Confusion

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 104 of 112 · 20 per page

• From Aquinas's Summa Theologiae (Critical Essays on the Classics Series) (2006)

  Tonneau, “The Teaching of the Thomist Tract on Law,” The Thomist 34 (1970): 11-83, demonstrates, is pervaded by biblical allusions: even in 1-2.90-97 there are 64 references to Scripture, compared with 48 to Aristotle and 35 to Augustine; in 90-108 there are 724 to Scripture, 96 to Aristotle, 87 to Augustine, 5 to Denys; the references are especially to Deuteronomy, Psalms, the Wisdom books, Isaiah, Ezechiel, Hosea, Job, Jeremiah; and, of course, as Tonneau notes, when Thomas writes of “reason” (ratio), he thinks implicitly of logos with the divine Logos in the background, and not of “reason” as philosophers think of it since the Enlightenment; the whole discussion is conducted as polemic with Pelagianism; and the questions on grace should not be treated as a complete treatise de gratia; they contain very little about illumination, adoption and divinization.15 M. D. Chenu, “L‘Ancien Testament dans la théologie médiévale;’ in his splendid collection La Théologie au douzième siècle (Paris: Vrin, 1957), covering the twelfth-century Renaissance, the discovery of nature and history, Platonism, the work of Boethius, symbolism and allegory, the ”evangelical revival,“ the entry of Greek patristic theology, etc., by far the best introduction to the background to Thomas Aquinas’s thought, partly translated as Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, reprinted Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).16 The best book here is W. G. B. M. Valkenberg, ”Did Not Our Hearts Burn?”: Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Utrecht: Thomas Institute, 1990).17 See Beryl Smalley, ”William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law,” in St. Thomas Aquinas: Commemorative Studies, edited by A. A. Maurer, vol. 2 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1974): 11-71; her pioneering book The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940), remains indispensable.18 Anthony J. Lisska, Aquinas’s Theory of Natural Law: An Analytic Reconstruction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).19 Ibid., pp. 167-68. Lisska sides with Henry Veatch in his criticism of the “Cartesianism” that distorts the “revisionist Thomism” represented by the work of John Finnis, Germain Grisez, and others: one more version of Thomism, much contested, and regrettably much too large a subject to be discussed here.20 Lisska, Aquinas’s Theory, p. 81. Columba Ryan, “The Traditional Concept of Natural Law,” in Light on the Natural Law, edited by Illtud Evans (London: Burns & Oates, 1965).21 John Bowlin, Contingency and Fortune in Aquinas’s Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).22 Thomas Aquinas, Collationes in Decem Praeceptis, edited with introduction and notes by J. P.

• From Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex (1905)

  [←17] Although psychoanalysis has not yet given us a full explanation for the origin of inversion, it has revealed the psychic mechanism of its genesis and has essentially enriched the problems in question. In all the cases examined we have ascertained that the later inverts go through in their childhood a phase of very intense but short-lived fixation on the woman (usually on the mother) and after overcoming it they identify themselves with the woman and take themselves as the sexual object; that is, proceeding on a narcissistic basis, they look for young men resembling themselves in persons whom they wish to love as their mother has loved them. We have, moreover, frequently found that alleged inverts are by no means indifferent to the charms of women, but the excitation evoked by the woman is always transferred to a male object. They thus repeat through life the mechanism which gave origin to their inversion. Their obsessive striving for the man proves to be determined by their restless flight from the woman. [←18] The most pronounced difference between the sexual life (Liebesleben) of antiquity and ours lies in the fact that the ancients placed the emphasis on the impulse itself, while we put it on its object. The ancients extolled the impulse and were ready to ennoble through it even an inferior object, while we disparage the activity of the impulse as such and only countenance it on account of the merits of the object. [←19] I must mention here that the blind obedience evinced by the hypnotized subject to the hypnotist causes me to think that the nature of hypnosis is to be found in the unconscious fixation of the libido on the person of the hypnotizer (by means of the masochistic component of the sexual impulse). Ferenczi connects this character of suggestibility with the “parent complex” (Jahrbuch für Psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen, I, 1909). [←20] Moreover, it is to be noted that sexual overvaluation does not become pronounced in all mechanisms of object selection, and that we shall later learn to know another and more direct explanation for the sexual rôle of the other parts of the body. [←21] Further investigations lead to the conclusion that I. Bloch has overestimated the factor of excitement-hunger (Reizhunger). The various roads upon which the libido moves behave to each other from the very beginning like communicating pipes; the factor of collateral streaming must also be considered. [←22] This weakness corresponds to the constitutional predisposition. The early sexual intimidation which pushes the person away from the normal sexual aim and urges him to seek a substitute, has been demonstrated by psychoanalysis, as an accidental determinant. [←23] The shoe or slipper is accordingly a symbol for the female genitals.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  683. Now the why of a thing is always investigated in the following way: why does one thing belong to something else? For to ask why a musical man is a musical man, is either to ask (as has been said) why the man is musical, or to ask about something else. Therefore to ask why a thing is itself is to make no inquiry at all; for both the fact that a thing is such and its existence must be evident from the first; and I mean, for example, that the moon undergoes an eclipse. And in the case of all things there is one reason and one cause of the fact that a thing is itself, for example, why a man is a man, or why the musical is musical—unless one were to say that each thing is indivisible in relation to itself. But this is what being one really is. However, this is common to all things and is small. But someone might ask, “ Why is man such and such an animal? ” This, then, is evident, that he is not asking why he who is a man is a man. Therefore one is asking why something is predicated of something else; for if this were not so, the inquiry would be about nothing, for example, “ Why does it thunder? ” The answer is, “ because sound is produced in the clouds. ” For what is being investigated is one thing as predicated in this way of something else. And “ Why are these things, ” for example, bricks and stones, “ a house? ” It is evident, then, that he is asking about the cause. And this—to speak logically—is the quiddity. Now in the case of some things this is that for the sake of which a thing exists [its end or goal], as, say, in the case of a house or a bed. But in the case of other things it is the thing which first moves them, for this also is a cause. Such a cause is sought in the process of generation and corruption, while the other is also sought in the case of being. 684. Now the object of our inquiry is most obscure in cases concerned with things not predicated of others, as when we ask what man is; because a single term is used and it is not said definitely that he is this or that.

