Importance of Original Sin

quote:

---

If that's what Jesus meant, that ALL of us are to give it all away, the entire Church would have known it and preached it from the beginning. It was addressed to that particular man Jesus was talking to, and to anyone else who feels the Holy Spirit calling him to that life, it is NOT for all of us.

---

But, the first several chapters of Acts might just be saying that.About the Church.

It does seem that the later councils decided on GIVING SOME OF IT TO JERUSALEM AND JAMES but what does "remember the poor" mean in Galatians 2?Does it mean the Evyon (Poor) as in the Jewish Christians of James?Or poor people?In Galatians 1:13, Paul said he persecuted the "Church of God"At the time of Acts, everything was given to "The Church" before Paul caused a scattering.(Jesus also said to give everything to "The Poor" or "the poor" in the Gospels)Then in Acts 12:17, James seems to burst onto the scene as the leader of Jerusalem Christians.The Apostolic Council was Acts 2. (editing, 10:11 central time, to correct this to Acts 15)Galatians 2, mentions the Apostolic Council, which was about the old law, and the "remember the poor" was a decision reached (on the tithing issue?).What happened (all along and in any sequence) is murky.It seems like James and the Jerusalem community were not scattered by Paul's persecution, like the "early Church", but James became the leader of The Church after the scattering and conversion of Paul.Paul went straight to Jerusalem and visited James.The 100% of income being given to the church vanished, as far as we know, and there was simply a collection for Jerusalem.(We don't know what happened)Regardless, it seemed like more of a James & Paul idea.(Jesus had a different idea, one more akin to a 100% of income, houses, possessions, etc. being turned over to either The Church or the poor)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

We need to ask what the goals might have been, and then whether they were put off until another time.(there is evidence of land ownership among the family of Jesus AFTER 100 A.D. so read on)Faith said:

quote:

---

Again, if that was to be a rule for all believers it would have been preached to all of us all these centuries and practiced by all and it wasn't. That's because you are pointing to particular specific events in the history of the Church that were not meant to be rules or commands, and imposing a false interpretation on them.

---

Julius Africanus and Hegesippus lived during the early 3rd century (Hegesippius was born in the first half of the second), and it seems like the known family of Jesus was still alive and living in Nazareth and the Galilee area 200 A.D.Richard Bauckham already was recognized as a groundbreaking conservative scholar, after his 2006 book argued for the Gospel writers (including The author of the Gospel of John) being credible "eyewitnesses", when he retired in 2007 to devote himself fulltime to research and writing.I will take quotes from Bauckham's very words from 2 sites. Richard J. Bauckham on The Relatives of Jesus | katachristonBiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard BauckhamHe said this:(note the "fact" word)

quote:

---

Careful readers of the NT know that one of Jesus' relatives, his brother James, played a prominent part in the early history of the church. Not so well known is the fact that other members of the family were also important figures and continued to exercise leadership in Palestinian Jewish Christianity down to at least the early second century.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

A "fact".

quote:

---

Jesus’ brother James, whose importance as a Christian leader of the first generation is equaled only by that of Peter and Paul, quickly became prominent in the leadership of the Jerusalem church and then its unique head until his martyrdom in 62. Since the Jerusalem church was the mother church of all the churches and by many early Christians accorded a central authority over the whole Christian movement, James played a key role throughout the Christian movement. In the letter of James he writes from this position of central authority in Jerusalem to Jewish Christians throughout the Diaspora. Many references to him (e.g., Gos. Thom. 12) and works associated with him in early Christian literature outside the NT also attest the remarkable impact he made.

​

After James’s death (whether immediately or after 70 is unclear) his cousin Simeon son of Clopas succeeded him as leader of the Jerusalem church. Simeon occupied this position for at least forty years, until he was put to death by the Roman authorities on a charge of political subversion, since he belonged to a Davidic family (either between 99 and 103 or between 108 and 117; Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.11; 3.32.6; 4.22.4). It is possible but not certain that the third leader of the Jerusalem church, named in the Jerusalem bishops’ lists as either Justus or Judas, was also a relative of Jesus.

