Tessa Frank and Sarah Jane Boss have provided a translation of Eadmer's defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was published in two-parts in Maria: A Journal of Marian Studies:
For those who interact with
Roman Catholics and/or have an interest in the development of Catholic
Mariology, this is an important work.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
. . the Law abruptly
shifts from discussion of the proper handling of surplus to Joseph Smith’s “New
Translation” of the Bible: “Thou shalt ask & my scriptures shall be given
as I have appointed & for thy salvation thou shalt hold thy peace
concerning them until ye have received them” (vv. 56-57). The subsequent
redaction of this passage provides a rare view of multiple layers of revision.
The first revision appears to have been made in November 1831 in conjunction
with the conference held to plan publication of the Book of Commandments. At a
meeting on November 8, the elders resolved that “Br Joseph Smith Jr correct
those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the holy Spirit.” [50] Among
the revisions made at this time was one involving this passage about the New
Testament. The unpunctuated original allows for a reading that connects “for
thy salvation” to “my scriptures shall be given” rather than to the subsequent
phrase “thou shalt hold thy peace concerning them.” Joseph, however, revised
the passage to make clear that the link was between salvation, understood
temporally, and holding their peace about the New Translation: “For thy safety
it is expedient that thou shalt hold thy peace concerning them.” [51]
Apparently not satisfied
with this rendition, the Prophet (or those working under his direction) again
revised the passage some three years later while preparing the revelation for publication
in the Doctrine and Covenants. The later version shifts emphasis from the
safety of the Saints to the safety of the scriptures. In the final form, the
full passage reads: “My scriptures shall be given as I have appointed, and they
shall be preserved in safety; and it is expedient that thou shouldst hold
thy peace concerning them, and not teach them until ye have received
them in full” (vv. 56-57; emphasis added).
Notes for the Above:
[50] Minutes,
8 November 1831, in JSP, D2:123.
[51] This revision
appears in the Whitmer, Coltrin, and Hyde manuscripts, all copied in early
1832, or before, as well as in the excerpt of the Law published later that year
in the Star and in the Book of Commandments the following year.
Grant Underwood, “’The
Laws of the Church of Christ’: A Textual and Historical Analysis,” in The
Voice of the Lord: Exploring the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Alexander L.
Baugh (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
2024), 109-110
To Support this Blog:
Amazon
Wishlist (US)
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
What then of the Law
(he says)? We have condemned it, and again we run back to it. This is not a
shifting about, for here also [under the Gospel] we have a law. "Do we
then" (he says) "make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we
establish the Law." I was speaking concerning evil deeds. For he that
intends to pursue virtue ought to condemn wickedness first, and then go in
pursuit of it. For repentance cannot prove them clean. For this cause they
were straightway baptized, that what they were unable to accomplish by
themselves, this might be effected by the grace of Christ. Neither then does
repentance suffice for purification, but men must first receive baptism. At all
events, it was necessary to come to baptism, having condemned the sins thereby and
given sentence against them. (John Chrysostom, Homily 9 on the Epistle to the
Hebrews [NPNF1 14:410])
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Some Thoughts on the Degrees of Glory
Evangelicals claim that 1 Cor 15:40-42 refer to "the
bodies Celestial(sun, moon, stars) and the bodies Terrestial (earth)", and
that it does not refer to three degrees of glory. The only problem is, this
argument completely ignores verse 41, which differentiates between 3 or MORE
glories. Why didn't Paul just mention the glory of the sun, as compared to that
of the stars if this was truly his intent? Paul was never one to beat around
the bush. Even though he is discussing bodies and not kingdoms, it is clear
that we shall be glorified on MANY levels as determined at the judgment and
shall receive rewards according to our works (Matt 16:27; Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor
3:8; Rev 20:12-13).
Other Bible passages hint that there is more than one kingdom
in heaven (1 Kings 8:27; Matt 25:21, 23, 34; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 5:10), but the
parable of the sower deserves some notice. In that parable, it is noted that some
seeds "fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some [multiplied]
an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, [and] some thirtyfold". (Matt 13:8) The
fact that these numbers are significant is accentuated by the following verse,
"Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt 13:9).