• From Augustine: A New Biography (2005)

  The emergence of a canon of scripture and the underlying idea of scripture is extraordinary. We have no history for it, no real discussion, just fragments of lists of debatable date. Sporadic debates erupted about whether the Jewish scriptures (already a more or less settled body of texts) were to be taken as scriptural in authority. From the first century onward, Marcion and others who had a high estimate of the reasonableness and power of Christ rejected the old scriptures, and the Manichees picked up their hostility in that tradition. Many gospels and epistles attributed to apostles were in circulation, some even gaudier in content than the ones that survive in the Christian scriptures. Insofar as there seems to have been a first principle of evaluation, it was apostolicity. Was the book written either by an apostle or by the friend of an apostle (e.g., Mark the disciple of Peter, or Luke the disciple of Paul)? This required that everyone agree to accept Paul’s own remarkable self-definition as an apostle, even though he never met Jesus and had no authority except his own story of his conversion. What emerges is a remarkable agreement to accept the Septuagint collection of Hebrew and Jewish-originating Greek texts as authoritative, and to add to them roughly the list familiar to modern Bible readers of gospels and epistles, bringing in tow the explosive “Revelation of John” behind them and adducing as well the “Acts of the Apostles” to help the story stick together. The fundamental agreement that all these books would be scriptural in authority is something that Augustine can call upon in every argument with the mainstream Christians of his time—Donatist, Arian, and all others save Manichees—and use to his advantage. (The agreement is more remarkable given all the other noncanonical apostolic texts that were available and in circulation. By the fourth century the choices had largely been made and they remained very stable.) But collecting those books and reading them with each other turned them into very different books from what they had been when they were being written. Paul, who wrote as a Jew explaining to Jews and gentiles how the two might both benefit from the enlightened views of the Jew Jesus, is a different thinker from Paul, the undoubtedly Christian writer of the fourth century, writing to attack Jews and liberate Christians from their legalistic clutches. That second Paul never lived and walked in first-century Palestine, but he is the Paul who has thrived in Christian imagination since at least Augustine’s time. That Paul was a problem for Pelagius. It was on Paul that Pelagius had to write his one detailed scripture commentary, because Paul as read among Latins of the late fourth century tested and pushed Pelagius’s optimism to the limit. For that Paul, the divine power is ever-present and quite personal and directive, and the story of salvation is played out in myriad individual encounters of that sort.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  With its literalization, the Jewish adherents (Ebionites) reverted to Judaism, denying all supernatural nature to Christ and authority to Paul. Indeed so great became the opposition, it acquired a name, Docetism—Gnostic opposition to the literal belief in Christ. The question now arises: When were these gospels written? The simple-minded are led to believe they are eyewitness accounts of their Savior’s life written soon after His departure, yet according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the book of Luke was not written till nearly two hundred years after this event. The proof offered is that the Theophilus to whom Luke addressed it was bishop of Antioch from 169 to 177 A.D. This same authority tells us that Pope Clement I, fourth from Peter, circa A.D. 97, never quoted from the Gospels or mentions any of the four authors. Neither did any Pope or church father for nearly a century later. According to Wheless, “. . . no written Gospel existed until shortly before 185 A.D., when Irenaeus wrote; they are first mentioned in Chapter XVI of his book II.” This explains why Justin Martyr, circa A.D. 140, never quoted from and apparently never heard of the Gospels, so likewise Paul. Paul did not have to read them to know about Jesus and Christ; he had only to read the pre-Christian mystic literature, subsequently destroyed. And now the final question: Who wrote these Gospels, and for what purpose? No doubt their content was known to the Essenes, but it is not likely they wrote them. They were firm adherents to the Mosaic tradition, therefore not likely to present a new Savior; they were extreme ascetics, therefore not likely to present their Messiah as a wine-bibber, consorting with publicans and sinners. For the authors of such a character we must look to a more liberal and cosmopolitan group. From about 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., the orthodox Jewish priesthood suffered an eclipse. The promises of their scriptures had failed them—Jerusalem was destroyed and Israel was dispersed. Thereafter many Jews fled to Egypt, Rome and Greece, and those among them who might have become priests joined the schools of the Mysteries, among them that of the Gnostics. Here from a new perspective they learned, or relearned, the secret Gnosis or wisdom-knowledge of the Ancients. Still priests at heart, however, they were not satisfied with a pure, impersonal metaphysic, and so to Hellenic Gnosticism they added Semitic theology. With this as a basis they set about to reestablish religion and a priesthood. But what to do? Why, just as their predecessors had done, write a new and wondrous scripture, based on the creative process. This is the New Testament—cosmology theologized for the fifth time and for the same purpose. In other words, the New Testament is but a sequel, inspired not by the fulfillment of the messianic promise of the Old, but by the failure of the Old. But for this failure, the New would never have been written.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  But there is a radical difference between those Preterists who acknowledge a real prophecy and permanent truth in the book, and the rationalistic Preterists who regard it as a dream of a visionary which was falsified by events, inasmuch as Jerusalem, instead of becoming the habitation of saints, remained a heap of ruins, while Rome, after the overthrow of heathenism, became the metropolis of Latin Christendom. This view rests on a literal misunderstanding of Jerusalem. 2. The Continuous (or Historical) system: The Apocalypse is a prophetic compend of church history and covers all Christian centuries to the final consummation. It speaks of things past, present, and future; some of its prophecies are fulfilled, some are now being fulfilled, and others await fulfillment in the yet unknown future. Here belong the great majority of orthodox Protestant commentators and polemics who apply the beast and the mystic Babylon and the mother of harlots drunken with the blood of saints to the church of Rome, either exclusively or chiefly. But they differ widely among themselves in chronology and the application of details. Luther, Bullinger, Collado, Pareus, Brightman, Mede, Robert Fleming, Whiston, Vitringa, Bengel, Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Woodhouse, Elliott, Birks, Gaussen, Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Alford, Wordsworth, Lee. 3. The Futurist system: The events of the Apocalypse from Rev. 4 to the close lie beyond the second advent of Christ. This scheme usually adopts a literal interpretation of Israel, the Temple, and the numbers (the 31 times, 42 months, 1260 days, 3 1/2 years). So Ribera (a Jesuit, 1592), Lacunza (another Jesuit, who wrote under the name of Ben-Ezra "On the coming of Messiah in glory and majesty," and taught the premillennial advent, the literal restoration of the ancient Zion, and the future apostasy of the clergy of the Roman church to the camp of Antichrist), S. R. Maitland, De Burgh, Todd, Isaac Williams, W. Kelly. Another important division of historical interpreters is into Post-Millennarians and Pre-Millennarians, according as the millennium predicted in Rev. 20 is regarded as part or future. Augustin committed the radical error of dating the millennium from the time of the Apocalypse or the beginning of the Christian era (although the seer mentioned it near the end of his book), and his view had great influence; hence the wide expectation of the end of the world at the close of the first millennium of the Christian church. Other post-millennarian interpreters date the millennium from the triumph of Christianity over paganism in Rome at the accession of Constantine the Great (311); still others (as Hengstenberg) from the conversion of the Germanic nations or the age of Charlemagne. All these calculations are refuted by events. The millennium of the Apocalypse must he in the future, and is still an article of hope. The grammatical and historical interpretation of the Apocalypse, as well as of any other book, is the only safe foundation for all legitimate spiritual and practical application.

