Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



8413
Origen, Against Celsus, 1.28


nanAnd since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids Him with being born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

28 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 17.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

17.1. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר׃ 17.1. וַיְהִי אַבְרָם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל־אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי־אֵל שַׁדַּי הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים׃ 17.1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: ‘I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted."
2. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 5.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

3. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

5.5. One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”"
4. New Testament, Acts, 2.9, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

2.9. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia 2.11. Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!
5. New Testament, John, 8.2-8.11, 10.32 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

8.2. At early dawn, he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him. He sat down, and taught them. 8.3. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst 8.4. they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. 8.5. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her? 8.6. They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8.7. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her. 8.8. Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 8.9. They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last. Jesus was left alone with the woman where she was, in the middle. 8.10. Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you? 8.11. She said, "No one, Lord."Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more. 10.32. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?
6. New Testament, Matthew, 23.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

23.15. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves.
7. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.23 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

8. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 25.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

25.6. רַב הוּנָא בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר יָשַׁב אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְדָרַשׁ, נֶאֱמַר עָרְלָה בְּאִילָן וְנֶאֱמַר עָרְלָה בְּאָדָם, מַה עָרְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאִילָן מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵּרוֹת אַף עָרְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּאָדָם מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵּרוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין בֶּן פָּזִי וְכִי כְּבָר הָיָה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ יוֹדֵעַ קַלִּין וַחֲמוּרִין וּגְזֵרוֹת שָׁווֹת, אֶלָּא רֶמֶז רְמָזָהּ לוֹ (בראשית יז, ב): וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶיךָ וגו' מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה. תָּנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּקֵשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהוֹצִיא כְּהֻנָּה מִשֵּׁם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יד, יח): וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִקְדִּים בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּקוֹם, אָמַר לוֹ אַבְרָהָם וְכִי מַקְדִּימִין בִּרְכַּת עֶבֶד לְבִרְכַּת הָאָדוֹן, הוֹצִיאָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ וּנְתָנָהּ לְאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קי, א): נְאֻם ה' לַאדֹנִי, וּכְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ (תהלים קי, ד): נִשְׁבַּע ה' וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּה כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק, עַל דִּבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית יד, יט): בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר אַבְרָהָם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הָיָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: נִשְׁבַּע ה' וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּה כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם, וּכְתִיב (בראשית יז, יא): וּנְמַלְתֶּם אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם, וּמֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל אִם יִמּוֹל מִן הָאֹזֶן עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְהַקְרִיב, אִם יִמּוֹל מִן הַלֵּב עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְהַקְרִיב, אִם יִמּוֹל מִן הַפֶּה עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְהַקְרִיב, מֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל וְיִהְיֶה כָּשֵׁר לְהַקְרִיב, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ מִצְוַת הַגּוּף. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אַרְבַּע עָרְלוֹת הֵן, נֶאֱמַר עָרְלָה בָּאֹזֶן (ירמיה ו, י): הִנֵּה עֲרֵלָה אָזְנָם, עָרְלָה בַּפֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ו, ל): וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתַיִם. נֶאֶמְרָה בַּלֵּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה ט, כה): וְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַרְלֵי לֵב. וּכְתִיב (בראשית יז, א): הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים, מֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל אִם יִמּוֹל מִן הָאֹזֶן עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ תָּמִים, אִם יִמּוֹל מִן הַפֶּה עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ תָּמִים, מֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל וְיִהְיֶה תָּמִים הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ עָרְלַת הַגּוּף. נַגְדָּא אָמַר כְּתִיב (בראשית יז, יב): וּבֶן שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, מֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל, אִם מִן הָאֹזֶן עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, אִם מִן הַפֶּה עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר, אִם מִן הַלֵּב עֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְחַשֵּׁב, מֵהֵיכָן יִמּוֹל וְיִהְיֶה שׁוֹמֵעַ וּמְדַבֵּר וּמְחַשֵּׁב הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ עָרְלַת הַגּוּף, אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּנַגְדָּא (בראשית יז, יד): וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל. רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק וְרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק, וְתָנוּ לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא וְעָרֵל זָכָר, וְכִי יֵשׁ עָרֵל נְקֵבָה, אֶלָּא מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ וְיוֹדְעִין אִם זָכָר הוּא אוֹ נְקֵבָה מִשָּׁם מוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ.
9. Anon., Acts of Pilate, 2.3-2.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 1.26.1-1.26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

11. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 47.3 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

12. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.34 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.34. But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery. Luke 16:18 In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: When a man has taken a wife, and has lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he has found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house. Deuteronomy 24:1 You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel - between Moses and Christ? To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: Moses, says He, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so Matthew 19:8 - for this reason, indeed, because He who had made them male and female had likewise said, They two shall become one flesh; what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4, 6 Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: Whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband, also commits adultery, Luke 16:18 - put away, that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, while matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot. 1 Corinthians 6:15 Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. Matthew 5:32 He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: You shall not forsake the wife of your youth. Malachi 2:15 Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have now to show whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordice by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless, when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife, seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband), Deuteronomy 25:5-6 and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother's wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law - for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account; and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom. Luke 16:19-31 For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. It sets forth in bold outline the end of both of them, the torments of Herod and the comfort of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. Luke 16:29 Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; while he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. Hell (I take it) means one thing, and Abraham's bosom another. A great gulf is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have lifted up his eyes, Luke 16:23 and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is the father of many nations, which must be classed among his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the full recompense of their reward. This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. Amos, however, tells us of those stories towards heaven which Christ builds- of course for His people. There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walks in righteousness, speaks of the straight path, hates injustice and iniquity? Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible, without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham's bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive. Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command. This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have been able to say, You are the Christ, Luke 9:20 unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced. Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven. Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!- even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raises up the poor from dunghills. Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods, but only a difference in the actual matters before us.
13. Tertullian, Exhortation To Chastity, 9 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

14. Tertullian, On Monogamy, 10.4 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

15. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

43a. (ויקרא כד, כג) ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה,אלא מעתה (ויקרא כד, כג) וירגמו אותו אבן מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מבעי ליה לכדתניא וירגמו אותו באבן אותו ולא בכסותו אבן שאם מת באבן אחת יצא,ואצטריך למיכתב אבן ואיצטריך למיכתב אבנים דאי כתב רחמנא אבן הוה אמינא היכא דלא מת בחדא לא ניתי אחריתי ומיקטליה כתב רחמנא אבנים ואי כתב רחמנא אבנים הוה אמינא מעיקרא נייתי תרתי כתב רחמנא אבן,והא האי תנא נאמר קאמר אילו לא נאמר קאמר וה"ק אילו לא נאמר קרא הייתי אומר גזירה שוה עכשיו שנאמר קרא גזירה שוה לא צריך,רב אשי אמר משה היכא הוה יתיב במחנה לוייה ואמר ליה רחמנא הוצא את המקלל חוץ למחנה לוייה אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה ישראל ויוציאו את המקלל לעשייה,עשייה בהדיא כתיב בהו ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה ההוא מיבעי ליה חד לסמיכה וחד לדחייה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב אשי לדידך כל הני הוציא דכתיבי בפרים הנשרפים מאי דרשת בהו קשיא:,אחד עומד כו': אמר רב הונא פשיטא לי אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה בו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן משל צבור מ"ט דמדידיה לא אמרינן ליה זיל וליתיה וליקטול נפשיה,בעי רב הונא סודר שמניפין בו וסוס שרץ ומעמידן משל מי הוא כיון דהצלה דידיה מדידיה הוא או דילמא כיון דבי דינא מחייבין למעבד בה הצלה מדידהו,ותו הא דאמר ר' חייא בר רב אשי אמר רב חסדא היוצא ליהרג משקין אותו קורט של לבונה בכוס של יין כדי שתטרף דעתו שנאמר (משלי לא, ו) תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש ותניא נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו מתנדבות ומביאות אותן לא התנדבו נשים יקרות משל מי הא ודאי מסתברא משל צבור כיון דכתיב תנו מדידהו,בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת אמר אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות ונשתתק מהו מנפח רב ששת בידיה נשתתק אפילו אחד בסוף העולם נמי התם לא קאמר הכא קאמר מאי,תא שמע דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו זיכה אין לא זיכה לא,זיכה פשיטא לי אמר תיבעי לך:,אפילו הוא כו': ואפילו פעם ראשונה ושניה והתניא פעם ראשונה ושניה בין שיש ממש בדבריו בין שאין ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו מכאן ואילך אם יש ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו אין ממש בדבריו אין מחזירין אותו,אמר רב פפא תרגומה מפעם שניה ואילך,מנא ידעי אמר אביי דמסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן אי איכא ממש בדבריו אין אי לא לא,ולימסר ליה מעיקרא אגב דבעית לא מצי אמר כל מאי דאית ליה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מצאו לו זכות פטרוהו ואם לאו יצא ליסקל וכרוז יוצא לפניו איש פלוני בן פלוני יוצא ליסקל על שעבר עבירה פלונית ופלוני ופלוני עדיו כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר אביי וצריך למימר ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ובמקום פלוני דילמא איכא דידעי ואתו ומזים להו:,וכרוז יוצא לפניו לפניו אין מעיקרא לא והתניא בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו והכרוז יוצא לפניו מ' יום ישו יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,אמר עולא ותסברא בר הפוכי זכות הוא מסית הוא ורחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה,ת"ר חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו מתאי נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה אתיוהו למתי אמר להו מתי יהרג הכתיב (תהלים מב, ג) מתי אבוא ואראה פני אלהים אמרו לו אין מתי יהרג דכתיב (שם מא, ו) מתי ימות ואבד שמו,אתיוהו לנקאי אמר להו נקאי יהרג הכתיב (שמות כג, ז) ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג אמרו לו אין נקאי יהרג דכתיב (תהלים י, ח) במסתרים יהרג נקי,אתיוהו לנצר אמר נצר יהרג הכתיב (ישעיה יא, א) ונצר משרשיו יפרה אמרו לו אין נצר יהרג דכתיב (שם יד, יט) ואתה השלכת מקברך כנצר נתעב,אתיוהו לבוני אמר אמר בוני יהרג הכתיב (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל אמרו לי' אין בוני יהרג דכתיב (שם, כג) הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך,אתיוהו לתודה אמר תודה יהרג הכתיב (תהלים ק, א) מזמור לתודה אמרו לו אין תודה יהרג דכתיב (שם נ, כג) זובח תודה יכבדנני 43a. b“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b,The Gemara asks: bIf that is so, what do they do withthe words in the verse: b“And they stoned him with a stone”?These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that God’s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: bThatphrase is bnecessary for that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And they stoned him with a stone.”The word b“him”teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, bbut notwhile he was bin his clothing.The verse uses the singular term b“stone [ iaven /i]”rather than the plural term stones [ iavanim /i] to teach bthat ifthe condemned man bdiedafter being struck bwith one stone,the court has bfulfilledits obligation.,The Gemara notes: bAndit bwas necessary to writewith regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with ba stone,”in the singular, bandit bwas necessary to writewith regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with bstones”(Numbers 15:36), in the plural. bAs, had the Merciful One writtenonly b“stone,” I would saythat bwherethe condemned man bdid not dieafter being struck bwith onestone, bthey do not bring otherstones band kill himwith them. Therefore, bthe Merciful One writes “stones.” And had the Merciful One writtenonly b“stones,” I would saythat bfrom the outset they should bring twoor more stones. Therefore, bthe Merciful One writes “stone.” /b,The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s derivation: bBut this itanna /iof the ibaraitacited above bsaid: It is statedhere and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an iamora /i, disagree and derive the ihalakhadirectly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the itannaof the ibaraita bsaid: Had it not been stated, and thisis what he bis saying: Had a verse not been statedfrom which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, bI would have saidthat this can be learned by way of ba verbal analogy.But bnow thatsuch ba verse has been stated,the bverbal analogy is not needed. /b, bRav Ashi said:The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. bWhere was Moses sittingwhen the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? bIn the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: “Take out him who has cursed”(Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken boutside the Levite campinto the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: b“Outside the camp,”which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to boutside the Israelite camp.And the later verse, which says: b“And they brought him that had cursedout of the camp…and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us babout the implementationof God’s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.,The Gemara raises an objection: bThe implementationof God’s instructions is bwritten explicitly in thiscontext, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: b“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.”The Gemara answers: bThatverse bis necessaryto teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of God’s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate bto the placingof the witnesses’ bhandsupon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: “And let all that heard him place their hands upon his head” (Leviticus 24:14), band to thewitnesses’ bpushingof the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories., bThe Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you,that the expression “take out” by itself means outside the camp, and “outside the camp” means outside an additional camp, bwhat do you learn from all thoseinstances of b“take out” that are written with regard to the bullsbrought as sin-offerings bthat are burned?According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is bdifficultwith regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.,§ The mishna teaches that boneman bstandsat the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latter’s guilt. bRav Huna says:It is bobvious to methat bthe stone with whichthe condemned man bis stoned and the tree on whichhis corpse bis hungafter his execution, bor the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of thesecome bfromthe property of bthe community. What is the reasonfor this? bWe do not tellthe condemned man to bgo and bringthese items bfrom his ownproperty bandeffectively bkill himself. /b, bRav Huna raiseda dilemma: With regard to bthe cloth that is waved and the horse that racesoff after the court agents bto stopthe latter from carrying out the execution, bfrom whoseproperty bdo they come,that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: bSincethey are needed to bsavethe man being led to his execution, these items should be taken bfrom hisproperty. bOr perhaps, since the court is obligated totake all possible measures to bsave himfrom death, they should be taken bfrom them,i.e., the community., bAnd furthermore,another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to bthat which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi saysthat bRav Ḥisda says:The court bgives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [ ikoret /i] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mindand thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, bas it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul”(Proverbs 31:6). bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe prominent women of Jerusalem would donatethis drink band bringit to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If bthese prominent women did not donatethis drink, bfrom whomis it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to bthisquestion, it bis certainly reasonablethat this drink should be taken bfrom the community, as it is written: “Give [ itenu /i]strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come bfrom them,the community.,§ bRav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet:If bone of the studentssitting before the judges bsaid: I can teacha reason to bacquit him, and he became muteand cannot explain himself, bwhat isthe ihalakhain such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? bRav Sheshet waved his handsin scorn and said: If the student bbecame mute,the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned beventhat perhaps there is bsomeone at the end of the worldwho can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. bThere, no one saidthat he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. bHere,the student already bsaidthat he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. bWhatis the ihalakhain such a case?,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearan answer: bAs Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:In a case where there was bone of the students whoargued to bacquitthe defendant bandthen bdied,the court bviews him as ifhe were balive and standing in his placeand voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if bheargued to bacquitthe defendant and explained his reasoning, byes,the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if bhe did notactually argue to bacquitthe defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is bnotcounted as though he were still alive.,The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student barguedto bacquitthe defendant, it is bobvious to methat he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only bsaysthat he wishes to propose such an argument, blet the dilemma be raisedwhether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.,The mishna teaches: And bevenif bhe,the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: bAndis the ihalakhathat there must be substance to his words beven the first and second timethat the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe first and second timesthat he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, bthey return himto the courthouse and consider bwhether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From thispoint bforward, if there is substance to his statement they return himto the courthouse, but if bthere is no substance to his statement, they do not return him.This appears to contradict the mishna., bRav Pappa said: Explainthat the mishna’s ruling applies only bfromafter bthe second time forward,that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.,The Gemara asks: bHow do we knowwhether or not there is substance to his words? bAbaye said:If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, bwe send a pair of rabbis with himto evaluate his claim. bIfthey find that bthere is substance to his statement, yes,he is returned once again to the courthouse; bif not,he is bnotreturned.,The Gemara asks: bButwhy not bsenda pair of rabbis bwith him from the outset,even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: bSincea man facing execution bis frightenedby the thought of his impending death, bhe is not able to say all that he hasto say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time., strongMISHNA: /strong If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges bfinda reason to bacquit him, theyacquit him and brelease himimmediately. bBut ifthey do bnotfind a reason to acquit him, bhe goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before himand publicly proclaims: bSo-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knowsof a reason to bacquit him should comeforward band teachit bon his behalf. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bAbaye says: Andthe crier bmustalso publicly bproclaimthat the transgression was committed bon such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place,as bperhaps there are those who knowthat the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, band they will comeforward band renderthe witnesses bconspiring witnesses. /b,The mishna teaches that ba crier goes out beforethe condemned man. This indicates that it is only bbefore him,i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that byes,the crier goes out, but bfrom the outset,before the accused is convicted, he does bnotgo out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOn Passover Eve they hungthe corpse of bJesus the Nazareneafter they killed him by way of stoning. bAnd a crier went out before himfor bforty days,publicly proclaiming: bJesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incitedpeople to idol worship, band led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knowsof a reason to bacquit him should comeforward band teachit bon his behalf. Andthe court bdid not finda reason to bacquit him, andso btheystoned him and bhung hiscorpse bon Passover eve. /b, bUlla said: Andhow can byou understandthis proof? Was bJesus the Nazarene worthy ofconducting ba searchfor a reason to bacquithim? bHewas ban inciterto idol worship, band the Merciful One stateswith regard to an inciter to idol worship: b“Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him”(Deuteronomy 13:9). bRather, Jesus was different, as hehad bcloseties bwith the government,and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.,Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another ibaraita /i, where bthe Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai into stand trial. Mattai bsaid tothe judges: bShall Mattai be executed?But bisn’t it written: “When [ imatai /i] shall I come and appear before God?”(Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. bThey said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [ imatai /i] shall he die, and his name perish?”(Psalms 41:6).,Then bthey brought Nakai into stand trial. Nakai bsaidto the judges: bShall Nakai be executed?But bisn’t it written: “And the innocent [ inaki /i] and righteous you shall not slay”(Exodus 23:7)? bThey said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [ inaki /i]”(Psalms 10:8).,Then bthey brought Netzer into stand trial. bHe saidto the judges: bShall Netzer be executed?But bisn’t it written: “And a branch [ inetzer /i] shall grow out of his roots”(Isaiah 11:1)? bThey said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: “But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [ inetzer /i]”(Isaiah 14:19).,Then bthey brought Buni into stand trial. Buni bsaidto the judges: bShall Buni be executed?But bisn’t it written: “My firstborn son [ ibeni /i] is Israel”(Exodus 4:22)? bThey said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [ ibinkha /i]”(Exodus 4:23).,Then bthey brought Toda into stand trial. Toda bsaidto the judges: bShall Toda be executed?But bisn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [ itoda /i]”(Psalms 100:1)? bThey said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [ itoda /i] honors Me”(Psalms 50:23).
16. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

104b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הכותב שתי אותיות בהעלם אחד חייב כתב בדיו בסם בסיקרא בקומוס ובקנקנתום ובכל דבר שהוא רושם על שני כותלי זויות ועל שני לווחי פינקס והן נהגין זה עם זה חייב הכותב על בשרו חייב המסרט על בשרו ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת וחכמים פוטרין,כתב במשקין במי פירות באבק דרכים באבק הסופרים ובכל דבר שאינו מתקיים פטור לאחר ידו ברגלו בפיו ובמרפיקו כתב אות אחת סמוך לכתב וכתב על גבי כתב נתכוון לכתוב חי"ת וכתב ב' זיינין אחת בארץ ואחת בקורה כתב על ב' כותלי הבית על שני דפי פנקס ואין נהגין זה עם זה פטור כתב אות אחת נוטריקון ר' יהושע בן בתירא מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big דיו דיותא סם סמא סקרא אמר רבה בר בר חנה סקרתא שמה קומוס קומא קנקנתום אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר שמואל חרתא דאושכפי:,ובכל דבר שהוא רושם: לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתני רבי חנניא כתבו במי טריא ואפצא כשר תני ר' חייא כתבו באבר בשחור ובשיחור כשר:,המסרט על בשרו: תניא אמר להן רבי אליעזר לחכמים והלא בן סטדא הוציא כשפים ממצרים בסריטה שעל בשרו אמרו לו שוטה היה ואין מביאין ראיה מן השוטים: [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: בן סטדא בן פנדירא הוא אמר רב חסדא בעל סטדא בועל פנדירא בעל פפוס בן יהודה הוא אמו סטדא אמו מרים מגדלא שיער נשיא הואי כדאמרינן בפומדיתא סטת דא מבעלה:],כתב אות אחת סמוך לכתב: מאן תנא אמר רבא בר רב הונא דלא כר' אליעזר דאי ר' אליעזר האמר אחת על האריג חייב:,כתב על גבי כתב: מאן תנא א"ר חסדא דלא כר' יהודה דתניא הרי שהיה צריך לכתוב את השם ונתכוין לכתוב יהודה וטעה ולא הטיל בו דלת מעביר עליו קולמוס ומקדשו דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים אין השם מן המובחר,תנא כתב אות אחת והשלימה לספר ארג חוט אחד והשלימה לבגד חייב מאן תנא אמר רבא בר רב הונא ר' אליעזר היא דאמר אחת על האריג חייב רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא רבנן להשלים שאני,א"ר אמי כתב אות אחת בטבריא ואחת בציפורי חייב כתיבה היא אלא שמחוסר קריבה והתנן כתב על שני כותלי הבית ועל שני דפי פנקס ואין נהגין זה עם זה פטור התם מחוסר מעשה דקריבה הכא לא מחוסר מעשה דקריבה,תנא הגיה אות אחת חייב השתא כתב אות אחת פטור הגיה אות אחת חייב אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנטלו לגגו של חי"ת ועשאו שני זיינין רבא אמר כגון שנטלו לתגו של דל"ת ועשאו רי"ש,תנא נתכוין לכתוב אות אחת 104b. strongMISHNA: /strong bOne who writes two letterson Shabbat bduring one lapse of awareness is liable.The following substances used as ink are explained in the Gemara. One is liable if bhe wrote with ideyo /i, with isam /i, with isikra /i, with gum [ ikomos /i], or with copper sulfate [ ikankantom /i] or with any substance that makes a mark.If one wrote bon two wallsof a house that form ba corner, or on two parts of a writing tablet, andthe two items bare read together, he is liable. One who writes on his fleshon Shabbat bis liable.If boneunwittingly bscratchesletters bon his fleshon Shabbat, bRabbi Eliezer deemshim bliableto bring ba sin-offering and the Sages deemhim bexempt. /b,If bone wrote with liquidsor bwith fruit juice,or if one drew letters bwith road dust, with scribes’ dustthat they use to dry the ink, bor with any substancewith bwhichthe writing bdoes not endure, he is exempt.Similarly, if one wrote by holding the pen on bthe back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth,or bwith his elbow;if bone wroteonly ba single letter,even if it was badjacent toother preexisting bwriting;or if bone wrote overother bwriting;if bone meant to writethe letter iḥet /iand instead bwrotethe two halves of the iḥetas btwoinstances of the letter izayin /i;if one wrote boneletter bon the ground and one on a rafter;if bone wroteone letter bon two walls of a house,or bon two parts of a writing tablet that are not read together, he is exempt.If bone wrote one letteras ban abbreviationrepresenting an entire word, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira deemshim bliableto bring a sin-offering, band the Rabbis deemhim bexempt. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara defines the terms used in the mishna. iDeyo /iis ideyota /imade from soot. iSam /iis isamma /i,which is yellow-tinged arsenic. iSikra /i, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is called isikreta /iin Aramaic and is a lead-based red paint. iKomos /iis ikoma /iin Aramaic, and it is an ink made with gum Arabic from the sap of a tree. iKankantom /i, Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bShmuel said:This is bthe blacksubstance bused by cobblers,copper sulfate., bAndwe learned in the mishna that one who writes bwith any substance that makes a markis liable. The Gemara asks: bWhatdoes this statement come bto include?The Gemara answers: It comes bto include that which Rabbi Ḥaya taughtwith regard to writing a bill of divorce: If bone wrote it with the juice ofthe fruit called iteriya /i, orwith bgallnut juiceinstead of ink, bit is valid.Similarly, bRabbi Ḥiyya taught:If bone wrotea bill of divorce bwith lead, with soot( ige’onim /i), bor with shoeblack, it is valid.Since those substances leave a permanent mark, one who writes with them on Shabbat is liable.,We learned in the mishna: If boneunwittingly bscratchesletters bon his