Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever
kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it
is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is
as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly
come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after
that, throughout the land, were transgressors.--Quran 5:32 (31 in some) Chapter (5) sūrat l-māidah (The Table spread with Food) Sahih International
In fact Ibn Kathir applied this verse to Muslims:
.....Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim,
is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." In addition,
Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,--Ibn Kathir
Notice the verse only applies to killing/saving a Muslim!
However, the Quran is mistaken, since Allah is not actually speaking here, in fact the Quran largely plagiarized this from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud (which is NOT part of the Holy Bible, but the writings of Jewish Rabbis after the fall of the Temple), and the speaker is a Jewish Rabbi. The Talmud from Sanhedrin 37A in the Mishnah reads:
דמי אחיך צועקים אינו אומר דם אחיך אלא דמי אחיך דמו ודם זרעותיו דבר אחר דמי אחיך שהיה דמו מושלך על העצים ועל האבנים לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ללמדך שכל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא --Sanhedrin 37A תלמוד בבלי סנהדרין
"THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER CRY UNTO ME" NOT THE BLOOD OF THY BROTHER, BUT THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, IS SAID —
i.e., HIS BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS.
(ALTERNATIVELY, THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, TEACHES THAT HIS BLOOD WAS
SPLASHED OVER TREES AND STONES.) FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THATWHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL*,
SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE
WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE
ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.--Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37A *"Of Israel is only found in some copies
Going to the link provided and simply reading the Talmudic quote makes it evident the speak is not God and is just a man commenting on the scripture that why it says "scripture ascribes to him as though....". It is evident Muhammad and friends had no clue what they were doing--they didn't know this saying was from a Jewish rabbi and NOT God, in doing so they unwittingly made a Jewish Rabbi a god, as opposed to what they did with the other Jewish rabbi-- the Lord Jesus (Holy is His Name)--making Him a mere man!
The name Mary in Hebrew Miriam is spelled identical to two other words in the Hebrew bible "bitter ones" and "exalted" (from the word רום , rum meaning lifted up as in Deuteronomy 17:20) the Syrian Christians have favored the latter explanation.. Some have also proposed it means "rebel" (from root meri, מרי meaning "rebellion" as in Numbers 17:25)) rebel and bitter maybe linked since they represent the resentment the Hebrews felt under Egyptian bondage. Bitter herbs were used to represent slavery in Exodus 12's Passover meal. Perhaps if "bitter"/ "rebel" is the meaning she rebelled against those of her time by being obedient to the Law of God, and certainly she rebelled by not letting her son be killed by King Herod!, or perhaps this could be one of those time where Hebrew words sometimes mean the opposite of their primary meaning (many examples in the Hebrew bible exist like "bless/curse" God and die" in Job 2:9, or רנן which means joy in Psalm 132:16 and moan/cry in Lamentations 2:19 ), in which case "rebel" would mean something along the lines of "obedient" "loyal one" or "servant"--the latter the Virgin calls herself when says she is the "handmaid." The Miriam in the Torah seems to be called Miriam from the word "bitter," because we do not see her named until Exodus 15 where the word bitter is used. Exalted seems more reasonable for Mary of the New Testament, it would perhaps fit in with why the Angel Gabriel said "blessed are you among women"--that is she is exalted among women, and be an allusion to her assumption into Heaven. A popular explanation--stella mar[star of the sea] among Latins was popularized by a misreading of St Jerome "stilla maris" which means "drop of the sea." St Jerome took Miriam as being from mar, מר "drop" [only used in Isaiah 40:15 as k'mar, כְּמַר--"as a drop"] and yam, יָם meaning "sea" as in Genesis 14:13 where the "Salt Sea" is referenced. מר , mar can also mean myrrh as in Exodus 30:23. Mar in Aramaic is the word for "lord" as in Daniel 4:19 (v16 in some texts), where mari, מָרִאי or מָרִי is used, "lady"/"mistress" (mistress in the older usage meaning a respectable woman, not the modern expression for a home-wrecker) would probably be a similar word, though never used in any Aramaic biblical text, but is used in the "Jerusalem" Talmud (Sanhedrin 23) in the form מרתה, marta (similar to Martha, like the name in the New Testament).
First for the Hebrew name of Mary we look at Exodus, where Moses' sister Miriam is named:
And Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.--Exodus 15:20
The spelling מרים (no vowels, with no vav, lammed, etc prefixes) appears 16 times in the Hebrew Bible (not including the 'Deuterocanonicals') in 14 verses. The name Miriam in any form appears 15 times in 13 verses (with and without the vav, lammed 'prefix'). There are 3 meaning its translated as Miriam, bitter ones, and exalted. Here are the appearances of the spelling מרים (no vowels, with no vav, lammed, etc prefixes) in red, underlined are words that are similar or have the some root:
And Miriam[Miryam, מִרְיָם] the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam[Miryam, מִרְיָם] sang unto them: Sing ye to the LORD, for He is highly exalted: the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.--Exodus 15:20-21
And when they came to Marah[Maratah, מָרָתָה] , they could not drink of the waters of
Marah[מִמָּרָה, mimmarah] for they were bitter[mirim, מָרִים]. Therefore the name of it was called Marah[marah, מָרָה].--Exodus 15:23
every one lifting up [mérim, מֵרִים] a heave-offering [t'rumat, תְּרוּמַת] of silver and brass have brought
in the heave-offering [t'rumat, תְּרוּמַת] of the LORD; and every one with whom hath been
found shittim wood for any work of the service brought it in.--Exodus 35:24 Young's Literal Translation (most translations do not literally translate it as "lifting up", also I removed the 'J name')
And Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman......And the LORD spoke suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם]:
'Come out ye three unto the tent of meeting.' And they three came out.....And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] was
leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם]; and, behold,
she was leprous.....And Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] was shut up without the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] was brought in again.--Numbers 12:1, 4, 10, 14
And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the
wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people abode in Kadesh;
and Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם]died there, and was buried there.--Numbers 20:1