• From Fundamentals of Social Research (2007)

  In order to satisfy this curiosity, man has delved into certain aspects of both social and physical. A by product of this process of specialization has been the splitting of the scientific disciplines from each other as well as from people who seek to apply scientific knowledge to the world of consumer goods (economic world) or who attempt to develop solutions to personal and social problems. In general, research is a process which seeks to acquire knowledge of a particular situation in an ordered manner. The major goal of research is to provide information which can lead to the creation of “laws” which will help us to be able to explain the perceived phenomenon or phenomena which we encounter in our everyday endeavours and hence enable us to make predictions with a certain set of conditions. However, it should be pinpointed that research is not a general curiosa. What separates a researcher from a mere curious person is that the researcher tries to get the underlying meanings of the observed phenomenon or phenomena in an ordered or in a systematized way while a curious person will tend to explain things or phenomena in a haphazard way. This point will be expanded further on the section on science. 1.2. Types of research In research, the process of seeing a problem is not clear and automatic. The task of formulating the problem to be solved falls to the researcher and it is his responsibility to justify its importance. Gerald. T. Powers etal (1985) has divided research into two types: (a) Pure or basic research - when the primary goal of conducting is one of exploring causes and the meaning of observed phenomenon in an effort to arrive at scientific generalizations and the refinement of theory we refer to it as pure research or basic research. (b) Applied or action research. This is when the primary goal is more pragmatic one, such as finding a solution to an immediate or specific problem related to some aspect of induced change, then it is referred to as action research. In reality most scientific endeavours can have elements of both pure and applied research. But the question is not whether one type of research is superior to the other, it is whether the research makes a meaningful contribution to the understanding of the problem we wish to solve. 1.3. Major aims of social research. There are two major aims of social research. These are the following: (a) To discover regularities in human behaviour (conceptual or theoretical). For instance, why do people participate for example in campus riots or students strikes? What is the nature of their grievances? Who are social deviants? Who are criminals? Who are prostitutes? Why have they become that way? Is the problem with the society?

