On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:38 am

The textual addition to Galatians with respect to "mount Sinai which is in Arabia" not present in the Marcionite canon (by universal agreement) is yet another example of the forger's strange interest in a messianic "sign" associated with Arabia

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:07 pm

The Arabian references in the Dialogue:

taken away. And He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers unto the ends of the earth. Ethiopians shall fall down before Him, and His enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and the isles shall offer gifts; the kings of Arabia and Seba shall offer gifts; and all the kings of the earth shall worship Him, and all the nations shall serve Him: for He has delivered the poor from the man of power, and the needy that hath no helper. [34]

Then Trypho said, "I admit that such and so great arguments are sufficient to persuade one; but I wish[you] to know that I ask you for the proof which you have frequently proposed to give me. Proceed then to make this plain to us, that we may see how you prove that that[passage] refers to this Christ of yours. For we assert that the prophecy relates to Hezekiah." And I replied, "I shall do as you wish. But show me yourselves first of all how it is said of Hezekiah, that before he knew how to call father or mother, he received the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of the king of Assyria. For it will not be conceded to you, as you wish to explain it, that Hezekiah waged war with the inhabitants of Damascus and Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria. 'For before the child knows how to call father or mother,' the prophetic word said, 'He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria.' For if the Spirit of prophecy had not made the statement with an addition, 'Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' but had only said, 'And shall bear a son, and he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' then you might say that God foretold that he would take these things, since He fore-knew it. But now the prophecy has stated it with this addition: 'Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria.' And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to any one among the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character. For you know," continued I, "that the Holy Spirit oftentimes announces such events by parables and similitudes; just as He did towards all the people in Jerusalem, frequently saying to them, 'Thy father is an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite.

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "So Herod, when the Magi from Arabia did not return to him, as he had asked them to do, but had departed by another way to their own country, according to the commands laid on them; and when Joseph, with Mary and the Child, had now gone into Egypt, as it was revealed to them to do; as he did not know the Child whom the Magi had gone to worship, ordered simply the whole of the children then in Bethlehem to be massacred. And Jeremiah prophesied that this would happen, speaking by the Holy Ghost thus: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.' Therefore, on account of the voice which would be heard from Ramah, i.e., from Arabia(for there is in Arabia at this very time a place called Rama), wailing would come on the place where Rachel the wife of Jacob called lsrael, the holy patriarch, has been buried, i.e., on Bethlehem; while the women weep for their own slaughtered children, and have no consolation by reason of what has happened to them. For that expression of Isaiah 'He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' foretold that the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus should be overcome by Christ as soon as He was born; and this is proved to have happened. For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this[dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia. Hence it would be becoming for you, sirs, to learn what you have not perceived, from those who have received grace from God, namely, from us Christians; and not to strive in every way to maintain your own doctrines, dishonouring those of God. Therefore also this grace has been transferred to us, as Isaiah says, speaking to the following effect: 'This people draws near to Me, they honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; but in vain they worship Me, teaching the commands and doctrines of men. Therefore, behold, I will proceed to remove this people, and I shall remove them; and I shall take away the wisdom of their wise men, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent men.' " [77 - 78]

"Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God; so that it was prophesied that the powers enumerated by Isaiah would come upon Him, not because He needed power, but because these would not continue after Him. And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown. [88]

"And what follows--'My hope from the breasts of my mother. On Thee have I been cast from the womb; from my mother's belly Thou art my God: for there is no helper. Many calves have compassed me; fat bulls have beset me round. They opened their mouth upon me, as a ravening and a roaring lion. All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water. My heart has become likes wax melting in the midst of my belly. My strength is become dry like a potsherd; and my tongue has cleaved to my throat'--foretold what would come to pass; for the statement, 'My hope from the breasts of my mother,' [is thus explained]. As soon as He was born in Bethlehem, as I previously remarked, king Herod, having learned from the Arabian Magi about Him, made a plot to put Him to death and by God's command Joseph took Him with Mary and departed into Egypt. For the Father had decreed that He whom He had begotten should be put to death, but not before He had grown to manhood, and proclaimed the word which proceeded from Him. [102]

"Then what is next said in the Psalm--'For trouble is near, for there is none to help me. Many calves have compassed me; fat bulls have beset me round. They opened their mouth upon me as a ravening and roaring lion. All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water,'--was likewise a prediction of the events which happened to Him. For on that night when some of your nation, who had been sent by the Pharisees and Scribes, and teachers, came upon Him from the Mount of Olives, those whom Scripture called butting and prematurely destructive calves surrounded Him. And the expression, 'Fat bulls have beset me round,' He spoke beforehand of those who acted similarly to the calves, when He was led before your teachers. And the Scripture described them as bulls, since we know that bulls are authors of calves' existence. As therefore the bulls are the begetters of the calves, so your teachers were the cause why their children went out to the Mount of Olives to take Him and bring Him to them. And the expression, 'For there is none to help,' is also indicative of what took place. For there was not even a single man to assist Him as an innocent person. And the expression, 'They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,' designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him. [103]

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. [106]

Apology

For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites who were there, and while he was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush, and said, "Put off thy shoes, and draw near and hear." And he, when he had put off his shoes and drawn near, heard that he was to go down into Egypt and lead out the people of the Israelites there; and he received mighty power from Christ, who spoke to him in the appearance of fire, and went down and led out the people, having done great and marvellous things; which, if you desire to know, you will learn them accurately from his writings. [62]

Philo Life of Moses 1

As they urged these arguments to the king he retreated to the contiguous country of Arabia, where it was safe to abide, entreating God that he would deliver his countrymen from inextricable calamities, and would worthily chastise their oppressors who omitted no circumstance of insolence and tyranny, and would double his joy by allowing him to behold the accomplishment of both these prayers. And God heard his prayers, looking favourably on his disposition, so devoted to what is good, and so hostile to what is evil, and not long after he pronounced his decision upon the affairs of that land as became a God. [47]

Origen Comm John

The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes;" and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea.

Eusebius On the Star

And along with these things, both the deeds which Moses did in inner Arabia, and in outer Arabia, and in Rekem of Gea, and in the regions which were round about the cities of Moab, and the history of the Star, which Balaam spoke, and so forth;----these things the princes and judges of those places |155 wrote down, and sent and made them known ; and they were read before askrtos, the king of the Assyrians, who was reigning at the time in which they were done. And he commanded, and the record of these matters was deposited in the fortress of Achmethan, where they were preserved among the books of the kings of Assyria, as was also the custom in other countries

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:33 pm

Eusebius Preparation 7:1

What, then, was there to fear in the dispensation of the Incarnation, since the undefiled was incapable of defilement, and the pure of being soiled by the flesh, and the passionless Word of God of corruption by the proper nature of the body, any more than the rays of the sun are harmed by touching corpses and all sorts of bodily things? Nay, on the contrary, the corruptible was transformed by the divine Word, and was made holy and immortal, even (d) as He willed: yea, and so it ministered to the divine purpose and works of the Spirit. And all this was done by a loving God and by the Word of God for the curing and salvation of all men, in accordance with the words of the prophets who had foretold from ancient days His wondrous Birth of a Virgin. And quite necessarily the prophet prefaces Christ's Birth of a Virgin by an exhortation to attention, crying aloud to his hearers, "If ye will not believe, neither (315) shall ye understand."