And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was
born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם] their sister.--Numbers 26:59
And the sons of Ezrah: Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon. And she
bore Miriam [Miryam, מִרְיָם], and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa----1 Chronicles 4:17
The wise shall inherit honour; but as for the fools, they carry away[mérim, מֵרִים] shame.--Proverbs 3:35
He that is slow to anger is of great understanding; but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth [mérim, מֵרִים] folly.--Proverbs 14:29
and because of the greatness that He gave him, all the peoples,
nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he
slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up [marim, מָרִים] ,
and whom he would he put down.--Daniel 5:19 (Aramaic text not Hebrew)
For evidence in the New Testament on why Mary's name should be interpreted as "exalted" or "lifted up" we go to Luke 1:
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted upthe lowly--Luke 1:52
We see here she refers to the lowly being "lifted up", this is related to Mary herself because she a few verses prior she calls herself "lowly":
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.--Luke 1:48
Now, going back to Luke 1:52 in redI highlighted lifted up because in the Aramaic Texts of Luke 1:51 in both the Old Syriac and the Peshitta text (both of which predate the 6th century at least) the word here is
ܣܲܚܸܦܼ ܬܿܲܩܼܝܦܼܸܐ̈ ܡܸܢ ܟܿܘܼܪܣܲܘܵܬܼܵܐ̈܂ ܘܲܐܪܼܝܡ ܡܲܟܼܿܝܟܼܸܐ̈܂ --Luke 1:52 Peshitta Text
He has put down the mighty from their seats, and he has lifted up the meek--Luke 1:52 Lamsa
ܘܐܢܚܬ ܬܩܝܦܐ ܡܢ ܟܘܪܣܘܬܗܘܢ ܘܐܪܝܡ ܡܟܝܟܐ--Luke 1:52 Old Syriac Syriac Sinaiticus (4th century manuscript)
And he has brought the mighty down from their seats and exalted the lowly--Luke 1:52 from The Old Syriac Gospels: Luke and John, Old SyriacSyriac Sinaiticus
The red word ܘܐܪܝܡwaruym (I am not sure if I have the vowels correct), the spelling I do know is waw-alap-resh-yod-meem
Here is an example of a Syrian Christian that insisted the name of Mary means "exalted"
And Dinah his wife conceived, and brought forth Mary; and from that day
she was called Hannah (Anna) instead of Dinah, for the Lord had had
compassion upon her. Now the name 'Mary' (Maryam or Miriam) is
interpreted 'lifted up,' 'exalted;' and they rejoiced in her exceedingly--Book of the Bee, Chapter 34, Solomon of Aklat, Nestorian Bishop of Basra, AD 1222
Isaiah 53:8 is considered by some Counter Missionary Jews to be the smoking gun evidence that Isaiah 53's suffering servant is the collection people of Israel and not a single physical person and certainly not a Messiah, particularly Jesus Christ.
Here is how the RSV translates Isaiah 53:8, I will supply alternate translations including Jewish later.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?--Isaiah 53:8
The Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic Text (the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls differs)
There are about 3 main reasons I've come across that they use for this claim, and they are:
1) The Servant in Isaiah is always Israel, and they consider the servant innocent
2) Lamo לָמוֹ is used in Isaiah 53:8 and "properly translated means to them' " and never "to him"
3) The phrase eretz hayim אֶרֶץ חַיִּים "land of the living" is an expression for the "land of Israel"
Counter Missionary claim #1: The Servant in Isaiah is always Israel, and they consider the servant innocent.
My Response: Most of the time in Isaiah the servant is named as Israel/Jacob, however, David is called God's servant in Isaiah 37:35, the Prophet Isaiah is called His servant in Isaiah 20:3, Eliakim is called God's servant in Isaiah 22:20. Israel is called God's servant several times too, the closest appearance where Israel is named is Isaiah 49:3 "you are my servant Israel." Afterwards the servant is not given a name. Calling the servant Israel is not completely incompatible with Christianity since in the 2nd Century the Christian writer St Justin Martyr wrote:
Accordingly the name Israel signifies this, A man who overcomes power; for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power. And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures. For when He became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, 'It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' [Matthew 4:10] Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time. But since our Christ was to be numbed, i.e., by pain and experience of suffering, He made a previous intimation of this by touching Jacob's thigh, and causing it to shrink. But Israel was His name from the beginning, to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. --St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 125
Furthermore, the Messiah, as King of Israel, would represent or embody in some way Israel. Jesus in the New Testament is often described in terms and his life is told in such a way that it embodies Israel's history, like his nativity story with Herod killing innocent children, or going to Egypt recalls the Exodus story. A number of things concerning Israel are applied to the Christ. However, concerning the actual people of Israel they are not actually blameless like the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 53. Jews present Israel as being the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 that is suffering due to the wicked gentiles, unjustly since they have done no wrong. This is ironic since the Jews will also claim their diaspora and the long period of time they've been without their land and government and Messiah is attributed to their sinfulness and lack of faithfulness as a whole--hardly blameless. So, some Jews have to mitigate the innocence of the Suffering Servant as referring to his lack of Idolatry--though no such thing is ever implied in the passage.
Counter Missionary claim #2: Lamo לָמוֹ is used in Isaiah 53:8 and "properly translated means to them' " and never "to him"
This claim is largely true, my software shows that לָמוֹ appears 59 times in 57 verses in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew bible, in the vast majority of them its being used in a context of plurality or implied plurality, however, there are a few possible exceptions the most commonly used one is a few chapters earlier in Isaiah:
yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto [לָמוֹ ].--Isaiah 44:15
Or as the 1985 JPS translates it "He also makes a god of it and worships it, Fashions an idol and bows down to it." Most English translations agree, however, some other Jewish translations insist it also means "to them"--suggesting the person is bowing to both the image and the 'god,' however, the earlier part of the sentence already addresses the person as worshipping the 'god' itself. Countermissionaries appeal to the LXX for a rare instance to try to bolster their claim, however the LXX differs significantly here, since instead of having 2 almost redundant sentences about making a god/image, it says "But the rest they fashioned into gods and they do obeisance to them." Which makes a idol's maker plural, and the deities plural, and omits the second part about "making an image and bowing..." So appealing to the LXX does not solve any issue in this instance!