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  6. Then Aristotle says, Let us therefore consider enunciative speech, etc. Here he points out that only enunciative speech is to be treated; the other four species must be omitted as far as the present intention is concerned, because their investigation belongs rather to the sciences of rhetoric or poetics. Enunciative speech belongs to the present consideration and for the following reason: this book is ordered directly to demonstrative science, in which the mind of man is led by an act of reasoning to assent to truth from those things that are proper to the thing; to this end the demonstrator uses only enunciative speech, which signifies things according as truth about them is in the mind. The rhetorician and the poet, on the other hand, induce assent to what they intend not only through what is proper to the thing but also through the dispositions of the hearer. Hence, rhetoricians and poets for the most part strive to move their auditors by arousing certain passions in them, as the Philosopher says in his Rhetorica [I, 2: 1356a 2, 1356a 14; III, 1: 1403b 12]. This kind of speech, therefore, which is concerned with the ordination of the hearer toward something, belongs to the consideration of rhetoric or poetics by reason of its intent, but to the consideration of the grammarian as regards a suitable construction of the vocal sounds. LESSON 8 The Division of Enunciation into Simple and Composite, Affirmative and Negative17a 8 First affirmation, then negation, is enunciative speech that is one; the others are one by conjunction. 17a 9 Every enunciative speech, however, must contain a verb or a mode of the verb; for the definition of man, if “is” or “was” or “will be” or something of the kind is not added, is not yet enunciative speech; 17a 13 (but then the question arises as to why the definition “terrestrial biped animal” is something one and not many—for clearly it will not be one by reason of the words being said in juxtaposition—but this belongs to another subject of inquiry). 17a 15 Enunciative speech is one when it signifies one thing or is one by conjunction; but it is many when it signifies many things and not one, or many things not joined together. 17a 17 Let us call the name or the verb a word only, since to speak in this way is not to signify something with the voice so as to enunciate, either in reply to someone asking a question or by one’s own choice. 17a 20 Of enunciations that are one, simple enunciation is one kind, i.e., something affirmed of something or something denied of something; the other kind is composite, i.e., speech composed of these simple enunciations. 17a 23 A simple enunciation is vocal sound signifying that something belongs or does not belong to a subject according to the divisions of time. 17a 25 Affirmation is the enunciation of something about something; negation the enunciation of something separated from something.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  32 ‘Then on the seventh day [of the Feast of Booths]: seven bulls, two rams, and fourteen male lambs one year old without blemish, 33 and their grain offering and drink offerings for the bulls, the rams, and the lambs, by their number according to the ordinance; 34 and one male goat as a sin offering, in addition to the continual burnt offering, and its grain offering, and its drink offering. 35 ‘On the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly [to mark the end of the feast]; you shall do no laborious work. 36 ‘You shall present a burnt offering, an offering by fire, as a sweet and soothing aroma to the LORD : one bull, one ram, seven male lambs one year old without blemish; 37 their grain offering and drink offerings for the bull, the ram, and the lambs, by their number according to the ordinance, 38 and one male goat as a sin offering, in addition to the continual burnt offering, and its grain offering, and its drink offering. 39 ‘You shall present these to the LORD at your appointed times, in addition the offerings you have vowed and your freewill offerings, as your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings, and as your peace offerings.’ ” 40 c So Moses spoke to the Israelites in accordance with everything that the LORD had commanded him. Numbers 30 The Law of Vows 1 T HEN MOSES spoke to the leaders of the tribes of the Israelites, saying, “This is the thing which the LORD has commanded: 2 “If a man makes a vow to the LORD or swears an oath to bind himself with a pledge [of abstinence], he shall not break (violate, profane) his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. 3 “Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge [of abstinence], while living in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and her pledge by which she has bound herself, and he offers no objection, then all her vows shall stand and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 “But if her father disapproves of her [making her vow] on the day that he hears about it, none of her vows or her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father has disapproved of her [making the vow]. 6 “But if she marries while under her vows or if she has bound herself by a rash statement, 7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing about it on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, It is impossible to admit that the power of the soul is its essence, although some have maintained it. For the present purpose this may be proved in two ways. First, because, since power and act divide being and every kind of being, we must refer a power and its act to the same genus. Therefore, if the act be not in the genus of substance, the power directed to that act cannot be in the genus of substance. Now the operation of the soul is not in the genus of substance; for this belongs to God alone, whose operation is His own substance. Wherefore the Divine power which is the principle of His operation is the Divine Essence itself. This cannot be true either of the soul, or of any creature; as we have said above when speaking of the angels ([623]Q[54], A[3]). Secondly, this may be also shown to be impossible in the soul. For the soul by its very essence is an act. Therefore if the very essence of the soul were the immediate principle of operation, whatever has a soul would always have actual vital actions, as that which has a soul is always an actually living thing. For as a form the soul is not an act ordained to a further act, but the ultimate term of generation. Wherefore, for it to be in potentiality to another act, does not belong to it according to its essence, as a form, but according to its power. So the soul itself, as the subject of its power, is called the first act, with a further relation to the second act. Now we observe that what has a soul is not always actual with respect to its vital operations; whence also it is said in the definition of the soul, that it is “the act of a body having life potentially”; which potentiality, however, “does not exclude the soul.” Therefore it follows that the essence of the soul is not its power. For nothing is in potentiality by reason of an act, as act.

