Trust

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 16 of 29 · 20 per page

• From The Canterbury Tales (2009)

  ‘That’s not going to happen,’ the summoner replied. ‘I am a yeoman, and widely respected. I am known to keep my word, and I would stick to it even if you were Satan himself. We are brothers, you and I, and we will be true to one another. We will help each other in our various trades. You take what you can, and I shall do the same. We are both businessmen, after all. But if one of us makes a killing, then he should share it with the other. That is fair, don’t you think?’ ‘I grant you that,’ the fiend said. ‘On my honour.’ So they rode forth on their way. They passed through the forest and very soon came up to the village where the summoner hoped to exact some tribute. Here they happened to see a cart filled with hay, being driven with some difficulty by a carter. The road was deep in mud, and the wheels were lodged in it. They could not be moved. The carter was frantic, and kept on shouting at the horses. ‘Come on, Brock!’ he screamed. ‘Come on, Scot! What are you stopping for? Get a move on! The devil take the lot of you, as whole as you were born! I have gone through hell today because of you. Well, you can go to the devil - hay, cart and horses!’ ‘This is going to be fun,’ the summoner murmured to his companion. ‘Did you hear what that oaf said? Did you hear the carter? He offered you the cart and the hay. And his three horses. What do you say to that?’ ‘Not much. He doesn’t really mean it, you see. If you don’t believe me, go and ask him. Just wait for a moment. You will learn that I am right.’ The carter began to strike his horses on their hindquarters, all the while urging them on with the reins, until finally they began to move. They put their heads down and dragged the cart from the mire. ‘That’s good,’ the carter exclaimed. ‘Jesus Christ bless you! Well done, you dappled beauties! All the saints in heaven preserve you. You have got us free.’ ‘What did I tell you?’ the fiend asked the summoner. ‘This is a lesson for you, dear friend. The carter said one thing, but he thought another. Let’s be on our way. I am going to earn nothing here. This is a waste of time.’

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

  The best title for this sort of religion is 'covenantal nomism'. Since this pattern, when described, explains the reason for the halakah (to determine how to obey the God who chose Israel and gave them commandments), what lies behind debates on various points (e.g. why God chose Israel and how various sins are atoned for), and also coheres with numerous explicit statements by the Rabbis themselves (all Israel will be saved, God will keep his promises to Israel, he will keep one's soul at the time of death and the like), I conclude that the pattern is not a false imposition on the material but actually reflects the view of religion which lies behind it. We should pay special attention to the covenant conception in Rabbinic literature. The covenant, especially God's side, is more presupposed than directly discussed, but the very existence of the halakah, which discusses man's side, gives a first indication that God's side was presupposed, not forgotten or ignored as has often been maintained. The centrality of the covenant conception, as we have indicated above, is in part shown by the assumption which lies behind the discussions of atonement. Atonement implies the restoration to a pre-existing relationship, and that relationship is best called covenantal. The Rabbis can say that God is faithful to keep the covenant with Israel (section 4 n. 88), but they often employ other termin- ology. Instead of 'accept the covenant', one often finds 'confess the exodus' in passages which indicate that one who wishes to be counted among those chosen and redeemed by God will consequently accept ('confess') the covenantal commandments (above, p. 94). Often the Rabbis speak of God as King, not an oriental despot who rules without consent, but one who solicits assent by first saving and protecting the people, and who only then gives commandments (the· beginning of section 4). Thus the Rabbis can remark that a man accepts the 'Kingship of Heaven' when he agrees to obey II] Conclusion 237 the commandments (section 5 n. 84), or that one accepts 'the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven' before accepting the 'yoke of the commandments' (Berakoth 2.2). In slightly different terminology, the one who accepts the commandments accepts the yoke of Heaven (section 4 n. 39). The very frequent theme of accepting God's commandments as indicating that one accepts being in God's 'Kingdom' or under his 'yoke' (not as earning one's place in the Kingdom) well conveys the Rabbinic conception of the covenant, to use the most convenient single word.

