In whatever way one judges the detailed exegesis of Origen and Ambrose, its deepest basis was neither Hellenistic allegory, nor Philo nor rabbinic methods
(338) Cf 1 Co 6:9-11; Ep 4:17-19. For ritual mutilations, cf. Lv 21:5; 1 K ; Is 15:2; Ho 7:14.
(340) In Greek, for “to them belong” there is a simple genitive twice, which expresses possession (literally: “of whom [are]”); for “from them comes” there is a genitive introduced by the preposition ex which expresses origin.
(348) Paul VI, homily of or adhibeatur spesque in iis collocetur”: (“that there be respect and love towards them and that hope is placed in them”).
Strictly speaking, – leaving aside the details of interpretation – its basis was the New Testament itself. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the true heir to the Old Testament – “the Scriptures” – and to offer a true interpretation, which, admittedly, was not that of the schools, but came from the authority of the Author himself: “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mk 1:22). The Emmaus narrative also expresses this claim: “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures” (Lk ). The New Testament authors sought to ground this claim into details, in particular Matthew, but Paul as well, by using rabbinic methods of interpretation to show that the scribal interpretation led to Christ as the key to the “Scriptures”. Continue reading “In Dt “dog” designates a prostitute; in Greece, the dog was a symbol of lewdness”