Robert Bellarmine Affirming the Veneration of Images, not the Heavenly Prototype Merely

In Controversy I, Book IV, Chapter IX, “Five Rules that the Explained by Which We Can Acquire Knowledge of True Tradition,” Robert Bellarmine affirmed, contra some Catholic apologists, that the image, not the heavenly prototype thereof merely, is venerated:

The fourth rule is: When all the Doctors of the Church with common agreement teach that something comes to us from the Apostolic Tradition, whether they are assembled together in a general Council, or writing separately in their books, that must be believed to be an apostolic Tradition. There is a reason for this rule, because if all the Doctors of the Church, when they agree on some point of doctrine, could err, the whole Church would err, since she is held to follow her Doctors, and she does not follow them. An example of the first part of the rule is the veneration of images, which the Doctors of the Church assembled at the general Council of Nicaea II said is from the apostolic Tradition. An example of the second part is hardly found, if absolutely all the Fathers who wrote must say something expressly about it. However, it seems to suffice, if some famous Fathers speak about it expressly, and the others do not contradict them, when they are discussing the same matter. For then it can be said without being rash that it is the view of all; for, when one of the Fathers erred in a grave matter, many are always found who contradict him. (Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, 2016], 247-48, emphasis added)

Needless to say, Bellarmine is wrong in claiming a moral unanimity (the Catholic understanding of “unanimous consent” of the Fathers). Such has been discussed elsewhere, including:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images 

The Use of כמר KMR at Elephantine and the Etymology of "Cumorah"

In their 1997 article, The Hebrew Origin of Some Book of Mormon Place Names, Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes proposed that “Cumorah” is derived from kəmôrāh, an abstract noun meaning “priesthood” and derived from כמר kômer, “priest.” As noted by Ricks and Tvedtnes, some may object to this, as כמר is used in the Hebrew Bible for false priests, something they refute in their article (p. 257).

Interestingly, the Aramaic-speaking Jews at Elephantine in the 5^th century B.C. did not use kmr in a derogatory fashion, but in a neutral manner, something that might serve to strengthen the proposal of Ricks and Tvedtnes. As Gard Granerød noted:

The use of the term kmr (and khn!) must be viewed in light of other occurences of the term kmr in the Aramaic documents from Egypt. In a fragmentary letter we read about a certain Thotomous (an Egyptian name) who was entitled “a priest” (kmr, A5.4:2). The surrounding text is badly damaged. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether it was Thotomous himself who used the term kmr was a self-designation when writing (and speaking) in Aramaic. Moreover, the term also occurs in a deed of conveyance in which the Judaean Mahselah transferred the title of his house to his daughter (B2.7). The boundaries of the house in question are described by a reference to the house of a certain “ḥarwodj son of Palṭu, priest [kmr] of K[hnum] the god” (B2.7:15). The document is conventionally formulated, and the term kmr is not used with any kind of negative connotations. In addition, the witnesses of the legal transaction are international (one Mithrasarah son of Mithrasarah, apparently a Persian, and two individuals identified as Caspians, cf. B2.7:18-19).

The term is also found in Aramaic inscriptions on sarcophagi found in South Saqqarah. One of them illustrates that kmr was a designation that the bearer himself accepted: lš’yl kmr’ zy nbw ytb tqm’ bswn, “(Belonging) to Sheil the priest of Nabu, residing everlastingly [OR: (in the) eternal shrine] in Syene” (D18.1, cf. D18.2).

Finally, the term occurs in the inscription on a memorial stela of a priest of Baal found in Memphis: l’nn br ‘lyš kmr’ zy b’l b’l’nwt, “(Belonging) to ‘Anan son of ‘Eliash the priest of Baal husband/citizen of Anoth” (D21.17).

