer". Strong aor. επαθον.
• αποδοκιμασθηναι, aor. inf. pass. from αποδοκιμαζω, "I reject".
  
• αρχιερεων, from αρχιερευς, "high priest", comp. of ιερευς, "priest".
• αποκτανθηναι, aor. inf. pass. from αποκτεινω, "I put to death". κτεινω is "to slay".
• αναστηναι, aor. inf. act. from ανιστημι, "I rise up (again)", comp. of ιστημι, "I stand" (in turn prolonged form of σταω, same meaning).

8:32

• παρρησιᾳ, note the instrumental dative.
• ελαλει, I translate as a progressive (or descriptive) imperfect, an action in progress.
• προσλαβομενος, aor. part. middle from προσλαμβανω, "I take aside". The aor. part. act. would be προσλαβων (προσλαβοντος, etc). Remember that the aor. part. middle follows 2-1-2, while the aor. part. act. and pass. follow 3-1-3.
• επιτιμαν, pres. inf. act. from επιτιμαω, "I rebuke" (in this case; cf. v. 30). Note the contraction επιτιμα+ειν to επιτιμᾱν (note the circumflex).
  

8:33

• επιστραφεις, aor. part. pass. but active in meaning, from επιστρεφω, "I turn around, go back". This verb has weak aorist ἐπέστρεψα and strong aorist passive ἐπεστράφην (from which the current form is made).
• ιδων, aor. part. act. from ειδω, "I look on, see, perceive".
• επετιμησεν, aor. ind. act. from επιτιμαω, "I rebuke". Third instance of this verb in 4 verses.

8:34

• προσκαλεσαμενος, aor. part. dep. from προκαλεομαι, "I summon, gather around".
• ακολουθειν, pres. act. inf. from ακολουθεω, "I follow". The aorist imperative (later in this verse) is ακολουθειτω.
  
• απαρνησασθω, aor. imperative deponent from απαρνεομαι, "I deny".
• αρατω, aor. imperative act. αιρω, "I lift up, take".

8:35

• ος... εαν: whoever (another form of ος αν).
• θελῃ, pres. subj. act. from θελω, "I choose, prefer". Subjunctive is required after ος εαν. Note the lengthening of the connecting vowel ε > η (or ο > ω) typical of the subjunctive (θελθ, θελῃς, θελῃ, θελωμεν, θελητε, θελωσιν) with the iota regularly subscripting.
• σωσαι, aor. inf. act. from σοζω, "I save".
• απολεσει, fut. ind. act. from απολλυμι, "I lose, destroy". The future can be απολεσω or απολω.
• ψυκη, I translate here as "spirit" as the material breath. Soul should be more properly πνευμα, biological life in itself is ζωη; but I guess "life" might also fit.

8:36

• ωφελει, pres. ind. act. from ωφελεω, "to be useful, to benefit".
• κερδησαι, aor. inf. act. from κερδαινω, "I gain, win".
• ζημιωθηναι, aor. inf. pass. from ζημιοω, "I penalize". Here in the passive probably best "forfeit".

8:37

• δοι, aor. subj. act. from διδωμι, "I give".  3rd person singular. I translate here as a deliberative subjunctive, something like "what will consider man to be a ransom for his own life?"
  
• ανταλλαγμα, "an equivalent, a ransom".

8:38

• επαισχυνθῃ, aor. subj. dep. from επαισχυνομαι, "I feel shame, am ashamed". Again subj. because it follows ος εαν. επαισχυνθησεται is the fut. pass. (with active meaning).
  
• μοικαλιδι, dat. fem. sing. from μοικαλις, "adulteress". 3rd declension.
• οταν, "whenever" (Strong: implying hypothesis or more or less uncertainty).
• ελθῃ, aor. subj. act. from ερχομαι, "I come". Hypotetical subj.

