In his epistle to Serapion, Athanasius gives his most extensive consideration to pneumatology. As in his debates with Arians, Athanasius consistently focuses attention back to the pattern of biblical language, what Anatolios calls the “intertextual scriptural characterizations of Father, Son . . . . Continue Reading »
Athanasius believes that human beings are inherently unstable, just because they are creatures. For Athanasius, the stability of salvation rests, Anatolios argues, in the inner-Trinitarian life of giving and receiving. Explaining the “anointing” of Psalm 45 as an anointing of the Son by . . . . Continue Reading »
Anatiolios offers this explanation of Athanasius’ defense of homoousios : “the meaning of the Nicene homoousios is contained in its function as a guide to a certain way of reading Scripture. An immediate hermeneutical consequence of this principle is that efforts to understand this term . . . . Continue Reading »
By insisting that “Creator” is a name intrinsic to God’s essence, Athanasius steps back into the problems from which Arianism arose in the first place. Anatolios notes that the debates about “Origen’s speculation that the title ‘Almighty,’ as a designation . . . . Continue Reading »
Khaled Anatolios points out in his Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine that Athanasius charges that the Arians cannot truly honor God as Creator. The reasoning is: “If the Word is Creator and the Word is extrinsice to the divine essence, then the creative . . . . Continue Reading »
Land of Pharaohs and pyramids, Egypt is about stasis. Israel leaves Egypt and builds a mobile sanctuary. They don’t even remain camped at the Mountain of theophany. They remain the people of Abraham, called ahead to a land they haven’t yet seen. Because Yahweh is a living God. . . . . Continue Reading »
By looking for the sources of biblical notions of kipper in texts dealing with bloodguilt for murder, Feder concludes that blood serves as a compensation for the damage done by sin. Sin is conceived as a debt, and the blood of sacrifice is payment for the debt. To explain the logic of the lex . . . . Continue Reading »
In discussing “the only non-cultic text with a seemingly concrete object for kipper (Genesis 32:20), Feder argues that kapar doesn’t mean “cover” and he takes the common view that panayv doesn’t mean “his face.” Jacob does not send a gift to . . . . Continue Reading »
Feder summarizes the scholarly consensus on the use of blood in Mesopotamian ritual, which, he says, “has little in common with the expiatory use of blood in the Bible.” He elaborates: “In Mesopotamian rites, blood is usually associated with chthonic deities. In numerous cases, . . . . Continue Reading »
The shema is often taken as a declaration of monotheistic faith, or at least of henotheism. In ANE context, it may have another aspect to it. Yitzhaq Feder ( Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual (Writings from the Ancient World Supplements/Society of Biblical Literature) ) analyzes a . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
