Contempt

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 127 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  76 Lecture 17: The Epistle of Barnabas the anti-Jewish claims that had developed much earlier in such writers as Barnabas and applied them literally, maintaining that Jews were the enemies of their own God and, therefore, had to be punished and destroyed. The ugly, painful, and notorious history of Christian anti-Semitism is in some ways a direct result of writings such as these. One can only imagine how much worse it would have been had the epistle of Barnabas actually succeeded in making it into the canon. Ŷ Bart Ehrman, After the New Testament, reading 15. Jay Treat, “Barnabas, Epistle of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. I, pp. 611–614. John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Rosemary Ruether , Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425). 1. How are Barnabas’s attitudes toward Jews and the Jewish Scriptures still evident among Christians today? 2. To what extent can the horri ¿ c acts of anti-Semitism of the twentieth century be traced back to the kind of anti-Jewish polemic that we ¿ nd in early Christian authors? Essential Reading Supplementary Reading Questions to Consider

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Ps 22:18 ] 35 Now the people stood by, watching; but even the rulers ridiculed and sneered at Him, saying, “He saved others [from death]; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed) of God, His Chosen One.” 36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him and [cruelly] offering Him sour wine, [Ps 69:21 ; Matt 27:48 ; Mark 15:36f ; John 19:29 , 30 ] 37 and sarcastically saying, “If you are [really] the King of the Jews, save Yourself [from death]!” 38 Now there was also an inscription above Him: “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 39 One of the criminals who had been hanged [on a cross beside Him] kept hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us [from death]!” 40 But the other one rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 “We are suffering justly, because we are getting what we deserve for what we have done; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, [please] remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” 43 Jesus said to him, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, today you will be with Me in i Paradise.” [2 Cor 12:4 ; Rev 2:7 ] 44 It was now about the sixth hour (noon), and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour (3:00 p.m.), [Matt 27:45–56 ; Mark 15:33–41 ; John 19:14 ] 45 because the sun was j obscured; and the veil [of the Holy of Holies] of the temple was k torn in two [from top to bottom]. [Ex 26:31–35 ] 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO Y OUR HANDS I COMMIT M Y SPIRIT !” Having said this, He breathed His last. [Ps 31:5 ] 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he began praising and honoring God, saying, “Certainly this Man was innocent.” 48 All the crowds who had gathered for this spectacle, when they saw what had happened, began to return [to their homes], beating their breasts [as a sign of mourning or repentance]. 49 And all His acquaintances and the women who had accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, watching these things. Jesus Is Buried 50 A man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court), a good and honorable man [Matt 27:57–61 ; Mark 15:42–47 ; John 19:38–42 ] 51 (he had not consented to the Council’s plan and action) a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for and expecting the kingdom of God; 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  the principal persecutors of Christianity. Paul had a visionary experience in which Jesus appeared to him, and he converted to Christianity. Paul developed the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection led to the salvation of the world. Paul had differentiated between his gospel message and the Jewish law, maintaining that a person is made right with God by faith in Christ, completely apart from following —————_—_—_—_————L_—____—Se Marcion thought that the requirements of the law. Paul was the one apostle Marcion pressed this differentiation to who rightly understood the nature of the a logical conclusion. There is a radical disjunction between law and_ gospel. a The God who gave us the gospel cannot, Christian message. therefore, be the god who gave the law; the law was given to the Jews by the Jewish God. The gospel was given by Jesus—evidently from a different god. The logical conclusion: The God of Jesus was not at all the God of the Jews. The Jewish God created this world, called Israel to be his people, and gave them his law. Because they could not keep the law, they were condemned by the wrathful justice of their God. Perry-Castafieda Library, University of Texas at Austin. Lecture 3: Christians Who Refuse To Be Jews In contrast, the God of Jesus is a God of mercy and love. Jesus came to save people from the just wrath of the Old Testament God who created this world. Jesus himself could obviously not belong to the creator God or to the material world that he created: Marcion’s conclusion was that Jesus was not actually born into this world or part of it. He was not a flesh-and-blood human but a phantasm. Scholars have called this view docetism, from the Greek word dokeo for “to seem, to appear.” The Jewish God required a death penalty for those who sinned; given that Jesus died for others, the Jewish God was compelled to accept his sacrifice for the sake of others (even though it was a deception, because Jesus did not have a real body). Marcion developed his views in two major literary productions, one of which he wrote and the other he edited. His Antitheses (= contradictory statements) contrasted the Old Testament God of wrath with Jesus’ God of love and mercy. The Old Testament God, for example, tells the Israelites to murder all their enemies in Jericho, but the God of Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies. The God of the Old Testament allowed the prophet Elisha to call out a bear to attack and kill the children who were taunting him; Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me.” The God of the Old Testament said “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree”; the God of Jesus ordered him, the one who was blessed, to be hanged on a tree.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  n the past two lectures, we have examined the beliefs of two second- century Christian groups declared heretical: the Ebionites and the Marcionites. The views of these groups were strongly at odds with each other. Not only was each of these groups declared heretical by the other, but both were also attacked by the proto-orthodox who insisted that they were wrong. Of even greater concern to the proto-orthodox, though, were religious movements that historians call Gnostic. In this lecture and the next, we will discuss the nature of the gnostic religions before examining several of the sacred writings revered by individual gnostic groups, writings now known through one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of modern times. Before we begin, we must first define some of our terms. Gnosticism is a modern term used to refer to a widely diverse set of ancient religions that shared some key features. The term comes from the Greek word gnosis, “knowledge.” The gnostic religions all maintained that salvation comes through knowledge. Knowledge of what? Gnostics did not claim that only the smartest people would be saved. The knowledge involved was secret, esoteric—knowledge available to those who are chosen—although ultimately it was self-knowledge, knowledge of who you really are, where you came from, how you got here, and how you can return. As we will see more fully in the next lecture, the different gnostic religions maintained that this material world is a place of imprisonment for sparks of the divine, which became entrapped here, in human bodies, because of a cosmic disaster. For the divine element to be liberated from this evil material world, it needs to learn who it really is and how it can escape. These religions have struck a sympathetic note for many people today, who also 19 Lecture 4: Early Gnostic Christianity—Our Sources feel alienated from this world. In this lecture, we will examine our sources for this ancient worldview. Until 1945, virtually our only sources of information about the gnostic religions were the lengthy and vitriolic attacks against them in the writings of proto-orthodox church fathers, such as Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 180 A.D.); Tertullian of Carthage (200 A.D.); and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.). These authors don’t hold back in attacking their gnostic opponents, who are ruthlessly denounced for espousing ridiculous myths, being completely self-contradictory, misleading the innocent, and engaging in wild and _licentious activities that show their true colors. There was, naturally, some question about how reliable these proto- orthodox accounts could be. With the discovery of original gnostic documents, we can now evaluate the patristic reports—the writings of the church fathers—and get a much clearer picture of what the Gnostics were really like.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  ] 15 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert to Judaism), and when he becomes a convert, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, that is nothing (non-binding); but whoever swears [an oath] by the gold of the temple is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the sanctuary of the temple that sanctified the gold? [Ex 30:29 ] 18 “And [you scribes and Pharisees say], ‘Whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, that is nothing (non-binding), but whoever swears [an oath] by the offering on it, he is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].’ 19 “You [spiritually] blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, swears both by it and by everything [offered] on it. 21 “And whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells within it. [1 Kin 8:13 ; Ps 26:8 ] 22 “And whoever swears [an oath] by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth (tithe) of your mint and dill and cumin [focusing on minor matters], and have neglected the weightier [more important moral and spiritual] provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the [primary] things you ought to have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You [spiritually] blind guides, who strain out a gnat [consuming yourselves with miniscule matters] and swallow a camel [ignoring and violating God’s precepts]! [Lev 11:24 ; 27:30 ; Mic 6:8 ] 25 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and robbery and self-indulgence (unrestrained greed). 26 “You [spiritually] blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the plate [examine and change your inner self to conform to God’s precepts], so that the outside [your public life and deeds] may be clean also. 27 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which look beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 “So you, also, outwardly seem to be just and upright to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [Ps 5:9 ] 29 “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