And then he adds the following words: |54

"10. And the Lord added to speak unto Ahaz saying, 11. Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God in the depth or in the height. 12. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt God. 13. And he said, Hear now, house of David; is it a small thing to you to strive with man, and how do ye strive with the Lord? 14. Therefore the Lord shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel: 15. Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows to choose the good and refuse the evil. 16. Wherefore before the child know good or evil, he does not obey wickedness, that he should choose the good. And the earth shall be forsaken, on account of that which thou fearest, of her two kings."

Such is the prophecy. But the opening of the prophecy (c) is worthy of our study, which bears witness to those that read it, "If ye do not believe, neither will ye understand." And it is above all necessary to note that the words shew that its readers need not only intellect but faith, and not only faith but intellect. Hence the Jews who do not believe in Christ, though they are even now hearers of these words, have not even yet understood Him of Whom the prophecy was given, so that in their case the prediction has its primary fulfilment. For though they hear daily with their ears the prophecies about Christ, they hear them not (d) with the ears of their mind. And the sole cause of their ignorance is unbelief, as the prophecy truly reveals of them and to them. For it says, "If ye will not believe, neither shall ye understand."

And if they say that she who conceived is called not a virgin but a young woman in Scripture (for so it is said it is explained among them) what worthy sign of the promise of God, we answer, would this be, if like all women after union with a man a young woman were naturally to conceive? And how could he that were born of her be God? And not simply God, but "God with us"? For that is the meaning of Emmanuel, which name it says the child is to be called. "For behold a virgin," it says, "shall conceive (316) and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us." Where would be |55 God's struggle, where His labour and difficulty, if a woman were to bring forth in the accustomed manner?

For in our versions translated by the Seventy, men of Hebrew race, experts in the accuracy of their knowledge of their national language, we find: "Is it a small thing for you to contend with man? And how will ye contend with God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, who (b) shall be called God with us." (For as I said this is the meaning of Emmanuel.) And in the versions of the Jews according to the transcript of Aquila [Aquila was a proselyte, and not a Jew by birth] we have a rendering to the same effect, "Hear then, house of David; is it a small thing with you to weary men that ye would weary my God also? Therefore He will give you this sign: Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel." In Symmachus it stands thus— [Symmachus is said to have been an Ebionite. There was a sect of the Jews so designated said to have believed in Christ, to which Symmachus belonged, and his rendering is as follows]—"Hear, house of David, is it not enough for you to weary men, that ye weary my God? "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you this sign: "Behold a young woman conceives and bears a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel." For since the hardness of the Jewish (d) character and their disinclination for holiness caused sweat and toil, and no common labour and struggle to the prophets of old time, therefore he says, "Is it not enough for you to weary the prophets of God, and to contend with men: but now will ye even weary my God, and contend even with my God also?" Such is Theodotion's translation. Thus the prophet calls the God, Who is like to be wearied |56 and challenged to contend, his own God, and not the God of those whom he addresses, which he could hardly do if he referred to the Supreme God of the Jews, among whom it had been handed down from their Fathers that they must (317) preserve the worship of God the Creator of all things. And what could the contest and labour or the toil of this God in the prophecy refer to but His entry by human birth, as I and the Septuagint interpret it, of a virgin, or even according to the current Jewish rendering, of a young woman? For you will find in Moses the phrase "young woman "used of one who is undoubtedly a virgin, at least he uses the word of one who has been violated by one person after her betrothal to another.

(b) But also Emmanuel, the child of the Virgin, is to be endowed with more than human power, He is to choose the good before He knows evil, and to refuse evil in choosing the good: and this not in manhood but in childhood. Therefore it runs, "Before the child knows good or evil, he shall refuse evil in choosing the good," which shews that He is completely immune from evil. And He (c) bears a greater than any human name, God with us. And this is why the sign connected with Him is said to have depth, and also height: depth, by reason of His descent to humanity, and His presence here even unto death: height, by reason of the restitution of His divine glory from the depth, or because of the divine nature of His pre-existence. Emmanuel can only be He Who has already |57 been proved to be God the Lord, Who was seen by Abraham in human shape. And if the Jews refer the prophecy to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, saying that his birth was thus (d) predicted to his father, we answer that Hezekiah was not God with us, nor was any sign shewn forth in him of a divine nature. Nor was there any divine struggle or labour attendant on his birth. Hezekiah, moreover, can be shewn to be excluded by the date of the prophecy. For this prophecy was given about future events when his father Ahaz was actually king, whereas Hezekiah is known to have been born before Ahaz came to the throne. And if the prophecy we are considering has no reference to him, it is still further from referring to any other Jew who lived after its date, except to the birth of the true Emmanuel, that is, (318) God born with us, and to the sojourn among men of our Saviour the Word of God. For the land of the Jews was left desolate by the loss of its two kings, as the oracle said would come to pass as follows: "The land shall be deserted from the face of two kings"; and this actually and literally took place. For in the time of King Ahaz and Isaiah son of Amos at the date of this prophecy, the king of Syria in Damascus, and the king of Israel in Samaria, not the king (b) who ruled at Jerusalem, but the king of the multitude of Jews who revolted from the law of God, made a compact one with another, and besieged them that were under the sovereignty of David's successors. The prophecy foretells the destruction of both these kings, both the Jew and the one of foreign race, who had combined together against the Lord's people, and says that they will swiftly be severed and give up the war: and that their kingdom and succession (c) will be completely destroyed and extinguished after the birth of Him who is foretold as "God with us."

Now recognize at what date the kingdoms of Damascus and Judaea both ceased to exist, and at what period the land of the Jews was left without a king, as well as the land of the Damascenes, once so powerful, formerly the great overlord of all Syria. For the probability is that at the time of their destruction Emmanuel would be born, and He that was foretold would come. If we to-day could see the (d) kingdoms referred to still in existence, it would be vain to inquire further, we could only extend our hopes into the future; but if their destruction is actually evident, so that |58 our time sees no kingdom either of Damascus or of Judaea, it is clear that the prophecy has been fulfilled which said, "And the land shall be deserted from the face of two kings, whom thou fearest, from their face,"—kings being used for "kingdoms." For Symmachus says, "The land shall be left, from which you suffer ill, by the face of her two kings." And Aquila, "The land shall be left, which thou disdainest, from the face of her two kings." And Theodotion translates thus, "The land shall be left, which thou hatest, from the face of her two kings." Do you see how it is prophesied that the land shall be left kingless? What land, but that of Damascus, and that of Israel? For the kings to whom the prophecy refers ruled these lands. It was their lands that Ahaz despised or hated, wearied and suffering under their attacks. When then did they fall? For if this part of the prophecy was fulfilled, the foregoing part must have also taken place, and this was, that a Virgin should bear "God with us."

