What is the source of this quote: "not protesting against himself being good"

[Giuseppe]

I don't find the source of this quote: "not protesting against himself being good".

Yet the Fathers did not see it in any such light. They regarded it as an argument for the divinity of the Jesus, a syllogism with suppressed conclusion : You call me good; God alone is good; therefore you call me (and correctly call me) God, "not protesting against himself being good," says the ancient exegete. And how will anyone prove that the Fathers were wrong?

(W. B. Smith, Ecce Deus, p. 195)

Is it Hilary of Poiters, Comm. Matt.?

It is to them that the Lord bore witness37 to the severity of future judgment when he says in response: Why do you call me good?38 While it is necessary for him to punish impiety and iniquity, he refrains from the term “good,”39 reserving this term for God the Father alone.40 It is he [the Father] who, by delivering the right of judgment to him [Christ], removed from himself the utterance of this severe [retort];41 not because Christ was not himself good,42 but because it was appropriate that, .

Or is it a different source?

Thank you in advance.

[StephenGoranson]

Though I don't know the answer, I'll mention one possibility.
On a quick look, W. B. Smith seems to be pretty good at citing his sources, so if he had one particular Father in mind, maybe he would have given a specific source.
But he may be talking about Fathers, plural, and, if so, he may have given a generic, paraphrased characterization of their typical attitude, in his opinion, even though he placed it in quotation marks.
Maybe this suggestion is wrong. One way to check it is whether he does this sort of thing elsewhere in the book, though I didn't check that.

[Peter Kirby]

Google search on the exact English phrase strongly suggests that this particular phrase was introduced first by W. B. Smith, Ecce Deus, p. 195. There are no other results.

If it's referencing something in particular, that has most likely been rephrased.

[Giuseppe]

I think that WB Smith was right to label it as a mere slogan repeated by more than a Father, since the refrain appears to be the same in Hilary of Poitiers:

At the outset, then, I would ask these misinterpreters, Do you think that the Lord resented being called good? Would He rather have been called bad, as seems to be signified by the words, Why do you call Me good? I do not think any one is so unreasonable as to ascribe to Him a confession of wickedness, when it was He Who said, Come unto Me, all you that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me: for I am meek and lowly of heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. He says He is meek and lowly: can we believe that He was angry because He was called good? The two propositions are inconsistent. He Who witnesses to His own goodness would not repudiate the name of Good. Plainly, then, He was not angry because He was called good: and if we cannot believe that He resented being called good, we must ask what was said of Him which He did resent.

16. Let us see, then, how the questioner styled Him, beside calling Him good. He said, Good Master, what good thing shall I do ? Adding to the title of good that of master. If Christ then did not chide because He was called good, it must have been because He was called good Master. Further the manner of His reproof shows that it was the disbelief of the questioner, rather than the name of master, or of good, which He resented. A youth, who provides himself upon the observance of the law, but did not know the end of the law Romans 10:4, which is Christ, who thought himself justified by works, without perceiving that Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel , and to those who believe that the law cannot save through the faith of justification , questioned the Lord of the law, the Only-begotten God, as though He were a teacher of the common precepts and the writings of the law. But the Lord, abhorring this declaration of irreverent unbelief, which addresses Him as a teacher of the law, answered, Why do you call Me good? and to show how we may know, and call Him good, He added, None is good, save one, God, not repudiating the name of good, if it be given to Him as God.

17. Then, as a proof that He resents the name good master, on the ground of the unbelief, which addresses Him as a man, He replies to the vain-glorious youth, and his boast that he had fulfilled the law, One thing you lack, go, sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. There is no shrinking from the title of good in the promise of heavenly treasures, no reluctance to be regarded as master in the offer to lead the way to perfect blessedness. But there is reproof of the unbelief which draws an earthly opinion of Him from the teaching, that goodness belongs to God alone. To signify that He is both good and God, He exercises the functions of goodness, opening the heavenly treasures, and offering Himself as guide to them. All the homage offered to Him as man He repudiates, but he does not disown that which He paid to God; for at the moment when He confesses that the one God is good, His words and actions are those of the power and the goodness and the nature of the one God.

18. That He did not shrink from the title of good, or decline the office of master, but resented the unbelief which perceived no more in Him than body and flesh, may be proved from the difference of His language, when the apostles confessed Him their Master, You call Me Master, and Lord, and you say well, for so I am John 13:13; and on another occasion, Be not called masters, for Christ is your Master.

[Charles Wilson]

Matthew 19: 13 – 23 (RSV):

[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
[15] And he laid his hands on them and went away.
[16] And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
[17] And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

Whenever you see a story of this Type, you look for a Clue, a Link, and you will usually find one. Here we find an Ol' Reliable: A story of Caesar, Herod and his wayward son Archelaus (This from New Testament Origins):

"For centuries, people have read this and seen a Great Promise of Eternal Life. It is nothing of the sort. It is cynicism and not even the most vicious cynicism that will be found. The cynicism begins with...the children:

Josephus, War..., 2, 2, 4:

“Caesar had maturely weighed by himself what both had to allege for themselves, as also had considered of the great burden of the kingdom, and largeness of the revenues, and withal the number of the children Herod had left behind him...”

Matthew 19: 13 – 14 (RSV):
[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."


“Oh, no, no, no...we mustn't deprecate the CHILDREN. Cynicism. Pure Cynicism.""

The extended Analysis reveals this to be a Caesar story through and through [The one asking about Eternal Life is Archelaus. Eternal Life is for the Rulers, not the Little People]. There is one who is good and it ain't Caesar. Note also the use of "Kingdom of Heaven". The Author has knowledge of the situations and is writing Beyond Irony. Cynically.

CW

[StephenGoranson]

I don't follow your proposed reasoning, CW.

[Charles Wilson]

I don't follow your proposed reasoning, CW.

Do tell.

I write this not to satisfy some puerile desire on someone's part for a faux dialogue - I've certainly better things to do - but for others who might want to find an entry point for understanding my view of the Roman Construction of the NT.

Josephus, War, 2, 2, 1 and 4, in part (emph. added):

1. ARCHELAUS went down now to the sea-side, with his mother and his friends, Poplas, and Ptolemy, and Nicolaus, and left behind him Philip, to be his steward in the palace, and to take care of his domestic affairs. Salome went also along with him with her sons, as did also the king's brethren and sons-in-law. These, in appearance, went to give him all the assistance they were able, in order to secure his succession, but in reality to accuse him for his breach of the laws by what he had done at the temple.
***
4. Sabinus did also afford these his assistance to the same purpose by letters he sent, wherein he accused Archelaus before Caesar, and highly commended Antipas. Salome also, and those with her, put the crimes which they accused Archelaus of in order, and put them into Caesar's hands; and after they had done that, Archelaus wrote down the reasons of his claim, and, by Ptolemy, sent in his father's ring, and his father's accounts. And when Caesar had maturely weighed by himself what both had to allege for themselves, as also had considered of the great burden of the kingdom, and largeness of the revenues, and withal the number of the children Herod had left behind him..."

Well, well, well, Herod dies and everyone wants a piece of the pie that's left. By the way, what's so important about this Ptolemy and this Nicholas of Damascus? Who should care?

1. Nicholas of Damascus is what might be called a "Political Control Officer". He teaches Herod about the Ways of the Modern State, the Greek Model of the Royal Court. HE ARGUES IN FRONT OF CAESAR AND ALWAYS WINS.
He is, simply speaking, a PLAYER. An important one.

2. Ptolemy is Nick's brother and he has an important job: HE CARRIES HEROD'S SEAL *No Official Documents without Herod's Seal"!!!

3 'N where is Herod? He's at the Palace in Jericho. Why is this important?
PASSOVER IS HERE AND THERE IS A COUP PLANNED!!!
Passover and the Feast begin during the Mishmarot coverage of the Groups Bilgah and Immer (This year, 4 BCE)!
If Herod is even alive at this time (Even his dinky is eaten by worms...), who could stop the Coup?

4. Enter the Party Boy Archelaus, who, by chance, is in Jerusalem at this moment.

5. Herod is dying or dead. He has ordered a Round-Up of Important People to be murdered and there is a Coup centered in the Priesthood that is on for Passover. People from everywhere are streaming into Jerusalem.

6. What to do?

Hey, WAYDAMMINIT!!! "Ptolemy, you have the Seal and - Do we know that Herod's actually dead or not? - Ya' know, it don't matter...We need to write up something with the Seal... Don't kill all those people and we'll lay all this on Archelaus...Yeah, that'll work..."

7. "When Nicolaus had gone through all he had to say, Archelaus came, and fell down before Caesar's knees, without any noise; - upon which he raised him up, after a very obliging manner, and declared that truly he was worthy to succeed his father. However, he still made no firm determination in his case; but when he had dismissed those assessors that had been with him that day, he deliberated by himself about the allegations which he had heard, whether it were fit to constitute any of those named in the testaments for Herod's successor, or whether the government should be parted among all his posterity, and this because of the number of those that seemed to stand in need of support therefrom..."

That's how you set things up. You get some child of a Ruler who dies to fall at your feet and GIVE you the Kingdom.

Later, you rewrite the story through your Court Writers into the story of a savior/god, loyal to Rome.
***
Save your venom, SG. This is for those who are looking for something else.

CW

[StephenGoranson]

"venom"?
I just am not persuaded. Is that allowed?

[Charles Wilson]

Yes, of course. However, I ask that you at least appear to try to understand.
Sincerely.

[StephenGoranson]

I try to understand. If my posts and publications do not suggest such to you, I'm not sure what it would take.