In light of these examples, it appears that the term kmr was used as a commonplace and neutral designation for a particular type of religious specialist in Aramaic documents from Egypt, regardless whether he served an Egyptian god (e.g. Khnum) or was associated with a temple of one of the non-Egyptian gods in Egypt (like Nabu and Baal). Therefore, when Jedaniah and the other Judaeans wrote the Bagavahya and mentioned “the priests (kmry’) of Khnum,” this was not meant as an insult. To put it differently, the Elephantine Judaeans did not use kmr as a derogatory term; rather, they were simply using an ordinary Aramaic word. (Gard Granerød, Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period: Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judaean Community at Elephantine [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft volume 488; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018], 52-54, emphasis added)

Peter William vs. James White on Indulgences

The video of the debate between James White (Reformed Baptist) and Peter D. Williams (Catholic) on Indulgences. It was an excellent debate:

Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?

For discussions of Indulgences on this blog, see:

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences

The Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences and Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

William Cogan on the Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences

A book I highly recommend (and one that Peter Williams had with him at the debate and even plugged in his debate) is that of:

Mary C. Moorman, Indulgences: Luther, Catholicism, and the Imputation of Merit (Emmaus Academic, 2017)

Moorman appeared with Scott Hahn and other Catholic theologians to discuss this book. The video is on youtube:

Franciscan University Presents: Luther and Indulgences

One has to give credit to Peter Williams (who is one of my favourite modern Catholic apologists) as he is willing to debate topics many Catholics tend to shy away from. For instance, he debated James White previously on Mariology in May 2017:

Do the Catholic Church's Teachings on Mary Constitute Authentic Christian Doctrine?

I first encountered Williams when he debated Cecil Andrews on the Mass (click here). IMO, Williams destroyed Andrews, as Andrews clearly has never read any of the best apologetics material for the dogmas of the Mass (e.g., those of Sungenis; Pitre, et al.) As this is a topic I have researched in great detail and have written about (see Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)), if anyone would like to see a Catholic/Mormon debate, I am more than game. Just saying . . . . 

New Page on the Joseph Smith Papers Website: Introduction to People vs. JS

This has just been posted on the Joseph Smith Papers Website which is of both historical and apologetic importance:

People v. Smith, Chenango Co., NY, Justice of the Peace Court, 20 March 1826

Patrick A. Bishop on The Words of Mormon

The Words of Mormon is perhaps the most unusual book in the Book of Mormon. Offering his thoughts on the nature of the book, Patrick Bishop, in a recent work on the translation of the Book of Mormon, wrote the following which I reproduce to add some interesting food for thought:

Appendix III

Words of Mormon

Brent Metcalfe, in his book entitled New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, states that one area “of research needing further exploration [is the] Words of Mormon functioning as both preface and epilogue” (Brent Metcalfe, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, 433). Although I do not agree with his research, I do believe that this topic is worth looking into. The problem as I see it is that there never will be enough information to come to any certain conclusions—unless the original manuscript is found for this chapter.

The questions that would be worthy of study are: Does this book represent the oldest translated portion of the Book of Mormon, a part that was retained when the 116 pages were lost or was it the final portion Joseph translated in the last week of June 1829 or both?

Studying the Words of Mormon based on the printer’s manuscript seems to create more questions than answers. In the printer’s manuscript, Words of Mormon was originally designated as chapter II and then corrected to chapter I. This could mean one of four things:

1) Words of Mormon is its own book, and Oliver Cowdery simply made a mistake when writing the chapter number.

2) Words of Mormon was originally chapter 2 of The book of Mosiah, and the original chapter 1 of the book of Mosiah is part of the missing 116 pages.

3) Words of Mormon was actually the second chapter to the book of Omni.

4) Words of Mormon is a collision between the small and large plates, meaning the first half of the book is from the small plates and the second half is from the large plates (See Jack M. Lyon and Kent R. Minson, “When Pages Collide,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 4 [2012], 120-36).

Options 2 and 4 seem more plausible, purely by just analyzing the manuscript. Rather than being a book in and of itself, it is possible that this book was originally chapter 2 of the book of Mosiah. The flow from the last verse of the Words of Mormon to the first phrase in the book of Mosiah seems to support this.

