The miracle of the Healing of a bleeding Woman

(Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 2:11)

A problematic miracle

Many (most) miracles of Jesus seem to have in common these factors:

1. They are occasioned by sympathy and compassion for people in difficulty;

2. They are deliberately operated by Jesus to remedy the situation of difficulty, and, at the same time as an occasion to affirm that the coming of the Kingdom of God is made manifest in his miracles.

Is this picture complete?

As regards no.1, some miracles seem an exhibition of supernatural power not motivated by compassion: just think of Jesus Walking on Water (Matt 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:16-21) and his Stilling of a Storm (Matt 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25).

As for no.2, all of Jesus' miracles can be read as an affirmation of the deliberate manifestation in Jesus of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.

There is a miracle, though, that I believe is an exception to no.2 and, unless I missed something from reading the Gospels, the only exception. I am talking about Jesus healing the Woman with an Issue of Blood, an episode that, in all three Synoptic Gospels, is almost casually interwoven with the Raising of Jairus' Daughter (Matt 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56).

Let me quote from Mark's Gospel, which makes even more evident than the other two the point I am trying to make:

₂₅ Now a woman was there who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years. ₂₆ She had endured a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet instead of getting better, she grew worse. ₂₇ When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, ₂₈ for she kept saying, “If only I touch his clothes, I will be healed.” ₂₉ At once the bleeding stopped, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. ₃₀ Jesus knew at once that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched my clothes?” ₃₁ His disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing against you and you say, ‘Who touched me?’” ₃₂ But he looked around to see who had done it. ₃₃ Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. ₃₄ He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” (Mark 5:25-34)

Notice how the Evangeliest underlines the unintentionality of the miracle on the part of Jesus: “Jesus knew at once that power had gone out from him.”

Notice Jesus' evident surprise: “Who touched my clothes?”

More, notice how the reply of the disciples makes Jesus' question appear almost silly: “You see the crowd pressing against you and you say, ‘Who touched me?’”

To end with, notice how it is only from the "confession" of the woman that Jesus seems to learn that, apart from his will, she has "tapped" at his healing power.

All the above seems to make Jesus appear as though he is "charged" with power (in particular healing power), that flows spontaneously from him towards those who have faith in him.

A tentative explanation of the miracle

Let's consider the text again. As I have already done, I will examine Mark's text. As I have already noted, the narration of Jesus healing the Woman with an Issue of Blood ... in all three Synoptic Gospels, is almost casually interwoven with the Raising of Jairus' Daughter.

I believe that the explanation of this "casual interweaving" of the two narrations is very simple: the narrations of the two miracles are interwoven for the simple reason that things went exactly that way. The narration can be easily and naturally divided in its component parts, to which I will add my comments.

1. Fist Jesus was met by Jairus who “asked him urgently” to heal his “little daughter [who] is near death”. So, “Jesus went with him, and a large crowd followed and pressed around him.” (Mark 5:21-24). At this point, Jesus had already decided to operate a miracle on Jairus' little daughter, and, to that end, he was already, so so speak, in "healing mood", ready to send the gift and power of the healing Holy Spirit upon a person seriously ill, a person in need.

2. Then, a woman serioulsy and cronically ill (“who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years”), secretly approached him and, with faith (the same faith that moved Jairus), put herself, so to speak, "in the way" of the power of the healing Holy Spirit emanating from Jesus, so that, unbeknown to Jesus she got healed first. Both the woman and Jesus knew "at once" that the miraculous healing had taken effect. But Jesus "had to figure out" from the woman's confession who it was that had been actually healed: “Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth.” (Mark 5:25-34)

3. Finally, Jesus resumed his way, to see Jairus' little daughter, and operated the healing miracle on her. Actually, the miracle became even more dramatic because, in the meantime, the girl had died, so Jesus raised her, but pretended that “the child is not dead but asleep”. (Mark 5:35-43)

Interestingly, while Mark does nothing to hide the unintentionality and the spontaneity of the miracle of healing of the Woman with an Issue of Blood, both Matthew and Luke minimize, to some extent, these aspects:

• Matthew (Matt 9:18-25) gives a short summary of the two miracles, and makes it appear as though Jesus is perfectly aware of what's happened, and in favor of whom, so much so that he doesn't need the woman's confession to recognize her, and proclaim, “Have courage, daughter! Your faith has made you well.”.