The LXX for Isaiah 53:8 mentions "death" which fits the context perfectly, incidentally the only different between לָמוֹ and the Hebrew word death is a tau after the vav, (also the only difference between the tav and vav is the tav in older scripts of Hebrew has an extra stroke). The LXX reads:
"he was led to death [θάνατον, thanaton] on account of the acts of lawlessness of my people"--Isaiah 53:8 (NET translation of the LXX)
Or, if we were to keep to translations within modern Judaism following the Masoretic text, we have the 1985 JPS which reads "For he was cut off from the land of the living, Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment." Showing "he" received what they "deserved."
Counter Missionary claim #3: "land of the living" is a term for the land of Israel.
This is an assertion they make but cannot prove based on context, the most obvious meaning is that it is an expression of death (which Isaiah 53 is full of)--not deportation from Israel. In fact verse 7 even says "as a lamb that is led to the slaughter," and verse 9 "grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb." In fact verse 8 in the LXX explicitly uses the Greek word for death. Other than being an expression of life/death, its used as a expression for the Temple area. Let's look at all the instances "land of the living" is used.
The first example is from Isaiah 38:11--the only other time the expression is used in Isaiah:
I said: I shall not see YAH, even YAH in the land of
the living [ בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, b'eretz hahayyim]; I shall behold man no more with the inhabitants of the
world.--Isaiah 38:11
The context is the King of Judah (Hezekiah) remembering when he was sick and persecuted, fearing for his life, the previous verse even mentions he feared he would wind up in the netherworld (sh'ol). Land of the living here seems to just be another expression for life/death, though POSSIBLY also of the Temple since the poem ends in verse 20 with "this is why we offer up music all the days of our lives at the House of the LORD." Regardless, its an expression of physical death here.
My second example is from passage similar to Isaiah 53--Jeremiah 11:19 where the Prophet Jeremiah talks about people wanting to kill him. Here is the passage:
But I was like a docile lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew
not that they had devised devices against me: 'Let us destroy the tree
with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the
living [ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , méretz hayyim], that his name may be no more remembered.'--Jeremiah 11:19
This was a plot of the people of Anathoth to kill Jeremiah. The mention of a lamb led to slaughter, destroying a tree with fruit, cutting from the land of the living, and not letting his name be remember all refer to death, and how nothing to do with being deported from the land of Israel. Interesting, both this passage and Isaiah 53 mention a "lamb led to slaughter," and being "cut from the land of the living" --מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים méretz hayyim. Verse 15 mentions the "House of God" but it land of the living does not seem to refer to the Temple at all here. There is no reason why we should not think this is not referring to physical death.
My third example is from the book of Job, it is talking about where Wisdom can be found--the point is no where on earth, or as it says "in the land of the living." Job 28 was not talking about Israel, the most natural understanding is that it cannot be found among living humans.
Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים beretz hahayyim]--Job 28:13 (speaking about where wisdom is found, not on earth)
The closest I have seen verses come to calling the land of Israel the "land of the living" are in the Psalms, where the TEMPLE, not all of Israel's land is called the land of the living.
If I had not believed to look upon the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, b'eretz hayyim]!--Psalm 27:13
We know Psalm 27:13 is referring to the area of the temple because in Psalm 27:4 the Psalmist says "that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life.... to visit early in His temple." In fact the Jewish Study Bible for this verse notes that land of the living is contrasted with the "land of the dead," and that it is a "metaphor for the temple."
The next time the phrase appears is Psalm 52:7
God will likewise break thee for ever, He will take thee up, and pluck thee out of thy tent, and root thee out of the land of the living[ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , méretz hayyim]. Selah--Psalm 52:7
Verse 10 of this psalm, the psalmist contrasts the person who is rooted from the land of the living with himself who is 'like a thriving olive tree in God's house"...God's house being a common term in the Hebrew Bible for the Temple. The verse correspond to each other, one is "rooted from the land of the living" v.7 and the other is "thriving...in God's house" v.10. The JSB notes that the Olive Tree metaphor is used because olive oil is used in the Temple, and in v 10 that "It is uncertain if the Psalmist is a religious official in the Temple (God's house), or is a lay Israelite who wants to enjoy God's proximity at the Temple (see Ps. 23.6 n)." It seems most likely that "land of the living" here is just an expression for living, since its paralleled with "your tent."
The next occurrence in the Psalms is in Psalm 116:9, where the plural form is used "landS of THE living" (most of the other verses did not use the word "the" and always used singular "land"):
I shall walk before the LORD in the lands of the living [בְּאַרְצוֹת, הַחַיִּים , b'aretzot hahayyim].--Psalm 116:9
This is plainly an expression of death as seen by previous verse "For Thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from stumbling." In verse 8 the Psalmist was at the risk of death and stumbling (not being able to walk) and now he can walk (and not stumble) in the lands of the living! Walking being a likely expression for keeping God's commandments and serving him. Lands of the livings here may also be associated with the temple since the Psalmist goes on and talks about the idea of giving sacrifices to God in the Jerusalem Temple v19.
The last instance I found "land of the living" in the Psalms is 142:6 which states:
I have cried unto Thee, O LORD; I have said: 'Thou art my refuge, my portion in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים , b'eretz hahayyim].'--Psalm 142:6
Psalm 142 is another psalm about persecution at the risk of death, just as many of the previous examples. Verse 5 states "there is no one that cares for my life!" Here it is just an expression for life on earth.
Finally, the phrase "land of the living" is used several times in the book of Ezekiel, more than any other book in the Hebrew bible--and again all as expressions for life/death.
then will I bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, to the
people of old time, and will make thee to dwell in the nether parts of
the earth, like the places that are desolate of old, with them that go
down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the
land of the living[בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , b'eretz hayyim];-Ezekiel 26:20
The above translation (of וְנָתַתִּי צְבִי ) taken from a very old translation of the JPS and is widely debated by English bible translators and Jews. The new JPS translation found in the Jewish Study Bible says "and shall not radiate splendor in the land of the living" then also notes the Hebrew is uncertain. The Jewish commentary RaShI takes the verse as being positive and says its as if God said, "And I shall bestow beauty upon
Jerusalem."