Now if we inquire of history it is abundantly clear that the line of kings of Damascus was uninterrupted up to the date of the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ. The holy apostle mentions Aretas, King of Damascus, and the kingship of the Jews continued untouched even until then, though it was irregular: for Herod and his successors in the time of our Saviour did not inherit the throne as being of David's line.

And it was after His Appearing, and the preaching of the Gospel of the Virgin's Son to all mankind, that the land was "left of the face of two kings." For from that date by the rule of the Roman Emperor over all nations, all local dominion in city and state ceased, and the prophecy before us in common with the others was fulfilled. |59

Such was the literal fulfilment. But the prophecy also shews figuratively the stability, the calmness and peace of every soul, who receives the God that was born, Emmanuel Himself. For now that the one Christ, and the Word (d) proclaimed by Him, rule as kings over the souls of men, the old enemies have been put to flight, the two forms of sin, the one that leads men into idolatry and into a diversity of varied beliefs, the other that tempts them to moral ruin. Of these I say the earthly kings of old above-named were symbols. Of these the king of Damascus was the picture of the Gentile errors with regard to idols. And the other, of those who had rebelled from Jerusalem, that is to say from the worship of God according to the Law.

That we should understand the passage figuratively can (320) also be seen from what follows, where it is prophesied that in the time of Emmanuel certain flies and bees will attack the Jews, some from Egypt, some from Assyria, and that a man will shave their head and feet and beard, and that a man will nourish a heifer and two sheep, and other things destined to happen at one and the same time, which it is impossible to understand literally, but only figuratively. (b)

This, then, is so. And the proof that the Scripture before us foretold the manner of the Birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, is supported by the Evangelist, who wrote:

"18. The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19. And Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20. And while he thus intended, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him saying, Joseph, Son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21. And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22. And all this was done that the word of the Lord spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted, God with us." |60

And thus according to our teaching the reality of the divine foreknowledge is confirmed by the course of events, otherwise the truth of the prophecy could not have been shewn. Let us now consider the important things which it is said in the next part of the prophecy will happen in that day, that is to say at the time of Christ's appearing.

Irenaeus 3.16.4 Now these are the works of Christ. He therefore was Himself Christ, whom Simeon carrying [in his arms] blessed the Most High; on beholding whom the shepherds glorified God; whom John, while yet in his mother's womb, and He (Christ) in that of Mary, recognising as the Lord, saluted with leaping; whom the Magi, when they had seen, adored, and offered their gifts [to Him], as I have already stated, and prostrated themselves to the eternal King, departed by another way, not now returning by the way of the Assyrians. "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, Father or mother, He shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, against the king of the Assyrians; " declaring, in a mysterious manner indeed, but emphatically, that the Lord did fight with a hidden hand against Amalek. For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David.

Tertullian Against the Jews

Begin we, therefore, to prove that the BIRTH of Christ was announced by prophets; as Isaiah (e.g.,) foretells, "Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" (which is, interpreted, "God with us"): "butter and honey shall he eat;": "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians."

Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it which he announced of Him. Well, then, Isaiah foretells that it behoves Him to be called Emmanuel; and that subsequently He is to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians. "Now," say they, "that (Christ) of yours, who is come, neither was called by that name, nor engaged in warfare." But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel--"God with us"--in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come--that is, "God with us." Equally are they led by the sound of the name when they so understand "the power of Damascus," and "the spoils of Samaria," and "the kingdom of the Assyrians," as if they portended Christ as a warrior; not observing that Scripture premises, "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." For the first step is to look at the demonstration of His age, to see whether the age there indicated can possibly exhibit the Christ as already a man, not to say a general. Forsooth, by His babyish cry the infant would summon men to arms, and would give the signal of war not with clarion, but with rattle, and point out the foe, not from His charger's back or from a rampart, but from the back or neck of His suckler and nurse, and thus subdue Damascus and Samaria in place of the breast. (It is another matter if, among you, infants rush out into battle,--oiled first, I suppose, to dry in the sun, and then armed with satchels and rationed on butter,--who are to know how to lance sooner than how to lacerate the bosom!) Certainly, if nature nowhere allows this,-- (namely,) to serve as a soldier before developing into manhood, to take "the power of Damascus" before knowing your father,--it follows that the pronouncement is visibly figurative. "But again," say they, "nature suffers not a 'virgin' to be a parent; and yet the prophet must be believed." And deservedly so; for he bespoke credit for a thing incredible, by saying that it was to be a sign. "Therefore," he says, "shall A SIGN be given you. Behold, a virgin shall conceive in womb, and bear a son." But a sign from God, unless it had consisted in some portentous novelty, would not have appeared a sign. In a word, if, when you are anxious to cast any down from (a belief in) this divine prediction, or to convert whoever are simple, you have the audacity to lie, as if the Scripture contained (the announcement), that not "a virgin," but "a young female," was to conceive and bring forth; you are refuted even by this fact, that a daily occurrence--the pregnancy and parturition of a young female, namely--cannot possibly seem anything of a sign. And the setting before us, then, of a virgin-mother is deservedly believed to be a sign; but not equally so a warrior-infant. For there would not in this case again be involved the question of a sign; but, the sign of a novel birth having been awarded, the next step after the sign is, that there is enunciated a different ensuing ordering of the infant, who is to eat "honey and butter." Nor is this, of course, for a sign. It is natural to infancy. But that he is to receives "the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in opposition to the king of the Assyrians," this is a wondrous sign. Keep to the limit of (the infant's) age, and inquire into the sense of the prediction; nay, rather, repay to truth what you are unwilling to credit her with, and the prophecy becomes intelligible by the relation of its fulfilment. Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms. For, besides the fact that it is known to all that the "power"--for that is the "strength"--of the East is wont to abound in gold and odours, certain it is that the divine Scriptures regard "gold" as constituting the "power" also of all other nations; as it says through Zechariah: "And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver." For of this gift of "gold" David likewise says, "And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia;" and again, "The kings of the Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts." For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias: the "power" whereof Christ then "received" in receiving its ensigns,--gold, to wit, and odours. "The spoils," moreover, "of Samaria" (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who, on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bonded knee as Lord and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became "the spoils of Samaria," that is, of idolatry--by believing, namely, on Christ. For (Scripture) denoted idolatry by the name of "Samaria," Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry; for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on parallelism of crimes. For it calls your rulers "rulers of Sodore," and your people the "people of Gomorrha," when those dries had already long been extinct. And elsewhere it says, through a prophet, to the people of Israel, "Thy father (was) an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite;" of whose race they were not begotten, but (were called their sons) by reason of their consimilarity in impiety, whom of old (God) had called His own sons through Isaiah the prophet: "I have generated and exalted sons." So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints. On this wise, accordingly, (Scripture) entitled the magi also with the appellation of "Samaritans,"--"despoiled" (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as we have said--idolatry in opposition to the Lord. (It adds), "in opposition," moreover, "to the king of the Assyrians,"--in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