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

  1 ss Ringgren (Faith o/Qumran, p. 123) correctly observes that 'it is doubtful ... whether the concept of predestination may be carried so far' as Licht would do. He continues, 'Forgiveness is a gift of God, it is true, but at the same time, it is inseparably connected with repenting of sin and a proper frame of mind.' 156 On the future life, see especially the discussion by Delcor, Hymnes, pp. 58-61. He takes IQH 6.29-39 to be decisive in favour of a hope for resurrection. 5] Fulfilment and transgression 295 member of the sect. How clear is the context of gratuity and how impossible self-salvation may be seen by considering briefly the passages which seem to affirm an idea of salvation by works. CD 3.14-16 mentions the ordinances established by God 'which man shall do and live thereby' (quoting Lev. 18.5). But it is clear that human obedience, although necessary, does not initially open the path to salvation, for God brings man into the right path by pardoning his transgressions and building 'a sure house in Israel' (3.18f.). Even in CD 7. 5f., where life 'for a thousand generations' is promised to those who walk perfectly in the ordinances of the covenant, it is clear that what is required is the strict keeping of the covenant given by God: it is the covenant which assures its members of life, while obedience keeps one in the covenant (so also CD 14.1f.). Most characteristic is IQfl 13.16-18: the righteous man receives 'everlasting peace and length of days', but he is righteous only by God's goodness. God's grace and the requirement of performance on the part of man are both stressed so strongly in the Scrolls that it is difficult to state the precise relationship between grace and works. It will be helpful to consider the formulations of three other scholars. This is Burrows's formulation: 'The sons of light are saved by the faithful study and observance of the law, but they are able to keep the law only because they have been placed under the dominion of the spirit of light.' 157 I should prefer not to say that they are saved by study and observance. It appears more accurate to say that they are saved by the electing grace of God when it is responded to with repentance and commitment, and that they keep the commandments, with God's help, as a consequence of the election and as a condition for remaining in the coven- ant. Schulz formulates the sect's theology by posing the question of how a member can be saved.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Gen 18:1–8 ; 19:1–3 ; Judg 6:11–24 ; 13:6–20 ] 3 Remember those who are in prison, as if you were their fellow prisoner, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body [and subject to physical suffering]. 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all [that is, regarded as something of great value], and the marriage bed undefiled [by immorality or by any sexual sin]; for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. 5 Let your character [your moral essence, your inner nature] be free from the love of money [shun greed—be financially ethical], being content with what you have; for He has said, “I WILL NEVER [under any circumstances] DESERT YOU [nor give you up nor leave you without support, nor will I in any degree leave you helpless], NOR WILL I FORSAKE or LET YOU DOWN or RELAX MY HOLD ON YOU [assuredly not]!” [Josh 1:5 ] 6 So we take comfort and are encouraged and confidently say, “THE LORD IS MY HELPER [in time of need], I WILL NOT BE AFRAID . WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME ?” [Ps 27:1 ; 118:6 ] 7 Remember your leaders [for it was they] who brought you the word of God; and consider the result of their conduct [the outcome of their godly lives], and imitate their faith [their conviction that God exists and is the Creator and Ruler of all things, the Provider of eternal salvation through Christ, and imitate their reliance on God with absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness]. 8 Jesus Christ is [eternally changeless, always] the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be established and strengthened by grace and not by foods [rules of diet and ritualistic meals], which bring no benefit or spiritual growth to those who observe them. 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle (sacred tent) have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. [Lev 16:27 ] 12 Therefore Jesus also suffered and died outside the [city] gate so that He might sanctify and set apart for God as holy the people [who believe] through [the shedding of] His own blood. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the a camp, bearing His contempt [the disgrace and shame that He had to suffer]. [Lev 16:27 ] 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. God-pleasing Sacrifices 15 Through Him, therefore, let us at all times offer up to God a sacrifice of praise, which is the fruit of lips that thankfully acknowledge and confess and glorify His name.

• From Another Country (1962)

  “How do you do?” She gave him her hand, briefly. The brevity was not due to discourtesy or coldness, simply to lack of habit. Insofar as she saw him at all, she saw him as Rufus’ friend, one of the inhabitants of the world in which her son had chosen to live. “Sit down, do. Ida’ll be right out.” “She ready?” “Lord, she been getting ready for days. Done drove me nearly wild.” They sat down. Vivaldo sat near the window which looked out on a dirty back yard and the back fire escape of other buildings. Across the way, a dark man sat in front of his half-open window, staring out. In spite of the cold, he wore nothing but an undershirt. There was nothing in the yard except cans, bottles, papers, filth, and a single tree. “If anything had happened and you hadn’t showed up, I hate to think of the weeping and wailing that would have gone on in this house.” She paused and looked toward the door which led to the rest of the apartment. “Maybe you boys like a little beer while you waiting?” “That all you got to offer us?” Rufus asked, with a smile. “Where’s Bert?” “Bert’s down to the store and he ain’t back yet. You know how your father is. He going to be sorry he missed you.” She turned to Vivaldo. “Would you like a glass of beer, son? I’m sorry we ain’t got nothing else—–” “Oh, beer’s fine,” said Vivaldo, looking at Rufus, “I’d love a glass of beer.” She rose and walked into the kitchen. “What your friend do? He a musician?” “Naw,” said Rufus, “he ain’t got no talent.” Vivaldo blushed. Mrs. Scott returned with a quart bottle of beer and three glasses. She had a remarkably authoritative and graceful walk. “Don’t you mind my boy,” she said, “he’s just full of the devil, he can’t help it. I been trying to knock it out of him, but I ain’t had much luck.” She smiled at Vivaldo as she poured his beer. “You look kind of shy. Don’t you be shy. You just feel as welcome here as if you was in your own house, you hear?” And she handed him his glass. “Thank you,” said Vivaldo. He took a swallow of the beer, thinking she’d probably be surprised to know how unwelcome he felt in his own house. And then, again, perhaps she wouldn’t be surprised at all. “You look as though you dressed up to go out someplace, too, old lady.” “Oh,” she said, deprecatingly, “I’m just going down the block to see Mrs. Braithwaite. You remember her girl, Vickie? Well, she done had her baby. We going to the hospital to visit her.” “Vickie got a baby? Already?” “Well, the young folks don’t wait these days, you know that.” She laughed and sipped her beer. Rufus looked over at Vivaldo with a frown. “Damn,” he said. “How’s she doing?”