This is absurd considering its completely out of place with the tone of the passage which is nothing but threats to Tyre about its demise. The LXX translates "וְנָתַתִּי צְבִי בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים" as "nor rise upon a land of life."
The next several instances we find the phrase "land of the living" in Ezekiel is Ezekiel 32, which is unnecessary to comment on since its obviously about simple the destruction of certain pagan nations based on all the talk of the pit/grave, death, sword...:
Asshur is there and all her company; their graves are round about them; all of them slain, fallen by the sword;
whose graves are set in the uttermost parts of the pit, and
her company is round about her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the
sword, who caused terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim].
There is Elam and all her multitude round about her grave; all
of them slain, fallen by the sword, who are gone down uncircumcised
into the nether parts of the earth, who caused their terror in the land
of the living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim]; yet have they borne their shame with them that go down to
the pit.
They have set her a bed in the midst of the slain with all her
multitude; her graves are round about them; all of them uncircumcised,
slain by the sword; because their terror was caused in the land of the
living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim], yet have they borne their shame with them that go down to the
pit; they are put in the midst of them that are slain.
There is Meshech, Tubal, and all her multitude; her graves are
round about them; all of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword;
because they caused their terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim].
And they that are inferior to the uncircumcised shall not lie
with the mighty that are gone down to the nether-world with their
weapons of war, whose swords are laid under their heads, and whose
iniquities are upon their bones; because the terror of the mighty was in
the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim].
But thou, in the midst of the uncircumcised shalt thou be broken and lie, even with them that are slain by the sword.
There is Edom, her kings and all her princes, who for all
their might are laid with them that are slain by the sword; they shall
lie with the uncircumcised, and with them that go down to the pit.
There are the princes of the north, all of them, and all the
Zidonians, who are gone down with the slain, ashamed for all the terror
which they caused by their might, and they lie uncircumcised with them
that are slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down
to the pit.
These shall Pharaoh see, and shall be comforted over all his
multitude; even Pharaoh and all his army, slain by the sword, saith the
Lord GOD.
For I have put My terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץחַיִּים ,b'eretz hayyim]; and he
shall be laid in the midst of the uncircumcised, with them that are
slain by the sword, even Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord
GOD.'--Ezekiel 32:22-32
Conclusion: The phrase "the land of the living" never anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible refers to the land of Israel, but is an expression for physical death, or the Temple itself.
"The enemies of the 'furious young lion' were 'hanged alive on the tree', a familiar Hebrew circumlocution for crucifixion."--The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 30 (Referring to the actions of the Greeks)
"Note also that the death penalty of 'hanging' (probably crucifixion) reserved for traitors appears in both TS LXIV, 6-13 and the Nahum Commentary."--The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, page 152, edited by Geza Vermes
"The Nahum and Hosea Commentaries further refer to a bloodthirsty priest, nicknamed the 'furious young lion', who strick Ephraim (Commentary on Hosea) and 'hanged alive'(cruficied) some of them (Commentary of Nahum), applying the penalty prescribed in the Temple Scroll for traitors of the Jewish nation (11QTemple 64:7-8). If the story is inspired by the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees by the Hasmonean priest-king Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Jewish War I:97), one would have reason to deduce that Ephraim stands for the Pharisees, Alexander's enemies, and consequently Manasseh would refer to the Sadducees, his supports."--The Story of the Scrolls: The miraculous discovery and true significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, about page 76
Note also that Vermes was a man of Jewish heritage that was raised Catholic (became a cleric) then converted to Judaism.
Vermes makes similar comments in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English
Note: Look at the comment by catholicnick for a compelling argument "pierced" would be used and not lion, based on the list of animals, which is reversed in Psalm 22.
Psalm 22:16 (verse 17 in some numbering, Psalm 21 in LXX and the Vulgate) has been a verse in dispute between Christians and Jews for a few hundred years. The issue is less over translation, and more over what the Hebrew text says. The modern Hebrew text reads:
כארי ידי ורגלי --Psalm 22:16 (Masoretic Text with vowels removed)
Like a lion, my hands and feet.--Psalm 22:16b (Masoretic translation)
The word כארי (kari) means "like a lion," "ארי" referring to a lion, and "כ" meaning "like." The issue is that Christians have always read this as "they have dug/pierced." We find the word pierced in several ancient translations: ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας --Psalm 22:17b Greek Septuagint(Psalm 22:16 in non LXX numbering) ὤρυξαν meaning "dig/bury"
"They have gouged my hands and feet"--Psalm 22:17b (NETS translation of the LXX)
ܒܙܥܘܐ̈ܝܕܝܘܪ̈ܓܠܝ--Psalm 22:17 Peshitta text (Aramaic) ܒܙܥܘ meaning bury, dig, pierced, wounded.
Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos;--Psalm 21:17 Latin Vulgate, Foderunt meaning "dig."
We also have the Targum of the Psalms which is in Aramaic and reads:
they bite my hands and feet like a lion"--Psalm 22:17 Targum translation
This is interesting since it makes it obvious that Psalm 22:16/7 is reference to biting/piercing since, what else would you expect a lion to do at your "hands and feet"? The Masoretic reading does not explicit say, though it should be obvious and antimissionaries act as if the lion would not pierce the hands and keep, perhaps lick them even?
Finally, we have a fragment of Psalm 22:16(17) in the Dead Sea Scrolls Nahal Hever (5/6Hev1b f8_9:12). Which is provided below.
The Hebrew word has כארו (they dug), though an unusual spelling not found else where, instead of the word in the כארי (lion), this is evidence Christian did not tamper with the text, but that this may very well have been the original. The only difference between the two words, as can be seen in the fragment, is that the yod, is smaller than the vav, Kaaru has a "vav" and Kari has a "yod," so an error could have happened with either making the letter too short, or too long.