Moreover, this our interpretation will be supported while (we find that) elsewhere as well the Scriptures designate Christ a warrior, as we gather from the names of certain weapons, and words of that kind. But by a comparison of the remaining senses the Jews shall be convicted. "Gird thee," says David, "the sword upon the thigh." But what do you read above concerning the Christ? "Blooming in beauty above the sons of men; grace is outpoured in thy lips." But very absurd it is if he was complimenting on the bloom of his beauty and the grace of his lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword; of whom he proceeds subjunctively to say, "Outstretch and prosper, advance and reign!" And he has added, "because of thy lenity and justice." Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles? See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,--that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action. Lawful, then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated "bloom," together with the "grace of the lips;" with which sword He was then "girt upon the thigh," in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father's decree. "The greatness of thy right hand, he says, "shall conduct thee"--the virtue to wit, of the spiritual grace from which the recognition of Christ is deduced. "Thine arrows," he says, "are sharp,"--God's everywhere-flying precepts (arrows) threatening the exposure of every heart, and carrying compunction and transfixion to each conscience: "peoples shall fall beneath thee,"--of course, in adoration. Thus mighty in war and weapon-bearing is Christ; thus will He "receive the spoils," not of "Samaria" alone, but of all nations as well. Acknowledge that His "spoils" are figurative whose weapons you have learnt to be allegorical. And thus, so far, the Christ who is come was not a warrior, because He was not predicted as such by Isaiah. [9]

Tertullian Against Marcion 18:

For since the Creator was sure to know, some time or other, that hidden mystery of the superior god, even on the supposition that the true reading was (as Marcion has it)--"hidden from the God who created all things"--he ought then to have expressed the conclusion thus: "in order that the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to Him, and then to the principalities and powers of God, whosoever He might be, with whom the Creator was destined to share their knowledge." So palpable is the erasure in this passage, when thus read, consistently with its own true bearing. I, on my part, now wish to engage with you in a discussion on the allegorical expressions of the apostle. What figures of speech could the novel god have found in the prophets (fit for himself)? "He led captivity captive,"

says the apostle. With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what Country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror throw into chains? For when by David Christ is sung as "girded with His sword upon His thigh," or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus," you make Him out to be really and truly a warrior confest to the eye. Learn then now, that His is a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already discovered that the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further learn that this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the mention of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his precepts likewise: "Putting away lying," (says he,) "speak every man truth with his neighbour;" and again, using the very words in which the Psalm expresses his meaning, (he says,) "Be ye angry, and sin not;" "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness;" for (in the Psalm it is written,) "With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverse;" and, "Thou shalt put away evil from among you."

Tertullian On the Resurrection 20

Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the preliminary idea on which they rest--their assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of speech. Now, if this were the case, the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities would not have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched. And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that of which they are the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also literal statements; nor are all shadows, but there are bodies too: so that we have prophecies about the Lord Himself even, which are clearer than the day For it was not figuratively that the Virgin conceived in her womb; nor in a trope did she bear Emmanuel, that is, Jesus, God with us. Even granting that He was figuratively to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, still it was literally that He was to "enter into judgment with the elders and princes of the people." For in the person of Pilate "the heathen raged," and in the person of Israel "the people imagined vain things;" "the kings of the earth" in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together against the Lord, and against His anointed." He, again, was "led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer," that is, Herod, "is dumb, so He opened not His mouth." "He gave His back to scourges, and His cheeks to blows, not turning His face even from the shame of spitting." "He was numbered with the transgressors;" "He was pierced in His hands and His feet;" "they cast lots for his raiment" "they gave Him gall, and made Him drink vinegar;" "they shook their heads, and mocked Him;" "He was appraised by the traitor in thirty pieces of silver." What figures of speech does Isaiah here give us?

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:45 pm

Tertullian Against the Jews

Begin we, therefore, to prove that the BIRTH of Christ was announced by prophets; as Isaiah (e.g.,) foretells, "Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" (which is, interpreted, "God with us"): "butter and honey shall he eat;": "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it which he announced of Him. Well, then, Isaiah foretells that it behoves Him to be called Emmanuel; and that subsequently He is to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians. "Now," say they, "that (Christ) of yours, who is come, neither was called by that name, nor engaged in warfare." But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel--"God with us"--in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come--that is, "God with us." Equally are they led by the sound of the name when they so understand "the power of Damascus," and "the spoils of Samaria," and "the kingdom of the Assyrians," as if they portended Christ as a warrior; not observing that Scripture premises, "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." For the first step is to look at the demonstration of His age, to see whether the age there indicated can possibly exhibit the Christ as already a man, not to say a general. Forsooth, by His babyish cry the infant would summon men to arms, and would give the signal of war not with clarion, but with rattle, and point out the foe, not from His charger's back or from a rampart, but from the back or neck of His suckler and nurse, and thus subdue Damascus and Samaria in place of the breast. (It is another matter if, among you, infants rush out into battle,--oiled first, I suppose, to dry in the sun, and then armed with satchels and rationed on butter,--who are to know how to lance sooner than how to lacerate the bosom!) Certainly, if nature nowhere allows this,-- (namely,) to serve as a soldier before developing into manhood, to take "the power of Damascus" before knowing your father,--it follows that the pronouncement is visibly figurative. "But again," say they, "nature suffers not a 'virgin' to be a parent; and yet the prophet must be believed." And deservedly so; for he bespoke credit for a thing incredible, by saying that it was to be a sign. "Therefore," he says, "shall A SIGN be given you. Behold, a virgin shall conceive in womb, and bear a son." But a sign from God, unless it had consisted in some portentous novelty, would not have appeared a sign. In a word, if, when you are anxious to cast any down from (a belief in) this divine prediction, or to convert whoever are simple, you have the audacity to lie, as if the Scripture contained (the announcement), that not "a virgin," but "a young female," was to conceive and bring forth; you are refuted even by this fact, that a daily occurrence--the pregnancy and parturition of a young female, namely--cannot possibly seem anything of a sign. And the setting before us, then, of a virgin-mother is deservedly believed to be a sign; but not equally so a warrior-infant. For there would not in this case again be involved the question of a sign; but, the sign of a novel birth having been awarded, the next step after the sign is, that there is enunciated a different ensuing ordering of the infant, who is to eat "honey and butter." Nor is this, of course, for a sign. It is natural to infancy. But that he is to receives "the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in opposition to the king of the Assyrians," this is a wondrous sign. Keep to the limit of (the infant's) age, and inquire into the sense of the prediction; nay, rather, repay to truth what you are unwilling to credit her with, and the prophecy becomes intelligible by the relation of its fulfilment. Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms. For, besides the fact that it is known to all that the "power"--for that is the "strength"--of the East is wont to abound in gold and odours, certain it is that the divine Scriptures regard "gold" as constituting the "power" also of all other nations; as it says through Zechariah: "And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver." For of this gift of "gold" David likewise says, "And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia;" and again, "The kings of the Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts." For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias: the "power" whereof Christ then "received" in receiving its ensigns,--gold, to wit, and odours. "The spoils," moreover, "of Samaria" (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who, on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bonded knee as Lord and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became "the spoils of Samaria," that is, of idolatry--by believing, namely, on Christ. For (Scripture) denoted idolatry by the name of "Samaria," Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry; for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on parallelism of crimes. For it calls your rulers "rulers of Sodore," and your people the "people of Gomorrha," when those dries had already long been extinct. And elsewhere it says, through a prophet, to the people of Israel, "Thy father (was) an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite;" of whose race they were not begotten, but (were called their sons) by reason of their consimilarity in impiety, whom of old (God) had called His own sons through Isaiah the prophet: "I have generated and exalted sons." So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints. On this wise, accordingly, (Scripture) entitled the magi also with the appellation of "Samaritans,"--"despoiled" (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as we have said--idolatry in opposition to the Lord. (It adds), "in opposition," moreover, "to the king of the Assyrians,"--in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