My translation

²⁷Jesus and his disciples then left the place to go to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. And on the road he asked his disciples, Who do people say I am?
²⁸They replied saying, Some say you are John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others one of the prophets.
²⁹And he asked them, But you, who do you say I am? Peter answered and said, You are the Christ.
³⁰And he warned them not to tell anyone about him.
³¹He then begun to teach them that it was necessary for the son of man to suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, by the high priests and by the scribes, and put to death, and rise up after three days.
³²He was saying this [very] openly. Peter then, taken Jesus aside, started to rebuke him.
³³And he, having turned around, looked at his disciples and rebuked Peter saying, Go behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on God's things, but on men's.
³⁴And having gathered the crowd together with his disciples, he said to them, If anyone wishes to follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
³⁵In fact, whoever chooses to save his spirit will lose it; but whoever will loose his spirit because of me and of the gospel will save himself.
³⁶What benefit indeed is it for man to gain the entire world, and forfeit his own spirit?
³⁷And what will man give in exchange for his own spirit?
³⁸Whoever then is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man will be ashamed of him as well whenever he shall come with the holy angels in the glory of his Father.

Brief notes on Paul of Samosata, specifically with an eye to some comparisons with Origen's thought.

In HE V.XXVII, Eusebius says that Paul "attempted to revive" the heresy of Artemon. This heresy teaches "that the Saviour was a mere man". It is important to observe that this is on the one hand an ancient belief. For example, Hermas' Christology is certainly adoptionist, as noted already, and of course the same can be said of the Ebionites, cf. the notes on ante-nicene Christology. Therefore, the anonymous writer Eusebius refers to in V.XXVII.I was wrong in maintaining that Artemon's heresy was an innovation. On the other hand, the methods used by Artemon and by the Theodotians were new, for example in the field of biblical exegesis, where they are said to have

treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear [...] They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
[...]
[They] forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.

Some sort of critical method, perhaps, and not a lot of attention to allegorical interpretation. If as it seems this method was taken up by Paul of Samosata as well, who "attempted to revive this heresy", then we have a marked contrast to Origen already.

Jerome, in De Viribus Illustris 71, confirms that Paul "had introduced the doctrine of Artemon".

In HE VII.XXX, Eusebius reports part of the letter of the bishop Malchion against Paul. Unfortunately there are not very many details about Paul's teachings. We learn that, while born poor and "having received no wealth from his fathers", he was now rich, and that his richness he obtained

through his iniquities and sacrilegious acts, and through those things which he extorts from the brethren, depriving the injured of their rights and promising to assist them for reward, yet deceiving them.

He also

is puffed up, and assumes worldly dignities [...], struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks in public, attended by a body-guard, with a multitude preceding and following him, [...] practices chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies, contrives to glorify himself, and deceive with appearances, and astonish the minds of the simple, [... and he stamps] on the tribunal with his feet, [...] he rebukes and insults those who do not applaud, and shake their handkerchiefs as in the theaters, and shout and leap about like the men and women that are stationed around him, and hear him in this unbecoming manner, but who listen reverently and orderly as in the house of God. [And he] stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ, as being the modern productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of the passover. [...]

And

Those singing to him and extolling him among the people say that their impious teacher has come down an angel from heaven [...] There are the women, the `subintroductae,' as the people of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and deacons that are with him. Although he knows and has convicted these men, yet he connives at this and their other incurable sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds. But he has also made them rich; on which account he is loved and admired by those who covet such things. [additional sexually related allegations follow later on]

In summary, not a very positive portrait of a man, who must have definitely been quite popular, though. As for his theology, we are simply told that

he is unwilling to acknowledge that the Son of God has come down from heaven.

Chadwick says that

For Paul, God and his Word or Wisdom are one (homoousios) without differentiation, and to affirm the pre-existence of the Son is to profess two Sons, two Christs; Jesus is a uniquely inspired man.

The NPNF notes report that he thought that

Christ was a mere man, though he was filled with divine power, and that from his birth, not merely from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held.

Finally, according to Schaff,

He denied the personality of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them merely powers of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual elevation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to divine dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin, conquered the sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour of the race.

So we have a Christ who's "filled with divine power", but is not pre-existent (cf. instead Origen). If the Logos, or Wisdom, is not an essential part of Christ (i.e. Wisdom according to participation), then a fundamental part of Origen's system, namely soteriology, falls down, as I noted when dealing with Origen's thought.

Incarnation was also a very problematic part of Paul's teachings: in some fragments of the letter of Malchion, not reported by Eusebius, it is said that

[The Church hold that] other men indeed received of Wisdom as an inspiration from without, which, though with them, is distinct from them; but that Wisdom in verity [i.e. Christ] came of itself substantially into His body by Mary.

Malchion, in the disputation with Paul, is also reported to have said:

Did I not say before that you do not admit that the only-begotten Son, who is from all eternity before every creature, was made substantially existent in the whole person of the Saviour; that is to say, was united with Him according to substance?

So, according to Paul, the man and the divine are united, but not "according to substance". The key difference with Origen here is the missing concept of eternal participation; in other words, it seems to me, problems of composition are inevitably brought in once one conceives of an in-time generation of the divinity of Christ. It is interesting to note that it seems (cf. especially the fuller account in de Riedmatten, S36) that Malchion was not proposing so much an Origen-centered theology himself, since he never refers to the human (created) soul of Christ: rather, it looks like Malchion likes to say that the Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ: a view that will be exploited by Apollinaris of Laodicea (Jesus has a human body but a divine mind, the tertium quid between being fully human or fully divine). Cf. instead on the other hand how with Origen the soul of Christ is the nous that does not replace the psychic (bodily) part. And again this is only possible is one admits the theoretical possibility of a nous that can be independent from the body, from history, in other words from time, that is, eternal.

As a final note, consider how easily Paul's teachings can be stretched, and how they will soon be stretched (by Arius): if the Logos is added to Christ, Christ is not God.

---

Categories: Church_History

Reminder: Torrey Seland blogs about a circular letter by David Instone-Brewer listing a number of Jewish resources freely available on the internet.

There appear to be three accounts of Constantine's dreams or visions:

• from the Panegyrici Latini 313; the account is dated 310 or 311 and refers to a campaign against the Franks near Trier (Treviri), or Autun.
  
• from Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum XLIV
  
• from Eusebius, Vita Constantini, I.XXVI-XXVII
  

In the vision of the Panegyrici Latini it is written (translation quoted from Stevenson):

For, O Constantine, you saw, I believe, your protector Apollo, in company with Victory, offering you laurel crowns...

This account is the earliest of the three. It is decidedly pagan in tone (Apollo, the sol invictus) and, like in the other two, after the vision there comes victory in battle.

Lactantius wrote (since the Latin is available online, I'm translating it in Italian as well):

Imminebat dies quo Maxentius imperium ceperat, qui est a.d. sextum Kalendas Novembres, et quinquennalia terminabantur. Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut caeleste signum dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium committeret. Facit ut iussus est et transversa X littera, summo capite circumflexo, Christum in scutis notat. Quo signo armatus exercitus capit ferrum.

Era imminente [l'annversario del] giorno in cui Massenzio aveva conseguito l'impero, ovvero il sesto giorno prima delle calende di novembre, e stavano terminando i [suoi primi] cinque anni di regno. Costantino venne avvertito in sogno di incidere un segno divino sugli scudi e di cominciare la battaglia. Fece dunque come ordinato e con una lettera X posta di traverso, piegata ad arco alla sommita', incise [il segno di] Cristo sugli scudi. Armato di questo simbolo, l'esercito prese l'arme.

Chadwick says that the dream directed Constantine to put "the Chi-Ro monogram" on his shields, thus interpreting "Christus in scutis notat" as the monogram. Actually the monogram appears on Constantine's coins only from 315 onwards, i.e. 3 years after the battle at the Milvian Bridge. I have to say that it is not very clear to me how "transversa X littera, summo capite circumflexo" can be seen in the form of the monogram: it looks more just like a cross with an arch or a loop on the top. It seem interesting that this form might (might!) be similar to the double axe, or Labrys, one of the symbols of Zeus (Zeus Labraundos). See later.