Papias [AD 160], who had it personally from John (according
to the first-hand account of Polycarp; Against Heresies, V, 33,4), writes that
"as the Elders say, Those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven
shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and other shall
possess the splendor of the city [Rev 22:14]; for everywhere the Savior will be
seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him [Rev 22:4]. But that there
is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold,
and that of those who produce sixtyfold, and that of those who produce
thrtyfold; for the fruit will be taken up into heaven; the second class will
dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account
the Lord said, "In my house are many mansions'; for all things belong to
God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling place, even as his word says,
that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each is or shall be
worthy" (Relics of the Elders, 5)
Other early church writers also taught that there were "three
degrees of glory", for example Iraneaus [AD 178] who says in "Against
Heresies": "The Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, affirm that
(the thirtyfold, the sixtyfold, and the hundredfold) are the gradation and arrangement
of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this
nature" (V,36,2)" Though the Bible doesn't contain a clear
description of the mansions within God's house, (John 14:2), reason should convince
even the skeptic that a just God could not divide all mankind into two general
categories, one destined for heaven, and the other destined for Hell. (Anonymous, “Some Thoughts
on the Degrees of Glory,” Apologia: In Defense of the Faith 3, no. 2
[February 2000]: 8)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Women,
Hair Coverings, and Sexuality
Paul makes comments regarding women in the community in
Corinth that are often misinterpreted through a modern lens. Specifically, he
speaks about women remaining silent during the gatherings and later addressing
any questions to their husbands. It must be remembered that in the broader
pagan context, women were not taken as disciples by any of the philosophical
schools or by major Jewish teachers. They were considered to be unable to learn
beyond a rudimentary level. Husbands and fathers made decisions for the family without
consultation. Paul is arguing that women need to practice silence and listen. They
too need to come to understand the gospel and live faithfully to the Messiah. If
they have questions, they need to have them answered. Paul is continuing what
Jesus began when He took women as disciples.
Saint Paul’s comments on head coverings and women’s hair
have long caused confusion and, in recent years, debate (1 Cor. 11:2-16).
Within this section, St. Paul moves back and forth between discussing the Eucharist,
as opposed to pagan sacrifice, and the dangers of sexual immorality. These two
ideas were intimately intertwined for Corinthian pagans. Sexuality in Greek and
Roman pagan circles was a means of worship—in particular, of enacting fertility
rites. In contrast, Paul wants to distinguish between these two things clearly.
No form of sexual display is appropriate for Christian worship.
The direct connection between a woman’s hair and overt
sexuality is less obvious to us in the modern world. For Paul and the Corinthians,
however, it was clear. He gives a series of reasons why this is inappropriate.
The first of these is that any display of a woman’s sexuality should be
directed toward her husband within her marriage—not publicly and not in the
context of the worship of God. Paul points to the pagan sexual ritual activity
that produced the Nephilim, the giants of Genesis 6:1-4, in alluding to the
presence of the angels. Finally, he points to the Greek medical science of that
time.
Within the Hippocratic corpus, the standard medical texts
of the time, hair was seen as serving a function in fertility and procreation,
in tandem with male gonads. The latter emits seminal fluid, and a woman’s hair
was believed to draw that fluid up into the body to allow for conception. Women
who cut their hair short or women who grew theirs long generally did so, in
line with this thinking, to present themselves as prostitutes. Paul therefore
says that a woman’s hair was given to her in place of a testicle. Just as
genitals must be covered in worship, so also must a woman’s hair. Paul is not
here endorsing this now quite strange anatomical understanding as correct. He
merely uses the Corinthians’ knowledge of it as one more argument to explain
his case for Christian worship to be and to remain desexualized. (Stephen De
Young, Saint Paul the Pharisee: Jewish Apostle to All Nations [Chesterton,
Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2024], 132-33)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
8:11–12. In comparison with many other passages in the
book, and especially 4:6–8, which contains similar (but nonmetaphorical) motifs
and formulations, the prophecy in vv. 11–12 stands out because of its focus on
spiritual rather than physical needs. The disaster that it anticipates (by
means of the introductory phrase “the days are coming”) is not an ordinary
famine but a metaphorical hunger and thirst for divine instructions, “for
hearing the words of YHWH” (v. 11). However, this need not be interpreted as referring
to a religious revival movement, focusing on the inner life of the individual.
Throughout the book of Amos (at least, subsequent to its Deuteronomistic
redaction), the possibility of obtaining messages from YHWH in a given
situation is exclusively connected to prophetic mediation.
Thus, it is asserted that when YHWH makes plans of
importance for the nation, he will always inform the prophets in advance, but
only them (3:7). As a consequence, the prophets had the opportunity, and
responsibility, to warn the people and their leaders (3:13). Apparently, a
prophet/seer such as Amos was even thought to have the power to persuade YHWH
to withhold punitive measures (7:1–6). In this perspective, attempts to silence
(true) prophets (2:12; 7:10–17) could be seen as acts of disobedience, but also
as examples of self-destructive behavior.