Moreover, this our interpretation will be supported while (we find that) elsewhere as well the Scriptures designate Christ a warrior, as we gather from the names of certain weapons, and words of that kind. But by a comparison of the remaining senses the Jews shall be convicted. "Gird thee," says David, "the sword upon the thigh." But what do you read above concerning the Christ? "Blooming in beauty above the sons of men; grace is outpoured in thy lips." But very absurd it is if he was complimenting on the bloom of his beauty and the grace of his lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword; of whom he proceeds subjunctively to say, "Outstretch and prosper, advance and reign!" And he has added, "because of thy lenity and justice." Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles? See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,--that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action. Lawful, then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated "bloom," together with the "grace of the lips;" with which sword He was then "girt upon the thigh," in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father's decree. "The greatness of thy right hand, he says, "shall conduct thee"--the virtue to wit, of the spiritual grace from which the recognition of Christ is deduced. "Thine arrows," he says, "are sharp,"--God's everywhere-flying precepts (arrows) threatening the exposure of every heart, and carrying compunction and transfixion to each conscience: "peoples shall fall beneath thee,"--of course, in adoration. Thus mighty in war and weapon-bearing is Christ; thus will He "receive the spoils," not of "Samaria" alone, but of all nations as well. Acknowledge that His "spoils" are figurative whose weapons you have learnt to be allegorical. And thus, so far, the Christ who is come was not a warrior, because He was not predicted as such by Isaiah

.

Tertullian Against Marcion 3: 18:

For since the Creator was sure to know, some time or other, that hidden mystery of the superior god, even on the supposition that the true reading was (as Marcion has it)--"hidden from the God who created all things"--he ought then to have expressed the conclusion thus: "in order that the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to Him, and then to the principalities and powers of God, whosoever He might be, with whom the Creator was destined to share their knowledge." So palpable is the erasure in this passage, when thus read, consistently with its own true bearing. I, on my part, now wish to engage with you in a discussion on the allegorical expressions of the apostle. What figures of speech could the novel god have found in the prophets (fit for himself)? "He led captivity captive," says the apostle. With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what Country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror throw into chains? For when by David Christ is sung as "girded with His sword upon His thigh," or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus," you make Him out to be really and truly a warrior confest to the eye. Learn then now, that His is a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already discovered that the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further learn that this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the mention of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his precepts likewise: "Putting away lying," (says he,) "speak every man truth with his neighbour;" and again, using the very words in which the Psalm expresses his meaning, (he says,) "Be ye angry, and sin not;" "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness;" for (in the Psalm it is written,) "With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverse;" and, "Thou shalt put away evil from among you."

Tertullian Against Marcion 4:20

You (i.e. the Marcionites) suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion, of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none other than He, who now had to contend with even a legion of demons. Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have spoken: "The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle."

If the reader looks carefully in Against the Jews Tertullian has taken over a text from Justin (by way of Irenaeus) and then turned around the positive arguments of Justin and his tradition was a warrior into arguments against the Marcionite belief that Jesus was a warrior. This and other sections make a strong argument that Justin was a Marcionite or shared core beliefs and interpretations with them.

spin · Post by **spin** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:16 pm

Stephan Huller wrote:So to recap I have found:

1. a description of an allotment of Arabia to Syrophoenicia (you miss the point Spin, it is not the name Syrophoenicia it is the description of what happened to Arabia that is at issue)

I wasn't talking about what you were saying, Stephan. I was dealing with a side-issue that Bernard seemed quite interested in.

Stephan Huller wrote:2. the use of certain terminology only used by Justin and Irenaeus with any frequency
3. the description of imaginary persecutions of imaginary heretical groups in an early period with imaginary theological distinctions

all of which demonstrate that the text was edited by Irenaeus in a latter period with substantial revisions of the text.

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:40 pm

So let's understand (all the interpretations) that seem to be associated with Justin and Isa 8:4. I say 'all the interpretations' because there are quite a number of them even though (I checked) the only ones that survive are found in writings associated with Justin. The clearest thing we can say about the interpretation is that there are many interpretations. One is certainly:

Herod = 'the king of Assyria'

Moreover, by the phrase "before or against the king of Assyria," understand "against Herod;" (Tertullian Adv Marc 4.13)
Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character (Dial 77)

But which 'Herod'? Justin sometimes identifies 'Herod' with the successor to Archelaus:

And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: 'And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.' Or He meant the devil by the lion roaring against Him: whom Moses calls the serpent, but in Job and Zechariah he is called the devil, and by Jesus is addressed as Satan, showing that a compounded name was acquired by him from the deeds which he performed. (Dial 103)

So already we are off to a bad start because there are two interpretations in the Dialogue for the person of 'the king of Assyria' which isn't possible. So how do people imagine the two Herods (Herod Archelaus and his successor Herod Antipas?) as the 'king of Assyria'? It isn't possible. One or both must have come a later editor.

According to Justin:

[Christ] is to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians (Tertullian Against the Jews 9)

Tertullian emphasizes that Jesus is not supposed to be a man here but - owing to Justin's strange blending of Isaiah 7 and 8 'Emmanuel' the little child:

Equally are they led by the sound of the name when they so understand "the power of Damascus," and "the spoils of Samaria," and "the kingdom of the Assyrians," as if they portended Christ as a warrior; not observing that Scripture premises, "since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." For the first step is to look at the demonstration of His age, to see whether the age there indicated can possibly exhibit the Christ as already a man, not to say a general (ibid)

Tertullian argues (from Justin?) that 'the power of Damascus' = the gifts of the Magi presumably because at that time (or so he claims) Damascus was part of Arabia:

those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms. (ibid)

and again:

And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver." For of this gift of "gold" David likewise says, "And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia;" and again, "The kings of the Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts." For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias: the "power" whereof Christ then "received" in receiving its ensigns,--gold, to wit, and odours. (ibid)

The 'spoils of Samaria' are similarly defined as:

"The spoils," moreover, "of Samaria" (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who, on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bonded knee as Lord and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became "the spoils of Samaria,"

But then the tone suddenly changes:

that is, of idolatry--by believing, namely, on Christ. For (Scripture) denoted idolatry by the name of "Samaria," Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry; for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on parallelism of crimes.

And then furthermore the gloss here (notice the previous reference to the Arabia nonsense in Syrophoenicia) suddenly 'the kind of Assyria' is no longer Herod but the Devil:

On this wise, accordingly, (Scripture) entitled the magi also with the appellation of "Samaritans,"--"despoiled" (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as we have said--idolatry in opposition to the Lord. (It adds), "in opposition," moreover, "to the king of the Assyrians,"--in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

So I think we can see that originally 'the spoils of Samaria' = the magi themselves and 'the power of Damascus' their gifts but then this changes for some reason.

Again in Dialogue there is one version of the interpretation which seems to reinforce 'the power of Damascus' = gifts 'the spoils of Samaria' = the magi and 'the king of Assyria' = Herod.

For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character. (78)

But then again there is also a demonic interpretation too right after:

For that expression of Isaiah 'He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' foretold that the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus should be overcome by Christ as soon as He was born; and this is proved to have happened. For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this[dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia (Ibid)

It would seem the "Syrophoenicia in Arabia' gloss was a later addition along with the demonology interest. It seems to be connected to the Passion narrative in Tertullian's Resurrection of the Flesh:

Even granting that He was figuratively to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, still it was literally that He was to "enter into judgment with the elders and princes of the people." For in the person of Pilate "the heathen raged," and in the person of Israel "the people imagined vain things;" "the kings of the earth" in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together against the Lord, and against His anointed." He, again, was "led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer," that is, Herod, "is dumb, so He opened not His mouth." [20]

Eusebius mentions another interpretation:

Some say, interpreting otherwise, that the Magi, who came from the East to worship Christ, the young Child, are meant by the "power of Damascus": and you might say more universally that all who have rejected godless, polytheistic idolatry, and obeyed the word of Christ, especially if they be furnished with this world's reason and wisdom, are those meant by the "power of Damascus." And by the "spoils of Samaria" you will in this case understand our Saviour's Jewish apostles and disciples, (b) whom as it were He took as His spoils from the hostile Jews who attacked Him, and armed for the conflict with the king of the Assyrians, by whom again the Prince of this world is figuratively meant

He also gives an alternative explanation:

But as Aquila has translated more clearly: "The adversary of the king of the Assyrians" by "In the face of the king of the Assyrians,'' it is worth considering whether here the Roman Empire is not meant, if the translation given a little before of "Assyrians" as "rulers or ruled" be correct. As then (c) here, also, the king of the Assyrians is connected with the appearing of our Saviour, it is probable that here also the Roman Empire is intended, through their being directed by God to subject the nations to themselves. It is therefore prophesied that the child that is born will take the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, and will deliver them against the face of the Assyrians, and before the eyes of those ruled by God, and that He will do this at the time of His Birth, directing the fate of humanity with secret divine power, while physically still a babe.

and yet another

And in the preceding prophecy, coincident with the birth of Emmanuel, before the Child knows good or evil, it is said that the land is forsaken by the two kings that are attacking it, namely the kings of Samaria and Damascus; while in this prophecy it says that before the Child calls on His father or mother, He shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, whose kings He previously prophesied would be destroyed at the birth of Emmanuel.

and again

I have already pointed out that actually in the time of Ahaz two kings made a covenant and attacked those ruled by David's successors; the one, ruler of the idolatrous Gentiles of Damascus; the other, king of the Jewish people in the city of Palestine called Samaria, which we (330) call Sebaste. Concerning whom God said to Ahaz: "Fear not, let thy heart not be sick, for these two smoking firebrands." And he foretells that the destruction of these men will be immediate, and proceeds to prophesy that on the birth of God with us, both their kingdoms will be utterly extinguished and destroyed. And we know from history that until the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ (b) the kingdoms of Judaea and Damascus continued, but that after His appearance to all men, they ceased in accordance with the prophecy, for the Roman Empire absorbed them concurrently with the preaching of our Saviour.

And after this literal prediction the prophecy passes to a figurative and generally more spiritual form of revelation, and it understands two ranks of invisible enemies and hostile daemons, warring in different ways against humanity, one active always and everywhere in promoting idolatry and false beliefs among mankind, the other occasioning the (c) corruption of morals. And taking the type of idolatrous error in the king of Damascus, and of the decline of the pure and healthy life in the king of Samaria, it says that the earth, meaning thereby the men who inhabit it, will only be released from their power, when God appears on earth as Emmanuel. When He has shone forth and ruled over the soul of man, none of the old tyrants will be left. Thus, then, you will understand that here it refers to the (d) same beings, when it says: "He will take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria," for our Saviour Jesus Christ's power conquers completely all our unseen |69 enemies, who for long ages besieged all men with their aforesaid godless and harmful activities. And in the literal sense as well you may see the power of Damascus destroyed concurrently with the Birth and appearance of our Saviour, and the spoils of Samaria taken, that is to say their kingdoms, which continued up to the time stated, but in the fulfilment of the divine prediction have ceased from then till now.

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:49 pm

In the very place then that the reference to Damascus of Arabia in Syrophoenicia we have clear evidence of a second interpretation of Isaiah 8:4. How is this possible? How could the real historical Justin have put forward a second interpretation of a key interpretation of a prized possession in scripture? I can't believe that anyone would seriously believe that the REAL Justin Martyr had two different interpretations to the same scripture given that one of the two interpretations is explicitly linked with that interpolation from 194 CE.

Interpretation 1 (Dial 77)

'power of Damascus' + 'spoils of Samaria' = magi bringing the gifts to Jesus 'king of Assyria' = Herod

For if the Spirit of prophecy had not made the statement with an addition, 'Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' but had only said, 'And shall bear a son, and he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' then you might say that God foretold that he would take these things, since He fore-knew it. But now the prophecy has stated it with this addition: 'Before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria.' And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to any one among the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land, and whom the Scripture calls king of Assyria on account of his ungodly and sinful character.

