Wednesday, November 20, 2024

John T. Noonan on Ancient Beliefs Concerning Conception and Gestation

  

THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF “HOMICIDE”

 

If this desire to protect life is understood, the significance of the terms in which the Christian writers criticize contraception is illuminated. It will be found that the words applied to contraception are “parricide,” “rose than murder,” “killing a man-to-be.” One might think that these terms either reflect an erroneous biology which identifies man with the seed, or show that he writers are not speaking of contraception at all. Neither alternative is correct. The Christian writers are using this language rhetorically and morally, just as rhetorically and morally, they attacked abortion as homicide or parricide. A review of (a) the relevant theories of classical biology, (b) the leading theories on ensoulment of the fetus, and (c) Roman legal terminology confirms this conclusion.

 

Classical biology. Three theories of procreation existed, all of them assigning the major role in procreation to the male seed. According to Aristotle, the male seed was the active form; the female menses provided the passive matter on which the form worked (Generation of Animals 1.20, 9729a, 2.3, 737a). The view was general in the Roman world that the male seed combined with the female menses to make a fetus. It is asserted by Jerome (On Ephesians 5.30) and by the Book of Wisdom (Wis 7:2), and of Lactantius (The Worker of God 12.5). The theory is assumed by Clement of Alexandria (Pedagogus 1.6.39; GCS 12:113). The theory in its strict Aristotelian form gives the male seed the shaping role. In the looser way in which it became popular in the classical world, the theory drops the philosophical contrast between form and matter, and the female contribution seems more important. But the male seed has a kind of primacy.

 

A second theory, held by many Stoics, was that the male sperm contains moisture and “pneuma.” In the uterus this pneuma combines with the pneuma of the woman, so that the soul of the embryo springs from both parents, but the body only from the father’s seed. A third theory omits any reference to the pneumatic contribution of the woman. The uterus is merely a depositary for the male seed. This appears to be the view of Soranos, who defines “conception” as “the prolonged hold on the seed or an embryo or embryos in the uterus from a natural cause (Gynecology 1.12.43). This theory accords with Soranos’ frequent comparisons of the act of procreation to the sowing a field (e.g., ibid. 1.35.6, 1.36.1): a seed is deposited, which gets nourishment from the soil or mother, but which is only being fed, not taking substance form its depository. The Stoic agricultural metaphor on intercourse, adopted by Philo and later Christian writers, reflects this theory.

 

If a Christian writer adopted Soranos’ view, as Tertullian does in The Soul, he would have reason to invest the male seed with special significance. Under the other theories he would have had a general notion that male seed as important. But under no theory was the male seed itself equal to a “man,” for under no theory was it maintained that the seed already had a soul.

 

Theory on ensoulment. That no classical writer literally identified semen with man is clear from a consideration of the leading theories on ensoulment.

 

In Aristotle, a fetus becomes human forty days after conception if the fetus is male, ninety days after conception is the fetus is female (History of Animals 7.3). A similar view may underlie the prescription in Leviticus 12:1-5 that a woman must spend forty days in becoming purified if she has given birth to a boy, eighty days if she has given birth to a girl.

 

Divergent theories apparently underlie two versions of an Old Testament verse. In Exodus 21:22, according to the Hebrew text, is a man accidentally causes an abortion, “life is given for life” only I the mother dies; the death of a fetus is not treated like the killing of an adult human being. It seems to be supposed that the fetus is at no point a man. In the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22, the text prescribes the penalty of “life for life” if the embryo is “formed.” By “formed” may be meant what Aristotle means. This view is adopted by Philo. A third theory appears in Tertullian. He argues that the embryo after conception has a soul, and that it is a man (homo) when it attains its final form (Tertullian, The Soul 25.2, 37.2).

 

Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament followed the Hebrew in Exodus 21:22 and opened the possibility of treating the fetus as at no point of development human. The prevailing Christian understanding, however, seems to have followed the Septuagint in distinguishing between an unformed and formed stage. This view was evidently held by Jerome himself. Writing on another question to Algasia, one of his many female questioners, he notes, “ . . . seeds are gradually formed in the uterus, and it is not reputed homicide until the scattered elements receive their appearance and members” (Epistles 121.4; CSEL 56:16).

 

Augustine reflects the continuing controversy among Christians; commenting on Exodus 21 in a version based on the Septuagint, he says,

 

Here the question of the soul is usually raised: whether what is not formed can be understood to have no soul, and whether for that reason it is not homicide, because one cannot be said to be deprived of a soul if one has not yet received a soul. The argument goes on to say, “But if it has been formed, he shall give soul for soul” . . . If the embryo is still unformed, but yet in some way ensouled while unformed . . . the law does not provide that the act pertains to homicide, because still there cannot be said to be a live soul and in a body that lacks sensation, if it is in flesh not yet formed and thus not yet endowed with senses.