fleshon Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’tthe infamous bben Stada takemagic bspells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool.That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him bben Stada,when bhe was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said:His mother’s bhusband,who acted as his father, was named bStada,but the bone who had relationswith his mother and fathered him was named bPandeira.The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s bhusband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his motherwas named bStadaand he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t bhis mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair?The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. bRather,Stada was merely a nickname, bas they say in Pumbedita: Thisone bstrayed [ isetat da /i] from her husband. /b,We learned in the mishna: If bone wroteonly ba single letter,even if it was badjacent toother preexisting bwriting,he is exempt. The Gemara asks: bWho isthe itanna /iwhose opinion is cited in the mishna? bRava bar Rav Huna said:This ihalakhais bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer, as ifit were bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer, didn’t he say:One who adds ba singlethread bto apreviously bwoven fabric is liablefor weaving? In his opinion, although a single thread or letter is insignificant in and of itself, one is liable because adding even a small measure to existing material is significant.,We learned in the mishna: If bone wrote overother bwritinghe is exempt. The Gemara asks: bWho isthe itanna /iwhose opinion is cited in the mishna? bRav Ḥisda said:This ihalakhais bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, as it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIf one needed to write theTetragrammaton, the bnameof God, in a Torah scroll, and became confused band intendedinstead bto writethe name bYehuda, andwhile intending to write Yehuda bhe erred and omittedthe letter idalet /i,thereby writing the name of God, he should do the following. bHe passes a quillwith more ink boverthe name band sanctifies it,i.e., he writes it with the intention required when writing a holy name. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say:Even if he adds ink over what he wrote, bthiswriting of God’s bname is not ideal.Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, writing over other writing is considered writing anew.,A itanna btaughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone wrote a single letter andthereby bcompleted a book,or if bone wove a single thread andthereby bcompleted anentire bgarment, he is liable.The Gemara asks: bWho isthe itanna /iwhose opinion is cited in the ibaraita /i? bRava bar Rav Huna said: It isthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer,who bsaid:One who adds ba singlethread bto apreviously bwoven fabric is liablefor weaving. bRav Ashi said: Evenif you bsaythat in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis,one who does so bto completea garment is bdifferent.Even if he is not liable for weaving, he is liable at least for striking a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel., bRabbi Ami said:If bone wrote one letteron paper bin Tiberias and oneletter on paper bin Tzippori, he is liablebecause he performed a full-fledged act of bwriting that is lackingonly in bproximity.When the two pieces of paper are brought together he will have written two associated letters. The Gemara asks: bDidn’t we learnin the mishna: If bone wroteone letter bon two walls of a house,or bon two parts of a writing tablet that are not read together, he is exempt?All the more so that this is the ihalakhawith regard to one who wrote in two different cities. The Gemara answers: bThere,in the case of the parts of a tablet, bthere is the lack ofan additional bactof cutting or tearing to facilitate bringing the letters btogether.However, bhere,in the case of two cities, even though they are distant from one another, there is bno lackof an additional act to facilitate bbringing them together. /b,A itanna btaughtin the iTosefta /i: If bone emended a single letteron Shabbat, bhe is liable.The Gemara wonders: bNow,if bone wrote a single letteron Shabbat bhe is exempt;is it possible that if bone emends a single letterhe is bliable? Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here?We are dealing with a case bwhere one removed the roof of a iḥetand transformed it into twoinstances of the letter izayin /i,effectively writing two letters with a single correction. bRava said:It is not necessarily referring to that specific case. It could even be referring to a case bwhere one removed the protrusionfrom the back bof a idaletand transformed it into a ireish /i,thereby emending the written text. One who did so is liable for performing the prohibited labor of striking a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel.,A itanna btaught:If bone intended to write one letteron Shabbat
17. Cyprian, Letters, 64.5 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

18. Cyprian, Letters, 64.5 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

19. Cyprian, Letters, 64.5 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

20. Cyprian, Letters, 64.5 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

21. Firmicus Maternus Julius., De Errore Profanarum Religionum, 22.1 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

22. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Philip, 51.29-51.31 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

23. Origen, Against Celsus, None (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

24. Papyri, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1.1-1.3, 12.79 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

25. Augustine, The City of God, 7.25, 8.12, 10.10, 10.28-10.29, 10.31 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

7.25. Varro has not spoken of that Atys, nor sought out any interpretation for him, in memory of whose being loved by Ceres the Gallus is mutilated. But the learned and wise Greeks have by no means been silent about an interpretation so holy and so illustrious. The celebrated philosopher Porphyry has said that Atys signifies the flowers of spring, which is the most beautiful season, and therefore was mutilated because the flower falls before the fruit appears. They have not, then, compared the man himself, or rather that semblance of a man they called Atys, to the flower, but his male organs - these, indeed, fell while he was living. Did I say fell? Nay, truly they did not fall, nor were they plucked off, but torn away. Nor when that flower was lost did any fruit follow, but rather sterility. What, then, do they say is signified by the castrated Atys himself, and whatever remained to him after his castration? To what do they refer that? What interpretation does that give rise to? Do they, after vain endeavors to discover an interpretation, seek to persuade men that that is rather to be believed which report has made public, and which has also been written concerning his having been a mutilated man? Our Varro has very properly opposed this, and has been unwilling to state it; for it certainly was not unknown to that most learned man. 8.12. But we need not determine from what source he learned these things - whether it was from the books of the ancients who preceded him, or, as is more likely, from the words of the apostle: Because that which is known of God, has been manifested among them, for God has manifested it to them. For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by those things which have been made, also His eternal power and Godhead. Romans 1:20 From whatever source he may have derived this knowledge, then, I think I have made it sufficiently plain that I have not chosen the Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the parties with whom to discuss; because the question we have just taken up concerns the natural theology, - the question, namely, whether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or to many, for the sake of the happiness which is to be after death. I have specially chosen them because their juster thoughts concerning the one God who made heaven and earth, have made them illustrious among philosophers. This has given them such superiority to all others in the judgment of posterity, that, though Aristotle, the disciple of Plato, a man of eminent abilities, inferior in eloquence to Plato, yet far superior to many in that respect, had founded the Peripatetic sect - so called because they were in the habit of walking about during their disputations - and though he had, through the greatness of his fame, gathered very many disciples into his school, even during the life of his master; and though Plato at his death was succeeded in his school, which was called the Academy, by Speusippus, his sister's son, and Xenocrates, his beloved disciple, who, together with their successors, were called from this name of the school, Academics; nevertheless the most illustrious recent philosophers, who have chosen to follow Plato, have been unwilling to be called Peripatetics, or Academics, but have preferred the name of Platonists. Among these were the renowned Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, who were Greeks, and the African Apuleius, who was learned both in the Greek and Latin tongues. All these, however, and the rest who were of the same school, and also Plato himself, thought that sacred rites ought to be performed in honor of many gods. 10.10. But here we have another and a much more learned Platonist than Apuleius, Porphyry, to wit, asserting that, by I know not what theurgy, even the gods themselves are subjected to passions and perturbations; for by adjurations they were so bound and terrified that they could not confer purity of soul - were so terrified by him who imposed on them a wicked command, that they could not by the same theurgy be freed from that terror, and fulfill the righteous behest of him who prayed to them, or do the good he sought. Who does not see that all these things are fictions of deceiving demons, unless he be a wretched slave of theirs, and an alien from the grace of the true Liberator? For if the Chald an had been dealing with good gods, certainly a well-disposed man, who sought to purify his own soul, would have had more influence with them than an evil-disposed man seeking to hinder him. Or, if the gods were just, and considered the man unworthy of the purification he sought, at all events they should not have been terrified by an envious person, nor hindered, as Porphyry avows, by the fear of a stronger deity, but should have simply denied the boon on their own free judgment. And it is surprising that that well-disposed Chald an, who desired to purify his soul by theurgical rites, found no superior deity who could either terrify the frightened gods still more, and force them to confer the boon, or compose their fears, and so enable them to do good without compulsion - even supposing that the good theurgist had no rites by which he himself might purge away the taint of fear from the gods whom he invoked for the purification of his own soul. And why is it that there is a god who has power to terrify the inferior gods, and none who has power to free them from fear? Is there found a god who listens to the envious man, and frightens the gods from doing good? And is there not found a god who listens to the well-disposed man, and removes the fear of the gods that they may do him good? O excellent theurgy! O admirable purification of the soul!- a theurgy in which the violence of an impure envy has more influence than the entreaty of purity and holiness. Rather let us abominate and avoid the deceit of such wicked spirits, and listen to sound doctrine. As to those who perform these filthy cleansings by sacrilegious rites, and see in their initiated state (as he further tells us, though we may question this vision) certain wonderfully lovely appearances of angels or gods, this is what the apostle refers to when he speaks of Satan transforming himself into an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14 For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many and false gods, and to turn them aside from the true worship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed, and who, as was said of Proteus, turns himself into all shapes, equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend. 10.28. You drive men, therefore, into the most palpable error. And yet you are not ashamed of doing so much harm, though you call yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom. Had you been true and faithful in this profession, you would have recognized Christ, the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, and would not, in the pride of vain science, have revolted from His wholesome humility. Nevertheless you acknowledge that the spiritual part of the soul can be purified by the virtue of chastity without the aid of those theurgic arts and mysteries which you wasted your time in learning. You even say, sometimes, that these mysteries do not raise the soul after death, so that, after the termination of this life, they seem to be of no service even to the part you call spiritual; and yet you recur on every opportunity to these arts, for no other purpose, so far as I see, than to appear an accomplished theurgist, and gratify those who are curious in illicit arts, or else to inspire others with the same curiosity. But we give you all praise for saying that this art is to be feared, both on account of the legal enactments against it, and by reason of the danger involved in the very practice of it. And would that in this, at least, you were listened to by its wretched votaries, that they might be withdrawn from entire absorption in it, or might even be preserved from tampering with it at all! You say, indeed, that ignorance, and the numberless vices resulting from it, cannot be removed by any mysteries, but only by the πατρικὸς νοῦς, that is, the Father's mind or intellect conscious of the Father's will. But that Christ is this mind you do not believe; for Him you despise on account of the body He took of a woman and the shame of the cross; for your lofty wisdom spurns such low and contemptible things, and soars to more exalted regions. But He fulfills what the holy prophets truly predicted regarding Him: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the prudence of the prudent. Isaiah 29:14 For He does not destroy and bring to nought His own gift in them, but what they arrogate to themselves, and do not hold of Him. And hence the apostle, having quoted this testimony from the prophet, adds, Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:19-25 This is despised as a weak and foolish thing by those who are wise and strong in themselves; yet this is the grace which heals the weak, who do not proudly boast a blessedness of their own, but rather humbly acknowledge their real misery. 