Interpretation 2 (Dial 78)

'power of Damascus' = evil demon 'spoils of Samaria' = sinful unjust power 'king of Assyria' = Herod

So Herod, when the Magi from Arabia did not return to him, as he had asked them to do, but had departed by another way to their own country, according to the commands laid on them; and when Joseph, with Mary and the Child, had now gone into Egypt, as it was revealed to them to do; as he did not know the Child whom the Magi had gone to worship, ordered simply the whole of the children then in Bethlehem to be massacred. And Jeremiah prophesied that this would happen, speaking by the Holy Ghost thus: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.' Therefore, on account of the voice which would be heard from Ramah, i.e., from Arabia(for there is in Arabia at this very time a place called Rama), wailing would come on the place where Rachel the wife of Jacob called lsrael, the holy patriarch, has been buried, i.e., on Bethlehem; while the women weep for their own slaughtered children, and have no consolation by reason of what has happened to them. For that expression of Isaiah 'He shall take the power of Damascus and spoils of Samaria,' foretold that the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus should be overcome by Christ as soon as He was born; and this is proved to have happened. For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia

Interpretation 3 (Dial 103)

'power of Damascus' = ? 'spoils of Samaria' = ? 'king of Assyria' = Herod (Antipas) in the context of Jesus being delivered to Herod in the Passion narrative (Luke)

Interpretation 4 (Tertullian Adv Iud 9)

'power of Damascus = gifts 'spoils of Samaria' = idolatry 'the king of Assyria' = the Devil

Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms. For, besides the fact that it is known to all that the "power"--for that is the "strength"--of the East is wont to abound in gold and odours, certain it is that the divine Scriptures regard "gold" as constituting the "power" also of all other nations; as it says through Zechariah: "And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver." For of this gift of "gold" David likewise says, "And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia;" and again, "The kings of the Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts."For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias: the "power" whereof Christ then "received" in receiving its ensigns,--gold, to wit, and odours. "The spoils," moreover, "of Samaria" (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who, on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bonded knee as Lord and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became "the spoils of Samaria," that is, of idolatry--by believing, namely, on Christ. For (Scripture) denoted idolatry by the name of "Samaria," Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry; for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on parallelism of crimes. For it calls your rulers "rulers of Sodore," and your people the "people of Gomorrha," when those dries had already long been extinct. And elsewhere it says, through a prophet, to the people of Israel, "Thy father (was) an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite;" of whose race they were not begotten, but (were called their sons) by reason of their consimilarity in impiety, whom of old (God) had called His own sons through Isaiah the prophet: "I have generated and exalted sons." So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints. On this wise, accordingly, (Scripture) entitled the magi also with the appellation of "Samaritans,"--"despoiled" (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as we have said--idolatry in opposition to the Lord. (It adds), "in opposition," moreover, "to the king of the Assyrians,"--in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

Interpretation 5 Irenaeus 3.15.4

'power of Damascus' + 'spoils of Samaria' = the magi giving gifts 'the king of the Assyrians' = Herod

whom the Magi, when they had seen, adored, and offered their gifts [to Him], as I have already stated, and prostrated themselves to the eternal King, departed by another way, not now returning by the way of the Assyrians. "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, Father or mother, He shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, against the king of the Assyrians; " declaring, in a mysterious manner indeed, but emphatically, that the Lord did fight with a hidden hand against Amalek.(compare Matt 2:12 "And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route)."

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:06 pm

Is it possible that one Justin Martyr could have developed three different interpretations of Isaiah 8:4 in one treatise? Especially when the text shows signs of being rewritten?

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:32 pm

The conflict in Tertullian Adv. Iud.

This treatise is a classic example of how the writings of the Church Fathers are rip offs of older texts.

1. Adv. Iud. consistently has a doppleganer in Adv. Marc 3 where arguments buried in Adv. Iud which are directed against the Jews are turned around into anti-Marcionite arguments
2. Sometimes we see things which appear as criticisms of Marcion (i.e. which imply the Marcionites believed something) which are turned around as things which Tertullian or his source (= Justin) actually support

Take the example of the Marcionite interest in understanding Christ to be a man of war.

a) In Adv Marc. 3 Tertullian criticizes Marcion for sharing this belief with the Jews in Adv Marc. 4 referencing .
b) He also criticizes the Marcionites for believing this in Adv Marc 3 but specifically with interpretations of Isa 8:4 shared by Justin and Psalm 45:3.
c) The same idea appears as a criticism of the Jews in Adv. Iud in association with Isa 8.4 and Psalm 45.3.
d) but it also appears as something Tertullian (or his source) believed as true about Christ a few lines later using Isa 8:4 and Psalm 45.3.

It is generally (or often) supposed Justin is the source material because of the parallels with Dialogue. But I think we can use Adv. Iud to suggest that Justin shared the acceptance of Christ as a man of war with the Marcionites and Jews.

Consider the switch from opinions which agree with Justin in our Dialogue:

a) Psalm 45:3

Adv Marc 3:7

For it says, Fairer in beauty beyond the sons of men; grace is poured forth in thy lips; therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird the sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty in thy worshipfulness and thy beauty.Then also the Father, now that he has made him a little lower than the angels, will crown him with glory and honour, and will put all things beneath his feet. Then those who pierced him will know who he is, and will smite their breasts, tribe to tribe— because in fact they formerly failed to recognize him in the humility of human condition: And he is a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall know him?h Because also, Isaiah says, His nativity, who shall tell of it?i So also in Zechariah, in the person of Jeshua, yes truly, in a name which is itself a sacrament, the veritable high priest of the Father, Christ Jesus, is by two styles of raiment marked out for two advents: he is at first clothed in filthy garments, which means the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when also the devil stands as his adversary, the devil who put it into the heart of Judas the traitor, not to mention himself being the tempter after Christ's> baptism: afterwards he is divested of his previous foulness, and arrayed in robe and mitre and shining crown, which means the glory and dignity of his second coming.3 If also I am to submit an interpretation of the two goats which were offered at the Fast,j are not these also figures of Christ's two activities. They are indeed of the same age and appearance because the Lord's is one and the same aspect: because he will return in no other form, seeing he has to be recognized by those of whom he has suffered injury. One of them however, surrounded with scarlet, cursed and spit upon and pulled about and pierced, was by the people driven out of the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of our Lord's passion: while the other, made an offering for sins, and given as food to the priests of the temple, marked the tokens of his second manifestation, at which, when all sins have been done away, the priests of the spiritual temple, which is the Church, were to enjoy as it were a feast of our Lord's grace, while the rest remain without a taste of salvation. So then, seeing that the first advent was for the most part prophesied under the obscurity of figures, and borne down with every sort of indignity, while the second was both clearly told of, and was of divine dignity, they set their eyes on that one alone which they could easily understand and easily believe, the second, and thus were, as might have been expected, misled in respect of the less evident, admittedly less dignified, which was the first. Thus even until this day they refuse to admit that their Christ has come, because he has not come in majesty, being unaware that he was first also to come in humility.