I suggest that 8:11–12 can be read as a theological
exposition of 7:10–17, which under scores the dire consequences of expatriating
Amos (7:12–13). Without access to the life-sustaining drops represented by his
prophetic words (see the Comments on 7:16), both people and leaders would
perish. Facing terrible disasters (cf. 8:1–3, 8–10), the population in the
north would realize that they had lost the possibility to communicate with the
deity who might avert further disasters.
Apparently, this postexilic prophecy retains the book’s
consistent focus on the region to the north of Judah (or, Yehud), the former
kingdom of Israel that had become the province of Samaria. Such a supposition
would explain the otherwise mysterious omission of one point of the compass in
v. 12, where it is declared that a futile search for “the word of YHWH” will be
conducted in various directions: “from sea to sea (miyyām ˁad yām), from north to east.” It is worth noting that yām means both “sea” and “west.” In
other words, all geographical directions are mentioned, except for the south.
Arguably, this is because the author was convinced that the word of YHWH could
be found there, in Jerusalem (cf. 1:2; with Rudolph 1971: 267 and Paul 1991:
266).
As observed by Steins, Amaziah’s order to Amos in
7:12—“Flee to the land of Judah! Eat your bread there, and prophesy there!”—can
be read on more than one level. In addition to its immediate function within
the narrative, this utterance seems to indicate that, according to the editors
of the book, the prophetic word, having been rejected in the north, was
henceforth at home only in Judah, where it was continually studied and (re)
interpreted (see Steins 2010: 82–85, 94–95, 102–3). (Göran Eidevall, Amos: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 24G; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2017], 220-21)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
3:7. The utterance in v. 7 is commonly, and probably
correctly, regarded as a secondary insertion into the rhetorical unit
encompassing 3:3–8. There are several reasons for this scholarly supposition
(see Auld 1986: 30–31). First, v. 7 is written in prose, whereas the remainder
of 3:3–8 consists of poetic utterances. Second, and more specifically, this
prosaic saying abruptly interrupts the chain of rhetorical questions. Third, v.
7 discontinues the otherwise consistent focus on matters relating to cause and
effect, or observation and implication. Finally, and perhaps most important,
there is a strong tension between the message conveyed by this utterance and
the implicit statements made by the immediately surrounding verses. Auld
describes the rather awkward position of v. 7 within 3:3–8 thus: “Far from
offering a rhetorical enhancement, it actually appears to do violence to the
argument of the whole section” (1986: 31). Nonetheless, this utterance is part
of the text as we now have it; hence, it is necessary to determine its function
within its immediate literary context.
I find it likely that v. 7 was inserted for theological
reasons, in order to correct or modify certain views expressed in (or, implied
by) vv. 6 and 8. According to v. 6, calamities sent by YHWH may occur in a
city, apparently without any previous notice. In v. 7, on the other hand, we
learn that the deity “does nothing without disclosing his plan (sôdô) to his servants the prophets (ˁăbādāyw hannĕbîˀîm).” Having been
informed in advance, the prophets would, in their turn, be able to inform the
people, thus giving them a chance to repent. Arguably, v. 7 was inserted in
order to make the portrayal of YHWH less harsh and capricious. Emphasizing that
YHWH would never send disasters without warning his people through prophetic
messages, this utterance manages to exonerate the deity. Joseph Blenkinsopp has
suggested that “the stricken city is Jerusalem” and that v. 7 “places the blame
[for that disaster] where it belongs: with the people and their rulers” (2014:
131).
In addition, v. 7 apparently seeks to prevent a possible
interpretation of v. 8: that (given the right circumstances) anyone could act
as a prophet (with Auld 1991: 3). According to v. 8 (see below), a person is
compelled to prophesy when YHWH speaks to him or her. This stands in sharp
contrast to v. 7, which speaks of “the prophets” as a confined and elevated
group endowed with an honorary title (“servants” of YHWH) and enjoying
privileged access to YHWH’s council (sôd,
cf. Jer 23:18, 22). Here, the ancient idea that prophets may overhear the
deliberations in the heavenly council (1 Kgs 22:19–23; Isa 6:1–8) has been
fused with terminology linked to the ideal that true prophets ought to be like
Moses. Since the prophetic designation “servant(s)” is unique within the book
of Amos, but common in the book of Jeremiah (7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15;
44:4) and in 2 Kings (17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2), it is reasonable to assume that
3:7 was added by an editor who was inspired by Deuteronomistic theology (W. H.
Schmidt 1965: 183–85; Jeremias 1998: 54).(Göran Eidevall, Amos: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 24G; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2017], 127–128)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com