Concerning the spelling of כארו (to dig) it is spelled elsewhere in the Hebrew bible lacking the א Aleph כרו in the middle of the word, as in:
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, likea roaring lion ravening the prey;--Ezekiel 22:25
So, we can see that the word for "they have dug" does not appear to be spelled in the ordinary way, and certainly not a way used elsewhere in the Masoretic Hebrew text, yet the "like a lion" simile does not really make a whole lot of sense in Psalm 22:16 since it doesn't explicitly mention anything the lion does, just says "like a lion, my hands and feet." Some Jewish translations changed it to "like a lion AT my hands and feet" to try to make more sense of it.
It is interesting how the Antimissionaries insist on an error, despite the fact the ancient Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and at least 1 Dead Sea Scroll contain dug/pierce. This is not the only instance where the Masoretic text is in the minority, a similar case is with Genesis 4:8, where the Masoretic text lacks what Cain said to Abel, all the other texts including some Jewish targums add "let us go into the field."
In the Masoretic text of the Psalms there are variant readings for some verses, some of which are far more explicit than Psalm 22:16. For instance, Psalm 100 contains a variant based on a homophone--"v'lo" which can mean either "and not" or "and his" depending on whether the O is spelled using a vav or aleph:
הוּא-עָשָׂנוּ, ולא אֲנַחְנוּ--Psalm 100:3 (One Masoretic version "and not")
He made us, and not ourselves--Psalm 100:3 (Variant)
This reading is rejected by most Protestants but it is the traditional Christian reading and is used in the traditional Latin Vulgate. Now here is the alternate version preferred by Protestants:
הוּא-עָשָׂנוּ, וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנו--Psalm 100:3 (one Masoretic version "and his")
He made us, and we are his--Psalm 100:3 (Variant reading favored by Protestants)
So we see a small error crept into the manuscript tradition based on two letter that look nothing alike, but make the same sound, produce a completely different reading of the text. If an error so significant could have been made here, why not in Psalm 22:16(17), and the original reading be "they have dug", theoretically spelled correctly?
Finally, the Hebrew bible, even the Torah contains defective spellings of words FREQUENTLY, which rabbis have historically exploited for gematria purposes, or to interject some midrashic idea about WHY its spelled the way it is. It is possibility that the LXX, Peshitta, and DSS reading was based on some form of defective spelling that no longer exists, or perhaps the DSS just added an aleph. Who knows.
Video Part 1
In Moral on the Book of Job, Pope Gregory the Great (whether he wrote this book before or during his papacy, I don't know) quotes Sirach several times. Protestants are fond of using the Maccabee reference that it is "not canonical," what he meant by that is debated, but we can look at him quote other books:
That the acuteness of wisdom
is designated by the ‘sun,’ is said also in the way of comparison by
Solomon; A wise man continueth as the sun, a fool changeth as the moon.
[Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 27:11] What then is pointed out in this place by the rays of
the sun, but the acuteness of wise men?--Volume III, Part 6, Book XXXIV, Paragraph 25
And the love of our neighbour is carried down into two
precepts, since on the one hand it is said by a certain righteous man, Do
that to no man which thou hatest.[Tobit 4:15]And on the other
‘Truth’ saith by Himself, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them. [Mat. 7:12]--Volume I, Part 2, Book X, Paragraph 8 In Sacred Writ ‘woman’ is taken either for the sex, or else for ‘frailty.’
For the ‘sex,’ as where it is written, God sent forth His Son, made of a
woman, made under the Law [Gal. 4, 4]. But for frailty, as where it is
said by the Wise Man, Better is the iniquity of a man than a woman doing
well. [Ecclus./Sirach 42:14] For ‘a man’ is the term for every strongminded
and discreet person, but ‘a woman’ is understood of the weak or indiscreet
mind. And it often happens that even the discreet person suddenly falls
into a fault, and that another weak and indiscreet man exhibits good
practice. But he that is weak and indiscreet is sometimes lifted up the
more on the score of what he has done well, and falls the worse into sin;
but the discreet person even from that which he sees that he has done amiss,
takes occasion to recall himself with closer application to the rule of
strictness, and advances the further in righteousness from the same act,
whereby he seemed to have fallen from righteousness for a time. In which
respect it is rightly said, Better is the iniquity of a man than a woman
doing well; in that sometimes the very fault of the strong becomes
occasion of virtue, and the virtue of the weak occasion of sin. --Volume 2, Part 3, Book XI, Paragraph 65
Since according to the voice of Truth, Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. [Matt. 24, 2] He, then, who hath not warmth of the heart in the love of God, and yet keepeth not the life, which he loves, assuredly he ‘fleeth like a shadow.’ Hence it is well written concerning him, that he hath followed a shadow. [Sirach 34:2] Now it is well said, and never continueth in the same state.--Volume II Part III, Book XI, Paragraph 88
Outside of Moralia, we see him also quoting Tobit and Sirach:
Lest they should give something, however little to those on whom they ought to bestow nothing at all, let them hear what is written, Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly[Sirach 12:4]. And again, Set out your bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners[Tobit 4:17].--Pastoral Rule (Book III)
I am looking at Psalm 22:2(1) (MT)/Psalm 21:2 (Vulgate/LXX), this Psalm is significant since it is quoted by the Lord Jesus at the cross--at least the initial words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." The Catechism of the Catholic Church and St Augustine explain Christ is saying these words in the name of humans, not for His own sake.
Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.(405)
But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he
assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"(406) Having thus
established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his
own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to
God by the death of his Son".(407)--CCC 603
"...the first verse of which the Lord Himself uttered on the Cross: "My
God, My God, look upon Me; why have You forsaken Me?" For "transferring
us in a figure" [1 Corinthians 4:6] to what He was saying, and to His
own Body (for we are also "His Body," and He is our "Head"), He uttered
from the Cross not His own cry, but ours. For God never "forsook" Him:
nor did He Himself ever depart from the Father; but it was in behalf of
us that He spoke this: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" For
there follows, "Far from My health are the words of My offences:" and it
shows in whose person He said this; for sin could not be found in
Him.…"--St Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 44
Anyway, here is what the whole verse says:
אֵלִי אֵלִי, לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי; רָחוֹק מִישׁוּעָתִי, דִּבְרֵי שַׁאֲגָתִי
My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me, and art far from my help at the words of my cry?