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  [Gen 2:2 ] 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest [of God, to know and experience it for ourselves], so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience [as those who died in the wilderness]. 12 For the word of God is living and active and full of power [making it operative, energizing, and effective]. It is sharper than any two-edged b sword, penetrating as far as the division of the c soul and spirit [the completeness of a person], and of both joints and marrow [the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and judging the very thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And not a creature exists that is concealed from His sight, but all things are open and exposed, and revealed to the eyes of Him with whom we have to give account. 14 Inasmuch then as we [believers] have a great High Priest who has [already ascended and] passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession [of faith and cling tenaciously to our absolute trust in Him as Savior]. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize and understand our weaknesses and temptations, but One who has been tempted [knowing exactly how it feels to be human] in every respect as we are, yet without [committing any] sin. 16 Therefore let us [with privilege] approach the throne of grace [that is, the throne of God’s gracious favor] with confidence and without fear, so that we may receive mercy [for our failures] and find [His amazing] grace to help in time of need [an appropriate blessing, coming just at the right moment]. Hebrews 5 The Perfect High Priest 1 F OR EVERY high priest chosen from among men is appointed [to act] on behalf of men in things relating to God, so that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with the spiritually ignorant and misguided, since he is also subject to human weakness; 3 and because of this [human weakness] he is required to offer sacrifices for sins, for himself as well as for the people. 4 And besides, one does not appropriate for himself the honor [of being high priest], but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  19 By this we will know [without any doubt] that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart and quiet our conscience before Him 20 whenever our heart convicts us [in guilt]; for God is greater than our heart and He knows all things [nothing is hidden from Him because we are in His hands]. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not convict us [of guilt], we have confidence [complete assurance and boldness] before God; 22 and we receive from Him whatever we ask because we [carefully and consistently] keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight [habitually seeking to follow His plan for us]. 23 This is His commandment, that we believe [with personal faith and confident trust] in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and [that we unselfishly] love and seek the best for one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who habitually keeps His commandments [obeying His word and following His precepts, abides and] remains in Him, and He in him. By this we know and have the proof that He [really] abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us [as a gift]. 1 John 4 Testing the Spirits 1 B ELOVED, DO not believe every spirit [speaking through a self-proclaimed prophet]; instead test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets and teachers have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know and recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges and confesses [the fact] that Jesus Christ has [actually] come in the flesh [as a man] is from God [God is its source]; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus [acknowledging that He has come in the flesh, but would deny any of the Son’s true nature] is not of God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and is now already in the world. 4 Little children (believers, dear ones), you are of God and you belong to Him and have [already] overcome them [the agents of the antichrist]; because He who is in you is greater than he (Satan) who is in the world [of sinful mankind]. 5 They [who teach twisted doctrine] are of the world and belong to it; therefore they speak from the [viewpoint of the] world [with its immoral freedom and baseless theories—demanding compliance with their opinions and ridiculing the values of the upright], and the [gullible one of the] world listens closely and pays attention to them. 6 We [who teach God’s word] are from God [energized by the Holy Spirit], and whoever knows God [through personal experience] listens to us [and has a deeper understanding of Him]. Whoever is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know [without any doubt] the spirit of truth [motivated by God] and the spirit of error [motivated by Satan].

• From The Decameron (1353)

  It seemed to some of the ladies that to discourse of such a matter would ill beseem them and they prayed him, therefore, to change the theme proposed; wherefore answered he, "Ladies, I am no less cognizant than yourselves of that which I have ordained, and that which you would fain allege to me availed not to deter me from ordaining it, considering that the times are such that, provided men and women are careful to eschew unseemly actions, all liberty of discourse is permitted. Know you not that, for the malignity of the season, the judges have forsaken the tribunals, that the laws, as well Divine as human, are silent and full licence is conceded unto every one for the preservation of his life? Wherefore, if your modesty allow itself some little freedom in discourse, not with intent to ensue it with aught of unseemly in deeds, but to afford yourselves and others diversion, I see not with what plausible reason any can blame you in the future. Moreover, your company, from the first day of our assembling until this present, hath been most decorous, nor, for aught that hath been said here, doth it appear to me that its honour hath anywise been sullied. Again, who is there knoweth not your virtue? Which, not to say mirthful discourse, but even fear of death I do not believe could avail to shake. And to tell you the truth, whosoever should hear that you shrank from devising bytimes of these toys would be apt to suspect that you were guilty in the matter and were therefore unwilling to discourse thereof. To say nothing of the fine honour you would do me in that, I having been obedient unto all, you now, having made me your king, seek to lay down the law to me, and not to discourse of the subject which I propose. Put off, then, this misdoubtance, apter to mean minds than to yours, and good luck to you, let each of you bethink herself of some goodly story to tell." When the ladies heard this, they said it should be as he pleased; whereupon he gave them all leave to do their several pleasures until supper-time.

• From Another Country (1962)

  He opened his eyes. “Are you mad at me, Rufus?” “Shit, no, baby, why should I be mad with you?” But he knew what was bothering Vivaldo. He leaned down and whispered, “Don’t you worry, baby, everything’s cool. I know you’re my friend.” “I love you, you shithead, I really do.” “I love you, too. Now, get on to that hospital, I don’t want you to drop dead in this phony white chick’s bathroom. I’ll wait here for you. I’ll be all right.” Then he walked quickly out of the bathroom. He said to Jane, “Take him to the hospital, he’s hurt worse than I am. I’ll wait here.” She had the sense, then, to say nothing. Vivaldo remained in the hospital for ten days and had three stitches taken in his scalp. In the morning Rufus went uptown to see a doctor and stayed in bed for a week. He and Vivaldo never spoke of this night, and though he knew that Vivaldo had finally begun seeing her again, they never spoke of Jane. But from that time on, Rufus had depended on and trusted Vivaldo—depended on him even now, as he bitterly watched him horsing around with the large girl on the path. He did not know why this was so; he scarcely knew that it was so. Vivaldo was unlike everyone else that he knew in that they, all the others, could only astonish him by kindness or fidelity; it was only Vivaldo who had the power to astonish him by treachery. Even his affair with Jane was evidence in his favor, for if he were really likely to betray his friend for a woman, as most white men seemed to do, especially if the friend were black, then he would have found himself a smoother chick, with the manners of a lady and the soul of a whore. But Jane seemed to be exactly what she was, a monstrous slut, and she thus, without knowing it, kept Rufus and Vivaldo equal to one another. At last Vivaldo was free and hurried toward them on the path still grinning, and now waving to someone behind them. “Look,” he cried, “there’s Cass!” Rufus turned and there she was, sitting alone on the rim of the circle, frail and fair. For him, she was thoroughly mysterious. He could never quite place her in the white world to which she seemed to belong. She came from New England, of plain old American stock—so she put it; she was very fond of remembering that one of her ancestors had been burned as a witch. She had married Richard, who was Polish, and they had two children. Richard had been Vivaldo’s English instructor in high school, years ago. They had known him as a brat, they said—not that he had changed much; they were his oldest friends. With Leona between them, Rufus and Vivaldo crossed the road.

• From Another Country (1962)

  He came back to the bed and sat down; and he said, “Well. Listen. I know about Richard. I don’t altogether believe you when you say that I don’t have anything to do with what’s happening between you and Richard, because obviously I do, I do now, anyway, if only because I’m here.” She started to say something, but he raised his hand to silence her. “But that’s all right. I don’t want to make an issue out of that, I’m not very well placed to defend—conventional morality.” And he smiled. “Something is happening between us which I don’t really understand, but I’m willing to trust it. I have the feeling, somehow, that I must trust it.” He took her hand and raised it to his unshaven cheek. “But I have a lover, too, Cass; a boy, a French boy, and he’s supposed to be coming to New York in a few weeks. I really don’t know what will happen when he gets here, but”—he dropped her hand and rose and paced his room again—“he is coming, and we have been together for over two years. And that means something. Probably, if it hadn’t been for him, I would never have stayed away so long.” And he turned on her now all of his intensity. “No matter what happens, I loved him very much, Cass, and I still do. I don’t think I’ve ever loved anyone quite like that before, and”—he shuddered—“I’m not sure I’ll ever love anyone quite like that again.” She felt not at all frightened by his lover. She remembered the name written in the margin: Yves. But it was better for the name of his lover to fall from his lips. She felt very strangely moved, as though she might be able to help him endure the weight of the boy who had such power over him. “He sounds very remarkable,” she said. “Tell me his name, tell me about him.” He came back to the bed and sat down. His drink was finished, and he sipped from hers. “There isn’t much to tell. His name is Yves.” He paused, “I can’t imagine what he’ll think of the States.” “Or of all of us,” she said. He assented, with a smile. “Or of all of us. I’m not sure I know what I think.” They laughed; she took a sip of her highball; the atmosphere between them began to be easier, as though they were friends. “But—I’m responsible for him when he gets here. He wouldn’t be coming if it weren’t for me.” He looked at her. “He’s the son of somebody he can scarcely remember at all, and his mother runs a bistro in Paris. He hates his mother, or thinks he does.”