10.29. You proclaim the Father and His Son, whom you call the Father's intellect or mind, and between these a third, by whom we suppose you mean the Holy Spirit, and in your own fashion you call these three Gods. In this, though your expressions are inaccurate, you do in some sort, and as through a veil, see what we should strive towards; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, whereby we are saved, and are enabled to reach the things we believe, or in part understand, this is what you refuse to recognize. You see in a fashion, although at a distance, although with filmy eye, the country in which we should abide; but the way to it you know not. Yet you believe in grace, for you say it is granted to few to reach God by virtue of intelligence. For you do not say, Few have thought fit or have wished, but, It has been granted to few,- distinctly acknowledging God's grace, not man's sufficiency. You also use this word more expressly, when, in accordance with the opinion of Plato, you make no doubt that in this life a man cannot by any means attain to perfect wisdom, but that whatever is lacking is in the future life made up to those who live intellectually, by God's providence and grace. Oh, had you but recognized the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that very incarnation of His, wherein He assumed a human soul and body, you might have seemed the brightest example of grace! But what am I doing? I know it is useless to speak to a dead man - useless, at least, so far as regards you, but perhaps not in vain for those who esteem you highly, and love you on account of their love of wisdom or curiosity about those arts which you ought not to have learned; and these persons I address in your name. The grace of God could not have been more graciously commended to us than thus, that the only Son of God, remaining unchangeable in Himself, should assume humanity, and should give us the hope of His love, by means of the mediation of a human nature, through which we, from the condition of men, might come to Him who was so far off - the immortal from the mortal; the unchangeable from the changeable; the just from the unjust; the blessed from the wretched. And, as He had given us a natural instinct to desire blessedness and immortality, He Himself continuing to be blessed; but assuming mortality, by enduring what we fear, taught us to despise it, that what we long for He might bestow upon us. But in order to your acquiescence in this truth, it is lowliness that is requisite, and to this it is extremely difficult to bend you. For what is there incredible, especially to men like you, accustomed to speculation, which might have predisposed you to believe in this - what is there incredible, I say, in the assertion that God assumed a human soul and body? You yourselves ascribe such excellence to the intellectual soul, which is, after all, the human soul, that you maintain that it can become consubstantial with that intelligence of the Father whom you believe in as the Son of God. What incredible thing is it, then, if some one soul be assumed by Him in an ineffable and unique manner for the salvation of many? Moreover, our nature itself testifies that a man is incomplete unless a body be united with the soul. This certainly would be more incredible, were it not of all things the most common; for we should more easily believe in a union between spirit and spirit, or, to use your own terminology, between the incorporeal and the incorporeal, even though the one were human, the other divine, the one changeable and the other unchangeable, than in a union between the corporeal and the incorporeal. But perhaps it is the unprecedented birth of a body from a virgin that staggers you? But, so far from this being a difficulty, it ought rather to assist you to receive our religion, that a miraculous person was born miraculously. Or, do you find a difficulty in the fact that, after His body had been given up to death, and had been changed into a higher kind of body by resurrection, and was now no longer mortal but incorruptible, He carried it up into heavenly places? Perhaps you refuse to believe this, because you remember that Porphyry, in these very books from which I have cited so much, and which treat of the return of the soul, so frequently teaches that a body of every kind is to be escaped from, in order that the soul may dwell in blessedness with God. But here, in place of following Porphyry, you ought rather to have corrected him, especially since you agree with him in believing such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and huge material frame. For, as scholars of Plato, you hold that the world is an animal, and a very happy animal, which you wish to be also everlasting. How, then, is it never to be loosed from a body, and yet never lose its happiness, if, in order to the happiness of the soul, the body must be left behind? The sun, too, and the other stars, you not only acknowledge to be bodies, in which you have the cordial assent of all seeing men, but also, in obedience to what you reckon a profounder insight, you declare that they are very blessed animals, and eternal, together with their bodies. Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is pressed upon you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually discuss or teach? Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish? Is it not because Christ came in lowliness, and you are proud? The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes occasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ's risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer no hindrance to the soul's contemplation, by which it is fixed in God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, in order to blessedness, every body must be escaped from? Why do you thus seek such a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and you proud? Are you ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5 The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14 So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall. 10.31. Why, then, do we not rather believe the divinity in those matters, which human talent cannot fathom? Why do we not credit the assertion of divinity, that the soul is not co-eternal with God, but is created, and once was not? For the Platonists seemed to themselves to allege an adequate reason for their rejection of this doctrine, when they affirmed that nothing could be everlasting which had not always existed. Plato, however, in writing concerning the world and the gods in it, whom the Supreme made, most expressly states that they had a beginning and yet would have no end, but, by the sovereign will of the Creator, would endure eternally. But, by way of interpreting this, the Platonists have discovered that he meant a beginning, not of time, but of cause. For as if a foot, they say, had been always from eternity in dust, there would always have been a print underneath it; and yet no one would doubt that this print was made by the pressure of the foot, nor that, though the one was made by the other, neither was prior to the other; so, they say, the world and the gods created in it have always been, their Creator always existing, and yet they were made. If, then, the soul has always existed, are we to say that its wretchedness has always existed? For if there is something in it which was not from eternity, but began in time, why is it impossible that the soul itself, though not previously existing, should begin to be in time? Its blessedness, too, which, as he owns, is to be more stable, and indeed endless, after the soul's experience of evils - this undoubtedly has a beginning in time, and yet is to be always, though previously it had no existence. This whole argumentation, therefore, to establish that nothing can be endless except that which has had no beginning, falls to the ground. For here we find the blessedness of the soul, which has a beginning, and yet has no end. And, therefore, let the incapacity of man give place to the authority of God; and let us take our belief regarding the true religion from the ever-blessed spirits, who do not seek for themselves that honor which they know to be due to their God and ours, and who do not command us to sacrifice save only to Him, whose sacrifice, as I have often said already, and must often say again, we and they ought together to be, offered through that Priest who offered Himself to death a sacrifice for us, in that human nature which He assumed, and according to which He desired to be our Priest.
26. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.9.30 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

27. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, 15.5.66 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

28. Council of Elvira, Can., 69



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
a(n)noubion Bremmer, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity: Collected Essays (2017) 246
abraham Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
akiva, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
apocryphal acts, magic Bremmer, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity: Collected Essays (2017) 200
ausonius of bordeaux, cupido cruciatuis (cupid crucified) Ayres Champion and Crawford, The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions (2023) 383
ausonius of bordeaux Ayres Champion and Crawford, The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions (2023) 383
babylonian, halakha/tradition Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
biblical interpretation, christian Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
biblical interpretation, jewish Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
birkat ha-minim Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
celsus, and epicureanism Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
celsus, and origen Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
celsus, on god Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
celsus, on jesus Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
celsus, on providence (πρόνοια) Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
celsus Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277; Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 173, 175; Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 256, 260; Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142; Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
christ Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
christian Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
christianity, critiques of Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 173, 175
chrysostom Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
church Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
circumcision Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
conflict, of jews and christians (parting of the ways) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
cyprian, magician Bremmer, Magic and Martyrs in Early Christianity: Collected Essays (2017) 123, 200, 246
divorce, biblical law Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
divorce, hardness of their hearts Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
divorce, joseph and mary Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 191
divorce, second marriage Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
ebionites Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
egypt Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 260
eighteen benedictions Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
elazar ben dama, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
elijah Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
epicurus/epicureans/epicureanism, and celsus Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
epiphanius Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
eschatology, according to celsus Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 858
fornication, before betrothal Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 191
fornication, during betrothal Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 191
gods, celsus on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
hebrews Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
hegesippus Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
index of subjects, shammaite) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
irenaeus of lyon Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
jesus, according to celsus Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851
jesus Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175; Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 256, 260; Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
jesus christ Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
jewish-christian relations Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
jewish christianity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
jews, attitude to christianity Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
jews, contact with christians Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
jews, judaism Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
jews Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
jews and judaism, anti-semitism, classical Ayres and Ward, The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual (2021) 58
jews and judaism, christianity compared by celsus to Ayres and Ward, The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual (2021) 58
joseph (father of jesus) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
justin martyr, and jews Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 101
justin martyr Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
latin christian poetry, ausonius of bordeaux Ayres Champion and Crawford, The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions (2023) 383
latin christian poetry Ayres Champion and Crawford, The Intellectual World of Late Antique Christianity: Reshaping Classical Traditions (2023) 383
liability, rape of married woman Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
magic Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 175; Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 260
mary (mother) Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
mary (mother of jesus) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
melchizedek Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
miraculous Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
mother Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
new testament, pericope adulterae Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 191
origen, and celsus Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
origen Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168; Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 256, 260; Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114; Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
panthera Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
philosophical opposition (to christianity) Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851, 858
pliny the younger Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
porphyry of tyre, polymath Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851
porphyry of tyre, writings Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851
predestination (προόρισις), celsus on Brouwer and Vimercati, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020) 277
priesthood Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
proselytes Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 142
rabbi Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
rabbis Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
rape, exemption from divorce' Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
rhetoric Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 256
rome/roman Tellbe Wasserman and Nyman, Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (2019) 201
sacral Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
scripture Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
shepherd of hermas Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
tatian and celsus, education of christians and Ayres and Ward, The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual (2021) 58
tatian and celsus, philosophical history and christian deviance, celsus on Ayres and Ward, The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual (2021) 58
tatian and celsus Ayres and Ward, The Rise of the Early Christian Intellectual (2021) 58
tertullian Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 168
true discourse, of celsus, eschatology Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 858
true discourse, of celsus, jesus Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851
true discourse, of celsus, jesuss followers Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 858
true discourse, of celsus, themes Esler, The Early Christian World (2000) 851, 858
true doctrine (celsus) Neusner Green and Avery-Peck, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation: Turning Points and Focal Points (2022) 173, 175
uncircumcised Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
virgin birth Nicklas and Spittler, Credible, Incredible: The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. (2013) 260
whore Poorthuis and Schwartz, Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity (2014) 114
yaakov from kfar sama Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
yeshu (ben pandera, ha-notsri) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634
yishmael, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 634