• From Confessions of the Flesh (The History of Sexuality, Vol. 4) (2021)

  There does exist, however, a peculiar trait in the hyena that is not found in any other animal. Clement describes it by following Aristotle, almost word for word.61 It involves an outgrowth of flesh that traces a form below the tail very similar to a female sex, but a quick inspection will show that this cavity does not open into any canal leading toward the womb or the intestine. But Clement doesn’t treat this anatomical feature as Aristotle does. The latter uses it to explain how hasty observers let themselves be misled by the ambiguity of appearance: they thought they saw two sexes on the same animal; he sees this only as a case of human error of interpretation. But Clement sees in this anatomical peculiarity an element that has a relation of both effect and instrument to a moral fault. If hyenas have a body that’s arranged in such an odd way, this is because of a defect. A defect “of nature,” taking “nature” to mean the characteristic traits of a species, but a defect that is nonetheless utterly similar to a moral fault found in men: lasciviousness. And it’s in view of this defect that “nature” has devised a supplementary cavity in these animals for them to use for their equally supplementary sallies. In sum, to the “excessive” natural propensity for pleasure that characterizes the hyena, nature has responded with an excessive anatomy that enables “excessive” relations. But, in this, nature shows that it’s not only in terms of quantity that one must speak of excess: since the hyenas’ surplus pouch is not connected by any channel to the organs of generation, the excess is “useless,” or more precisely cut off from the end that nature has assigned to the organs of generation, to sexual relations, to semen and its emission—that is, procreation. And since this finality is disrespected in this way, it is a counter-natural activity that this tendency to misbehavior, both natural and excessive, permits and encourages. So we have a whole cycle that goes from nature to contrary-to-nature, or rather a constant intertwining of nature and counter-nature that gives hyenas a blameworthy trait, excessive inclinations, extra organs, and the means to use them “for nothing.”62

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Suppression Slightly different from sulking or withdrawal, there are some who simply deny their anger feelings... maybe even to themselves. They might tell you they are “fine” despite some very real feelings of frustration and irritation. On the Anger Expression Inventory I mentioned earlier, this type of expression style, called Anger Expression-In, is measured through items like, “I boil inside, but I don’t show it” or “I tend to harbor grudges that I don’t tell anyone about.” This sort of anger suppression might be invisible to the people around them. It isn’t quite the same as the pouting or withdrawal mentioned before because with those forms of anger there might be an acknowledgement of the anger, but an unwillingness to talk about it. The person is essentially saying, “I’m mad, but don’t want to talk about it and would prefer to be alone.” Here, though, the person simply doesn’t share that they are angry. They won’t acknowledge their anger to you even if you ask. So you may know or believe them to be angry, but they won’t admit it. Sarcasm Dr. Clifford Lazarus, a well-known and respected clinical and health psychologist, once said “sarcasm is actually hostility disguised as humor.” 56 While I’m not sure this is always the case, there is definitely some truth here. Sarcasm can indeed be motivated by anger in that people will use it to deal with mild or major frustrations they experience. Their computer crashes and they respond with “Well that’s just great.” Someone asks if they need help with something that they are obviously struggling with and they respond with “No, I’m really enjoying this.” Sarcasm isn’t likely intended to be hostile. In fact, it might be a way of making light of the very real pain they are suffering. Like a lot of humor, sarcasm might exist as a way of lightening mood and making social interactions more pleasant. When something bad happens to them, instead of acknowledging the frustration and disappointment directly, they might say, “So that’s nice” or “Isn’t that just perfect.” It can also, though, be a semi-aggressive way of

• From From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (2004)

  that Jesus himself was Jewish, the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people to fulfill the Jewish Law. 1. This can be seen in the opening passages of his Gospel (the birth narratives). 2. And it is a theme that recurs throughout, for example, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17—20). On the other hand, he blames the Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus for his death and portrays them as blind, hypocritical, and opposed to the will of God. 1. The Jewish leaders are condemned in vitriolic terms in this Gospel (chapter 23). 2. The Jewish people are portrayed as complicit in their blind rejection of Jesus (for example, 27:25). Even so, this understanding of the Jewishness of Jesus was significant for some later groups of Christians, who saw themselves as the “true” Jews and who kept the Jewish Law and customs on the understanding that Jesus himself was thoroughly Jewish. The apostle Paul took a different tack and maintained a different perspective, one that became yet more important historically for the development of Christianity A. Paul, too, accepted Jesus’s Jewishness and saw himself as thoroughly Jewish, a worshiper of the Jewish God and a believer in his promises. As we Saw in the previous lecture, however, Paul came to believe that Jesus’s death and Resurrection were the only way of salvation and concluded that the Law of the Jews, although itself embodying God’s righteous demands, had no role to play in salvation. I. Asaresult, he insisted that Christians are made right with God apart from the Law. 2. For him, this meant that Gentiles, who were quickly becoming the majority in the church by the middle to late first century, did not need to keep the provisions of the Law (such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and kosher food laws). 3. Paul understood this as being the goal of the Law itself—the salvation to be brought by Christ apart from the Law. 4. The result was that faith in Christ was not just a Jewish option but was available to all. C. This marks the beginning of Christianity as a non-Jewish religion, which stood over against Judaism and could portray the Jews themselves as outsiders to the promises that God had made to the Jewish ancestors—promises now seen, by the Christians, as being fulfilled not for the Jews but for the followers of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. D. This is probably why Paul is commonly understood as anti-Jewish. But it is important to realize that he saw himself as thoroughly Jewish and representing the views of the Jewish God as set forth in the Jewish Bible. E. Even so, once Paul’s doctrine was established that a person’s relationship to God is independent of the Jewish Law and Jewish culture, something new had obviously begun, leading to the developments of Christianity as an anti-Jewish religion.

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  401 (8.9-14 [9-13]) The psalmist continues that God punished them by bringing war against Jerusalem, as we have already noted. The sinners even collaborated in bringing the invaders into Jerusalem. Pompey turned on them, however, and destroyed the leaders and 'led away their sons and daughters, whom they had begotten in defilement' (8.15-24 [14-21]). It is noteworthy that the Jewish sinners are considered by the pious to have sinned in the same way that heathen sin, and in fact to have been worse (8.14 [13]; cf. 2.11 [9]). The only two types of transgression singled out are sexual transgressions and sins against the sanctity of the Temple. The Jewish sinners committed both incest and adultery. It is not clear what 'oaths' they took 'concerning these things', unless they are being accused of having formed a secret wife-swapping society. Sexual sins are also men- tioned in 2.15 (13): the daughters of Jerusalem 'defiled themselves with unnatural intercourse', and the 'profane man' is accused of being sexually promiscuous (4.4-6). Transgression against the sanctity of the Temple and the Temple service is also indicated in 2.3, which we have already quoted. The way in which the sinful Israelites were worse than the heathen seems especially to be in 'profaning' the offerings and in 'defiling' the 'holy things of the Lord', which probably refers to the Temple and its contents; for this is the kind of transgression which the Israelite sinners share with the Gentiles. The Gentiles 'profane' the holy things of the Lord ( 1 .8) and 'defile Jerusalem and the things that had been hallowed to the name of God' (8.26 [22]). 43 It would not be correct to call transgressions against the sanc- tity of the Temple 'ceremonial' sins. As Buchler has correctly pointed out, the contraction of levitical impurity itself is not a sin. 44 The sin in part is in the plunder of the sanctuary (8. 12 [ 11 ]), but the real heinousness of the crime is in the sinners' attitude. They behave as if there is no avenger (ibid.) 43 See n. 41 above. 44 Buchler, Piety, p. 143. 402 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha [III and wilfully disobey the commandments of God regarding the Temple service. It is not ceremonial fault itself which is condemned, but the attitude that is indicated when the priests wilfully treat the sacrifices as if they were 'common flesh'. Other specific sins of the sinners are harder to itemize. The sinful man is a hypocrite and a 'man pleaser' (4. 1-8 [7 ]). He lies even when he swears an oath (4.4). When the psalmist says that he scatters families and lays waste houses by deceit (4.13,23 [10f., 20]), it is not clear whether the crime is oppression or moral seduction. The latter seems to be indicated by the comparison with the Serpent (4.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed [just as if they were sneaking in by a side door]. They are ungodly persons whose condemnation was predicted long ago, for they distort the grace of our God into decadence and immoral freedom [viewing it as an opportunity to do whatever they want], and deny and disown our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 5 Now I want to remind you, although you are fully informed once for all, that e the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe [who refused to trust and obey and rely on Him]. [Num 14:27–37 ] 6 And angels who did not keep their own designated place of power, but abandoned their proper dwelling place, [these] He has kept in eternal chains under [the thick gloom of utter] darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent cities, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in gross immoral freedom and unnatural vice and sensual perversity. They are exhibited [in plain sight] as an example in undergoing the punishment of everlasting fire. [Gen 19:1–29 ] 8 Nevertheless in the same way, these dreamers [who are dreaming that God will not punish them] also defile the body, and reject [legitimate] authority, and revile and mock angelic majesties. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil (Satan), and f arguing about the body of Moses, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him, but [simply] said, “The Lord rebuke you!” [Deut 34:5 , 6 ; Zech 3:2 ] 10 But these men sneer at anything which they do not understand; and whatever they do know by [mere] instinct, like unreasoning and irrational beasts—by these things they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone the [defiant] way of Cain, and for profit they have run headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of [mutinous] Korah. [Gen 4:3–8 ; Num 16:22–24 ; 2 Pet 2:15 ] 12 These men are hidden reefs [elements of great danger to others] in your g love feasts when they feast together with you without fear, looking after [only] themselves; [they are like] clouds without water, swept along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted and lifeless; 13 wild waves of the sea, flinging up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of deep darkness has been reserved forever.

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  It follows that the textbooks and reference works in which that view is found and where it is presumed to be proved -principally Bousset's Religion des Judentums, Billerheck's Kommentar, Schiirer's history and several articles in Kittel's Worterbuck-are, as far as they deal with Rabbinic religion, completely untrustworthy. They cannot he corrected by new editions citing different views or by mitigating some of their harsher and more ill-founded remarks. They proceed from wrong premises, they misconstrue the material, and they are, like those Jews who cast off the yoke, beyond redemption. Billerbeck may retain some usefulness as a collection of passages on individual points, with several provisos: that the user be able to look up the passages and read them in context, that he disregard as 11] Conclusion 235 much as possible Billerbeck's own summaries and syntheses, and that he be able to imagine how to find passages on the topic not cited by Billerbeck. There are examples ready at hand to illustrate the importance of the last point. The pages in Billerbeck on which Rengstorf relied to find passages about hope do not contain the pertinent passages which we cited in the discussion of Rengstorfs view, and consequently the passages were not available to Rengstor( Similarly, Rossler was restricted in his study of 'promise' and 'trust' to the selection given by Billerbeck, where again one will not find the most pertinent Tannaitic passages which show that the promises of God were considered by the Rabbis to remain valid and that they were trusted in. To say that, to use Billerbeck, one must be able to find passages not given by Billerbeck, is really to say that Billerbeck's Kommentar should not be used by those it was designed to serve: New Testament scholars who have no ready independent access to Rabbinic material. The positive argument, that there is another view which is all-pervasive in the literature and which reflects a broad agreement on religious principles among Rabbis of different times and different schools, has been a difficult one. It is difficult because of the lack of systematic theological analysis on the part of the Rabbis. We should recall the nature of the material and the strategy of the inquiry. The halakic material especially tends to deal with relatively minor details, with areas where there are problems. In it the Rabbis, as it were, are skirmishing on the borders of their religion. This aspect of the literature has led many to assume that minor details constituted the Rabbis' principal religious concerns; they were careful of tithing mint, dill and cummin, but neglected the weightier matters. One should rather conclude that debates on details reflect agreement on central issues. Further, and most important for the strategy of our study, the skirmishes may even reveal what the central convictions were. From debates about why God chose Israel we infer the centrality of the conviction that he chose Israel.

• From Henry Miller on Writing (1964)

  Since before that. Since the days of the Archangel Michael. In the not too distant past there was one who was given the cup of hemlock for being “the corruptor of youth.” Today he is regarded as one of the sanest, most lucid minds that ever was. We who are always being arraigned before the bar can do no better than to resort to the celebrated Socratic method. Our only answer is to return the question. There are so many questions one could put to the Court, to any court. But would one get a response? Can the Court of the Land ever be put in question? I am afraid not. The judicial body is a sacrosanct body. This is unfortunate, as I see it, for when issues of grave import arise the last court of reference, in my opinion, should be the public. When justice is at stake responsibility cannot be shifted to an elect few without injustice resulting. No court could function if it did not follow the steel rails of precedent, taboo and prejudice. I come back to the lengthy document representing the decision of the Oslo Town Court, to the tabulation of all the infractions of the moral code therein listed. There is something frightening as well as disheartening about such an indictment. It has a medieval aspect. And it has nothing to do with justice. Law itself is made to look ridiculous. Once again let me say that it is not the courts of Oslo or the laws and codes of Norway which I inveigh against; everywhere in the civilized world there is this mummery and flummery manifesting as the Voice of Inertia. The offender who stands before the Court is not being tried by his peers but by his dead ancestors. The moral codes, operative only if they are in conformance with natural or divine laws, are not safeguarded by these flimsy dikes; on the contrary, they are exposed as weak and ineffectual barriers. Finally, here is the crux of the matter. Will an adverse decision by this court or any other court effectively hinder the further circulation of this book? The history of similar cases does not substantiate such an eventuality. If anything, an unfavorable verdict will only add more fuel to the flames. Proscription only leads to resistance; the fight goes on underground, becomes more insidious therefore, more difficult to cope with. If only one man in Norway reads the book and believes with the author that one has the right to express himself freely, the battle is won.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Num 14:3 , 4 ] 40 “THEY SAID TO AARON , ‘MAKE FOR US GODS WHO WILL GO BEFORE US ; FOR THIS MOSES WHO LED US OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT , WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO HIM .’ [Ex 32:1 , 23 ] 41 “In those days they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced and celebrated over the works of their hands. [Ex 32:4 , 6 ] 42 “But God turned away [from them] and handed them over to serve the h host of heaven. As it is written and forever remains written in the book of the prophets, ‘IT WAS NOT [really] TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS AND SACRIFICES FOR FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS , WAS IT , O HOUSE OF ISRAEL ? [Jer 19:13 ] 43 ‘YOU ALSO TOOK ALONG THE TABERNACLE (portable temple) OF MOLOCH AND THE STAR OF THE GOD ROMPHA , THE IMAGES WHICH YOU MADE TO WORSHIP ; AND I WILL REMOVE YOU BEYOND BABYLON [carrying you away into exile].’ [Amos 5:25–27 ] 44 “Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God directed Moses to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. [Ex 25:9–40 ] 45 “Our fathers also brought it in [with them into the land] with Joshua when they dispossessed the i nations whom God drove out before our fathers, [and so it remained here] until the time of David, [Deut 32:49 ; Josh 3:14–17 ] 46 who found favor (grace, spiritual blessing) in the sight of God and asked that he might [be allowed to] find a dwelling place for the j God of Jacob. [2 Sam 7:8–16 ; Ps 132:1–5 ] 47 “But it was Solomon who built a house for Him. [1 Kin 6 ] 48 “However, the Most High [the One infinitely exalted above humanity] does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet [Isaiah] says, [1 Kin 8:27 ] 49 ‘HEAVEN IS MY THRONE , AND THE EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL FOR MY FEET ; WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME ?’ says the Lord, ‘OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REST ? 50 ‘WAS IT NOT MY HAND THAT MADE ALL THESE THINGS ?’ [Is 66:1 , 2 ] 51 “You stiff-necked and stubborn people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always actively resisting the Holy Spirit. You are doing just as your fathers did. [Ex 33:3 , 5 ; Num 27:14 ; Is 63:10 ; Jer 6:10 ; 9:26 ] 52 “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  26 Jubilees 1.28 and other passages quoted above. On receiving the covenant promises, see below, p. 37. 374 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha [III the views expressed in Jubilees tend toward separatism, but the schismatic rupture described so well in the Q!imran scrolls has not yet taken place. Jubilees is still adressed to all Israel. 27 Davenport's view is also similar to the one taken here: in many respects Jubilees continues the Old Testament faith. The author emphasizes 'God's love for Israel and his faithfulness to them, his demand for obedience, his power to do what he promises to do, and his willingness to forgive the repentant. ' 28 The Gentiles It goes almost without saying that Gentiles are condemned. We have already seen that unrighteousness is to live like the Gentiles. Thus Israel when attacked by 'the sinners of the Gentiles' will pray to be saved from 'the sinners, the Gentiles' (23.23f.). It may be that 'of Gentiles' was originally a genitive of specification and that the first phrase means the same as the sec- ond. That the Gentiles are 'sinners' in such a way as to be condemned to destruction is explicitly stated in a passage in which Israel is warned against intermarriage: Be thou ware, my son Jacob, of taking a wife from any seed of the daughters of Canaan; For all his seed is to be rooted out of the earth. For, owing to the transgression of Ham, Canaan erred, And all his seed shall be destroyed from off the earth and all the residue thereof, And none springing from him shall be saved on the day of judgment. (22.2of.) The constant urgings to avoid mingling with the Gentiles (22.16) and to avoid intermarriage as something that defiles Israel (30.7,16) are clear indications that Gentiles as such are sinners. They have no portion in the future world, for Israel 'shall judge all the nations [i.e. the Gentiles] accord- ing to their desires, and after that they shall get possession of the whole earth and inherit it for ever' (32.19). The author thus takes a much harder line toward the Gentiles than was taken by the authors of the various sections of I Enoch who refer to Gentiles, or by the majority of the later Rabbis. Like R. Eliezer, he excluded Gentiles from the possibility of being saved. It is probably for this reason that he emphasizes that the law was given only to Israel and is to be kept only by Israel. The Feast of Tabernacles is 'ordained on the heavenly tablets concerning Israel, that they shall celebrate' it (16.29). Similarly, the author stresses that God 'did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep [the] Sabbath ... , but Israel alone' (2.31). The command- 21 Jaubert, La notion d'allianct, p. 115. 28 Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, p.

• From Henry Miller on Writing (1964)

  If there is something mysterious about the manifestation of deep and unsuspected forces, which find expression in disturbing movements and ideas from one period to another, there is nevertheless nothing accidental or bizarre about it. The laws governing the spirit are just as readable as those governing nature. But the readings must come from those who are steeped in the mysteries. The very depth of these interpretations naturally makes them unpalatable and unacceptable to the vast body which constitutes the unthinking public. Parenthetically it is curious to observe that painters, however unapproachable their work may be, are seldom subjected to the same meddling interference as writers. Language, because it also serves as a means of communication, tends to bring about weird obfuscations. Men of high intelligence often display execrable taste when it comes to the arts. Yet even these freaks whom we all recognize, because we are always amazed by their obtuseness, seldom have the cheek to say what elements of a picture had been better left out or what substitutions might have been effected. Take, for example, the early works of George Grosz. Compare the reactions of the intelligent public in his case to the reactions provoked by Joyce when his Ulysses appeared. Compare these again with the reactions which Schönberg’s later music inspired. In the case of all three the revulsion which their work first induced was equally strong, but in the case of Joyce the public was more articulate, more voluble, more arrogant in its pseudo-certitude. With books even the butcher and the plumber seem to feel that they have a right to an opinion, especially if the book happens to be what is called a filthy or disgusting one. I have noticed, moreover, that the attitude of the public alters perceptibly when it is the work of primitive peoples which they must grapple with. Here for some obscure reason the element of the “obscene” is treated with more deference. People who would be revolted by the drawings in Ecce Homo will gaze unblushingly at African pottery or sculpture no matter how much their taste or morals may be offended. In the same spirit they are inclined to be more tolerant of the obscene works of ancient authors. Why? Because even the dullest are capable of admitting to themselves that other epochs might, justifiably or not, have enjoyed other customs, other morals. As for the creative spirits of their own epoch, however, freedom of expression is always interpreted as license. The artist must conform to the current, and usually hypocritical, attitude of the majority. He must be original, courageous, inspiring and all that—but never too disturbing. He must say Yes while saying No. The larger the art public, the more tyrannical, complex and perverse does this irrational pressure become.

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

  Tacitus and the younger Pliny, contemporaries and friends of the emperor Trajan, are the first to notice it; and they speak of it only incidentally and with stoical disdain and antipathy, as an "exitiabilis superstition" "prava et immodica superstitio," "inflexibilis obstinatio." These celebrated and in their way altogether estimable Roman authors thus, from manifest ignorance, saw in the Christians nothing but superstitious fanatics, and put them on a level with the hated Jews; Tacitus, in fact, reproaching them also with the "odium generis humani." This will afford some idea of the immense obstacles which the new religion encountered in public opinion, especially in the cultivated circles of the Roman empire. The Christian apologies of the second century also show, that the most malicious and gratuitous slanders against the Christians were circulated among the common people, even charges of incest and cannibalism,75 which may have arisen in part from a misapprehension of the intimate brotherly love of the Christians, and their nightly celebration of the holy supper and love-feasts. Their Indirect Testimony to Christianity. On the other hand, however, the scanty and contemptuous allusions of Tacitus and Pliny to Christianity bear testimony to a number of facts in the Gospel History. Tacitus, in giving an account of the Neronian persecution, incidentally attests, that Christ was put to death as a malefactor by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; that he was the founder of the Christian sect, that the latter took its rise in Judaea and spread in spite of the ignominious death of Christ and the hatred and contempt it encountered throughout the empire, so that a "vast multitude" (multitudo ingens) of them were most cruelly put to death in the city of Rome alone as early as the year 64. He also bears valuable testimony, in the fifth book of his History, together with Josephus, from whom he mainly, though not exclusively takes his account, to the fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy. As to Pliny’s famous letter to Trajan, written about 107, it proves the rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor at that time among all ranks of society, the general moral purity and steadfastness of its professors amid cruel persecution, their mode and time of worship, their adoration of Christ as God, their observance of a "stated day," which is undoubtedly Sunday, and other facts of importance in the early history of the Church. Trajan’s rescript in reply to Pliny’s inquiry, furnishes evidence of the innocence of the Christians; he notices no charge against them except their disregard of the worship of the gods, and forbids them to be sought for. Marcus Aurelius testifies, in one brief and unfriendly allusion, to their eagerness for the crown of martyrdom. § 32. Direct Assaults. Celsus.

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

  3. The Latin Church took the third and last step, the absolute prohibition of clerical marriage, including even the lower orders. This belongs to the next period; but we will here briefly anticipate the result. Sacerdotal marriage was first prohibited by Pope Siricius (A.D. 385), then by Innocent I. (402), Leo I. (440), Gregory I. (590), and by provincial Synods of Carthage (390 and 401), Toledo (400), Orleans (538), Orange (441), Arles (443 or 452), Agde (506), Gerunda (517). The great teachers of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, Jerome, Augustin, and Chrysostom, by their extravagant laudations of the superior sanctity of virginity, gave this legislation the weight of their authority. St. Jerome, the author of the Latin standard version of the Bible, took the lead in this ascetic crusade against marriage, and held up to the clergy as the ideal aim of the saint, to "cut down the wood of marriage by the axe of virginity." He was willing to praise marriage, but only as the nursery of virgins.756 Thus celibacy was gradually enforced in the West under the combined influence of the sacerdotal and hierarchical interests to the advantage of the hierarchy, but to the injury of morality.757 For while voluntary abstinence, or such as springs from a special gift of grace, is honorable and may be a great blessing to the church, the forced celibacy of the clergy, or celibacy as a universal condition of entering the priesthood, does violence to nature and Scripture, and, all sacramental ideas of marriage to the contrary notwithstanding, degrades this divine ordinance, which descends from the primeval state of innocence, and symbolizes the holiest of all relations, the union of Christ with his church. But what is in conflict with nature and nature’s God is also in conflict with the highest interests of morality. Much, therefore, as Catholicism has done to raise woman and the family life from heathen degradation, we still find, in general, that in Evangelical Protestant countries, woman occupies a far higher grade of intellectual and moral culture than in exclusively Roman Catholic countries. Clerical marriages are probably the most happy as a rule, and have given birth to a larger number of useful and distinguished men and women than those of any other class of society.758 CHAPTER X.MONTANISM.§ 109. Literature. Sources: The prophetic utterances of Montanus, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla, scattered through Tertullian and other writers, collected by F. Münter. (Effata et Oracula Montanistarum, Hafniae, 1829), and by Bonwetsch, in his Gesch. des Mont. p. 197–200.

• From Another Country (1962)

  Mr. Barry was saying, “We have been hearing the most wonderful things about your husband, Mrs. Silenski. I’ve read his book, and I must say”—he smiled his cordial smile, everything about him was held within decent bounds—“it’s a very remarkable achievement.” For an instant, Cass said nothing. She sipped her drink and watched his face, which was as smooth as a black jellybean. At first, she was tempted to dismiss the face as empty. But it was not empty; it was only that it was desperately trying to empty itself, decently, inward; an impossibility leading to God alone could guess what backing up of bile. Deep, deep behind the carefully hooded and noncommittal eyes, the jungle howled and lunged and bright dead birds lay scattered. He was like his wife, only he would never be able to step out of his iron corsets. She felt very sorry for him, then she trembled; he hated her; and somehow his hatred was connected with her barely conscious wish to have the ginger-colored boy on the floor make love to her. He hated her—therefore?—far more than Ida could, and was far more at the mercy of his hatred; which, from ceaseless trampling down, yearned to go upward, blowing up the world. But he could not afford to know this. She said, smiling, with stiff lips, “Thank you very much.” Mrs. Barry said, “You must be very proud of your husband.” Cass and Ida glanced briefly at each other, and Cass smiled and said, “Well, I’ve always been proud of him, really; none of this comes as any surprise to me.” Ida laughed. “That’s the truth. Cass thinks Richard can do no wrong.” “Not even when she catches him at it,” Ellis grinned. Then, “We’ve been together quite a lot lately, and he often speaks of what a happy man he is.” For some reason, this frightened her. She wondered when, and how often, Richard and Ellis met and what Richard really had to say. She swallowed her fear. “Blind faith,” she said, inanely, “I’ve got it,” and thought, God. She looked toward the dance floor. But that particular couple had vanished. “Your husband’s a lucky man,” said Mr. Barry. He looked at his wife, and reached for her hand. “So am I.” “Mr. Barry’s just become a part of our publicity department,” Ellis said. “We’re awfully proud to have him on board. And I’m sorry if I sound like I’m bragging—hell, I’m not sorry, I am bragging—but I think it represents a tremendous breakthrough in our pussyfooting, hidebound industry.” He grinned, and Mr. Barry smiled. “And hidebound so soon!” “It was hidebound the instant it was born,” said Mr. Nash, “just as your cinema industry was hidebound, and for the same reason. It immediately became the property of the banks—part of what you people quaintly call free enterprise, though God knows there’s nothing free about it, and nothing even remotely enterprising about the lot of you.”

• From The Well of Loneliness (1928)

  And Valérie was sitting there calm and aloof, her glance roving casually round the café, not too critically, yet as though she would say: ‘ Enfin, the whole world has grown very ugly, but no doubt to some people this represents pleasure.’ From the stained bar counter at the end of the room came the sound of Monsieur Pujol’s loud laughter. Monsieur Pujol was affable to his clients, oh, but very, indeed he was almost paternal. Yet nothing escaped his cold, black eyes — a great expert he was in his way, Monsieur Pujol. There are many collections that a man may indulge in; old china, glass, pictures, watches and bibelots; rare editions, tapestries, priceless jewels. Monsieur Pujol snapped his fingers at such things, they lacked life - Mon- sieur Pujol collected inverts. Amazingly morbid of Monsieur Pujol, and he with the face of an ageing dragoon, and he just married en secondes noces, and already with six legitimate chil- dren. A fine, purposeful sire he had been and still was, with his young wife shortly expecting a baby. Oh, yes, the most aggres- sively normal of men, as none knew better than the poor Madame Pujol. Yet behind the bar was a small, stuffy sanctum in which this strange man catalogued his collection. The walls of the sanc- 442 THE WELL OF LONELINESS tum were thickly hung with signed photographs, and a good few sketches. At the back of each frame was a neat little number corresponding to that in a locked leather notebook — it had long been his custom to write up his notes before going home with the milk in the morning. People saw their own faces but not their numbers — no client suspected that locked leather notebook. To this room would come Monsieur Pujol’s old cronies for a bock or a petit verre before business; and sometimes, like many another collector, Monsieur Pujol would permit himself to grow prosy. His friends knew most of the pictures by heart; knew their histories too, almost as well as he did; but in spite of this fact he would weary his guests by repeating many a threadbare story.

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  The phrase which caused Charles to add 'paganizers' to the list of the allies against the righteous was doubtless 99.7: 'And they who worship stones, and grave images of gold and silver and wood [and stone] and clay, and those who worship impure spirits and demons, and all kinds of idols not according to knowledge, shall get no manner of help from them' (cf. also 99.9). Those in mind here are neither apostate Jews nor 'paganizers' in the sense of those who built a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Unless 99.7 is an interpolation (for which there is no evidence), it indicates that the wicked included Gentiles. This is supported by the reference in 91 .9 to the coming destruction of heathen idols and temples. Thus it seems that the wicked are both the apostate and traitorous Israelites who collaborate with the rulers, thus gaining the right to become rich at the expense of loyal Jews, and the 'carpet-bagging' Gentiles who are in league with them. The author, it would appear, saw no real difference between the foreign wicked and the natives who betrayed their people for their own interest. The section, it would seem, comes from a period when Palestine was under foreign influ- ence, if not direct rule. The attitude of the sinners is false confidence in their own security and the assumption that there is no retribution after death: Woe to you who acquire silver and gold in unrighteousness and say: 'We have become rich with riches and have possessions; And have acquired everything we have desired. And now let us do what we purposed: For we have gathered silver, And many are the husbandmen in our houses.' And our granaries are (brim) full as with water, Yea and like water your lies shall flow away .... (97.8f.) And yet when ye [the righteous] die the sinners speak over you: 'As we die, so die the righteous, And what benefit do they reap for their deeds? Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness, And what have they more than we? From henceforth we are equal. And what will they receive and what will they see for ever? Behold, they too have died, And henceforth for ever shall they see no light.' 18 (102.6-8) 18 Charles not unreasonably took the passage to represent the Sadducean view {see his comments ad loc. ). It could just as well, however, represent the view of the heathen, idolaters and apostates. The nearest parallel is Wisd. Sol. 2.1-5, 21-24; 5.4 ('We thought ... that his (the righteous man's] end was without honour'), which does not represent the Pharisee/Sadducee argument.