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

  But Gentiles cannot be excluded, for God has appointed Christ as Lord of the whole world and as saviour of all who believe, and has especially called and appointed Paul as apostle to the Gentiles. 2. If it is necessary and sufficient to keep the law in order to inherit the promises of God, Christ died in vain and faith is in vain. The two arguments - the inclusion of the Gentiles and the death of Christ - stand together, as we see in Rom. 3.21-26. But it is clearly for these reasons, rather than for any others, that Paul rejects the requirement to keep the law. This means that he did not reject the necessity to keep the law because of a preconceived theory that the law would cease to be valid when the Messiah came (Schweitzer), nor did he reject it because the effort to keep it leads man away from his true self (Bultmann). Both these solutions require Paul's view of the law to be determined by other factors than his conviction that salvation is attained only through Christ. The first requires Paul simply to be following the putative view of Jewish apocalypticism, the second requires him to be following his analysis of man's existential situation. While Paul may have been influenced on many points by apocalypticism, and while he did put forward a penetrating analysis of man's situation, neither of these things seems to have led to his view of the law. The first he never mentions at all in this connection, while the second is the result of his soteriology, not one of the analyses which went toward producing it. That Paul's argument in Rom. l-4 is against the necessity of keeping the law can be confirmed by noting the changing meaning of the noun 'faith' or the verb 'believe'. 51 In Rom. 3.25, for example ('whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith'), 'faith' means accepting the gratuity of salvation. In Rom 4. 16-23, however, the 'faith' terminology means 'trust that God will do what he promises'. Thus Abraham in hope 'believed against hope' (4. 18), and 'he did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body'. Abraham's faith is contrasted with 'distrust', as the RSV correctly translates apistia in Rom. 4.20.

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

  All did not depend upon man's own ability, will or determination in fulfilling the commandments, important as these were; but one could tum to God for help and strength, in the confi- dence that God hears prayer, 111 grants man repentance, forgives sin, and will ultimately save those who trust in him. The tone of the 'Amidah, and consequently of the daily prayer life of the Rabbis, is aptly described by Heinemann: The shemone-'esre as a whole is constructed according to the pattern of a plea of 'a servant before his master'. However, the 'praise' is restrained; nor is there an exaggerated stress on the lowliness of the suppliant. God is addressed unhesi- tatingly in the Thou-style, and the relationship between Him and man is seen both as an. intimate one of mutual love as between father and son, and as one of dependence and awe. 112 We have seen, then, that the Rabbis emphasized as strongly as possible the necessity of obeying God's commandments to the best of one's ability. 106 This appears in comments in the Palestinian Talmud on Berakoth 4.4: 'R. Eliezer [the P.T. has Eleazar! says: He that makes his prayer fixed, his prayer is no supplication.' The Talmud has various comments, including the following: 'R. Al.ta said in the name ofR. Jose: It is necessary to add something new to it each day.' 'R. Abbahu used to make a new benediction each day.' P. Berakoth Sa, near end (4.3; cf. ET, pp. 88f.). Zeitlin has argued that while the Temple stood there were no fixed forms or fixed times for private prayer. The fixing of both was after 70 c.e. See Rise and Fall of theJudaean State II, pp. 33~f., and further references there. 07 Besides Berakoth 4.4, cited in the preceding footnote, see Aboth 2.I3, in the name ofR. Simeon (b. Nathaniel): 'When thou prayest make not thy prayer fixed, but [a plea for] mercies and supplications before God'. CT. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten I, p. Io3. Hirsch,]£ XI, p. 227, incorrectly attributes this saying to R. Simeon b. Yohai. 168 The fifth benediction, translated from the text given by Finkelstein, 'Amidah', p. I47· Cf. ibid., pp. I I, 13, I8. Elbogen (Geschichte des Achtzehngebets, I903, p. 19) placed this prayer among the earliest. 109 The sixth benediction; see Finkelstein, ibid., pp. 147,I8. The fifth and sixth benedictions are both dated by Finkelstein to the period 10-40 c.e. 110 The seventeenth (or sixteenth) benediction; ibid., p. 16I. Finkelstein considers the prayer pre- Maccabean. 111 On the point that God is accessible in prayer, see especially Sifre Num. 42 (45; to 6.26). 112 Heinemann, Tefillah, English summary, p. xii.