If Words of Mormon were originally chapter 2 of the book of Mosiah, then why would Joseph change the name to Words of Mormon. The following is a possible scenario. Perhaps the lost chapter 1 of the book of Mosiah was the story line of King Mosiah, King Benjamin, and King Mosiah the second. Then as Mormon does so often as a historian, he explains in chapter 2 his work with the plates. For one example of this, see 3 Nephi 5. Then in chapter 3 he picks up the story line again. When the original chapter 1 was lost, it would have seemed awkward to begin the book of Mosiah with a commentary on the plates; therefore, the name Words of Mormon was super-lineraly placed in the text and the chapter designation changed (see Figure 6, Chapter 3).

On the flip side, in Words of Mormon, Mormon speaks as if he is writing on the small plates (verse 3), calling them “these plates.” This would mean that Words of Mormon would have been the last thing Joseph translated. Option 4 allows for this.

In my view option 3 has little merit other than the fact that the book of Omni begins with chapter 1 and Words of Mormon is chapter 2. However, the break of two lines and the title Words of Mormon at the beginning and not inserted seems to show it was not part of the book of Omni.

As mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, the printer’s manuscript seems to create more questions than answers. (Patrick A. Bishop, Day After Day: The Translation of the Book of Mormon [2d ed.; Salt Lake City: Eborn Publishing, 2018], 107-8)

With respect to Bishop’s reference to the printer’s manuscript, here is the Printer’s Manuscript for Mosiah 1 where, of the three lines that make up the Roman numeral III, two have been crossed out, making this “Mosiah Chapter I” (Ibid., 18):

Appeals to the Church of Rome: Evidence for Papal Primacy?

It is common for some Catholic apologists to argue that, as some early Christians appealed to Rome, this somehow “proves” the primacy of the Church of Rome, ergo, “papal primacy.” Commenting on this, William Webster noted:

Appeals of Eastern Fathers to Rome

An historical argument often used by Roman apologists is that of the appeals by various Eastern fathers to the bishops of Rome during times of theological or personal crisis. The argument presented is that these Church fathers appeal to Rome as the final and supreme arbiter in ecclesiastical disputes thereby demonstrating the attitude of the early Church towards the bishops of Rome. While it is true that Eastern fathers throughout Church history from time to time appealed to Rome for aid, they did not appeal to Rome exclusively as the only court of appeal. In addition to their communication with Rome they often appealed to the bishops of other important sees. One notable example is that of John Chrysostom.

John Chrysostom

When he was unlawfully deposed as bishop of Constantinople and sent into exile, Chrysostom wrote Pope Innocent I detailing the illegalities of his case and appealing for his aid. However, this letter was not addressed to Innocent alone but also to Venerius and Chromatius, the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, the two most important and influential sees in Italy next to Rome. Dom Chrysostom Baur, in his biography of Chrysostom’s life, gives the following background to his appeals to Rome:

Shortly before the last crisis had arisen, and Chrysostom had been sent from Constantinople for the second time, he and his friends had decided to set forth in detail all the events of the last months in a letter to the Pope and the Western Bishops . . . The note in the record which states that ‘this letter was also sent to Venerius . . . and Chromatius,’ cannot first have been added in Rome; so it cannot be that the Pope gave the order to send it to the two Bishops. It must have been thus in the original itself, since Chrysostom speaks to the recipients of the letter in the plural, in the text. That point is important for the question . . . as to whether this letter can be considered a formal proof of the ‘primacy’ of Rome.