(On Exodus 21.80, CSEL 282:147)

 

It is abundantly clear from these discussions that the most anyone contends is that ensoulment occurs at conception: the dominant view is that the fetus becomes a man only when “formed.” The moment of formation appears to be the forty-day period set by Aristotle for males, and the eighty-day period suggested by Leviticus for females. In the light of such views on the fetus, no one could have confused the seed with a man or meant to say that the destruction of the seed was literal homicide.

 

The Roman terms for murder. In the second and third centuries, purricidium was the aptest word to use if intentional unlawful killing of a relative was being alleged. Paricidium was the specific term for the unlawful killing of a close relation such as a parent or brother. IT did not apply to the killing of a fetus or newborn infant by its parent.

 

When the second- and third-century Christians apply the term “parricide,” then they do so in a conscious effort to enlarge the legal meaning to condemn what they believe is morally wrong. Thus Tertullian, who is particularly sensitive to legal nuances, does not hesitate to call parricides parents who kill their own infants (Apology 9, CSEL 69:23-27). Similarly Lactantius treats parents abandoning their infants  as parricides (Divine Institutes 6.23.10, CESL 192:556). It is entirely in keeping with this approach to treat the users of contraceptives and abortifacients as parricides or homicides. The description is neither biological nor legal, but moral. The essential Christian position is put by Tertullian in an attack on pagan abortion: “To prohibit birth is to accelerate homicide, nor does it matter whether one snatches away a soul after birth or disturbs one as it is being born. He is a man who is future man, just as all fruit is now in the seed.” (Apology 9.8, CESL 69:24) The protection of life leads to the prohibition of interference with life at the fetal stage. It is only one stop to extend this protection to the life-giving process.

 

The need to protect life, the need to defend procreation—these are the needs which guide the development of Christian thought on contraception. The impetus which leads to the adoption of the Stoic-Jewish rule on procreative purpose and the impetus which leads to the treatment of destruction of the fetus as homicide or parricide produce the condemnation of contraception. (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists [New York: Mentor-Omega, 1965], 116-19)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Chauncy C. Riddle on the Meaning of "Innocent Blood"

  

Example of a term in technical usage: Innocent blood.

 

Technical usage in a language is opposed to common-sense usage. Common-sense usage is a fuzzy, family relationship type of meaning where the purpose is to approximate, not to be precise. When there is a need to be precise in order not to be misunderstood, technical language is introduced. Technical language has an essence, a specifiable and precise core content of meaning, which common-sense language does not have.

 

A good example of coding which represents technical usage is found in the Book of Mormon usage of the phrase “innocent blood.” After preaching his second witnessing to the wicked King Noah and his court, Abinadi warns the king that though he is willing to die, should the king choose to kill him the king will shed innocent blood. (Mosiah 17:10) Examination of the scriptures shows that the word “innocent” means having no sin to one’s charge. Thus we read in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed men from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.” (D&C 93:38) I take this to mean that though every spirit was innocent in the beginning, having no sin to its charge. Being born under the curse of the fall of Adam would have caused little children born into this life to be under the curse of sin were it not that the Savior prepared a redemption from the fall and thus every person is innocent or guilty according to his or her own sins and not because of Adam’s transgression.

 

But being innocent, either not having sinned or having been forgiven of one’s sins, does not of itself create the technical matter know as “innocent blood.” The repentant people of Ammonihah were burned by the wicked inhabitants of that city. Alma notes that in burning them the people of Ammonihah were bringing upon themselves the “blood of the innocent.” Those who burned others were guilty of murder, and would have to answer for that. But there is no suggestion that they were shedding innocent blood.

 

It is in D&C 132 that the key is given to know how and why Abinadi’s blood was innocent blood whereas the blood of the repentant women and children of Ammonihah was the blood of the innocent. The phrase is used repeatedly which says: “if ye abide in my covenant and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood.” (D&C 132:19) This introduces the idea that the shedding of innocent blood pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant and to it only. A later verse then clarifies the matter. “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God.” (D&C 132:27)

 

The sum of the matter is then that innocent blood is the blood of Christ or his personal priesthood representative who has been sent to other covenant servants of Christ. Abinadi was sent by God to call Noah and his courtiers to repentance. In slaying him, they in effect slew the Savior himself, and that after having partaken of the New and Everlasting Covenant and pretending to administer and to teach it. For this there can be no forgiveness of sins, either in this world or the next. The case of the wicked people of Ammonihah was different. They had explicitly rejected the New and Everlasting Covenant and were not bound by it. The murders they committed were indeed laid to their charge, but they were not charged with deliberate murder of the Savior. There is murder, and then there is murder whereby one sheds innocent blood.

 

In another passage of the Book of Mormon, the father of King Lamoni uses the term innocent blood mistakenly. Ammon has just warned the old king that should he slay his son, he would be killing an innocent man, for Lamoni had repented and had been forgiven of his sins. The old king replies: “I know that if I should slay my son I should shed innocent blood; for it is thou that has sought to destroy him.” This usage is understandable, but does not qualify as a technical usage of the term innocent blood, for the king had not yet received the New and everlasting Covenant, nor did his son preside over him in priesthood authority. Therefore had the old king killed his son he also would have been shedding the blood of the innocent. (Chauncy C. Riddle, “Code Language in the Book of Mormon,” January 1, 1992)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Chauncy C. Riddle on Justification and Sanctification in Latter-day Saint Theology

 [Re. D&C 82:6-7]

 

Sanctification is . . .the reward for seeking the way, for entering into it by the strait gate. This sanctification also makes it possible to go along the path. That straight path is the way which is all important, however. That way is justification, or the process of doing what is just. A man is made just by doing just or righteous deeds. As he does those deeds, which he can only do as an act of faith in Jesus Christ and in a state of being sanctified, the just acts which he performs begin to form in him the divine nature, the character, habits, and strength of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. As long as a person qualifies for the continued companionship of the Holy Spirit, he maintains that precious dual gift: forgiveness because he is in the way and knowledge of what to do next to say in the way of holiness. Thus, sanctification is prerequisite to being in the way, and being the way is prerequisite to becoming so much like the Savior that nothing can take us away from that way. To be a just man is not just to have done good deeds. It is also to have taken upon yourself the nature, countenance, habits, and character of the Savior, to have grown up unto the measure of the fulness of the stature of Christ. It is the justification of the man, not his deeds that is important in the long run. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither will a good tree bring forth evil fruit. The Father and the Son are anxiously engaged in the cause of creating good trees through the process of justification. (Chauncy C. Riddle, “Justification, Ancient, and Modern,” in The Old Testament and the Latter-day Saints [Randall Book Company, 1986], 334-35)

 

 

 

Sanctification: forgiveness of sins (the debts of sinning) upon repentance (stopping sinning through faith in Jesus Christ). It does not come piecemeal; it is all or nothing. This forgiveness comes only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but it is initiated by each person as he or she accepts the Restored Gospel, is born again of water and of the Holy Spirit, and begins to obey the voice of God as it comes through the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Justification: the process of replacing every habit of choosing, believing, and acting that is substantiated with the Savior’s habits of choosing, believing, and acting. This is the process of becoming a just, perfect person, and is a matter of degree. Each step must be taken by the conscious willing of the person using his agency to make each change as he receives each gift of God (line upon line, precept upon precept) which enables him or her to make each change. (Chauncy C. Riddle, “Justification, Ancient, and Modern,” in The Old Testament and the Latter-day Saints [Randall Book Company, 1986], 339)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Francis Dvornik on the Liber Diurnus and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870)

  

the Liber Diurnus does not expect the Pope to acknowledge the Eighth Council, for the new Pontiff must swear, among other things, that he admits seven oecumenical councils:

 

Sancta quoque VII universalia concilia, id est Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum primum, Chalcedonense, V quoque et VI idem Constantinopolitanum et VII item Nicenum usque ad unum apicem immutabilia servare et pari honore et veneratione digna habere et quae predicaverunt et statuerunt, omnimodis sequi et praedicare, quaeque condemnaverunt, ore et corde condemno. [RB: Likewise, I firmly maintain the holy seven ecumenical councils, that is, the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, the First Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, as well as the Fifth and Sixth, both of Constantinople, and the Seventh, again of Nicaea, as immutable in every point, and hold them worthy of equal honor and veneration. I fully follow and proclaim what they have taught and decreed, and I condemn, with both mouth and heart, whatever they have condemned.]

 

The words are very plain and leave no room for doubt . . . (Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948, 1970], 440)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Monotheism Debate: What Does the Bible Teach? Mormonism vs. Christianity

 You will note that Cameron engaged in a lot of coping after the debate proper ended:


Monotheism Debate: What Does the Bible Teach? Mormonism vs. Christianity





To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com



Aaron Shafovaloff has not read the Book of Isaiah Carefully

 


Aaron showing his true colors.


