Thursday, October 17, 2024

Translation of Eadmer's Defense of the Immaculate Conception

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:

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Grant Understood on D&C 42 and the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

 

. . 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:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

John Chrysostom Mirroring 2 Nephi 25:23

  

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

"Some Thoughts on the Degrees of Glory" (February 2000)

  

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Stephen De Young (EO) on Women and Hair Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

  

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Göran Eidevall on Amos 8:11-12

  

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Göran Eidevall on Amos 3:7

  

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:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Blog Archive