• From Another Country (1962)

  “Shit, no, baby, why should I be mad with you?” But he knew what was bothering Vivaldo. He leaned down and whispered, “Don’t you worry, baby, everything’s cool. I know you’re my friend.” “I love you, you shithead, I really do.” “I love you, too. Now, get on to that hospital, I don’t want you to drop dead in this phony white chick’s bathroom. I’ll wait here for you. I’ll be all right.” Then he walked quickly out of the bathroom. He said to Jane, “Take him to the hospital, he’s hurt worse than I am. I’ll wait here.” She had the sense, then, to say nothing. Vivaldo remained in the hospital for ten days and had three stitches taken in his scalp. In the morning Rufus went uptown to see a doctor and stayed in bed for a week. He and Vivaldo never spoke of this night, and though he knew that Vivaldo had finally begun seeing her again, they never spoke of Jane. But from that time on, Rufus had depended on and trusted Vivaldo—depended on him even now, as he bitterly watched him horsing around with the large girl on the path. He did not know why this was so; he scarcely knew that it was so. Vivaldo was unlike everyone else that he knew in that they, all the others, could only astonish him by kindness or fidelity; it was only Vivaldo who had the power to astonish him by treachery. Even his affair with Jane was evidence in his favor, for if he were really likely to betray his friend for a woman, as most white men seemed to do, especially if the friend were black, then he would have found himself a smoother chick, with the manners of a lady and the soul of a whore. But Jane seemed to be exactly what she was, a monstrous slut, and she thus, without knowing it, kept Rufus and Vivaldo equal to one another. At last Vivaldo was free and hurried toward them on the path still grinning, and now waving to someone behind them. “Look,” he cried, “there’s Cass!” Rufus turned and there she was, sitting alone on the rim of the circle, frail and fair. For him, she was thoroughly mysterious. He could never quite place her in the white world to which she seemed to belong. She came from New England, of plain old American stock—so she put it; she was very fond of remembering that one of her ancestors had been burned as a witch. She had married Richard, who was Polish, and they had two children. Richard had been Vivaldo’s English instructor in high school, years ago. They had known him as a brat, they said—not that he had changed much; they were his oldest friends. With Leona between them, Rufus and Vivaldo crossed the road.

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

  105 It is rather the case, as Kadushin put it, that 'rabbinic thought is dominated ... by the idea of God's love rather than by the idea of his justice'. 106 If one asks how the idea that God is just and pays to each his due is to be reconciled into a doctrinal unity with the statement that God's mercy predominates over his justice, the answer is, as before, that this is not a doctrinal system in which every statement has a logical place. One thing or the other would be said depending on the particular needs of the instance. But there should be no doubt that the latter type of statement -that mercy outweighs justice -reflects the Rabbinic attitude towards God at its most basic level. The statements that God pays what is due are partly for exhorta- tive purposes, but also rest, as we have repeatedly stated, on the firm convic- tion that God is reasonable and just. 107 But the Rabbis also thought that is much more frequent in the Tannaitic literature; see the concordances. See further Urbach, lfazal, pp. 396-400 (ET, pp. 448-52). Kadushin (Tht Rabbinic Mind, p. 219) considers middah {obah and middat pur 'anut to be sub-concepts of middat ha-din. This seems to be logical. But one must note (a) that similar things are said about middat ra~amim and middah {obah; the latter is not treated as a sub-concept of the former; (b) that middat ra~amim and middat ha-din tend to replace the other pair. 101 Tsedaqah is taken here, as elsewhere, to refer to God's charity or mercy toward man. See below, section 8. 102 Tan~uma Noah 8 (ed. Buber, vol. I, p. 34). Cited, but not quoted, by Marmorstein, The Names and Attributes of God, p. 44. 103 Sifre Num. 134 (p. 180). This section is actually a midrash on Deur. 3.24ff. and is from a different source. See Epstein, Mebo' ot, pp. 6oof. And see Schechter, Aspects, p. 323, on God's right hand (the strong one) representing mercy while the left hand represents strict justice. 104 P. Taanith 65b (2.1), cited by Marmorstein, ad loc. 105 TDNT II, p. 204. Similarly Roetzel, Judgement in the Community, p. 56: the severity of God's jud~ent 'was tempered by a slight emphasis on mercy'. 1 6 The Rabbinic Mind, p. 219. 101 Brocke ('Tun und Lohn', p. 168) argued that the insistence on God's being a just judge was a response to Epicurean popular philosophy, according to which the gods are indifferent to man's action, and also to Sadduceanism. He cites A both 2.1 ; 2. 15; 4.22. 6] Reward and punishment and the world to come 125 God was unfailingly merciful. The Rabbis never said that God is merciful in such a way as to remove the necessity of obeying him, but they did think that God was merciful toward those who basically intended to obey, even though their performance might have been a long way from perfect.

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

  137 22. Revelation: The Apocalypse of John Irony is at work here. Revelation says it was written by someone named John but without any further identifying marks. It doesn’t say “John son of Zebedee” or “John the disciple of Jesus.” Meanwhile, the Gospel of John says absolutely nothing about its author, but it was attributed to John, son of Zebedee, in early Christian tradition. Even though it’s clear about who wrote it, the authorship of Revelation has become pegged to that of the fourth gospel, while the fourth gospel’s authorship is entirely invented. That is, it’s far more accurate to talk about the Apocalypse of John—as Revelation is often called—than it is to talk about the Gospel of John. Revelation is by a John but not that John, while the Gospel of John isn’t by any John at all. In sum, Revelation is best described as having been written by John of Pátmos at the end of the 1st century. Attribution and Trust Out of all of the apocalyptic texts produced around the turn of the era, only two made it into the Bible: Daniel and Revelation. Daniel made the pretense of being from the Babylonian exile, and its visions were attributed to this heroic figure from its own narratives and perhaps from ancient Israelite and Canaanite mythology. Meanwhile, Revelation was by some guy named John on an island. At a time when most apocalyptic texts were attributed to famous figures from the Bible, no wonder early readers turned this John into the well-known gospel one. In a sense, Revelation might have been better off had its author remained entirely anonymous. Perhaps it would have come to be associated with some established figure—exactly as the Gospel of John had been. Something about attribution is peculiar to apocalyptic, which is a genre built on a double layer of trust. Within the text, the one who receives the visions has to trust that they are being explained correctly by the figure who’s been sent to interpret them. And outside the text, the reader has to trust that the person who is telling them of these visions is legitimate. Apocalypses are often said to come from known biblical figures because these visions—granted by divine power and interpreted by a divine figure—can’t come to just anyone.

• From The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

  But from our point of view, these difficulties disappear. Religion ceases to be an inexplicable hallucination and takes a foothold in reality. In fact, we can say that the believer is not deceived when he believes in the existence of a moral power upon which he depends and from which he receives all that is best in himself: this power exists, it is society. When the Australian is carried outside himself and feels a new life flowing within him whose intensity surprises him, he is not the dupe of an illusion; this exaltation is real and is really the effect of forces outside of and superior to the individual. It is true that he is wrong in thinking that this increase of vitality is the work of a power in the form of some animal or plant. But this error is merely in regard to the letter of the symbol by which this being is represented to the mind and the external appearance which the imagination has given it, and not in regard to the fact of its existence. Behind these figures and metaphors, be they gross or refined, there is a concrete and living reality. Thus religion acquires a meaning and a reasonableness that the most intransigent rationalist cannot misunderstand. Its primary object is not to give men a representation of the physical world; for if that were its essential task, we could not understand how it has been able to survive, for, on this side, it is scarcely more than a fabric of errors. Before all, it is a system of ideas with which the individuals represent to themselves the society of which they are members, and the obscure but intimate relations which they have with it. This is its primary function; and though metaphorical and symbolic, this representation is not unfaithful. Quite on the contrary, it translates everything essential in the relations which are to be explained: for it is an eternal truth that outside of us there exists something greater than us, with which we enter into communion.

• From The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

  On the other hand, it is not at all true that concepts, even when constructed according to the rules of science, get their authority uniquely from their objective value. It is not enough that they be true to be believed. If they are not in harmony with the other beliefs and opinions, or, in a word, with the mass of the other collective representations, they will be denied; minds will be closed to them; consequently it will be as though they did not exist. To-day it is generally sufficient that they bear the stamp of science to receive a sort of privileged credit, because we have faith in science. But this faith does not differ essentially from religious faith. In the last resort, the value which we attribute to science depends upon the idea which we collectively form of its nature and rôle in life; that is as much as to say that it expresses a state of public opinion. In all social life, in fact, science rests upon opinion. It is undoubtedly true that this opinion can be taken as the object of a study and a science made of it; this is what sociology principally consists in. But the science of opinion does not make opinions; it can only observe them and make them more conscious of themselves. It is true that by this means it can lead them to change, but science continues to be dependent upon opinion at the very moment when it seems to be making its laws; for, as we have already shown, it is from opinion that it holds the force necessary to act upon opinion.[1312]

• From The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

  The first religious conceptions have often been attributed to feelings of weakness and dependence, of fear and anguish which seized men when they came into contact with the world. Being the victims of nightmares of which they were themselves the creators, they believed themselves surrounded by hostile and redoubtable powers which their rites sought to appease. We have now shown that the first religions were of a wholly different origin. The famous formula _Primus in orbe deos fecit timor_ is in no way justified by the facts. The primitive does not regard his gods as foreigners, enemies or thoroughly and necessarily malevolent beings whose favours he must acquire at any price; quite on the contrary, they are rather friends, kindred or natural protectors for him. Are these not the names he gives to the beings of the totemic species? The power to which the cult is addressed is not represented as soaring high above him and overwhelming him by its superiority; on the contrary, it is very near to him and confers upon him very useful powers which he could never acquire by himself. Perhaps the deity has never been nearer to men than at this period of history, when it is present in the things filling their immediate environment and is, in part, imminent in himself. In fine, the sentiments at the root of totemism are those of happy confidence rather than of terror and compression. If we set aside the funeral rites--the sober side of every religion--we find the totemic cult celebrated in the midst of songs, dances and dramatic representations. As we shall see, cruel expiations are relatively rare; even the painful and obligatory mutilations of the initiations are not of this character. The terrible and jealous gods appear but slowly in the religious evolution. This is because primitive societies are not those huge Leviathans which overwhelm a man by the enormity of their power and place him under a severe discipline;[711] he gives himself up to them spontaneously and without resistance. As the social soul is then made up of only a small number of ideas and sentiments, it easily becomes wholly incarnate in each individual consciousness. The individual carries it all inside of him; it is a part of him and consequently, when he gives himself up to the impulses inspired by it, he does not feel that he is giving way before compulsion, but that he is going where his nature calls him.[712] This way of understanding the origins of religious thought escapes the objections raised against the most accredited classical theories.

• From The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

  So we must be careful not to consider totemism a sort of animal worship. The attitude of a man towards the animals or plants whose name he bears is not at all that of a believer towards his god, for he belongs to the sacred world himself. Their relations are rather those of two beings who are on the same level and of equal value. The most that can be said is that in certain cases, at least, the animal seems to occupy a slightly more elevated place in the hierarchy of sacred things. It is because of this that it is sometimes called the father or the grandfather of the men of the clan, which seems to show that they feel themselves in a state of moral dependence in regard to it.[416] But in other, and perhaps even more frequent cases, it happens that the expressions used denote rather a sentiment of equality. The totemic animal is called the friend or the elder brother of its human fellows.[417] Finally, the bonds which exist between them and it are much more like those which unite the members of a single family; the animals and the men are made of the same flesh, as the Buandik say.[418] On account of this kinship, men regard the animals of the totemic species as kindly associates upon whose aid they think they can rely. They call them to their aid[419] and they come, to direct their blows in the hunt and to give warning of whatever dangers there may be.[420] In return for this, men treat them with regard and are never cruel to them;[421] but these attentions in no way resemble a cult.

• From The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

  It is because faith has this origin that it is, in a sense, "impermeable to experience."[1183] If the intermittent failures of the Intichiuma do not shake the confidence of the Australian in his rite, it is because he holds with all the strength of his soul to these practices in which he periodically recreates himself; he could not deny their principle without causing an upheaval of his own being, which resists. But howsoever great this force of resistance may be, it cannot radically distinguish religious mentality from the other forms of human mentality, even those which are the most habitually opposed to it. In this connection, that of a scholar differs from the preceding only in degree. When a scientific law has the authority of numerous and varied experiments, it is against all method to renounce it too quickly upon the discovery of a fact which seems to contradict it. It is still necessary to make sure that the fact does not allow of a single interpretation, and that it is impossible to account for it, without abandoning the proposition which it seems to invalidate. Now the Australian does not proceed otherwise when he attributes the failure of the Intichiuma to some sorcery, or the abundance of a premature crop to a mystic Intichiuma celebrated in the beyond. He has all the more reason for not doubting his rite on the belief in a contrary fact, since its value is, or seems to be, established by a larger number of harmonizing facts. In the first place, the moral efficacy of the ceremony is real and is felt directly by all who participate in it; there is a constantly renewed experience in it, whose importance no contradictory experience can diminish. Also, the physical efficacy itself is not unable to find an at least apparent confirmation in the data of objective observation. As a matter of fact, the totemic species normally does reproduce regularly; so in the great majority of cases, everything happens just as if the ritual gestures really did produce the effects expected of them. Failures are the exception. As the rites, and especially those which are periodical, demand nothing more of nature than that it follow its ordinary course, it is not surprising that it should generally have the air of obeying them. So if the believer shows himself indocile to certain lessons of experience, he does so because of other experiences which seem more demonstrative. The scholar does not do otherwise; only he introduces more method.