In a recent debate between a Protestant and Latter-day Saint, Aaron Shafovaloff made the following comment:




This only shows Aaron does not read the Bible and/or is intentionally deceptive (my vote is both). Only two verses previously in Isa 40:12, we read:

 

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

 

Isaiah is teaching that God learns the amount of water on the earth by measuring it. Interestingly enough, the measure of water on the surface of the earth fluctuates, so it continuously needs to be measured by Yahweh, further supporting the Open Theistic understanding of God and His knowledge, unless on will argue that God counts/measures things (actions which take place in time, not an "eternal now")

 

Such discursive knowledge is seen in 1 Kgs 22:19-23 where we read of Yahweh seeking advice from his heavenly council:

 

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.



To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Jonathan D. H. Norton on Amos 5:26, the Damascus Document, and The "Tabernacle" of David in Amos 9:11 being God's Tent

The following is taken from:


Jonathan D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yaḥad (Library of New Testament Studies 430; London: T & T Clark, 2011), 88-91, emphasis in bold added


The exegetical and textual similarities between the respective reproductions of Amos 9.11 in 4Q174 and in CDA 7.16 (והקימותי את סוכת דוד הנפלת; compare ανοικοδομησω of Acts 15.16; contrast אׇקִים of 𝔐, αναστησοω of OG) support the antiquity of the text of CDA.

 






 

Composite translation:

 

. . . as He said: (Amos 5:26-27) I shall exile Sakkuth/Sikkuth, your king, and Kaiwan, your images, from my tent (to) Damascus. The books of Torah: these are the sukkath of the king, about whom He said: (Amos 9.11) I will establish that tottering sukkath of David. The king he is the assembly. And the bases of the images: these are the books of the prophets whose words Israel despised. . . .

 

The consonantal text cited in CDA 7.14 סכות matches 𝔐’s מַהָלְאָה. The citation in CDA modifies the traditional Hמַהָלְאָה, ‘from beyond’, to אהל (‘tent’), matching OG’s σκηνη for סִכּוּת. The interpretation that follows in D refers to the ‘tabernacle of the king’ (סוכת כמלך). This citation and interpretation exhibit an exegetical use of textual plurality.

 

In Amos 5.26𝔐 סכות (סִכּוּת) and כוין (כִּיוּן) are proper names for foreign Gods. This is clear from the context of the passage: iIkkuth and Kaiwan are synonymous with ‘your images’; the final cause of v. 26 reads ‎ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם לָכֶֽם (‘that you made for yourselves’). Although both the OG and CD 7 interpret the proper name Sikkuth in terms of the construct form סֻכׇּה(that is, סֻכֵּן), neither identifies the proper name as the noun ‘tabernacle’. First of all, the respective plene forms of the proper name and construct noun (סכות and סוכת) are morphologically distinct and cannot be confused. This is evident in CDA 7.14-15 and will have been the case in the Hebrew source presupposed by God. Similarly, CDA 7.15 cites כוין and then interprets it as the plural of כֵּן (masculine noun, ‘base’ or ‘pedestal’) in CDA 7.17 (= 4Q266 3iii 18). While the OG exegetically renders the proper name סכות with σκηνη, by rendering מלככם (‘of your king’) with Μολοχ, the translator shows that the verse is referring to the proper name of a God.

 

Amos 5.26-27 contains a polemic against Babylonian deities. In 𝔐 the names סכות and סוכת are both pointed as in שִׁקּוּץ (‘abomination’). Such a polemical vocalization was apparently current in the late Hellenistic period—Daniel similarly uses שִׁקּוּץ polemically against Zeus Olympus. OG and CD are both aware that foreign gods are the prophet’s subject in these verses.

 

CD and OG contains a common interpretation of סכות as סוכת. OG achieves a double reading of the semantic unit סכות by rendering σκηνη directly, while maintaining a proper name for a foreign deity. This double reading configures two sense contours from the single semantic unit. CD configures the same two sense contours, but manipulates the passage differently. CD maintains סכות in the citation (introducing the term סוכת, ‘tabernacle of’, in the following interpretation as a means of linking Amos 5.26 with 9.11), but simultaneously introduces אהל (‘tent’) by rearranging the letters of הלאה (‘beyond)’ of Amos 5.27. The exegete can thereby interpret at סכות as ‘my (God’s) tent’ in line with the positive interpretation of other parts of the prophecy (The Torah, the Royal Messiah, the Doresh ha-Torah and the Books of the Prophets) while opening the way to introduce Amos 9.11 shortly afterwards.




Further Reading:


Listing of Articles relating to Amos 9, "Tabernacle/Temple/Booth of David," and the "Temple of Solomon" Issue



To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Blog Archive