Adv Iud 14

Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be) "blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men." "Grace," says the Psalmist, "hath been outpoured in Thy lips: wherefore God hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom and beauty!" while the Father withal afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels, "crowned Him with glory and honour and subjected all things beneath His feet." And then shall they "learn to know Him whom they pierced, and shall beat their breasts tribe by tribe; "332 of course because in days bygone they did not know Him when conditionedin the humility of human estate. Jeremiah says: "He is a human being, and who will learn to know Him? "333 because, "His nativity," says Isaiah, "who shall declare?" [7] So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery334 of His name withal, the most true Priest of the Father, His own335 Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with reference to the Two Advents.336 First, He was clad in "sordid attire," that is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him--the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor337 --who even after His baptism had tempted Him. In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the Second Advent; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour." [8] Nor will you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak,"338 who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus"339 there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad with a garment down to the foot,"340 and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.341 [9] So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day.342 Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come? A pair, on the one hand, and consimilar (they were), because of the identity of the Lord's general appearance, inasmuch as He is not to come in some other form, seeing that He has to be recognised by those by whom He was once hurt. But the one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and piercing, was cast away by the People outside the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of Christ's passion; who, after being begirt with scarlet garment, and subjected to universal spitting, and afflicted with all contumelies, was crucified outside the city.343 The other, however: offered for sins, and given as food to the priests merely of the temple,344 gave signal evidences of the second appearance; in so far as, after the expiation of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, of the church, were to enjoy345 a spiritual public distribution (as it were) of the Lord's grace, while all others are fasting from salvation. Therefore, since the vaticinations of the First Advent obscured it with manifold figures, and debased it with every dishonour, while the Second (was foretold as) manifest and wholly worthy of God, it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the Second, which is in honour and glory), they have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure--at all events, the more unworthy--that is, the First. And thus to the present moment they affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they are ignorant of346 the fact that He was first to come in humility.

Stephan Huller · Post by **Stephan Huller** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:27 am

b) Psalm 45:3

Adv Marc 3.14

This interpretation of mine will receive support in that in other places too, where you suppose Christ a warrior because of the names of certain weapons of war, and verbs to the same effect, you stand refuted as we bring under consideration the purport of their context as a whole. Gird thee with a sword upon thy thigh,a says David. But what do you find written of Christ just before this? Thou art timely in beauty more than the sons of men, grace is poured forth on thy lips.b It is ridiculous to suppose that he was flattering, in the matter of timeliness of beauty and grace of lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword. So also, when he goes on to say, And stretch forth and prosper and reign, he adds <the reason>, because of truth and gentleness and righteousness. Who is going to produce these results with a sword? Will not that rather produce the opposites of these, guile, and severity, and unrighteousness? These are surely the particular purpose and effect of battles. Let us inquire then whether there is a different meaning for that sword, which has so different an activity. Now the apostle John in the Apocalypse describes a sharp two-edged sword as proceeding from the mouth of God,c exceeding sharp: and this has to be understood as the divine word, doubly sharp in the two testaments of the Law and the Gospel, sharp with wisdom, directed against the devil, arming us against the spiritual hosts of wickedness and all concupiscence, and cutting us off even from our dearest for the sake of the name of God. But if you refuse acknowledgement of John,1 you have Paul, a teacher you share with us, who girds our loins with truth, and with the corselet of righteousness, and shoes our feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace—not of war—and bids us take to us the shield of the faith, that by it we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and <to take> the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which, says he, is the word of God.d This
is the sword which our Lord himself came to cast on to the earth, not peace. If this is your Christ, then he too is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, but advances an allegorical sword, then it was permissible for the Creator's Christ in the psalm, without warlike intent, to be girt with the figurative sword of the word—and in keeping with this is the above-mentioned timeliness and grace of lips—the sword with which he was at that time girt upon the thigh, as David puts it, but was afterwards to cast upon the earth. For this is what he means by, Stretch forth and prosper and reign:f sending forth the word into all the earth, for the vocation of all the nations: destined to prosper by the progress of the faith by which he has been received: and reigning from thenceforth in that he has overcome death by resurrection. And thy right hand, it says, shall marvellously lead thee forth, which means the power of spiritual grace, by which the knowledge of Christ is led forth. Thy arrows are sharp, the precepts which fly in every direction, and the threatenings and the searchings of heart, which pierce and transfix every man's conscience. Peoples shall fall down before thee, in worship. This is how the Creator's Christ is a warrior and an armed man, this is how he is even today taking the spoils, not of Samaria only but of all the nations. You have been taught how his armour is allegorical: admit then that his spoils are figurative. As then our Lord speaks, and the apostle writes, figuratively of these matters, we do then with good confidence make use of those interpretations of his, instances of which even our adversaries acknowledge: and so the Christ who has come will be Isaiah's Christ, for the very reason that he was not a warrior, because he is not by Isaiah described as such.

Adv Iud 9

Moreover, this our interpretation will be supported while (we find that) elsewhere as well the Scriptures designate Christ a warrior, as we gather from the names of certain weapons, and words of that kind. But by a comparison of the remaining senses the Jews shall be convicted. "Gird thee," says David, "the sword upon the thigh." But what do you read above concerning the Christ? "Blooming in beauty above the sons of men; grace is outpoured in thy lips."152 But very absurd it is if he was complimenting on the bloom of his beauty and the grace of his lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword; of whom he proceeds subjunctively to say, "Outstretch and prosper, advance and reign!" And he has added, "because of thy lenity and justice."153 Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles? [18] See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,--that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened154 with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action.155 [19] Lawful , then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated "bloom," together with the "grace of the lips; "with which sword He was then "girt upon the thigh," in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father's decree. "The greatness of thy right hand, he says, "shall conduct thee"156 --the virtue to wit, of the spiritual grace from which the recognition of Christ is deduced. "Thine arrows," he says, "are sharp,"157 --God's everywhere--flying precepts (arrows) threatening the exposure158 of every heart, and carrying compunction and transfixion to each conscience: "peoples shall fall beneath thee,"159 --of course, in adoration. [20] Thus mighty in war and weapon-bearing is Christ; thus will He "receive the spoils," not of "Samaria" alone, but of all nations as well. Acknowledge that His "spoils" are figurative whose weapons you have learnt to be allegorical. And thus, so far, the Christ who is come was not a warrior, because He was not predicted as such by Isaiah.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

Re: On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE