Peter J. Leithart

Radner has these final comments on the hermeneutics of the “holiness code”: “The difference between the sexual laws of Lev. 18 and the laws of clean and unclean flesh in Lev. 11 cannot simply lie in their respective relation to teh category of ceremonial character. The difference . . . . Continue Reading »

Radner finds part of the fulfillment of the figures of Leviticus 18 in the genealoty of Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus’ own genealogy includes sexually illicit acts (Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba) and the various sins (not only sexual, but idolatry and oppression) represented in the genealogy . . . . Continue Reading »

In dealing with the sexual legislation of Leviticus 18, Ephraim Radner ( Leviticus (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) ) employs a figural/prophetic framework rather than a more traditional ceremonial/moral one. The results are intriguing. The prohibition of adultery, for instance, is . . . . Continue Reading »

Drake notes the unique “democratic” flavor of the churcfh in the fourth century: “Christianity restored to common people an outlet for popular participation which they were denied in imperial politics. Eusebius [of Caesarea’s] awkward letter to his confregation from Nicaea, . . . . Continue Reading »

Xenophon’s Cyrus provides a good illustration of Elias’s theory: “He trained his associates also not to spit or to wipe the nose in public, and not to turn round to look at anything, as being men who wondered at nothing. All this he thought contributed, in some measure, to their . . . . Continue Reading »

In his Octavius , Minucius Felix includes a description of Christian initiation from his pagan character, Caecilianus: “the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed . . . . Continue Reading »

Xenophon’s Cyrus was the model Hellenistic king, ruling through generosity: “if he wished to have anyone of his friends courted by the multitude, to such a one he would send presents from his table. And that device proved effective; for even to this day everybody pays more diligent . . . . Continue Reading »

Drake notes that the “one unwritten, but never to be violated, rule of the game of empire was this: although the Senate could be alienated with impunity so long as the loyalty of the troops was secure, it was impossible to alienate both Senate and military and still survive.” It’s . . . . Continue Reading »

Drake suggests that Constantine’s laws opening up appeals to episcopal courts were motivated not by concern “with the power of the bishop or of the church,” nor with a large effort to ensure the triumph of the church. Those conclusions arise from “the limited perspective . . . . Continue Reading »

If Constantine wanted to dominate the church, the obvious thing for him to do would be to try to widen the divisions in the church and keep them competing with each other. That’s not what he did. Instead of “divide and conquer,” he did his best to unite the church, often against . . . . Continue Reading »