• Luke (Luke 8:40-56) is much more in line with Mark's account, but simply says that the woman “came up behind Jesus and touched the edge of his cloak” without mentioning explicitly the faith that motivated her gesture.

What does it mean "to be baptized into the name of ..."?

(Sunday, June 23, 2013, 1:04 PM)

Baptism of Neophytes by Masaccio, 15th century, Brancacci Chapel, Florence

Everybody knows (more or less) what Christian Baptism is ...

... or do they?

Let's see what the dictionary says, what Wikipedia says, and what the Catholic Encyclopedia says.

• Baptism: (n.) 1. A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic application of water to the head or immersion of the body into water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)

• Baptism: (from the Greek noun βάπτισμα baptisma; itself derived from βαπτισμός baptismos, washing^[2]) is a Christian rite of admission (or adoption^[3]), almost invariably with the use of water, into the Christian Church generally^[4] and also a particular church tradition. Baptism has been called a sacrament and an ordinance of Jesus Christ. In some traditions, baptism is also called christening,^[5][6] but for others the word "christening" is reserved for the baptism of infants.^[7] (Wikipedia)

• Baptism: "Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Aspects of Baptism that are mentioned are "cleansing of sins", "following Jesus in his path of death and resurrection".

Does any of the above catch the essence? Not really. A much better approach is to look at the Greek origin of "to baptize".

βαπτίζω (baptizō - G907) 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to overwhelm

"This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change."

We are now getting closer to the essence: to be baptized "into the name" (Greek: eis to onoma) of the Lord Jesus Christ means to become essentially his, part of his body, his Church.

But there is another important aspect, about the expression "into the name": 

• "(5) The phrase eis (to) onoma tinos is frequent in the papyri with reference to payments made "to the account of any one" ... (J.H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1914, page 451)

• "Through baptism eis to onoma tinos those who are baptized become the possession of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear." (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2000, page 713)

In conclusion, to be baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (see Acts, e.g. Acts 19:5) means to chose him as Lord of one's life. This must be seen, in particular, in the context of the baptism of heathens, who, through baptism, renounced any allegiance to demons, and chose Jesus instead.

How about the "trinitarian baptismal formula" ("... baptizing them in the name [eis to onoma] of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ...", Matt 28:19)?

Well, NOWHERE in the NT do we find any example of its application ...

Sorry: you cannot ... Have Your Trinity & INCARNATION, Too!

(Thursday, April 25, 2013, 4:09 AM)

Let's pretend ...

Let's pretend that the notion of "trinity" makes some sense, and is not just a "toy for theologians" (as Kant must have said, somewhere).

Let's assume that God subsists as a "Trinity of Persons", and that, in the Incarnation in Jesus, human nature has been united to the divine nature of the "Eternal Son" so as to constitute one Person.

How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, posited with respect to this Trinity?

Two only are the possibilities:

a. either the divinity of the Son has been changed and somehow “enriched” by the humanity of Jesus,

b. or the humanity of Jesus has been entirely “absorbed” into the divinity of the Son.

(Sorry, no third option, I am afraid ...)

In the former case (a.) it is God’s immutability which is questioned; in the latter case (b.) it is the very reality, value and meaning of Resurrection which dissolve into a haze. (Sorry, no third option, I am afraid ...)

“... before Abraham was, I am”

(Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 3:58 AM)

In the Gospel of John, we read:

₅₂ Then the Judeans responded, “Now we know you’re possessed by a demon! Both Abraham and the prophets died, and yet you say, ‘If anyone obeys my teaching, he will never experience death.’ ₅₃ You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” ₅₄ Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ ₅₅ Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. ₅₆ Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”

  ₅₇ Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” ₅₈ Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” ₅₉ Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:52-59)

This is what a highly respected theologian says:

“To say that Jesus is “before” him [Abraham] is not to lift him out of the ranks of  humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such  statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do  that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth  before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who  understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second  time (3:4).” -- J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, 1987, p. 384.