• From The Erotic Mind (1995)

  Notice how he is the source of all the action. But notice also that she is the primary recipient of the attention and pleasure—after all, it’s her fantasy. It could be argued that a girl’s early fantasies of sexual surrender are part of her internal preparation for the submissive role she will later be expected to play. After all, the most familiar images of male-female sexual interaction include at least mild domination by the man along with a complementary yielding by the woman. If, however, early submission fantasies help prepare us for adult sex-role behavior, many of the men in The Group appear to have been studying the wrong scripts as boys. When men remember images’ of power in their earliest fantasies, as they often do, they’re just as likely as women to be submitting to a highly desirable but more experienced and powerful other, as in Juan’s fantasy: When I was in fourth or fifth grade, I had a crush on my teacher. Miss Peters. I would fantasize that I did something bad (even though in reality I tried to be her favorite) so I had to stay after school. I imagined she took off my clothes to punish me, but I didn’t mind a bit. I wanted her to touch me. I especially liked the idea of being forced to sit under her desk while she graded papers, waiting for her to spread her legs so I could sneak a peek at her panties. With few exceptions, when The Group’s earliest fantasies involve power roles, the fantasizer, whether a boy or a girl, is being guided, coaxed, or forced into sensual or sexual experimentation. Yet such fantasies are virtually always described as pleasurable, with the frequent exception of guilt afterward. In my view, we first discover the erotic potentials of receptivity and aggression in the powerlessness, especially concerning sexual matters, of our youth. PARADOXES OF POWERPower positions in sex are often described as “top” (the forceful, aggressive initiator) or “bottom” (the receptive, yielding responder). At first glance it may appear obvious who’s playing which role. It’s commonly assumed, for instance, that the inserter in intercourse—vaginal or anal—is the top, while the insertee is the bottom. Likewise, a person being “done” or pleasured is seen as bottom because the “doer” is more active. Perceptions shift, however, in male-male encounters; the receiver of oral stimulation is usually seen as the top because he is assumed to be in a more manly position. When people describe the subjective experience of a top-bottom encounter, there’s hardly anything obvious about who’s in control. I have consistently observed that whenever people engage in sexual power exchanges voluntarily and enthusiastically, whether they play the role of top or bottom, they feel an enormous sense of powerfulness and validation. Peter, a construction worker in his mid-thirties, demonstrates the paradox of empowerment through submission, as his beautiful and aggressive girlfriend teaches him a thing or two:

• From Who Wrote the Bible? Searching for Its Origins and Authors (2025)

  21. The Epistles of Paul (and Others) Otherwise, this letter has some striking similarities with the authentic Pauline epistles, especially 1 Thessalonians. For instance, the opening of the two letters is identical: “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace” (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1–2). The closing line is also the same: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you” (1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18). Thus, people are faced with a letter that has the formal features of an authentic epistle from Paul but with content and a theological perspective that doesn’t feel quite right. No wonder there is continued debate about it. Colossians has a similar set of issues. Again, the form of the letter is familiar in terms of its opening, ending, and basic structure. However, the big theological problem has to do with resurrection—that of Jesus’s followers. In the authentic Pauline letters, Paul is clear in believing Christians participate in the death of Christ but won’t participate in his resurrection until the end of time. In Romans 6, he says, “If we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom. 6:5). Colossians holds the exact opposite view: “When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). If Colossians seems to have a different view of resurrection from the authentic letters of Paul, then Ephesians takes things a step further. Not only have believers been resurrected with Jesus, but God has “raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). Ephesians shares theological and nearly verbatim parallels with Colossians. Both epistles have what are known as the household rules—the “wives, be subject to your husbands” content (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18). Paul told the Corinthians to basically put their families away because the end was so near—but here, it’s all about establishing proper interpersonal relationships, as if maybe the end isn’t so close. 130

• From Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (2009)

  Cappellari; 1765; 1831–46) 873; Hadrian I (reigned 772–95) 348, 449; Hadrian II (reigned 867–72) 463; Honorius I (reigned 624–38) 345; Honorius III (Cencio; 1148; 1216–27) 401–2; Hormisdas (reigned 514–23) 326, 471; Innocent III (Lotario de Conti; 1160/61; 1198–1216) 377, 404–8, 474–5, 477, 479, 552, 818; John XII (Octavianus; c. 937; 955–63) 360–61; John XXII (Jacques Duèze; 1249; 1316–34) 275–6, 411, 420, 559-60; John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa; antipope 1410–15; d. 1419) 560; John XXIII (Guiseppe Roncalli; 1881; 1958–63) 967–71; John Paul I (Albino Luciani; 1912; 1978) 967, 994; John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła; 1920; 1978–2005) 641, 680, 935, 971, 976, 990, 994–1000, 1010–11, Plate 53; Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere; 1443; 1503–13) 563–4, 579, 581, 583, Plate 26, 593, 690; Julius III (Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte; 1487; 1550–55) 664, 669; Leo I (‘the Great’; reigned 440–61) 225–6, 234, 290–91, 322; Leo III (reigned 795–816) 349; Leo IX (Bruno of Eguisheim-Dagsburg; 1002; 1049–54) 374, 375; see also Great Schism; Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici; 1475; 1513–21) 593, 609; Leo XIII (Vincenzo Pecci; 1810; 1878–1903) 825–7, 845, 862; Marcellinus (296–304) 137; Marcellus II (Marcello Cervini degli Spannochi; 1501; 1555) 667; Martin I (reigned 649–53) 345, 442; Martin V (Oddo Colonna; 1368; 1417–31) 160; Nicholas I (reigned 858–67) 351–2, 458–60, 463; Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentucelli; 1397; 1447–55) 563; Paul III (Alessandro Farnese; 1468; 1534–49) 629–30, 658–61, 664–5; Paul IV (Gian Pietro Carafa; 1483; 1555–9) 656–7, 660, 662–5, 667, 669; Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini; 1897–1978) 463, 931, 968–9, 971–3, 995, 998; Peter: see Peter; Pius I (reigned 140–55) 133; Pius II (Enea Silvio de’ Piccolomini; 1405; 1458–64) 560–63; Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo de’ Medici; 1499, 1559–65) 529; Pius V (Michele Ghislieri; 1504, 1566–72) 665; Pius VI (Giovanni Angelo Braschi; 1717; 1775–99) 796, 808, 810, 874, 985; Pius VII (Barnaba Chiaramonti; 1740; 1800–1823) 810–11; Pius IX (Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti; 1792; 1846– 78) 821–6, 837, 931, 936–7; Pius X (Giuseppe Melchiore Sarto; 1835; 1903– 14) 862, 932, 934, 936, 968, 1079; Pius XI (Achille Ratti; 1857; 1922–39) 892, 931–2, 934, 936–9; Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli; 1876; 1939–58) 938, 940–41, 945–7, 952, 968, 971, 995, 997; Silverius (reigned 536–7) 326; Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere; 1414, 1471–84) 22, 60; Stephen I (reigned 254–7) 137, 175; Stephen II (reigned 752–7) 348; Sylvester I (reigned 314–35) 579; Urban II (Otho de Lagery; 1042; 1088–99) 376, 382– 6, 470, Plate 29; Urban IV (Jacques Panteléon; c. 1195; 1261–4) 407, 414– 15; Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini; 1568; 1623–44) 684, 798; Valerian (reigned 657–72) 340–41; Victor I (reigned 189–99) 136–7; Vigilius (reigned 537–55) 326–7, 429; Zacharias (reigned 741–52) 348