The translation from the Hebrew text in modern Hebrew is
Eli, Eli, lamah azav'tani.
or
Éli, Eli, lamah azav'tani
or in Ashkenazi like
Eli, Eli, lamah azav'sani
Greek traditionally transliterates the tav without a daggesh with a theta.
Making azav'thani
The New Testament transliterations are somewhat different because they are transliterations of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, which we transliterated again into English. I will go off of Matthew 27:46 for now. The Byzantine Majority here does NOT agree exactly with the so called Textus Receptus, despite the insistence by KJV only Baptist it ALWAYS does. Nor is Alexandrian consistent with Westcott and Hort here, really, each major manuscript is slightly different, though not by a whole lot. All of them transliterate the word for "forsaken" the same except for Tischendorf which seems to throw in an extra eta just before the iota at the end. Here is the Greek transliteration in most texts σαβαχθανι. This does not match the Hebrew, which does not even start with a sound besides "a," σαβαχθανι which can be transliterated into English as savakthani (beta in modern Greek refers to a v sound, and the iota at the end is said like a long e as in meet). This seems to correspond to the Targum of Psalm 22:2 (1) which reads שבקתני which could come close to Matthew's.
In bold I highlighted the Hebrew word מִישׁוּעָתִי "from my help" or as it can also be read "from my salvation" since the Hebrew word there has ישׁוּעָ which contains one of the Hebrew spellings for Jesus "Y'shu'a". This spelling is found in later Hebrew as in Ezra/Nehemiah.
For example, in Ezra 10:18 we read in part there was a priest named "Jeshua" in English translations:
............ מִבְּנֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן-יוֹצָדָק .........--Ezra 10:18
............from the sons of Yeshu'a son of Yotzadak.....--Ezra 10:18
This priest is named after Joshua son of Nun, the original form of the name first appears in the Torah in Exodus 17
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ .--Exodus 17:9
And Moses [Mosheh] said to Joshua [Y'hoshu'a]....--Exodus 17:9
The spelling of Ezra 10:18 Yeshu'a as a proper name only appears 30 times in the Hebrew bible, but only in 4 books: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Joshua son of Nun called Y'hoshu'a in Exodus 17:9 is called "Yeshu'a" in Nehemiah 8:17 as we see here:
... יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן-נוּן ...--Nehemiah 8:17
Yeshu'a ben Nun..--Nehemiah 8:17
Now since Jesus' name is based on Joshua the son of Nun's name (Hebrews 4:9) its reasonable to link the two names and the two different spellings of the name together. Furthermore, the spelling of Psalm 22:2 of yshu'a is spelled the same as it is in 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah since there Hebrew texts the were originally written in lacked diacritics--meaning no vowels. The only letters seen would be yod, shin, vav, and ayin. The ayin having little to no sound in of its self (though the Vulgate suggests it may have made a slight g sound based on Genesis 18's town "Gomorrah".)
Anyway, continuing on with Psalm 22 we read that a significant textual variant--or at least a significant alternate translation. Just about every translation into English based on the Masoretic Hebrew text says "from the words of my cry." The Douay Rheims, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate reads "words of my sins." Here are the comparisons of English translations:
so far from my cries of anguish?--NIV
from the words of my groaning?--ESV Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.--NASB and from the words of my roaring?--KJV
Far from my salvation are the words of my sins--DRB
Here is what the Vulgate reads:
Deus, Deus meus, respice in me: quare me dereliquisti? longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum--Psalm 21:2 Vulgate (Vulgate uses LXX numbering)
Delictorum being from Delictum meaning "
a fault, offence, trespass, crime, transgression, wrong, defect."
Now the Douay Rheim's rendering and the Latin Vulgate are not alone in this reading, its also found in Greek Septuagint (LXX) Psalm 21:2
μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου.--Psalm 21:2 LXX (LXX has a different chapter numbering than MT)
παραπτωμάτωνmeans
false step, slip, blunder, which does not seem to be very different than "hamartia" the word for sin.
We also have the Peshitta text of Psalm 22:2 which also uses a word for sin, this is significant since the Peshitta is an ancient text written in Syriac/Aramaic which is a Semitic language very close to Hebrew. It reads:
While, the Masoretic text has "שַׁאֲגָתִי" sha'agati, which refers to a "roar," as seen in Job 4:10 "roaring of a lion."
I cannot conclude for certain why the Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, and Greek Septuagint read "sin," when the Hebrew Masoretic and Targum read "roar." The answer maybe, just as it is for Psalm 22:16 where there is a Hebrew variant reading "dug" where most have something about a lion (found at Nachal Hever). The Haydock bible commentary states for this verse:
The Septuagint seem to have read shagathi, whereas the Hebrew places the g after the a,
or they have
substituted the cause for the effect; as sin
was certainly the cause of Christ's affliction, and of his Father's not
granting
present relief. --Haydock
I did find in Hebrew words that are spelled SOMEWHAT similar to shagati, like in Psalm 19:13 (MT) it reads:
שְׁגִיאוֹת מִי-יָבִין-Psalm 19:13 MT
Who can discern his errors?--Psalm 19:13
The word errors in this verse is שְׁגִיאוֹת sh'gi'ot which seems to be 3rd person, plural, feminine, whereas Psalm 22:2 is 1st person. I could be wrong about this. I do NOT know enough Hebrew to really figure this out.
Disclaimer: The following is 100% NOT my own work. It is a reproduction of an article made by John Collorafi, on his now defunct website Ancient Papacy.The canons of Sardica can be found here.
The Council of Sardica
The Council of Sardica was part of the orthodox
reaction to the Arian heresy, which denied that the Son of God was truly
divine. Although Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicea, the
Arian intriguers persecuted orthodox bishops in the east, notably Saint
Athanasius of Alexandria.
In 343, orthodox western bishops met the eastern
bishops at Sardica, a city which was basically at the border between
western and eastern Roman jurisdictions. Under the presidency of Hosius,
bishop of Cordoba, the council restored orthodox bishops such as
Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople.