This letter has usually been classed among the great ‘appeals’ which apologists and dogmaticians quote in proof of the recognition of the Roman primacy. But such significance cannot be given to this ‘appeal,’ which Chrysostom addressed not only to Pope Innocent, but also at the same time and in the same words, to the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia. The essence of the letter is this: Chrysostom begs the Pope and the two named bishops, that they would be pleased not to let themselves be drawn to the cause of injustice by the efforts of his enemies, not to acknowledge his unjust banishment, and above all that they would not bring to an end the fellowship of the Church with him, but help according to their power, that the injustice which had been done him would be reversed, and the guilty persons judged by an impartial ecclesiastical court. He could naturally have written thus to any bishop. Actually Chrysostom demanded nothing so formal and consequential as the calling of a new impartial synod, and that was just what the Pope sought, with all his energy, to attain. So one cannot very well state that Chrysostom had appealed from the unjust judgment of a synod to the personal decision of the Pope. (Dom Chrysostumus Baur, O.S.B., John Chrysostom and His Time [Westminster: Newman, 1959], Volume II, pp. 299, 301-302; Vol. I, pp. 349-350)

P.R. Coleman-Norton adds these comments:

Though S. Chrysostom elicits the interference of Pope S. Innocent, yet he does not appeal to him as a supreme arbitrator. That S. Chrysostom expected Pope S. Innocent to show his Letters to neighboring prelates is apparent from his use of the plural and from Palladius’ note that the first epistle was addressed also to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia—a use and an action which can be understood only in the supposition that S. Chrysostom wrote to the Pope as bishop to a brother-bishop. (P.R. Coleman-Norton, The Correspondence of John Chrysostom [With Special Reference to His Epistles to People S. Innocent I.] Found in Classical Philology, Volume 24, 1929, p. 284)

So, the mere fact that a father appeals to Rome is not  positive evidence that he is expressing belief in papal ‘primacy.’ (William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock [rev ed.; Battle Ground, Wash.: Christian Resources Inc., 1999], 207-9)

John F. McCarthy on the Catholic Doctrine of the Inerrancy of the Bible

John F. McCarthy, a Catholic priest and conservative New Testament scholar, provided the following pre-Vatican II sources affirming the historical Catholic acceptance to the inerrancy of the autographs. I think some LDS and non-LDS readers will appreciate it, showing that inerrancy of the autographs is not unique to our more conservative Protestant friends and critics:

2. Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures are expressed in the authentic teaching of the Church.

2A. The Council of Trent: “The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent . . . clearly perceiving that [the aforementioned saving] truth and moral standards are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, following the examples of the fathers of the true faith, receives and venerates with equal devotion and reverence all of the books both of the Old and of the New Testaments, since God is the author of both, and also the tradition themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession (EB 57).

2B. The First Vatican Council (1870): “But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by her authority; not precisely because they contain revelation without error; but on account of this that, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church herself. Can. 4: I anyone shall not have accepted the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them, as canonical and sacred, or shall have denied that they have been divinely inspired: let him be anathema (EB 77, 79).”

2C. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus (1893): “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with divine inspiration that of itself it not only excludes all error, but also excludes and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, the supreme Truth, cannot be the author of any error whatsoever. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church, defined by solemn judgment in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Vatican Council (EB 124-125).”

“Hence it makes no difference at all that it was men whom the Holy Spirit took up as his instruments for writing, as though something false could have gotten away, not, indeed, form the primary author, but from the inspired writers. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write—He so assisted them when writing—that all of the thing which He ordered, and these only, they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed aptly and with infallible truth. Otherwise, He would not be the author of all Sacred Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers (EB 125).”

2D. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Divino afflante Spiritu (1943): “ . . . (that the Catholic commentator) not only may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a solid solution which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the certain conclusion of the profane sciences (EB 564).”

2E. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Humani generis (1950): “For some audaciously pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of the Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already several times condemned, according to which the immunity from errors of Sacred writ extends not to those things which are conveyed concerning God and moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human meaning of the Sacred Books, beneath which lies hidden a divine meaning, which they declare to be the only infallible meaning. In interpreting Sacred Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the ‘tradition’ of the Church. Thus they judge that the teaching of the Fathers and of the sacred Magisterium is to be put back on the scale of Sacred Scripture, as explained by the purely human reasoning of exegetes, instead of expounding Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ our Lord has set up as guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth . . . There is no one who should not see how foreign all this is to be principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our Predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus, and Benedict XV in the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, and also by our Selves in the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 612-613).” (John F. McCarthy, Catholic Biblical Scholarship for the Third Millennium [Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 2017], 211-13)

F.F. Bruce on Galatians 1:19 and James, the Lord's Brother

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (Gal 1:19)

Gal 1:19 is an important text in the debate about the historicity of Jesus, as Paul writes of James, a person living at the time of the authorship of Galatians, as being the brother (αδελφος) of Jesus.