Jesus existed, somehow, “before Abraham came into existence”. The question is, HOW?

w. Some claim "in the Father's mind", from eternity;

x. Some claim, before creation, even before the beginning of time, BUT as an "inferior deity" (deuteros theos);

y. Trinitarians claim, as a "pre-existing, co-eternal, co-equal person".

z. I claim, as God's Eternal Logos, an Essential Attribute of God.

w and x are, respectively, inadequate (w) and incompatible with scriptural monotheism (x).
I do not agree with y, because I don't think it is objectively attested in the Scripture, but, even more so, because I believe, and I have amply argued, that it is incompatible EITHER with the reality of the Resurrection, OR with the unchangeability of God.

Zechariah’s Vision: one or two donkeys?

Jesus Enters Jerusalem - Gustave Dore 1832-1883

Triumphal Entry of the Messiah in Jerusalem

This is Zachariah’s original prophecy

 

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!

Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!

Look! Your king is coming to you:

he is legitimate and bringing salvation,

humble and riding on a donkey, 

on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
(Zechariah 9:9 - NET)

And this is Zachariah’s prophecy as quoted by Matthew:

"Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Look, your king is coming to you,
Lowly, and [kai] sitting on a donkey,
and [kai] on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
(Matthew 21:5 - NET)

Apparently, in his zeal, Matthew has misinterpreted the original Hebrew and/or mistranslated in Greek. And this is the disconcerting result:

₆ So the disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. ₇ They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matthew 21:6-7 - NET - emphasis by MdS)

EITHER a physical impossibility, OR something absurd and silly. This, much more than the discrepancy with Mark, Luke and John, all speaking ONLY of one donkey (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14-15), is the real problem.

In fact there may be quite a straightforward explanation: Matthew did not translate Zechariah 9:9 from the original Hebrew, but cited from the Septuagint, which apparently makes exactly the same “mistake” as Matthew, viz. of mentioning two donkeys (see Zechariah 9:9 in original HEBREW and in the retative Septuagint translation in Greek LXXM).

Some may claim that there are differences between Matthew and the Septuagint, but a careful comparison of the texts shows that the differences between Matthew and the Septuagint are not relevant, and they can all be easily explained. Let’s order the two Greek texts (transliterated) by corresponding stich (source Zechariah 9:9 – NET; Matthew 21:5 – NET):

1. [LXX] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[Matt] Idou o basileus sou erchetai soi (See, your king comes to you)
[NOTE] Identical

2. [LXX] dikaios kai sozwn autos (righteous and having salvation)
[Matt] MISSING
[NOTE] stich entirely missing in Matthew: perhaps a copying error, quite common

3. [LXX] praus kai epibebekos epi hypozygion (meek and riding on an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[Matt] praus kai epibebekos epi onon (meek and riding on an ass)
[NOTE] the “beast of burden” of LXX has been shifted to stich no.4 in Matthew

4. [LXX] kai pwlon neon (and a young colt)
[Matt] kai pwlon uion hypozygiou (and a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of an ass [lit. “beast of burden”])
[NOTE] see NOTE at stich no.3

It is also possible that both Matthew and the Septuagint translators were working from a different Hebrew original than the one which made its way into the Masoretic text (this would be confirmed by similar parallel findings at Qumran). But the main point remains that LXX and Matthew closely mirror each other. This happens only with Matthew, and not with Mark and John, and also with Luke (only John, besides Matthew, briefly quotes Zachariah 9:9)

From the above analysis, the similarities between Matthew’s and the Septuagint’s rendering of Zechariah’s 9:9 far outweigh discrepancies:

i. LXX has hypozygion (“beast of burden”) in stich no.3 and Matthew in stich no.4, whereas they both have pwlon (“colt”) exactly in the same position,

ii. Only Matthew uses onon (“ass”, generic, without explicit reference to sex), but this may be Matthew’s choice to specify clearly that it is an “ass”, and not, generically a “beast of burden”. In fact, by using the Greek word for “ass”, rather than the LXX “beast of burden”, Matthew may want to underline that in fact the “beast” upon which Jesus rides, being a “young colt”, is not yet, properly speaking, a “beast of burden”.

iii. Only Matthew uses uion (lit. “son”), but that can be easily explained (it is witnessed in Greek codices as a mistaken copy of neon - “young”).

What is unique to LXX and to Matthew, with respect to the original Hebrew Zachariah 9:9, is that while Zachariah 9:9 apparently speaks of ONE donkey (“riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of an ass”), both LXX and Matthew speak of TWO donkeys (“riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass” - a physical absurdity-impossibility). This is even more remarkable, bearing in mind that neither Mark, nor John, nor even Luke follow LXX and Matthew in the same apparent “mistake” or absurdity.

I believe that NOT ONLY my attempt at explaining the Matthean oddity (of “riding on two donkeys”) by recourse to the LXX is perfectly reasonable and satisfactory, BUT ALSO that, if one chooses not to resort to this explanation, one ends up in really deep waters as to why Matthew (and ONLY Matthew, NOT Mark, Luke and John) would have consciously reported this awkward image of the Messiah riding on TWO donkeys.

It seems reasonable to assume that Matthew drew his Zechariah 9:9 from a Hebrew text with “two steeds” similar (but perhaps not identical) to the one used as a basis for the LXX.

And it is precisely at this point that the visionary nature of Zachariah’s prophecy at Zech 9:9 appears.

Zechariah’s "gradual" Vision

Let’s suppose that the prophet Zechariah had a gradual vision of the Messiah and of two donkeys, an ass and her colt, and of the Messiah riding on the colt, possibly tied to his mother. Let’s examine again the LXX translation of Zechariah 9:9, stich by stich (ST1:ST4)

Zechariah probably, in the fuzziness of the vision, first saw the Messiah:

[ST1] “Behold, your king comes to you”

Then, like in a film, closing in on the Messiah, he had a strong impression of his majestic aspect:

[ST2] “righteous and having salvation”

Then the image “expanded” and he saw that the Messiah was humbly riding an ass:

[ST3] “meek and riding on a he-ass” [Hebrew: חֲמוֹר chamowr <H2543>, masculine (“he-ass”)]

We can perceive here that the vision is confused, that the seer “knows” there is more to the vision, and yes, he realizes that, in fact there are two animals, a colt (“young male he-ass”) [Hebrew: עַיִר ’ayir <H5895>] and its mother, a she-ass [Hebrew: אָתוֹן 'athown <H860>]:

[ST4] ”and [on] a colt, the foal [lit. “son”] of a she-ass”.

Note on the Vision

More comments on “Zechariah’s Vision”.

i. The uncertainty and “graduality” of the vision is hinted at by the Hebrew prefix conjunction we (“and”), before bkr rakab <H7392> (“riding”), which makes it appear as bkrw (we-rakab) and repeated before the conjunction le ’al <H5921> (“on”, “upon”), which makes it appear as lew (we-‘al).

ii. Also the LXX translates perfectly the Hebrew text of Zechariah 9:9, because the Greek conjunction και (kai <G2532>), in this verse, bears NOT the meaning of “and” BUT of “even”.

iii. The two English translations that are most faithful to the Hebrew text are NASB and NLT. They are the only ones that NEITHER omit the second vav/we (the one before le ’al <H5921> “on”, “upon”, which transforms it into lew - we-‘al), NOR translate it (as the KJV does) with a misleading “and”, BUT correctly express the sense of surprise proper of the vision with “even”. 

Matthew's awkward verse 21:7

Now that the quotation of Zehariah's vision is dealt with, Matthew proceeds on his own, and we can safely say that what he writes at verse 7 ... 

They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matt 21:7 NET)

... is awkwardly phrased

There is no doubt that the Greek phrase ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια (“[they] placed their cloaks on them”), which obviously refers to BOTH animals, is already confusing enough, even if not wrong.

But the last part of the sentence, καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is more than just confusing, because:

1. ἐπικαθίζω (epikathizô <G1940>) is used only once in the whole NT, at Mat 21:7. And we do not fare much better considering Greek literature in general. The most authoritative Liddle-Scott A Greek-English Lexicon records only 6 (six) occurrences throughout ancient Greek Texts (approx 5 million words). Besides epikathizô can be both transitive and intransitive, and, because the 3rd person singular is identical to the 3rd plural, ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω can be translated equally as “[they] sat [him] thereon” (KJV) or as “he sat on top them [the cloaks]”: they are both equally legitimate, and the grammar does not allow to decide.

2. ἐπάνω (epano <G1883>) means “above”, “on top” as adverb, but it can be also preposition + GEN. This is certainly the case at Mat 21:7, where αὐτῶν is the GEN. plural of αὐτός (autos <G846>).

3. αὐτῶν (autos <G846>), being a pronoun, could refer to the immediate noun (more grammatically correct), therefore refer to the ἱμάτια (“cloaks”), or refer to more remote nouns (less common and also less correct), τὴν ὄνον καὶ τὸν πῶλον (“the ass and the colt”)

In conclusion, the probable meaning of καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν is ...

“and [Jesus] sat on top of them [the cloaks]”

... BUT Matthew has phrased it so awkwardly that, from a lexical-grammatical POV, it could equally well mean “they sat [him] on top of them [the ass and the colt]”. Which, of course, would be total nonsense.

Word and Spirit: the "Everlasting Arms" of God

(Friday, March 1, 2013, 9:07 AM)

In the OT we find what may seem an obscure reference to the "eternal arms" of God:

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath [you] are [his] eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)

I have already amply argued, in a remote thread (beliefnet, "The Everlasting Arms of God") that the "eternal arms" of God are His Word and His Spirit.

If there was any doubt on this, a verse in Psalms makes perfectly clear what God's "arms" are:

“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (+ c. 202 AD) took up this image of the Word/Logos/Dabar an of the Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach as the two arms (or hands) of God over and over and over ...

"Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, IV, pref. 4)

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings, the angels], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, IV, 20.1)

"For never at any time did Adam escape the hands [Viz., the Son and the Spirit.] of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, [John i. 13] His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 1.3)

"For by means of the very same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning, did they receive this translation and assumption. For in Adam the hands of God had become accustomed to set in order, to rule, and to sustain His own workmanship, and to bring it and place it where they pleased." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 5.1)

"And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God ..." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, V, 28.4)

"And, since God is rational [logikos], therefore by (the) Word [Logos] He created the things that were made; and God is Spirit [Pneuma], and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. [Ps. 33:6 LXX]" (Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 5)

"But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of divine form: for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God." (Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 11)

... then, unfortunately, Origen (184/5–253/4), with his "three hypostases" and with his "eternal generation of the Son" started the abominable distortion ...

... and the Cappadocian scoundrels (active in the 2^nd half of the 4^th century AD) completed the job with their abominable trinitarian idol ...

The Shroud of Turin: a summary with some clarifications

(Friday, December 14, 2012, 11:53 AM)

“A man pours fragrance or water on Jesus’ body”(above)
and “An angel points to Jesus’empty shroud” (below),
illustrations in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, 1192–1195,
National Szechenyi Library, Budapest. 

The scriptural puzzle of Burial and Resurrection

(see The only possible "harmony" between Luke's and John's account of Jesus Burial)

John clearly speaks of the "face cloth" [soudarion], "which had been around Jesus’ head", and which has nothing to do with —and is clearly distinct from— the "strips of linen cloth" [othonia] (John 20:7).

There is no doubt, from the Synoptics, that the "Pious Women", followed Joseph of Arimathea, "saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it", BUT DID NOT anoint it, because “It was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning”, so there was no time. “Then they returned [to their accommodations] and prepared aromatic spices and perfumes”, with the plan of returning to anoint Jesus “on the first day of the week”. There is also no doubt that no woman is mentioned in John's Gospel, where ONLY Joseph and Nicodemus took part in the cleaning, anointing and wrapping of Jesus' body in "strips of linen cloth" [othonia].

Nicodemus certainly took part in the cleaning, anointing and wrapping of Jesus' body in "strips of linen cloth" [othonia], BUT there is no evidence that he arrived at the same time as Joseph, nor that that "Pious Women" were present at the procedure. Why would they have wanted to come back to the tomb with the "aromatic spices" (Luke 23:56-24:1), if they had attended to what Joseph and Nicodemus had already (and thoroughly) done?