• From Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research (Wiley Series in Survey Methodology)

  Has paid employment (ANSWER CATEGORIES) The inserted component can also be an instruction to the interviewer that leads to the following example: 6.29What is the main reason why you might not go and vote at the next European elections (REQ)? Interviewer: show card, one answer only (INSTRI). 1. I am not interested in politics. 2. I am not interested in the European elections. 3. I am against Europe. 4. I am not well enough informed to vote. 5. Other reasons (ANSWER CATEGORIES). The added component can also be information regarding a definition, for example: 6.30Are you a member of a public library (REQ)? By “public library,” we understand a library other than at a school or university (INFOD). 1. Yes 2. No (ANSWER CATEGORIES) The examples just mentioned demonstrated that survey items can be expanded by inserting an instruction for the respondent, an instruction for the interviewer, or information regarding a definition after the request for an answer before the answer categories. The next examples will present extensions of survey items by inserting components such as an introduction, information regarding the content, an instruction for the interviewer, or a motivation from the researcher before the request for an answer. Typical examples are as follows: 6.31The next question concerns the upcoming elections (INTRO). Please tell me if there were elections tomorrow would you go to vote (REQ)? 1. Yes 2. No (ANSWER CATEGORIES) 6.32People look for different things in their job. Some people like to earn a lot of money. Others prefer interesting work (INFOC). Which of the following five items do you most prefer at your job (REQ)? 1. Work that pays well 2. Work that gives a feeling of accomplishment 3. Work where you make most decisions yourself 4. Work where other people are nice to work with 5. Work that is steady with little chance of being laid off (ANSWER CATEGORIES) 6.33Interviewer: ask this question also when the respondent did not answer the previous question (INSTRI). Is the monthly income of your household higher than $10,000 (REQ)? 1. Yes 2. No (ANSWER CATEGORIES) 6.34We need the information about income of your household to be able to analyze the survey results for different types of households. An income group is enough. It would help us a lot if you would be able to state what income group your household belongs to (MOTIV). Please tell me to which one of the following income groups your household belongs after tax and other deductions (REQ). 1. $20,000–$50,000 2. $50,000–$100,000 3. Higher than $100,000 (ANSWER CATEGORIES) One also can find more complex structures with three components by inserting more components before the request for an answer. Typical examples are as follows: 6.35The following request for an answer deals with your work (INTRO). Some people think that work is necessary to support themselves and their families (INFOC). Do you like your work or do you do it as a necessity to earn money (REQ + answer categories)?

• From How Propaganda Works (2015)

  bringing into the context false ideological beliefs that are apparently not part of the discussion. As we shall see, there is a great deal of evidence that there is such a linguistic mechanism. And perhaps there are analogous mechanisms in the case of images; indeed, the inspiration point in my analysis, Rae Langton and Caroline West’s theory of pornography from 1999, employs similar formal semantic and pragmatic mechanisms to explain the phenomena of subordination with images. But it is not clear to me that all these exact mechanisms can function with images and movies, because it is not clear to me that one can make the distinction between at-issue and not-at-issue content that is at the center of the mechanism I describe. My focus is on explaining one way in which demagoguery exploits already existing nonpolitical mechanisms to be effective. This mechanism is well understood in the case of language, so we can describe it with precision. A number of philosophers in the feminist tradition, including Catharine MacKinnon and Jennifer Hornsby, have argued that the function of certain kinds of speech (in their chosen example, pornography) is to silence a targeted group. The philosopher whose work has most inspired and influenced my own is Rae Langton. Langton argues, following MacKinnon and Hornsby, that pornographic material subordinates women and silences them. 1 In depicting subordination, Langton argues, pornographers subordinate women. Langton argues that the function of certain kinds of racist speech is “to rank blacks as inferior.” Langton also argues that pornography silences women, by undermining the felicity conditions of their speech; it represents “no” as yes. My aim in this chapter is to explain some of these effects with the tools of contemporary formal semantics, by applying them to the case of propaganda. Here is one model of how this could work; as is clear from her response to Judith Butler, it is a model from which Langton distances herself. 2 An imperative is a command to act a certain way. The imperative statement “eat your beets!” directed at a three year old is a command to the three year old to do something. Pornographic speech could function as a mechanism of subordination by delivering imperative-like orders of some kind. The thought here is not that imperatives bring about their truth. Commands must be associated with practical authority in order to have this function. But so too, as I will argue, does subordinating speech. The relation between imperatives and subordinating speech will be a theme of this chapter, as I will draw on both semantic and pragmatic features of imperatives in my analysis of subordinating speech. I will try to square this use of the semantics of imperatives with Langton’s compelling “verdictive” account of subordinating speech. Our discussion to this point suggests that there should be expressions apt for use in a debate that function to exclude the perspective of certain groups in the population.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AMBROSE. Now this place has caused great perplexity to many, because while St. Luke says, Very early in the morning, Matthew says that it was in the evening of the sabbath that the women came to the sepulchre. But you may suppose that the Evangelists spoke of different occasions, so as to understand both different parties of women, and different appearances. Because however it was written, that in the evening of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, (Matt. 28:1.) our Lord rose, we must so take it, as that neither on the morning of the Lord’s day, which is the first after the sabbath, nor on the sabbath, the resurrection should be thought to have taken place. For how are the three days fulfilled? Not then as the day grew towards evening, but in the evening of the night He rose. Lastly, in the Greek it is “late;” (ὀψὶ) but late signifies both the hour at the end of the day, and the slowness of any thing; as we say, “I have been lately told.” Late then is also the dead of the night. And thus also the women had the opportunity of coming to the sepulchre when the guards were asleep. And that you may know it was in the night time, some of the women are ignorant of it. They know who watch night and day, they know not who have gone back. According to John, one Mary Magdalene knows not, for the same person could not first know and then afterwards be ignorant. Therefore if there are several Maries, perhaps also there are several Mary Magdalenes, since the former is the name of a person, the second is derived from a place. AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Ev. lib. iii. c. 24.) Or Matthew by the first part of the night, which is the evening, wished to represent the night itself, at the end of which night they came to the sepulchre, and for this reason, because they had been now preparing since the evening, and it was lawful to bring spices because the sabbath was over. EUSEBIUS. The Instrument of the Word lay dead, but a great stone enclosed the sepulchre, as if death had led Him captive. But three days had not yet elapsed, when life again puts itself forth after a sufficient proof of death, as it follows, And they found the stone rolled away. THEOPHYLACT. An angel had rolled it away, as Matthew declares. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. 90. in Matt.) But the stone was rolled away after the resurrection, on account of the women, that they might believe that the Lord had risen again, seeing indeed the grave without the body. Hence it follows, And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

• From Lower than the Angels: A History of Sex and Christianity (2024)

  On Damasus’s claim, H. Inglebert, Les Romains chrétiens face à l’histoire de Rome: Histoire, christianisme et romanités en Occident dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIIe–Ve siècles) (Paris, 1996), 197–9. The first known reference to the Bishop of Rome as ‘Papa’ is to Bishop Marcellinus (296–304): V. Fiocchi Nicolai, F. Bisconti and D. Mazzoleni, The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, decoration, inscriptions (Regensburg, 1999), 165. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 4 G. D. Dunn, ‘The validity of marriage in cases of captivity: the letter of Innocent I to Probus’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 83 (2007), 107–19, esp. 114–15, and for the general background, Reynolds, Marriage in the Western Church, 145–7. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 5 Brown, Body and Society, 207. On branding, D. Daube, ‘The marriage of Justinian and Theodora: legal and theological reflections’, Catholic University Law Review 16 (1967), 380–99, at 399 and n. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 6 On the constitution of 326, C. Humfress, ‘ “Cherchez la femme!” Heresy and law in late antiquity’, in R. McKitterick, C. Methuen and A. Spicer (eds), The Church and the Law, Studies in Church History 56 (Cambridge, 2020), 36–59, at 46. A fine summary of the question is K.-L. Noethlichs, ‘Éthique chrétienne dans la législation de Constantin le Grand?’, in S. Crogriez-Pétrequin and P. Jaillette (with O. Huck), Le Code Théodosien: Diversité des approches et nouvelles perspectives (Rome, 2009), 225–37. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 7 E. Eyben, ‘Family planning in Graeco-Roman antiquity’, Ancient Society 11/12 (1980–81), 5–82, at 29–31: Constantine had merely tried to restrict the practice. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 8 Weitz, Between Christ and Caliph, 204. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 9 R. Beaton, The Greeks: A global history (London, 2021), 263. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 10 Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, 137–50, describes this strand of hostile comment, which mostly derives its denunciation from the Epistle of Barnabas, probably composed in the early second century, rehashing several misunderstandings in ancient natural philosophy about animal physiology. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 11 L. Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, Mass., 2022), 133–5; for the lasting effect of the text, R. M. Frakes, ‘Reading the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum (or Lex Dei) in the Middle Ages’, Studies in Late Antiquity 6 (2022), 35–53. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 12 Brown, Body and Society, 438. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 13 Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, 131–2, 160–61, 347. On Peter Damian, see below, Ch. 12. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 14 Ibid., 361–2, from Chrysostom’s Commentary on Romans. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 15 Bullough, Sexual Variance in Society and History, 333. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 16 Their fate (which much excited Edward Gibbon in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) is detailed in E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott (tr. and eds), The Chronicle of John Malalas (Leiden and Boston, Mass., 1986), 253 [Bk. 18.18]. BACK TO NOTE REFERENCE 17

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Therefore the evil of natural corruption, although it ensue beside the intention of the generator, follows nevertheless always, since the presence of one form is ever accompanied by the privation of another. Wherefore corruption does not ensue casually, nor even seldom: although sometimes privation is not an evil simply, but the evil of some particular thing, as stated above. If, however, the privation be such as to deprive the thing generated of that which is due to it, it will be casual and an evil simply, as in the birth of monstrosities: for this does not follow of necessity from that which was intended, but is opposed thereto; since the agent intends the perfection of the thing generated. Evil of action occurs in natural agents through a defect in the active force. Hence if the agent’s force be defective, this evil ensues beside the intention; yet it will not be casual, because it follows of necessity from such an agent: provided always that the agent in question always or frequently suffer this defect. But it will be casual if this defect seldom accompanies this agent. In voluntary agents the intention is directed to some particular good, if the action is to follow: for movement is not caused by universals but by particulars about which actions are. Accordingly, if the good that is intended is accompanied always or frequently by the privation of a rational good, moral evil ensues not casually, but either always or frequently: as in the case of a man who desires intercourse with a woman for the sake of pleasure, to which pleasure is connected the inordination of adultery: wherefore the evil of adultery is not a casual sequel. It would, however, be a casual evil, if sin were to ensue seldom from what he intends: as in one who while firing at a bird, kills a man.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The resurrection of Christ from the dead is reported by the four Gospels, taught in the Epistles, believed throughout Christendom, and celebrated on every "Lord’s Day," as an historical fact, as the crowning miracle and divine seal of his whole work, as the foundation of the hopes of believers, as the pledge of their own future resurrection. It is represented in the New Testament both as an act of the Almighty Father who raised his Son from the dead,208 and as an act of Christ himself, who had the power to lay down his life and to take it again.209 The ascension was the proper conclusion of the resurrection: the risen life of our Lord, who is "the Resurrection and the Life," could not end in another death on earth, but must continue in eternal glory in heaven. Hence St. Paul says, "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God."210 The Christian church rests on the resurrection of its Founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it would soon have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all his other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain and our faith is vain. It was only his resurrection that made his death available for our atonement, justification and salvation; without the resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead Saviour would be a contradiction and wretched delusion. This is the reasoning of St. Paul, and its force is irresistible.211 The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records.212

• From The Divine Comedy (1950)

  17. The conception that the seven planetary heavens, like the seven strings of a lyre, uttered divine harmonies as they moved, is expressly rejected by Aristotle. This is one of the few instances in which Dante departs from his authority.18. it = the false imaginings, the fixed idea which prevented his comprehending what was before his eyes.19. Cf. Canto xxiii.20. air, which Aristotle regarded as relatively, and fire which he regarded as absolutely light.21. exalted creatures = angels [and men?].22. God is the goal as well as the source of all. The orderly trend of all things to their true places is therefore their guide to God. But all things do not reach God in the same sense and in the same measure.23. Cf. Canto xxix. 24. The Empyrean, which is not spatial at all, does not move and “hath not poles.” It girds with light and love the primum mobile, the utmost and swiftest of the material heavens. Cf. Cantos. xxii, xxvii, xxx. Also Conv. ii. 4. 25. “As the medium in which an artist works sometimes appears to resist the impulse and direction which he would give it, so beings endowed with free will (’the creature that hath power … to swerve aside’) may resist the impulse towards himself impressed upon them by God, if they allow themselves to be seduced by false delight.”C A N T O I IWarning and promise to the reader, who shall see stranger tilth than when Jason sowed the dragon’s teeth. They reach the moon and inconceivably penetrate into her substance without cleaving it, even as deity penetrated into humanity in Christ; which mystery shall in heaven be seen as axiomatic truth. Dante, dimly aware of the inadequacy of his science, questions Beatrice as to the dark patches on the moon which he had thought were due to rarity of substance. She explains that if such rarity pierced right through the moon in the dark parts, the sun would shine through them when eclipsed; and if not, the dense matter behind the rare would cast back the sun’s light; and describes to him an experiment by which he may satisfy himself that in that case the light reflected from the dense matter at the surface and from that in the interior of the moon would be equally bright. She then explains that Dante has gone wrong and accepted a scientifically inadequate explanation, because he has not understood that all heavenly phenomena are direct utterances of God and of his Angels. The undivided power of God, differentiated through the various heavenly bodies and agencies, shines in the diverse quality and brightness of the fixed stars, of the planets and of the parts of the moon, as the vital principle manifests itself diversely in the several members of the body, and as joy beams through the pupil of the eye. [image file=image_rsrcA5N.jpg] O YE WHO in your little skiff longing to hear, have followed on my keel that singeth on its way,