​

Richard J. Bauckham on The Relatives of Jesus | katachriston

---

The defense against "political subversion" involved a description of land owned by the family.Here is Hegesippus.

quote:

---

we must turn to Hegesippus, who lived in Palestine in the mid-second century and recorded some local Jewish Christian traditions about relatives of Jesus.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

More on what he said later.But first, Julius Africanus.

quote:

---

This comes from Julius Africanus, who lived at Emmaus in the early third century and reports, as coming from the relatives of Jesus, information which he probably took from a written source of Palestinian Jewish Christian origin. He says that the relatives of Jesus were known as the desposynoi, a term which means 'those who belong to the Master [or Sovereign: despotes]'. He explains how they were one of those Jewish families who had preserved their genealogy when Herod burned the public genealogical records. He then reports:

​

From the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba they travelled around the rest of the land and interpreted the genealogy they had [from the family traditions] and from the Book of Days [i.e. Chronicles] as far as they could trace it.[13]

​

The meaning is probably that members of the family of Jesus, travelling around the land of Israel and preaching the gospel to their fellow-Jews, used a family genealogy, like that in Luke 3:23-38, as a way of explaining the Christian claim that Jesus was the messianic Son of David.[14] Kokhaba is most likely the Galilean village of that name (modern Kaukab), about ten miles north of Nazareth. It may have been, like Nazareth, a traditional home of members of the family. But the significance of the two villages, as the centres from which the mission of the desposynoi operated, may also lie in their names. They may have been given special messianic significance because each can be related to one of the most popular texts of Davidic messianism. Nazareth could be connected with the messianic Branch (neser) from the roots of Jesse (Is. 11:1), while Kokhaba, meaning 'star', recalls the prophecy of the messianic Star from Jacob (Nu. 24:17).

​

This information from Julius Africanus is of great interest. It gives us a very rare glimpse of Christianity in Galilee, showing us that not only Jerusalem, where James was leader, but also Nazareth and Kokhaba, where other members of the family were based, were significant centres of early Christianity in Jewish Palestine. Moreover, it preserves the term desposynoi, not found in any other source. Julius Africanus has to explain what it means, and clearly it is not a term he would himself have used had he not found it in his source. It must be the term by which members of the family of Jesus were known in those Palestinian Jewish Christian circles in which they were revered leaders. It demonstrates that not only 'the brothers of the Lord', but also a wider circle of relatives - 'the Master's people' - played a prominent leadership role.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

This is one important source which shows us that there was AVALIABLE tradition, in 200 A.D., that was not only Galilean Jewish but was actually from the descendants of Jesus!The relatives were prominent leaders until after 100 A.D.Back to Hegesippus, and his report of Simeon (Simon), the son of Clopas, successor of James who lead the Jerusalem Church for over least 40 years, until his death during Trajan's rule (Simon of Jerusalem died between 99 and 103 A.D. or between 108 and 117 CE).

quote:

---

The historically reliable information in the account is that Simeon was arrested on a charge of political subversion, because he was of a Davidic family and supported the alleged Davidic king Jesus, and was put to death by crucifixion. This fits well into the period between the two great Jewish revolts, when the Roman authorities in Palestine were highly sensitive to the dangers of Jewish political nationalism.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

Now the issue of land ownership among the family of Jesus comes up in what is probably a reliable historical record.

quote:

---

Evidently also important leaders in Palestinian Jewish Christianity in the late first century were two grandsons of the Lord's brother Jude, called Zoker and James.[17] According to Hegesippus,[18] they too came under suspicion, since they were descendants of David, and were brought before the emperor Domitian himself. When asked about their possessions,

​

they said that between the two of them they had only nine thousand denarii, half belonging to each of them; and this they asserted they had not as money, but only in thirty-nine plethra of land, so valued, from which by their own labour they both paid the taxes and supported themselves.

​

To prove that they were hard-working peasant farmers, they showed their tough bodies and the hardened skin of their hands. They also explained that the kingdom of Christ was not earthly (and so, Hegesippus implies, not a kingdom whose supporters would rebel against the empire) but coming at the end of history. Convinced they were harmless and despising them as mere peasants, Domitian released them, and ordered the persecution against Christians to cease.

​

Several features of Hegesippus's account, such as the trial before Domitian himself, are historically improbable, and the story has a strong apologetic thrust. It is concerned to show that Jewish Christianity was not a politically dangerous movement by representing the emperor Domitian as himself recognizing this. It is hard to tell what kernel of historical truth may lie behind the legend. But it is certainly a legend about real historical persons.

​

Apart from the information that members of the third generation of the family of Jesus were still active in Christian leadership, the most interesting aspect of the story is what it tells us about the farm which the two brothers held in partnership. The size and value given are so specific and precise that it is likely that they rest on accurate tradition. The size of the farm would have been remembered, not because an accurate report of what Zoker and James said to Domitian was preserved, but because the size of the family's smallholding in Nazareth was well-known in Palestinian Jewish Christian circles at this time. The farm was not divided between the brothers, but owned jointly, no doubt because this family continued the old Jewish tradition of keeping a smallholding undivided as the joint property of the 'father's house', rather than dividing it between heirs. So, two generations back, this farm would have belonged to Joseph and his brother Clopas. Unfortunately, because there are two possible sizes of the plethron, it seems impossible to be sure of the size of the farm: it may be either about 24 acres or about 12 acres. In either case, this is not much land to support two families, and Joseph had at least seven children to feed. So it is not surprising that he (and Jesus) supplemented the family income by working as a carpenter. As in the case of many village artisans, Joseph's trade was not an alternative to working the land, but a way of surviving when the family smallholding could no longer fully support the family. It did not necessarily put Jesus' family any higher on the social ladder than most of the peasant farmers of Nazareth.

​

After Zoker, James and Simeon the son of Clopas the family of Jesus disappears into the obscurity that envelops the subsequent history of Jewish Christianity in Palestine.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

What does all of this tell us?It tells us that the family of Jesus (descendants of his brother Jude, which was the very same brother that the New Testament book of "Jude" was written in the name of) was using land ownership as proof that the (PROBABLY known - to the Romans - political goals of Jesus) socialistic governmental goals were not being implemented at the time of the Roman Empire during the period just after 100 A.D.Our knowledge of this period is murky.Protestants and Catholics afford the teachings from James and the Jewish Christians NO DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY when it comes to interpreting or understanding Jesus.The Protestants and Catholics have another doctrinal authority: The Roman Empire Councils.But, remember that the power that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the protestants (and not just the Anglicans) attribute to the ethnic-European bishops, might have been based on the actual powers and "office" of Jesus' brother James.

quote:

---

We know most about James, but since his role as leader of the Jerusalem church is quite well known, we will pass over him rather rapidly here.[10] Already an important figure when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:19), he seems to have risen to a position of unique pre-eminence in the Jerusalem church after the Twelve were depleted and dispersed, so that they no longer formed the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, and especially after Peter ceased to be permanently resident in the city (see Acts 12:1-17). Later writers called him 'bishop' of Jerusalem, and although the term may be anachronistic, he seems to have been more like a later monarchical bishop than anyone else in the period of the first Christian generation. But his role was by no means confined to Jerusalem. Since the Jerusalem church was the mother church of all the churches, and was naturally accorded the same kind of central authority over the whole Christian movement that Jerusalem and the temple had long had for the Jewish people, James now occupied a position of unrivalled importance in the whole early Christian movement.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

We have a genuine "Papal" type of office and it should be something all self-described "Christians" see as a legitimate authority when it comes to representing Jesus' own views.It can be seen as perhaps a (aspiring) governmental office, and it would be theocratic in nature.

quote:

---

The second 'bishop' of Jerusalem, after James, was Simeon or Simon (both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of his name are found), the son of Clopas.[15] Probably this was not a matter of strict dynastic succession, as though he was considered next in line to succeed. After all, James could never have been considered 'successor' to his brother Jesus. But a kind of dynastic feeling, which was natural for people of the time, who were used to associating authority with a family rather than a mere individual, must have had some weight in the appointment of Simeon. The model which perhaps best explains the role of Jesus' relatives in the leadership of the Palestinian church is not that of dynastic succession, but that of the association of a ruler's family with him in government. Just as it was normal practice in the ancient Near East for members of the royal family to hold high offices in government, so Palestinian Jewish Christians felt it appropriate that Jesus' brothers, cousins and other relatives should hold positions of authority in his church. Indeed, the term desposynoi ('those who belong to the Sovereign') could well have the sense, more or less, of 'members of the royal family'.

​

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Relatives of Jesus by Richard Bauckham

---

The "Desposynoi" term came from Julius Africanus, who heard it second hand, so perhaps it shouldn't be seen as too instructive (to our eyes, ears, and minds) but we should be aware of this valuable early 3rd century source.We need to ask if there was a goal that was never reached.The goal of a theocratic government by Jesus and his family.Perhaps that can explain the seeming contradiction between the early chapters of Acts, where the early Christians were required to give up all of their possessions and the later situation where land and/or houses were owned.(The Jewish movement had straight out Jews listening/agreeing to/with Jesus & the early Christians, and actual full-throated "Christians" who claimed membership. Act of The Apostles says that those who CHOOSE TO BE CHRISTIANS had to give up their houses and possessions. There was no requirement to be a member of the early pre and post-Easter Jesus religion/movement, but the Jews who did were required to give up every earthly possession)There might have been a temporary avoidance of achieving the theocracy, among the Jewish Christians, but should it have been seen as permanent?We know that Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox TO THIS DAY claim their doctrines (like the Council of Nicaea and later 4th century Roman Empire Councils) from a religious-minded government that imposed doctrinal views and choose bishops.If today's Christians claim authority from theologically-minded Roman government Councils, then why not assume that the Jewish Christian family of JESUS (and the very man Jesus himself) didn't have a similar governmental goal?All Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox need to ask that questionEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Believers all gave everything to the Apostles (whatever the goal and reason was isn't really described except the issue of redistribution for "needs". IT IS NOT A FULL DESCRIPTION AND MUCH IS LACKING )

quote:

---

Acts 4

​

32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

​

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

​

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

​

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

​

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

​

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

---

Now Acts 5

quote:

---

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

​

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

​

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

​

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

​

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

​

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

​

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

​

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

​

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

​

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

​

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

---

Now the much twisted verse:Acts 5:4 "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God"It simply is saying that the power WAS YOURS to hold back when you should have given the money.You were required to do what all believers were required: give everything to the Apostles.(It has nothing to do with European Protestants "tithing")(It is not saying that these 30 A.D. Christians had a choice to keep the money and still be following the early Pre and Post-Easter Christian commands)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Jaywill 994

quote:

---

Acts does not say that that was a legal requirement. It says that some did it voluntarily. And when Ananias and Sapphire FAKED that they did to look good, they were rebuked for the hypocrisy and NOT for any disobedience.

​

Their property could have remained their own. The discipline they underwent was because they wanted to look good when it was not a legal requirement for them to relinquish their property.

---

The scripture says nothing of anybody ELSE keeping their property except the couple you just mentioned.The scripture says every other Christian believer, at the time, gave all of their possessions. Just prior to this incident, it says ALL gave everything. Unmistakable words in the text. Do you, Jaywill, disagree with the literal interpretation of the chapter 4 text which says that ALL GAVE EVERYTHING?Now, some logic.I don't know if you will agree with my logic, but doesn't is seem LOGICAL to assume that there would have been lots, of the thousands of believers, who would have kept their property if it was voluntary?Taxes aren't voluntary today, for a reason.The text says Ananias and Sapphire had the power to give the money but lied.People lie on their taxes, but it is the act of not paying them that is the issue.Ananias and Sapphire WERE IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.Call it the "Captain Power dressing down"YOU HAVE THE POWER!(Don't torture the text!)

I aasked this:

quote:

---

Just prior to this incident, it says ALL gave everything. Unmistakable words in the text. Do you, Jaywill, disagree with the literal interpretation of the chapter 4 text which says that ALL GAVE EVERYTHING?

---

Jaywill responded:

quote:

---

No. I do not disagree with the general information.
To think there were NO exceptions may be unrealistic.
Ananias and his wife were exceptions.

​

The "all" already has a qualifier.

---

So, there are 2 possibilities:They were THE exceptions or part of many exceptions?I asked:

quote:

---

Now, some logic.
I don't know if you will agree with my logic, but doesn't is seem LOGICAL to assume that there would have been lots, of the thousands of believers, who would have kept their property if it was voluntary?

---

Jaywill responded:

quote:

---

Logically, I think we could compare it to the Israelites offering freely theur ornamants for the building of the tabernacle. Eventually they had so much that they needed no more.

​

I do not mean an exact parallel. I mean the over all general practice was a communal trust that all things could be combined into a common pool.

​

Peter's word indicates that some had freedom to keep a portion or perhaps all as their own if they did not have the faith to participate. Isn't that the tone of his rebuke of the couple?

​

The numbers of such similar cases can only be speculated upon.

​

My point really was that we should not understand that a "Thou Shalt Be Communal" like COMMANDMENT was issued. This was a spontaneous outpouring of good will and empathy.

---

So, it was not only a voluntary participation(in all possessions being made part of a collective community) and based on no rules set by any apostle(s)?When you ask me if "some had freedom to keep a portion or perhaps all as their own if they did not have the faith to participate" because that was "the tone of his (Peter's) rebuke of the couple", then I have to respond with a _no_. No.(Granted, my answer depends on what you mean by "some". There was some mark of a community member I suppose. Do you care to clarify? I am assuming you are referring to the "Christian" community of the day, whatever that meant, exactly.I will tell you what I think about Peter's tone,when he says, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?"But NOT NOW. Later in this response.I said:

quote:

---

Taxes aren't voluntary today, for a reason.

---

Jaywill responded:

quote:

---

You are going into an area beyond my interest.
This account was concerning the CHURCH - the called out community. She is in the world but not OF the world.

​

Superimposing all this on wordly government practices delves into practices which do not even require God or God's salvation.

​

Worldly government may IMITATE things read in the Bible.
This is somewhat like a dog walking on its hind legs "like" a man.

​

It is not the same thing for it does not require the grace of Christ within.

---

The Mormons know who pays their tithes, and they aren't part of the United States government. Mitt Romney was a member in good standing, so the media assumed he paid his tithes. There can be something of a religious "government" within a government.Just like there was Zionist MOVEMENT while there was no Israel. But there were Zionist Jews still living in Ottoman Palestine (and the later British Palestine).And there could have been an early Christian movement that desired some sort of sovereign temporal power.Was the (Biblical period) nation Israel "worldly"?Just what is "sacred" or "profane" when we are talking about the period when the very Apostles lived? Especially, when they are part of a movement (whatever exactly its goals were)?I said:

quote:

---

People lie on their taxes, but it is the act of not paying them that is the issue.

---

Jaywill said:

quote:

---

The rebuke from the Apostle Peter to the couple, however, was about their under appreciating the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. Outwardly, they wanted to look good too. Peter showed them and all else that in the church there should not be play acting to look good. All was based on inward reality.

​

This is totally different from the IRS demanding that a citizen fork over the revenue being withheld against proportions demanded by law.

​

You can see the difference, can't you?

​

Peter didn't say "Ananias and Saphira, You OWE us, the church in Jerusalem such and such number of dollars!"

---

Back to the "tone" of Peter, which you brought up earlier.

quote:

---

Acts 5:4

​

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

---

It sounds like the tone of a judge telling somebody that "It is too late to make excuses""You knew what you were doing""Nobody made you do it""Nothing you say or do now makes a difference"It sounds like the voice of somebody with the power of a governmental authority to me.(Naturally, people will say, "Oh no, it wasn't a government, it was God who gave him the power")You responded:

quote:

---

He said that they had every right to withhold what they did. They should not PRETEND that they were doing otherwise for the sake of looking good to everyone.

​

What they were BEFORE GOD was what was important.
God the Holy Spirit knows all, sees all.

​

The local church was not being run by mere men.
It was being overseen by men in the Holy Spirit who cannot be deceived.

---

Where do you get this idea that "He said that they had every right to withhold what they did" from?From this? (Acts 5:4 again)

quote:

---

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?

---

He said that they knew what they were doing:AT THE TIME THEY DID WHAT THEY DIDandNOW IT IS TOO LATE.(The present situation, to Peter and the guilty couple(in Acts 5:3-10), was ex post facto relative to the time of the holy crime)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Faith said:

quote:

---

Error | ChristianityToday.com word judge can be used in two different ways in the New Testament. Sometimes judge is used to mean "judge between things," to differentiate, or discern. In this case we judge between right and wrong, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous.
But this kind of judging-the act of discernment-is not what Jesus is forbidding. In fact throughout the Bible we are commanded to discern. In the same chapter of Luke 6 and in the very same discourse as the famous "judge not" statement, Jesus talks about having the discernment to see the difference between good people and evil people (Luke 6:43-45). He compares them to trees. Good trees, he says, produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit. The call to differentiate good from evil is to judge, to discern, correctly.

---

Something odd happened.I went and put PERI TOV into google.(PUT "peri tov" ALMOST as an afterthought, which is GOOD FRUIT in Hebrew)Ironically, it led to a hit on Peri Dikaiosynēs. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of AristotleAnd it was about "corrective justice" and "justice".Here is all of chapter1 of book 5.

quote:

---

Nicomachean Ethics

​

By Aristotle

​

Written 350 B.C.E

​

Translated by W. D. Ross

​

Go to previous Table of Contents

​

Book V

​

1

​

With regards to justice and injustice we must (1) consider what kind of actions they are concerned with, (2) what sort of mean justice is, and (3) between what extremes the just act is intermediate. Our investigation shall follow the same course as the preceding discussions.

​

We see that all men mean by justice that kind of state of character which makes people disposed to do what is just and makes them act justly and wish for what is just; and similarly by injustice that state which makes them act unjustly and wish for what is unjust. Let us too, then, lay this down as a general basis. For the same is not true of the sciences and the faculties as of states of character. A faculty or a science which is one and the same is held to relate to contrary objects, but a state of character which is one of two contraries does not produce the contrary results; e.g. as a result of health we do not do what is the opposite of healthy, but only what is healthy; for we say a man walks healthily, when he walks as a healthy man would.

​

Now often one contrary state is recognized from its contrary, and often states are recognized from the subjects that exhibit them; for (A) if good condition is known, bad condition also becomes known, and (B) good condition is known from the things that are in good condition, and they from it. If good condition is firmness of flesh, it is necessary both that bad condition should be flabbiness of flesh and that the wholesome should be that which causes firmness in flesh. And it follows for the most part that if one contrary is ambiguous the other also will be ambiguous; e.g. if 'just' is so, that 'unjust' will be so too.

​

Now 'justice' and 'injustice' seem to be ambiguous, but because their different meanings approach near to one another the ambiguity escapes notice and is not obvious as it is, comparatively, when the meanings are far apart, e.g. (for here the difference in outward form is great) as the ambiguity in the use of kleis for the collar-bone of an animal and for that with which we lock a door. Let us take as a starting-point, then, the various meanings of 'an unjust man'. Both the lawless man and the grasping and unfair man are thought to be unjust, so that evidently both the law-abiding and the fair man will be just. The just, then, is the lawful and the fair, the unjust the unlawful and the unfair.

​

Since the unjust man is grasping, he must be concerned with goods-not all goods, but those with which prosperity and adversity have to do, which taken absolutely are always good, but for a particular person are not always good. Now men pray for and pursue these things; but they should not, but should pray that the things that are good absolutely may also be good for them, and should choose the things that are good for them. The unjust man does not always choose the greater, but also the less-in the case of things bad absolutely; but because the lesser evil is itself thought to be in a sense good, and graspingness is directed at the good, therefore he is thought to be grasping. And he is unfair; for this contains and is common to both.

​

Since the lawless man was seen to be unjust and the law-abiding man just, evidently all lawful acts are in a sense just acts; for the acts laid down by the legislative art are lawful, and each of these, we say, is just. Now the laws in their enactments on all subjects aim at the common advantage either of all or of the best or of those who hold power, or something of the sort; so that in one sense we call those acts just that tend to produce and preserve happiness and its components for the political society. And the law bids us do both the acts of a brave man (e.g. not to desert our post nor take to flight nor throw away our arms), and those of a temperate man (e.g. not to commit adultery nor to gratify one's lust), and those of a good-tempered man (e.g. not to strike another nor to speak evil), and similarly with regard to the other virtues and forms of wickedness, commanding some acts and forbidding others; and the rightly-framed law does this rightly, and the hastily conceived one less well. This form of justice, then, is complete virtue, but not absolutely, but in relation to our neighbour. And therefore justice is often thought to be the greatest of virtues, and 'neither evening nor morning star' is so wonderful; and proverbially 'in justice is every virtue comprehended'. And it is complete virtue in its fullest sense, because it is the actual exercise of complete virtue. It is complete because he who possesses it can exercise his virtue not only in himself but towards his neighbour also; for many men can exercise virtue in their own affairs, but not in their relations to their neighbour. This is why the saying of Bias is thought to be true, that 'rule will show the man'; for a ruler is necessarily in relation to other men and a member of a society. For this same reason justice, alone of the virtues, is thought to be 'another's good', because it is related to our neighbour; for it does what is advantageous to another, either a ruler or a copartner. Now the worst man is he who exercises his wickedness both towards himself and towards his friends, and the best man is not he who exercises his virtue towards himself but he who exercises it towards another; for this is a difficult task. Justice in this sense, then, is not part of virtue but virtue entire, nor is the contrary injustice a part of vice but vice entire. What the difference is between virtue and justice in this sense is plain from what we have said; they are the same but their essence is not the same; what, as a relation to one's neighbour, is justice is, as a certain kind of state without qualification, virtue.

​

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html

---

That was a secondary google search I did, "Peri Dikaiosynēs. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle corrective justice", which got a page with 12 hits.But here was where it started.Here was the hit (number 5), when I simply put PERI TOV into google

quote:

---

Peri Dikaiosynēs. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle
Peri Dikaiosynēs. The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle - Aristotle - Google Books
Aristotle, ‎Henry Jackson - 1879 - ‎Ethics
The otherwise strange phrases o a opos, tov a opov in n, 12 suggest this alteration, and it is confirmed by several MSS., Ha and Kb throughout 9, 11, 12, ...

---

Odd that the Hebrew words led to Greek words, and they were just so relevant (strangely so).Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.