It is hard to believe that there is no intentional reason for Luke to use the word sindon before the tomb was closed (Luke 23:53 — BTW, the ONLY word used in Matthew and Mark), and then to use the word othonia after the tomb was found open (Luke 24:12 — ³ tn In the NT this term is used only for strips of cloth used to wrap a body for burial — LN 6.154; BDAG 693 s.v. ὀθόνιον — BTW, the ONLY word used in John). It is hard to believe that Luke casually used those two words (sindon and othonia) as though they were interchangeable.

Luke says explicitly that Peter was puzzled ("wondered what had happened"), going home after he'd seen in the tomb "only the strips of linen cloth [othonia]" (Luke 24:12). There is no suggestion whatsoever that he took the absence of Jesus' body as "evidence of the glorious resurrection of his Lord itself".

Historical and scientific clarifications

(see The Shroud of Turin: authenticity and image formation)

Some people, so as to exclude Raymond Rogers' (non miraculous) theory of the image formation by means of the Maillard Reaction (see The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) may explain the Image Formation, by  Raymond N. Rogers & Anna Arnoldi, ©2003), opposes to it the "radiation theory". See, for instance,  the article, "The Shroud is not a fake" - Vatican Insider (Dec 12, 2011), produced by a faithful "Vaticanate" like Marco Tosatti, in turn providing the "evidence" of the Italian agency ENEA. The later article Radiation could have created Holy Shroud image - Vatican Insider, (March 9, 2012), by another faithful "Vaticanate", Andrea Tornielli, is of the same "quality" ...

Why would the Vatican oppose the "Maillard reaction theory"? For (at least) two reasons:

1) the Maillard reaction theory would imply an (at least incipient) corruption of Jesus' body, which is obviously felt as "theologically embarrassing" for a strict and literal interpretation of Acts 2:27; 13:35 (cp. Ps 16:10), especially if applied to one who would be not just Messiah, Son of God, Incarnation nof God's Word, but even "god-the-son";

2) the "energy burst" theory (while totally incompatible with scientific evidence — see Raymond Rogers' "Frequently Asked Questions"‚ 2004‚ PDF @ shroud.com, no. 3) is, of course, felt as much more "theologically appropriate": nothing, of course, would suit the Resurrection better than a suggestion of Jesus' body turning into "pure light"!

The Turin Shroud is special precisely because (while not necessarily miraculous, in the sense of "unexplainable by the ordinary behaviour of nature" — although even Raymond Rogers admitted that the clarity and resolution of the image is uncanny) it provides support for the conclusion that a severely brutalized body was only temporarily in contact with it.

It is clear that (at least after 1978) we have become SURE (pace dishonest "scientists" and various quacks) that NOBODY can reproduce ALL the characteristics of the Shroud image, that we have a realistic hypothesis of image formation, viz. the "Maillard reaction theory" (albeit insufficient to explain the uncanny clarity and resolution of the image), and that we have a plausible route of the Shroud (at least from Edessa, to Constantinople 944, to Athens 1204, to Lirey 1356), the Shroud may indeed be a silent attestation to the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.

So, far from appealing to the "marvellous", the Shroud of Turin is indeed a "silent Gospel" ...

• those who DO NOT believe in the Resurrection, will affirm, at most (if they consider the Gospel accounts at all reliable ... up to the Resurrection — excluded, of course) that the body of Jesus was transferred elsewhere (“They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”);

• those who DO believe in the Gospel accounts of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus, and, most of all, in the uninterrupted Apostolic witness to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, will consider it as a ... "Fifth Gospel" ...

... that helps fill the gaps of the Four Canonical Gospels, and, in particular, the manifest discrepancies between Luke and John ...

The Incarnation of God's Logos (The Prologue of John’s Gospel)

(Monday, November 19, 2012, 5:25 PM)

Martin Schongauer‚ The Nativity (ca. 1480)

John’s Gospel speaks about the Incarnation of God’s Word (Logos) in/as the “man called Jesus” (John 9:11).

Where I disagree with the "trinitarians" (including Subordinationists) is that the Word has a personal subsistence (hypostasis), distinct from that of God, the Father Almighty, before the Incarnation. In fact the interlude about John the Baptist at verses 6-8, has the literary function of preparing a “change of scene” between the pre-incarnated Logos, eternal attribute of the Eternal God, and the incarnate Logos, viz. Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at the complete Prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18). I have adopted the ESV translation, but other translations, like the NET, are equally good. On the other hand, the NAB translation (which is the official translation of the USCCCB) is in difformity with all the others, in particular John 1:3-4.

1. In the beginning was the Word, [Grk. ho logos] and the Word was with [The] God [Grk. ho theos], and the Word was God [Grk. theos].
The distinction between the first instance of “God”, with the article [ho theos], and the second, without the article [theos] is not accidental: in the first case the Evangelist is speaking of The God, in the second case God is a “substantive-adjective”, it indicates that the Word is (essentially) God. Nowhere does it say (or imply) here that we are talking of a different “person”. We can paraphrase John 1:1, in a language much more accessible to our understanding, as:

"In the beginning, [even before creation], the Word was [already in existence]. The Word was [intimately associated] with God. And [in fact] the Word was [as to the essence, fully] God."

2. He [Grk. outos, lit. "this"] was in the beginning with God.
In English translations, the masculine pronoun "he" is used by analogy with the Greek, in which the word Logos is of masculine (grammatical!) gender. This is pure coincidence, as can be easily seen form the fact that, for instance, in Greek the word Pneuma (“Spirit”), is of neuter gender.

In the following verses, till verse no.10, even if the word Logos is not used any more until verse no.14, the reference is to the Logos of God, which is an essential attribute of God. Only at verse no.11, John’s Prologue starts speaking of Jesus of Nazareth in/as whom the Logos of God became incarnated by means of the Holy Spirit of God and born of the Virgin Mary, as a person, the one person of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, one-begotten of the One God and Father, YHWH.

3. All things came to be through him [Grk. di'autou], and without him [Grk. chôris autou] was not any thing made that was made.

4. In him [Grk. en autô] was life, and the life was the light of men.

N.B. The NAB translation, with totally arbitrary punctuation, and with a distortion of sense, translates vv. 3-4 as

3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

5. The light [Grk. phôs - neuter] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. [Grk. autô - neuter]

The Greek verbal form for “overcome” (katelaben) is variously translated: “comprehend”, “admit”, “receive", “master”, even “put out”.

6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
8. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

10. He [the pronoun is NOT in the Greek text, but the verse still refers back to God's Logos] was in the world, and the world was made through him [Grk. di'autou], yet the world did not know him [Grk. auton].
11. He [the pronoun is NOT in the Greek text, but, from now on, the text clearly refers to Jesus, in/as whom the Logos of God became incarnated] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
12. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son [or: the one-begotten Son – see note below #] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15. [John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”]
16. And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18. No one has ever seen God; the only [one, who is] God [or: the one-begotten Son – see note below #], who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

# The Greek word, in both verses, is monogenês. See the ample discussion at NET Note ¹ tc appended to John 1:18. In the Greek MSS there are two main variants of what appears here as “the only God”, based on whether the text has theos or yios.

John 17:3 and that little squirmy thing, Augustine

(Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 4:04 AM)

Augustine of Hippo, portrait by Philippe de Champaigne (1645-1650)

This is what Augustine wrote, to his eternal shame ... 
 

“And this,” He [Jesus, according to John 17:3] adds, “is eternal life,  that they may know Thee, the only  true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast sent.” The proper order [sic! LOL! the Augustinian chutzpah!]  of  the words is, “That they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou  hast  sent, as the only true God.” -- Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John etc., Ch. XVII, 1-5, Tractate CV, §3 (@ ccel.org)

That little squirmy thing, Augustine, dares to change the order of the words of the Gospel of John, for the simple reason that, otherwise they wouldn't jibe with his "trinitarianism".

Let's make it fool proof for the sake of trinitarians.

This is what Jesus said, according to the Gospel of John:

“And this is eternal life,
[1]  that they may know Thee,
[2] the only  true God,
[3] and Jesus Christ,
[4] whom Thou hast sent.”
(John 17:3 KJV)

This is how that little squirmy thing, Augustine, abominably twists his words:

“[And this is eternal life,]
[1=>1] [t]hat they may know Thee
[3=>2] and Jesus Christ,
[4=>3] whom Thou  hast  sent,
[2=>4] as the only true God.”
(John 17:3, after Augustine's "treatment")

Triple yuck!

Jesus: "god-the-son" or Son of God?

(Friday, April 13, 2012, 5:36 PM)

Jesus NEVER refers to himself, purely and simply, as God. In fact, when the Jewish leaders accuse him of making himself equal to God ...

The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.” (John 10:33 - emphasis by MdS)

... he corrects their misconception ...

₃₄ Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ₃₅ If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), ₃₆ do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34-36 - emphasis by MdS)

... with unmistakable words, that only people with trinitarian glasses can mis-read as though it was written "I am god-the-son" ...

Jesus, "ho theos" ... qualified

(Friday, April 13, 2012, 9:56 AM)

(ho theos mou)

Jesus is referred to (by others, NEVER by himself) as "God"; as for "the God" (with the article, arthrous, in Greek ho theos), this rule applies:

In the Scriptures (NT and also LXX) the Greek expression ho theos, when used absolutely, without complements and/or qualifiers, is ONLY referred to God, the Father Almighty.

When it is referred to other than God the Father Almighty, it is invariably accompanied by a qualifier/complement. For instance, in John 20:28 (ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου, ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, "my Lord and my God") the qualifier/complement is the genitive μου, mou, "of me".

Let my provide two more examples which confirm the rule.

In Titus 2:13 (του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου, tou megalou theou kai sôtêros êmôn christou iêsou, "of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus") the qualifier/complement is the genitive ημων, êmôn, "our" (lit. "of ours").

In 2 Peter 1:1 (εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου, en dikaiosunê tou theou êmôn kai sôtêros iêsou christou, "through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ") the qualifier/complement is, again, the genitive ημων, êmôn, "our" (lit. "of ours").

But there is another example that is, IMO, conclusive ...

₃ But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, ₄ among whom the god of this age [ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου, ho theos tou aiônos toutou] has  blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the  light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of [the] God [του θεου, tou theou]. (2 Cor 4:3-4)

... because it confirms, at the same time, that the qualified expression ο θεος (ho theos) is NOT necessarily referred to [the] God [του θεου, tou theou] —in fact it is referred, in this case, even to God's enemy, Satan!— BUT, when it is un-qualified, absolute, it certainly refers to [the] God [του θεου, tou theou]: THE One and Only God.

"Begotten before all ages"? Bah ...

(Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 6:40 AM)

That the clause "[begotten] before all ages" was craftily added to the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD is evident from the comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381.

Let's now get to the bottom of this "before all ages" thingy.

First, that the "before all ages" clause did NOT exist in the original Nicene Creed of 325, is a fact. It was ONLY added at  Constantinople in 381 (if not even later ...) because the Conciliar Fathers  needed to add it, so as to sanction, with a collective sleigh of hand, an "official" understanding of the godhead that had completely changed over the 4th  century.

Second, it may come as a surprise to many that the "before all ages" clause first appeared where one would never expect to see it, in Arius' own letter to Constantine in 327 (Arius' Letter to the Emperor Constantine, 327 CE, NPNF2-02, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book II, Chapter XXVII @ ccel.org ], a "creed" compiled by Arius and his crony, deacon and supporter  Euzoïus, apparently along the lines of the Nicene Creed of 325, which easily procured for them the return from exile and the return in the  favor of Emperor Constantine, which should prove how irrelevant was the Nicene Creed for the purpose for  which it was officially defined: the definitive quashing of the Arian heresy.

Third, several "creeds" were written in the period between 325 and 381 (as A Chronology of the Arian Controversy, @ http://legalhistorysources.com, attests). By the time of the Synod of Alexandria  (362), when the wind changed for the Arian party, there were as many as eleven (11!!!) Arian "confessions" (see The Eleven Arian Confessions, @ arian-catholic.org: the Eleventh Arian Confession is of 361 AD), most of which included the "before all ages" clause.

Of course by the time of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the "before all ages" had sunk in: either by persuasion, or by exhaustion, or by political compromise.