According to Schaff, the account from Lactantius has been questioned by Burckhardt to have actually been composed by Lactantius himself. Certainly, Schaff says, it was composed soon after the event, when Constantine was still on good terms with Licinius, because a similar vision is attributed to Licinius in chapter 46 (Constantine and Licinius agreed on religious toleration in 313):

Tunc proxima nocte Licinio quiescenti adsistit angelus dei monens, ut ocius surgeret atque oraret deum summum cum omni exercitu suo; illius fore victoriam, si fecisset.

There are some notable differences between the two "dreams", though: Licinius is guided explictly by an angel, and the angel tells him to pray to the deum summum. On the other hand, Constantine is told to emboss a generic (in the dream) signum dei on the shields. This sign is then explained to be the symbolum of Christ, as I said the cross it seems to me; but the dream itself does not warrant this explanation.

The former account (Licinius') would look in itself more "Christian" (the angel; the summum deum; the prayer), the latter (Constantine's) more "pagan" (a sign of God? of a god? not clear; the shields). This "paganism" of Constantine's dream seems confirmed by the generic explanation found on the Arch of Constantine, instinctu divinitatis.

Eusebius, finally, records some other details about a vision by Constantine. First of all Constantine makes interesting considerations about the relative merit and reliability of the various gods available to him versus the single God of Christianity:

While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven; while one alone who had pursued an entirely opposite course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme God during his whole life, had found I him to be the Saviour and Protector of his empire, and the Giver of every good thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, manifestations of his power and very many tokens: and considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other, being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of death); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his father's God alone.

Then we have a Constantine praying earnestly to the God of the Christians

that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties.

It is after this that we find the famous vision:

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

I don't like the translation "Conquer by this" at all. The imperative used in the translation does not correspond to the future tense (indicating a promise) of in hoc signo vinces, which is in my mind best translated with something like "In [the name of] this symbol you shall prevail". I note here that "above the sun" might be interpreted in a symbolic way. The fact that the entire army observed the vision seems difficult to believe, because if this had been the case we'd probably have some other record of it.

But that's not all Eusebius has to say:

He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.

This does not match completely with Lactantius' account, but it is certainly similar. One remarkable (to me, at least) difference is that the use of the symbol, constrained in Lactantius to the Milvian Bridge battle, is by Eusebius expanded to cover "all engagements"; in chap. XXXI it is also said that

the emperor made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.

So, the sign of God here looks more like a general standard. The details by which this standard was made are also told by Eusebius, and they go far beyond Lactantius' transversa X littera:

A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period.

Who knows if the "later period" Eusebius is talking about could actually also refer to the original, pagan, vision. The description here seems to me a mix of what Lactantius says (the figure of the cross), plus ("within this") the monogram of Christ. I'd like to see the original text. The redactional note to the chapter is interesting: "A Description of the Standard of the Cross, Which the Romans Now Call the Labarum." With reference to what I noted already about Lactantius and the vision found in the Panegyrici Latini, this seems to me to reinforce once more the idea that what we might have here is a later Christian interpolation of an originally pagan account. Perhaps this interpolation was made easier by the fact that, as Chadwick suggests, "Constantine was not aware of any mutual exclusiveness between Christianity and his faith in the Unconquered Sun."

---

Categories: Church_History

Greek

Notes

8:22

• ερχονται, pres. dep. ind. from ερχομαι, "I come"; TSB (Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 and Byzantine Majority) have the singular ερχεται. Note that this verse has dynamic present tense throughout (exception made of course for the verb following ινα).
• αψηται, aor. cong. middle from απτομαι, "I touch", middle voice of απτω. Note the σ of the weak aorist, no augment, primary endings (the aorist ind. is ηψαμην, note the secondary endings passive). απτω is frequently used "as a means of conveying a blessing or of healing. For another Markan example, see the episode of the leper in Mk 1:41, ηψατο αυτου, "he touched him" (aorist ind.).

8:23

• επιλαβομενος, aor. part. dep. from επιλαμβανομαι, "I take hold of". The aorist ind. is obviously επιλαβομεν.
  
• εξηγαγεν, aor. ind. act. from εξαγω, "I lead forth" (the prefix εξ gives the idea of leading out, bringing out).
• πτυσας, aor. part. act. from πτυω, "I spit". The aorist ind. is επτυσα.
• επιθεις, aor. part. act. from επιτιθημι, "I impose, lay upon" (τιθημι is "I place"). The aorist ind. (found later) is επεθηκα (or the strong επεθεν); the participle follows the strong aorist.
• επηρωτα, imp. ind. act. from επερωταω, "I ask".
  

8:24

• αναβλεψας, aor. part. act. from αναβλεπω, "I look up". The verb also has the meaning "to gain sight, whether for the first time or again" (cf. Acts 9:12).
• ελεγεν, I translate here as a descriptive imperfect (as the imperfect επηρωτα in v.23).
  
• περιπατουντας, pres. part. act. from περιπατεω, "I walk".

8:25

• επεθηκεν, aor. ind. act., from επιτιθημι, "I lay upon" (cf. v.23).
• διεβλεψεν, aor. ind. act. from διαβλεπω, in this case "I stare with eyes wide open" (BDAG).
• απεκατεστη, aor. ind. pass. from αποκαθιστανω, "I restore", lit. "make to stand up again". Note the double augment in the aorist, απ + εκατ + εστην.
• ενεβλεπεν, imp. ind. act. from εμβλεπω, "I look at something directly and therefore intently", in this case probably better to translate "to see, to have a view". Note that εμ- changes to ενε- in augmented tenses (imp. ενεβλεπον, aor. ενεβλεψα, but fut. middle εμβλεψομαι).
  
• τηλαυγως, adv., "clearly".

8:26

• απεστειλεν, aor. ind. act. from αποστελλω, "I send away".
• μηδε, "not even"
• εισελθης, aor. subj. act. from εις+ερχομαι, "I enter". Remember that the subj. is made negative by μη and its compounds (not ου, only used in the indicative). μη + aor. subj. is normally used to prohibit an action that has not begun. On the other hand, an action already in progress is prohibited with μη + pres. imperative.

My translation

²²So they enter into Bethsaida, and some people bring to Jesus a blind man, imploring him to touch him.
²³Having taken hold of the hand of the blind, he took him out of the village, spit on his eyes, laid out his hands on him, and was asking him if he saw anything.
²⁴The blind regained his sight and was saying, I see people, walking, but they look like trees.
²⁵After that, Jesus once more imposed his hands on the man's eyes; then the blind stared with eyes wide open, his sight was restored, and he had a clear view of everything.
²⁶And Jesus sent him away to his house saying, Do not even enter the village.

I wish to thank AKMA for his reminder to "work out our theologies concerning death". Somehow the reminder resonated; I'm now reading some Notes on the Tertia pars of the Summa Theologiae by Richard Schenk OP. Very interesting.

These readings, as usual, spark a number of ideas. This is a part of lecture one that I should remember to explore also in my Church History studies:

[The author speaks about] the value of the history of the reception of an idea for evaluating the idea itself. If you want to find out what a thinker chiefly thought, it is best to start with what was new about his thought. If you want to find out what was new about his thought, you should look for places where he states or at least reveals that he has changed his mind or where others state that this thought is new, perhaps even new and shocking. What is new need not be true, but it will usually be intended by the author.

Good food for thought.

This is my Italian translation of the inscription on the Arch of Constantine (cf. this site). Nothing original, of course, but I've tried to render the meaning as I see it.

Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Fl(avio) Constantino Maximo
P(io) F(elici) Augusto S(enatus) P(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)
quod instinctu divinitatis, mentis
magnitudine, cum exercitu suo
tam de tyranno quam de omni eius
factione uno tempore iustis
rempublicam ultus est armis,
arcum triumphis insignem dicavit.

All'imperatore Cesare Flavio Costantino Massimo Pio Felice Augusto,
che per ispirazione della divinita'
con grandezza di spirito
con il suo esercito
con giuste armi
allo stesso tempo
sia dal tiranno
sia da tutta la sua fazione
vendico' la repubblica,
il Senato e il popolo romano
questo arco insigne per trionfi
dedicarono.

I like to keep together the means through which Constantine prevailed: divine inspiration, greatness of mind, the army, the force of the arms.

---

Categories: Church_History