Pres. Jos. Fielding Smith—inquiry
about adoption of Korean child by some woman and question if child had negro
blood if it could be sealed in temple. Pres. Smith said that had never been
done. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Journal, January 18, 1954, in The Diaries of J.
Reuben Clark, 1933-1961 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition;
Salt Lake City, 2015])
|
לְמַ֙עַן יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֤ית אֱדוֹם֙
וְכָל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָ֥א שְׁמִ֖י עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם נְאֻם־יְהוָ֖ה עֹ֥שֶׂה זֹּֽאת |
ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι
τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγει
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα |
|
In order that they may possess
the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by name (NRSV) |
In order that the rest of humanity
and all the nations upon whom my name has been called will seek me out (my
trans.) |
It is undeniable that the Greek translation
of verse 12a-b displays a more universalistic understanding of the restoration,
whereby all humanity can expect God’s intervention. However, it is still
problematic to identify in this passage a deliberate attempt on the part of the
translator to alter the meaning of the Hebrew text. The Greek rendering is probably
derived from a different “decoding” of the Vorlage: the translator most
likely read “Edom” (אדום, Edom) as אדם (Adam), “man” or “people”
(ανθρωπων, anthrōpōn). Moreover, he read the verb יירשו (yirshu), “they
possess” as ידרשו (yidreshu), “they look for” (εκζητησωσιν/ekzētēsōsin)—that is, the root ירש (yrsh) as if was דרש (drsh), with
a confusion in the first letter. Furthermore, the Vorlage might well
have had a slightly different spelling of the word “Edom” when compared to the
MT, namely, in the short form without the waw. Finally, by the time the
translator was working with the text, the reconquest of Edom announced in the
Hebrew would have been unintelligible, such that the translator was simply trying
to render what he considered to be the correct Hebrew text when he adopted a
more universalistic reading. (Anna Angelini, “Interpreting the Hebrew
Bible: Septuagint Exegesis in Context,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint,
ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature
for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 88-89)
The crucial part of the quotation
in Acts reads: “so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—even all the
Gentiles over whom my name has been called” (Acts 15:17 NRSV). This quotation
matches Amos 9:12, whereas the Hebrew text reads differently: “in order that
they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my
name” (NRSV). James would have had a difficult time arguing for gentile
inclusion in the church based on the Hebrew text of Amos 9:12 but the LXX more
clearly provided a foundation for such a doctrine. (Edmon L. Gallagher. “The
Use of the LXX in the Early Church,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint,
ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature
for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 122-23)
A crucial biblical figure to
understand the description of the Hasmoneans in 1 Maccabees is Phinehas,
grandson of Aaron, a priest zealous for God to the point of taking arms and
killing fellow Israelites who had committed idolatry (Num 25). Mattathias’s
murder of a fellow Judean who was willing to sacrifice to foreign gods, in 1
Maccabees 2, is to be understood in light of Phinehas’s behavior in Numbers 25,
as 1 Maccabees 2:26 clearly indicates: “[Mattathias] became zealous for the law
as Phinehas as had been [lit. “done”] against Sambri son of Salom” (ie., Zimri
son of Salu in Num 25:14). In his testament to his sons, Mattathias then
states: “Phinehas our father, because he became zealous with zeal, received a
covenant of everlasting priesthood” (1 Macc. 2:54). Noteworthy is the fact that
Phinehas is described as the Father” of Mattathias and his sons, who are thus
depicted as heirs to the Aaronide priesthood. This is probably another way to
confer legitimacy on the Hasmoneans. Yet as Torrey Seland notes, there is a
slight difference between Phinehas’s zeal and that of Mattathias and his
followers: what was zeal for God in Numbers 25 becomes a zeal for the law
(Torah) in Maccabees (2:27, 50). (Katell Berthelot, “1 Maccabees,” in Apocrypha
and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K.
Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Academic, 2026], 138-39)
Chapter 8 further expostulates on
the benefits of wisdom, seeing in Solomon’s success even as a young man a
concrete proof of the virtues that wisdom produces. As a sort of aside, the
text presents Solomon as preexisting as a good soul before he takes a body: “I
was a naturally clever child, and I obtained a good soul as my lot, or rather,
being good I entered an undefiled body” (8:19-20). (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom
of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker,
Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies
1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 235)
Wisdom 2:13, 18-20//Matthew
27:43. As discussed above, in the speech of the wicked in Wisdom 2, they
contend against a righteous person who calls himself a son (2:18; υιος, huios) or
servant/child (2:13: παις, pais)
of the Lord. Those who oppress him taunt and say, “If the righteous man is God’s
child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries”
(2:18 NRSV). In the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the passion, Jesus is mocked
by the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders: “He trusts in God; let God deliver
him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son’ [υιος, huios]” (Matt 27:43 NRSV). In
Wisdom 2:18 the mockers say God “will rescue him” (ρυσεται, rhysetai), and this same
verb is used in Matthew 27:43: ρυσασθω rhysasthō.
The thematic parallels are strong, and the righteous sufferer of Wisdom 2 is
easily read by subsequent Christian readers as a depiction of Jesus.
Complicating the case for direct
dependence on Wisdom is the use of Psalm 22:8 (21:9 LXX) in Matthew 27:43: “He
hoped in the Lord; let him rescue him; let him save him, because he wanted him.”
The psalm text probably lies behind both Wisdom and Matthew, and particularly in
light of the significance of Psalm 22 for Matthew elsewhere, we should probably
cede the position of first influence to Psalm 22. But the invocation of the
righteous one’s identity as “son” speaks in favor of Wisdom’s influence here,
and may suggest that the righteous sufferer in Wisdom 2 formed part of the
cultural encyclopedia that helped the earliest Christians makes sense of Jesus’s
death. (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the
Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken
[Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan
Academic, 2026], 239)
Just as immortality is the effect
of associating with wisdom, so death is the consequence of abandoning wisdom
(Wis 1:16). Pseudo-Solomon asserts that death did not originate with God, as it
was not envisaged when created humans (1:13; 2:23; cf. Gen. 1:26). He states
that death gained access to humans through “the envy of an adversary [διαβολος, diabolos]” (Wis 2:24).
Traditionally, commentators have viewed the phrase as referring to “the devil,”
which would be the first instance of identifying this sinister figure with the
Edenic serpent in the biblical tradition (Gen 3; cf. 1 Chr 21:1 LXX; Zech 3:1-2
LXX). However, Pseudo-Solomon never mentions demons; furthermore, he describes wisdom
as releasing Adam from his transgression (Wis 10:1). Hence, the diabolos
is more likely Cain, who brought death into the world when he acted out of envy
to kill his brother Abel (Wis 2:24; cf. 10:3; Gen 4:1-8). (Michael W. Duggan, “Creation
in the Apocrypha,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker,
Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies
1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 367-68)
Traditionally, the beginning of iconoclasm
is attributed to Leo III (r. 717-741), in particular, on the occasion of a
volcanic eruption on or around 726, which may have been interpreted as a sign
of divine displeasure. In 730, Leo held a silention, a meeting of court
and church officials theoretically meant to advise, but in reality to receive
the words of the emperor, at which bishops may have been asked to sign a decree
declaring the cross to be the only true object worthy of veneration. The
problem with this account is there no contemporary evidence. There is no
surviving iconoclastic decree of Leo III, no account of the silention.
All evidence is derived from later iconodule, or pro-veneration sources. The
only evidence of an imperial edict comes from an account in the Liber
Pontificalis where a vague reference or an order regarding icons is mentioned
in the life of Gregory II, and only involves possible personal correspondence
between the emperor and pope. While it is not impossible, all evidence is
circumstantial and problematic, and accounts of contemporary resistance to Leo’s
policies can be easily explained by fiscal policy.
While Leo may have been
ambivalent towards images, and perhaps took some actions to curtail their
widespread recognition, it was Leo’s son, Constantine V (r. 741-775), who would
become the most infamous iconoclastic emperor. In addition to theologically attacking
the great defender of icons John of Damascus, who ironically wrote his defence
from the safety of Islamic-held Syria, Constantine convened the synod of Hieria
in 754 to formally condemn icons. Due to a vacancy in the see of
Constantinople, the council was presided over by Theodosius, the bishop of
Ephesus. With Rome not receiving an invitation and the remaining three
patriarchates under Islamic control, it was the first time an imperially convened
ecumenical council was held without any patriarchal representation, a factor
that assisted in its future rejection. (Ryan W. Stickler, “Dissidence and Persecution,”
in The Cambridge Companion to the Byzantine Church, ed. Andrew Mellas
and Bronwen Neil [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2026], 120-21)
Further Reading:
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons