Roman Catholics Having to Give "Religious Submission of the Intellect and Will" to non-infallible statements of the Pope and College of Bishops

In canon 752 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we read the following, teaching that a faithful Catholic must give “religious submission of the intellect and will” even to non-infallible statements of the Pope or college of bishops:

 

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. (Code of Canon Law: New English Translation [Washington, D. C.: Canon Law Society of America, 1998], 247)

 

The Latin reads:

 

Non quidem fidei assensus, religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium praestandum est doctrinae, quam sive Summus Pontifex sive Collegium Episcoporum de fide vel de moribus enuntiant, cum magisterium authenticum exercent, etsi definitivo actu eandem proclamare non intendant christifideles ergo devitare curent quae cum eadem non congruant. (Codex Iuris Canonici [Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989[, Logos ed.)

 

In the code of canon law for the Eastern rite Churches, we read the same in canon 599:

 

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of intellect and will must be given to a doctrine on faith and morals that the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things that do not agree with it. (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: New English Translation [Washington, D. C.: Canon Law Society of America, 2001], 233–234)

 

The Latin reads:

 

Non quidem fidei assensus, religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium praestandum est doctrinae de fide et de moribus, quam sive Romanus Pontifex sive Collegium Episcoporum enuntiant, cum magisterium authenticum exercent, etsi definitivo actu eandem proclamare non intendunt; christifideles ergo curent, ut devitent, quae cum eadem non congruunt. (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium [Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995], Logos ed.)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 72: Jared Ludlow on the Apocrypha

 

Episode 72: Jared Ludlow on the Apocrypha

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Notes on the Text of 1 Kings 15:6-7 and the Abijam vs. Rehoboam Readings

  

1 Kings 15:6

 

בֵין־רְחַבְעָ֛ם

 

The war begun between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continued all the days of his life.

The Syr. and some Hebrew manuscripts have “Abijam” in place of “Rehoboam” to correspond to the following verse.

 

1 Kings 15:7

 

אֲבִיָּם֙

 

The rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? There was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.

The LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts replace “Abijam” with “Abijah” (also in 14:31; 15:1, 8; cf. 2 Chr 12:16). (Rich Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible [Lexham Bible Reference Series; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos ed.)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Yahweh as Being Distinct from Elyon Based on the Metaphor of Inheritance (Part 2)

  

Psa 82 offers a second piece of evidence for treating Yahweh as one of the children of El in Deut 32:8–9. As several scholars have noted, Psa 82 presupposes the same mythic background as Deut 32:8–9.66 Both texts discuss the distribution of the nations to various deities as well as the relationship between these deities and Elyon, whose real identity is disclosed obliquely in the construct phrases ‘the children of El’ (*bənê ʾēl) and ‘the council of El’ (ʿădat ʾēl). Therefore, if Psa 82 depicts Yahweh as one of the children of Elyon, then Deut 32:8–9 most likely does so as well.

 

In Psa 82, Yahweh stands in ‘the council of El’ (ʿădat ʾēl) and accuses ‘the gods’ (ʾĕlōhîm) of perverting justice, before pronouncing judgement on them in verses 6–7: “I thought that you were gods and children of Elyon, all of you. Nevertheless you ought to die like a mortal and like one of the princes you should fall” (ʾănî-ʾāmartî ʾĕlōhîm ʾattem û-bənê ʿelyôn kulləkem ʾākēn kə-ʾādām təmûtûn û-kə-ʾaḥad haś-śārîm tippōlû). In the final verse, the Psalmist cries out “rise up, Yahweh, and judge the earth for you will inherit all the nations!” (qûmâ ʾĕlōhîm šāpəṭâ hā-ʾāreṣ kî-ʾattâ tinḥal bə-kol-hag-gôyīm). As it stands, verse 8 presents Yahweh’s inheritance of the nations as a future event, predicated on the death of the children of Elyon. Identifying Yahweh and Elyon unnecessarily complicates this metaphor. If Yahweh is one of the children of Elyon, then verse 8 simply suggests that Yahweh will inherit his siblings’ property in much the same way that Num 27:9 allows for a man’s brother to inherit his property. If, by contrast, Yahweh is Elyon, then verse 8 implies that Yahweh made inter vivos gifts from his inheritance to his sons, who will now predecease him. The convoluted nature of the second scenario leads me to favor the first option. Based on this conclusion as well as the valence of the phrase ḥebel naḥălâ, I argue that Deut 32:8–9 depicts Yahweh as one of the children of El. He has not yet displaced Elyon at the top of the divine hierarchy and remains in a subordinate role, roughly equal in social status to the other children of El. (Aren M. Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistics and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Lon [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023], 57-58)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Yahweh as Being Distinct from Elyon Based on the Metaphor of Inheritance (Part 1)

  

First, the use of the term ‘share of the inheritance’ (ḥebel naḥălâ) hints at a subordinate status for Yahweh. Outside of Deuteronomy, this phrase appears in Psa 105:11 and its parallel in 1 Chron 16:18, where it describes the land of Canaan as the Israelites’ allotted territory: “To you I will give the land of Canaan as your share of the inheritance” (lə-kā ʾettēn ʾet-ʾereṣ-kənāʿan ḥebel naḥălatkem). Significantly, ḥebel naḥălâ in these texts refers to something that a superior gives to an inferior, rather than something that a person keeps or acquires for themselves. And while it is risky to generalize from such scant parallels, Yahweh’s possession of a ḥebel naḥălâ would seem to imply a subordinate status for Israel’s patron deity. Like the other children of El, he receives his share of the inheritance from Elyon.

 

This conclusion receives support from both the Baal Cycle and the Phoenician History. In the Ugaritic texts, only the younger, subordinate generation of deities are said to have an inheritance: in ktu 1.3 iii 30 and iv 20, Baal refers to his clifftop abode, Ṣapunu, as ‘the mount of my inheritance’ (ǵr . nḥlty), and in ktu 1.3 vi 15–16 (restored in ktu 1.1 iii 1–3) he instructs his messengers to visit Kothar-wa-Hasis in ‘Memphis, the land of his inheritance’ (ḥkpt / ảrṣ. nḥlth). The Baal Cycle also refers to Mot’s territory as ‘Phlegm, the land of his inheritance’ (ḫḫ . ảrṣ / nḥlth) in ktu 1.5 viii 13–14; 1.6 ii 16. The surviving Ugaritic texts never say how Baal, Kothar-wa-Hasis, or Mot acquired these territories, but the later Phoenician History provides a potential clue. Three passages within this text describe how Kronos—who is explicitly identified as El in pe 1.10.10, 16, 29—assigned territories to some of his children: he gives Attica to Athena in pe 1.10.32, Byblos to Baalat / Dione and Beirut to Poseidon in pe 1.10.35, and Egypt to Taautos in pe 1.10.38. Based on these parallels, I hypothesize that Baal, Kothar-wa-Hasis, and Mot received their territories from El (who is characterized as the father of both Baal and Mot). (Aren M. Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistics and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Lon [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023], 56-57)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Aren M. Wilson-Wright on Yahweh's Familial Relationship with the Children of El in Deuteronomy 32 and Job 38

  

Deut 32:8–9 also presupposes a familial relationship between Yahweh and the children of El. In this passage, the poetic speaker draws on the metaphor of human inheritance to describe Israel’s place in the theo-political landscape of the ancient Near East: in verse 8, Elyon distributes the nations as an inheritance to the children of El and in verse 9, we learn that the land of Israel is Yahweh’s “share of the inheritance” (ḥebel naḥălātô). Whatever Yahweh’s precise relationship to Elyon and the children of El in these verses, the language of inheritance implies a familial relationship between Yahweh and the children of El since non-family members were ineligible to inherit in ancient Israel. (Aren M. Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistics and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Lon [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023], 54)

 

 

The literary context of Job 38:7 suggests that the phrase ‘the children of God’ (bənê ʾĕlōhîm) also retains its familial connotations in this passage. The following 10 verses refer to three personified natural phenomena—Sea ( yām), Dawn (šaḥar), and Death (māwet)—whose Hebrew names are cognate with the names of three of El’s divine sons at Ugarit—Yamm, Shahar, and Mot. In verses 8–11, God describes the birth and infancy of Sea; in verse 12, he asks Job whether he has ever “caused Dawn to know his place” ( yiddaʿtâ šaḥar məqōmô); and in verse 17 he refers to “the gates of Death” (šaʿărê-māwet). Furthermore, verses 8–11 describe the creation of Sea in surprisingly naturalistic terms, which recall how El begot Shahar and Shalem in the Myth of the Goodly Gods. God begins this section of the discourse with a question: “Who enclosed Sea with doors when he burst forth from the womb?” (way-yāsek bi-dlātayim yām bəgîḥô mē-reḥem yēṣēʾ). He then describes how he swaddled the newborn Sea and placed him in an enclosure to prevent the fledgling god from getting into trouble: “When I made cloud his garment and darkness his swaddling band, and placed my statute upon him and I set a bar and doors and said ‘thus far you shall come and no further. Here shall your proud waves stop’.” (bə-šûmî ʿānān ləbūšô wa-ʿărāpel ḥătullātô wā-ʾešbōr ʿālāyw ḥuqqî wā-ʾāśîm bərîaḥ û-dəlātāyim wā-ʾōmar ʿad-pô tābôʾ wə-lō(ʾ) tōsîp û-pō(ʾ)-yāšît bi-gʾôn gallêkā). These verses depict God as a watchful, but firm, father who attends the birth of his son and reins in his more destructive tendencies. (Aren M. Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistics and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Lon [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023], 54-55)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Aren M. Wilson-Wright on 1QHodayota (1QHa) from Qumran and the Reading of "sons of God" in Deuteronomy 32:8 and 4Deutj

 1QH^a xxiv 10-13 from Qumran reads:

 

10 […]עבדתה מבני

11 אל …[…]עולות עמים

12 לחזקם […]רבות אשמה

13 בנחלתו […]עזבתם ביד

 

Commenting on this text and how it supports the reading of “sons of God” in Deut 32:8 and 4QDeut^j, Aren M. Wilson-Wright wrote that:

 

The reading *bənê ʾēl also receives support from 1QH^a xxiv 10A, a liturgical text from Qumran that alludes to Deut 32:8 and appears to preserve the preferred reading: “[You] are more honored than the children of El [… you fixed the b]oundaries of the peoples to strengthen them […] so that guilt will (not?) increase in his inheritance” (n]⸢k⸣bdth mbny / ʾl š⸢w⸣[… hṣbth g]⸢b⸣wlwt ʿmym / lḥzqm [… l]⸢h⸣rbwt ʾšmh / bnḥltw). (Aren M. Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistics and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? Studies in Genesis, Job and Linguistics in Honor of Ellen van Wolde, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Hanneke van Lon [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2023], 42)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com