The council of Sardica also laid down the following
three canons or rules about church discipline, regarding the right of
bishops to appeal to Rome:
Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: “...if sentence
has been pronounced against a bishop in some case, and he thinks that he
has good reason for the case to be considered, let us, if it be
agreeable to you, honor the memory of the holy apostle Peter: let
letters be written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, by those who examined
the case; if he judges that the case should be reconsidered, let it be
reconsidered and let him appoint judges. If however he concludes that
the case is not such that it ought to be reviewed, whatever he decrees
will stand confirmed. Is this agreeable to everybody?” The council
answered: “Yes.”
Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: “Let this
provision, if it be agreeable to you, be added to this very holy
decision which you have made: when a bishop has been deposed by judgment
of the bishops in neighboring areas, and has proclaimed that his case
must be dealt with in the city of Rome, after the appeal of [the bishop]
who apparently has been deposed, in no event may another bishop be
ordained to replace him in his see unless the case has been determined
by the judgment of the bishop of Rome.”
Canon 5. Bishop Hosius said: “But it has been
agreed that if a bishop has been accused, and the bishops of that
region have met, passed judgment and deposed him from his rank, and he
takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, and asked
that the case be heard: if [the bishop of Rome] has agreed that he be
heard, and considers it just that the case be reopened, let him deign to
write to the bishops in the neighboring province, and the one next to
it, that they examine the whole matter diligently, and define in
reliance upon the truth. If, however, [the bishop] who asks that his
case be heard again by his own petition has moved the bishop of Rome to
send a priest with a special mission, it shall be in the bishop’s power
to say what he wishes or as seems fit to him. If he determines to send
[legates] to pass judgment together with the bishops, as having the
authority of the one who sent them, it will be within his discretion. If
however he considers the bishops sufficient to make the final decision
on the case, he shall do what in his most wise counsel he judges best.”
[Mansi 3: 23-5]
The canons of Sardica were included in leading Latin
and Greek collections of canon law. For example, Greek canons of
Sardica were included in a collection compiled by Patriarch John III
Scholasticus [565-577] of Constantinople, called Synagoga L Titulorum.
The canons of Sardica also appear in an ancient Latin collection known as the Prisca,
[PL 56: 775-7], the authentic Spanish collection of canons [PL 84: 115
sq.] and the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, a monk from Scythia, which
was a province in the lower Danube. [PL 67: 949 sq]
The council also wrote a letter to Pope Julius [337-352] of Rome, which says:
... For this will seem best and most exceedingly
fitting if the priests of the Lord, from each of the different
provinces, refer to the head, that is, the see of Peter the apostle... [Mansi 3: 40]
The authenticity of these striking words has been called into question, but the words do appear in the Historical Fragments of Hilary, bishop of Poitiers [PL 10: 639].
The acts of the Council of Sardica were signed by
bishops of numerous western and eastern regions or provinces, such as
Africa, Egypt, Phrygia, Isauria, Ancyra, Gaza, Thrace, Larissa,
Thessalonica, Nicopolis, Dardania, Macedonia, Achaia, Thessalia, Cyprus,
Palestine, Arabia, Asia, Dacia, Pannonia, etc. [Athanasius, Apol. 37-50. PG 25: 311 sq. Cf. Mansi 3: 38-9]
Dacia corresponds roughly to Romania, while Pannonia
corresponds more or less to Hungary. Dardania and Macedonia are in the
Balkans. Thessaly and Achaia were provinces of Greece.
Canons of the council of Sardica, including the
canons about appeals to Rome, were even included in the Armenian book of
canons published at Yerevan, Armenia in 1971, during the Soviet era.
[Kanonagirk Hayoc’, Yerevan 1971, 1: 254-257]
Thus the council of Sardica had the widest acceptance in east and west.
Copyright 2003, John Collorafi
Original translations by John Collorafi
---------------------------------------------------
My (Berhane Selassie) video on this article:
I was reading through the history of Mormonism, and after the founder's death, Joseph Smith Jr. he left behind 5 children (the rest of Smith's children died in childbirth or soon after) in Nauvoo, Illinois, none of which were followers of Brigham Young and established a rival "church" to the Utah Mormon "church":
1 adopted daughter--Julia Murdock Smith who was 13 years old when her adopted father Joseph Smith Jr ("the prophet") died, making her the oldest. As a result of one of her marriages, she converted to Catholicism, whether she stayed Catholic-- I don't know.
3 sons:
Joseph Smith III, who was 11 when his father died. He eventually was his father's successor in the rival Mormon sect and an opponent of polygamy. He lead the Reorganized LDS church, now called the "Community of Christ."
Alexander Hale Smith, who was about 6 years old when his father died. He was a leader with his older brother Joseph III in the RLDS.
David Hyrum Smith, who was about 5 months old when his father died. He was a missionary for the RLDS, and tried to even get the LDS in Utah to convert to the RLDS.
Doesn't it seem strange that none of Smith's children (that we know of) even cared to follow the rest of the Mormons into Utah? I suppose a LDS missionary will blame the children's mother. What is interesting, is a similar phenomenon occurred with Islam when the "prophet" Muhammad died, there was a schism over who was to lead.
Today, I was asked by a Jewish friend where the term "Bosom of Abraham" is from that Jesus uses in Luke 16 in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, since she did not believe it to be Jewish at all.
When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.--Luke 16:22
It is possible it was a term Jesus coined, but it's more likely that it was an already used term. Anyway, the term is used in Jewish literature, according to Jewish Encyclopedia:
In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is
said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has
entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi
(Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of
Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant"--Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, Abraham's Bosom
Looking up this reference of Kid 72b, it's found at the very end of the Kiddushin 72b (Gemera) (קידושין עב,ב גמרא) (this is a tractate of the Babylonian Talmud) it reads:
דאגמא איכא בבבל אדא בר אהבה יש בה היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם
"There is a Fort Agama in Babylon wherein dwells Adda b. Ahabah: today he sits in Abraham's lap;"--Kiddushin 72b (Gemera)
The word יושב means to "sit" or "dwell," and it frequently used in the Hebrew bible for people settling down or living in an area (as well as just sitting). The phrase that can be translated as "bosom/chest of Abraham" is בחיקו של אברהם , the word של meaning "his", בחיקו (b'heyko) means "in bosom/lap," and with אברהם meaning Abraham.
The word בחיקו 'in the bosom' is used the Hebrew bible twice:
And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy
bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out,
behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow.--Exodus 4:6
The word חיקו is found around 34 times in the Hebrew bible, but I use these specific examples to demonstrate it can mean "chest" or "bosom", specifically (Moses did not put his hand in his lap but just to his chest!). I generally do not use the term "bosom" since its weird in modern speech to say a man has a bosom.
Conclusion:
The phrase "bosom of Abraham" is used in Jewish literature (at least this one time) and is not unique to the New Testament.
Disclaimer: The following is 100% NOT my own work. It is a reproduction of an article made by John Collorafi, on his now defunct website Ancient Papacy.
The Acacian Schism (484-519)and Formula of Pope Hormisdas
In the late fifth century, Emperor Zeno, with the
complicity of the bishop of Constantinople, Acacius [471-489] tried to
impose on the Byzantine east an ambiguous formula called the Henoticon
or decree of union.
Acacius quickly signed the Henoticon after it was
promulgated in 482, and so did the notorious heretic Peter Mongus, who
was installed as the imperially sponsored archbishop of Alexandria.
Acacius tried to justify himself by claiming that he was merely
following imperial orders in the matter.
Before long a new pope, Saint Felix III [483-492]
was elected at Rome, and he sent legates to Constantinople to try to
persuade the emperor to remove the heretic Mongus from Alexandria. The
pope also wanted Acacius, whose behavior was becoming increasingly
suspicious, to appear before a Roman council. The pope had also received
reports from several bishops of the east, to say nothing of the monks
and other faithful, complaining about the actions of Acacius.
When the papal legates reached Constantinople, they
were thrown into prison and browbeaten into recognizing the heretic
Mongus. The pope reacted in July 484 by holding a council at Rome which
solemnly excommunicated Acacius.
The empire hardened its attitude and tried to coerce
the bishops of the east to sign the Henoticon, and during this period
Acacius died in 489, anathematized by Rome. His successor, Fravitas
[489-490], made attempts to contact both the pope and Peter Mongus of
Alexandria.
Fravitas died in 490 and his successor as bishop of
Constantinople, Euphemius [490-496] took some objectively positive
steps. Euphemius accepted the Council of Chalcedon, renewed the
commemoration of the pope in the liturgy, and broke communion with the
heretic Peter Mongus.
However, Rome had one more requirement before the
schism could be healed: at Constantinople, the names of Acacius [and
Fravitas], who had died in schism, needed to be removed from the
diptychs or liturgical commemorations. Because Euphemius was unwilling
to take this final step, the schism continued.
A similar situation existed under the next patriarch
of Constantinople, Macedonius II [496-511]. Macedonius accepted the
council of Chalcedon and attempted to send synodical letters to Rome—an
attempt to reestablish communion—but the new emperor, Anastasius
[491-518] intervened, sabotaging even the attempt to be reconciled with
Rome.
Meanwhile, a new pope, Saint Symmachus [498-514],
received an appeal entitled, “the eastern church to Symmachus, bishop of
Rome.” The appeal describes in heart-breaking terms the persecution
from which the east was suffering, and asked Symmachus to use his power
of binding and loosing to mitigate the suffering in the east. [Mansi 8:
221 sq.]
Under the successor of Symmachus, Pope Hormisdas
[514-523], the emperor began sending out feelers about an ecumenical
council at Heraclea in Thrace. While nothing came of the council, the
pope did compose a solemn profession of faith known as the formula of
Pope Hormisdas.
When a new emperor, Justin [518-527], was proclaimed
at Constantinople, crowds of the faithful literally demanded the
restoration of orthodoxy—the faith of Chalcedon—and also the restoration
of union with Rome. Pope Hormisdas sent legates into the east with the
formula of faith. Eastern bishops and clergy were to be reconciled with
Rome by signing the formula. The schism finally ended in 519 when
Patriarch John II [518-520] the Cappadocian signed Rome’s formula, along
with a great number of bishops, priests and archimandrites.
The first salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and to deviate in no way from the tradition of the fathers. And
because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be set aside,
which says: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,”
these things which have been said are proven by the course of events,
for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved
unblemished… Not wanting to fall away from this faith, and
following the constitutions of the fathers in every respect, we
anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, formerly
bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was condemned at the Council
of Ephesus by Celestine, pope of the city of Rome, and by the holy
Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. Along with him we anathematize Eutyches and
Dioscorus of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy council of
Chalcedon, which we follow and embrace. We anathematize with them
Timothy the parricide [the Cat], surnamed Elurus, and his disciple and
follower in all things, Peter [Mongus] of Alexandria. In like manner we
condemn and anathematize Acacius, who was once bishop of the city of
Constantinople, their accomplice and follower, and those who persevered
in their communion, for anyone who embraces the communion of individuals
receives a similar judgment at their condemnation. We also condemn
Peter of Antioch [the Fuller], along with his followers... Wherefore,
as we have already said, following in all matters the Apostolic See and
preaching all its constitutions, I hope that I may merit to be in one
communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which is the
integral and true solidity of the Christian religion. I also
promise that during the celebration of the sacred mysteries, I will not
recite the names of those who were separated from the communion of the
Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree in every respect with the
Apostolic See. This profession I have signed with my own hand, and
offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of
Rome. [CSEL 35: 520-22]
The formula of Pope Hormisdas is found in a collection of papal documents known as the Collectio Avellana, compiled about 550.
We do not know exactly how many bishops signed this
formula, but a deacon of Rome, Rusticus, writing about 550, said that
under Emperor Justin there were “perhaps twenty-five hundred priests” who signed libelli [the formula of faith] after the schism of Peter [Mongus] of Alexandria, and Acacius. [PL 67, 1251-2]
Evidently not all clerics who signed the formula were bishops.
Rusticus does not say how many of the signers were bishops, and how many
were from the lower clergy.
Copyright 2003, John Collorafi
Original translations by John Collorafi
================================================