Some (e.g., Richard Carrier) argue that the term “brother” here is a synonym for “fellow Christian,” not a biological relationship and that the Greek of the text does not include James as one of the apostles, following the argumentation forwarded by L.P. Trudinger. Commenting on this verse, and responding to Trudinger, F.F. Bruce wrote:

The most natural way to understand Paul’s construction ετερον . . . ουχ ειδον ει μη . . . is ‘The only other apostle I saw [apart from Cephas] was James the Lord’s brother.’ It is less natural to take it to mean ‘I saw none of the other apostles, but I did see James the Lord’s brother’ (cf. J.G. Machen, Galatians, 76-80). It would be difficult to improve on J.B. Lightfoot’s observation that ει μη has (as always) exceptive force, the question here being ‘whether the exception refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone’. In the present construction ‘the sense of ετερον carries των αποστολων with it’ (Galatians, 84f.) L.P. Trudinger, ‘Heteron de tōn apostolōn ouk eidon, ei mē la kōbon . . . : A Note on Galatians i. 19’, NovT 17 (1975), 200-202, argues for the rendering: ‘Apart from the apostles, I saw no one but James, the Lord’s brother’. But, as was pointed out in a reply by G. Howard, ‘Was James an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal i 19’, NovT 19 (1977), 63f., if Paul had wished to say this, he would have expressed himself differently, saying perhaps ετερον δε η τους αποστολους . . . (or παρα τους αποστολους . . . or εκτος των αποστολων . . . .). Trudinger’s rendering provides a closer harmonization with Acts 9:27, where Barnabas is said to have used his good offices and brought Paul προς τους αποστολους (‘to the apostles’). But it is best to take τους αποστολους in Acts 9:27 as an instance of the generalizing plural.

A good parallel to the present construction, with the pronoun in the negative clause qualified by a genitive, is 1 Cor. 1:14, ουδενα υμων εβαπτισα ει μη Κρισπον και Γαιον, ‘I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius’ (where Crispus and Gaius are included in υμων). Where the exception relates to the negatived verb only, this is made plain by the context, as in 2:16, ου δικαιουται ανθρπος εξ εργων νομου ει μη δια πιστεως . . . , ‘one is not justified by legal works but [one is justified] through faith’. There is nothing in the present context to suggest that here the exception relates to ουκ ειδον only.

Probably few would have questioned the rendering here preferred but for the misgivings about the designation of James as an apostle. But there is nothing anomalous in the designation, so far as Paul’s usage of αποστολος is concerned. He clearly did not restrict the designation to the twelve. If, in the summary of resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 15:5-7 he links the appearance to Cephas with a following appearance to ‘the twelve’ (to whose number Cephas belonged), his linking of the appearance to James with a following appearance to ‘all the apostles’ suggests that he included James among ‘all the apostles’.

According to C. Marius Victorinus Afer, In epistulam Pauli ad Galatas . . . (on 1:19), the Symmachians (Ebionites) regarded this James as the twelfth apostle (ed. A. Locher [Leipzig, 1972], 14).

At any rate, during the first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul had only a limited opportunity of conferring with ‘flesh and blood’; should any one suppose that he met the whole apostolic college at that time, he would be mistaken, as Paul asserts most solemnly. (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982], 100-1)

John Salza on Purported Parallels between Joseph of Egypt and Peter in Support of the Papacy

On pp. 69-71 of his book, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2007), Catholic apologist John Salza has a section entitled “A Comparison Between Joseph and Peter” in an attempt to provide Old Testament typological support for the dogmatic Catholic teaching on the nature of Peter’s supremacy. On p. 72, Salza lists these purported parallels:

·       They both are asked a question by a king.

·       They both receive a divine revelation from God

·       They both answer the king with an infallible declaration.

·       They both are appointed by a king over his kingdom and subjects.

·       They both receive a sign from the king of their royal authority (King Pharaoh gave Joseph a signet ring, and King Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. The pope also wears a signet ring and robe as a sign of his authority, just as Joseph did).

·       Both of their names are changed by a king.

·       They both are called “father” of their people (See Gen 45:8)

·       They both are given a bride (King Pharaoh gave Joseph the bride Asenath, and King Jesus gave Peter the bride, the Church).

·       They both are brought from slavery to freedom by a king (King Pharaoh brought Joseph out of the slavery of Egypt, and King Jesus brought Peter, an uneducated fisherman, out of the slavery of sin).

Salza concludes that “These parallels are not mere coincidence.” The reality is that such “parallels” are indeed coincidental.

Salza and other Catholic apologists often appeal to purported typological parallels between Old Testament events and objects (e.g., the Ark of the Covenant; Eve) with Mary to “prove” the Immaculate Conception and/or the other Marian doctrines. Using such a methodology, one can "prove," just as one "proves" the Papacy and/or Marian Dogmas, that Joseph, the adopted father of Jesus and husband of Mary, was "immaculately conceived" Consider the following (note, while I am being tongue-in-cheek, such parallels are just as sound [in some instances, better] than the parallels Salza draws between Joseph of Egypt and the apostle Peter):

Typological Parallels between Joseph of Egypt and Joseph, the adopted Father of Jesus (St. Joseph) proving the latter’s sinlessness

Both had a father called Jacob

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:2

St. Joseph: Matt 1:15

Both had prophetic dreams

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:5-9

St. Joseph: Matt 1:20-24; 2:13

Of course, there is a difference, as Joseph was rather arrogant in his high position as favourite son of Jacob, as well as the then-future veneration he would receive from his brothers. This can be explained away as St. Joseph was the sinless, due to (1) it being “fitting” that the adopted Father of the second person of the Trinity would be raised by a sinless person just like his mother and (2) St. Joseph being called “righteous” (δικαιος) in Matt 1:19.

Both left their homes and went to Egypt

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:28

St. Joseph: Matt 2:13

While some may argue that this typological parallel breaks down as Joseph of Egypt was sold into slavery while St. Joseph was warned in a dream (see above) to flee to Egypt, this can be easily understood as St. Joseph, the antitype, being greater that Joseph of Egypt, the mere Old Testament type—the latter was sent by sinners, showing his being a sharer of sinful flesh, while the latter fled to protect the Holy One of Israel, the second person of the divine Trinity, showing that he was a partaker of the sinlessness thereof.

Both were known for their sexual purity and chastity

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 39:7-15

St. Joseph: As with the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, too, was a perpetual virgin.  Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Quamquam Pluries, mandated devotion to St. Joseph on the basis of his worthy, virginal state:

We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin-Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself . . .In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any [by means of his chastity] to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life's companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity . . . Fathers of families find in Joseph the best personification of paternal solicitude and vigilance; spouses a perfect example of love, of peace, and of conjugal fidelity; virgins at the same time find in him the model and protector of virginal integrity."

Both saved people from famine

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 41:14f; 47:13f

St. Joseph: Joseph was the adopted father of Jesus, whose Eucharistic flesh is the true Manna from Heaven (John 6:31-33, 41, 50, 51, 58), which is not perishable, unlike manna (John 6:27), but produces eternal life to the one who eats the flesh of the Son of Man (John 6:53f), again showing that, just as Mary is a secondary mediator of grace won by her son on the cross, St. Joseph is a secondary mediator of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the protection from spiritual hunger and famine, of course, being an antitype of protection from physical hunger and famine, the Old Testament type.

God Commanding the Making of the Brass Serpent and Cherubim: Support for the Veneration of Images?

Some Catholic apologists, in an attempt to defend the veneration of images/icons, appeal to Exo 25:18-20 and Num 21:8-9 wherein God commands people to make images. In their view, such means that God allows for the veneration thereof, or at least is consistent with what would later become dogmatized in 787 at the Second Council of Nicea. Answering this issue, Christadelphian apologist Ron Abel wrote:

Exodus 25:18-20

“Thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Numbers 21:8,9

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.”

PROBLEM:

These scriptures are cited in an attempt to support the practice of using images of Christ, Mary and the Saints in worship. It should be noted that, when pressed, RCs would claim that they do not worship the image, but use the image as an aid to worship. However, the distinction is not quite so clear. The 7^th General Council in 787 decreed that it is legitimate to use and reverence images of Jesus, Mary, and the Angels and Saints “since the veneration of the image refers to the original, and the one who honours the image honours the person of the one depicted in it” (DS 600-1).

SOLUTION:

1. In the case of both the cherubim and the serpent of brass there were definite instructions from God that they should be made, together with instructions as to how they should be employed. This is not so with the images employed by RCs. Israel in the Old Testament period were expressly commanded, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them . . (Exo. 20:4,5). The RC will say that this was not a prohibition of the making of images, but of worshipping them. However, the plain meaning of the text is that it was a command not to make images for the purpose of worship. The RC cannot show any scripture command to support the making of images of Christ, Mary, Saints or Angels.

2. The Cherubim were in the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle (and later in the temple). They were not even seen by the priests or the people and were certainly not venerated. They were not even seen by the priests or the people and were certainly not venerated. The High Priest alone was able to enter the Most Holy Place once each year on the Day of Atonement. He did not venerate the Cherubim.

3. God condemned all examples of images made by man to assist them in worship: e.g., the golden calf (Exo. 32) and the images in Dan and Bethel set up by Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:28-30). The veneration of the serpent of brass (and offering incense to it) in the time of the Kings was displeasing to God and was destroyed by faithful king Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). The use of images appears to be the hallmark of apostate religion. (Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures: A Christadelphian Handbook of Suggested Explanations to Difficult Bible Passages [ed. John Allfree; rev ed.; Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 2011], 35-36, italics in original)

Eric Svendsen, in response to a Catholic apologist who, in part, appealed to such proof-texts, correctly noted:

[Catholic apologists have] placed [themselves] in the unenviable position of having to defend a practice that not only has no biblical precedent, but is biblically characterized as repugnant. Moreover, [they have] no support for this practice from the earliest years of Christianity. Indeed, the "unanimous consent" of the early church seems to speak with one voice against the practice. If later patristic writers decided to adopt this practice, it does not make the practice any more biblical or any less repugnant. Worshiping at the "high places" in ancient Israel was no less despicable before God just because it happened to gain wide support from the Jewish leaders. [Catholic apologists], and Roman Catholicism as a whole, [are] simply repeating the same errors of ancient Israel. Like ancient Israel, Roman Catholicism has adopted traditions that not only "nullify the word of God," but have crossed over into blatant idolatry.

Further Reading: 

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

Is Jesus' Command to Drink His Blood in John 6 to be taken Literally as it is Only Commanded Once?

Writing in defense of the Catholic interpretation of John 6, Robert Sungenis noted:

. . . no passage of the Old or New Testament commands anyone to drink blood, not even as a metaphor. Yet the Bible uses the drinking of water both literally (Jn 4:1 3; Rm 12:20) and figuratively (Jn 4:10-15; 7:38). Hence, since the rest of the New Testament never uses drinking blood as a metaphor for believing in Jesus, it certainly begs the question for opponents to claim that it is a metaphor in John 6. Similarly, nowhere other than in John 6 does either the Old or New Testament eve command anyone to eat the flesh of either God or Christ, even as a metaphor. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 148-49)

Sungenis, in a footnote (p. 149 n. 158) cites p. 375 of Ludwig Ott's Fundaments of Catholic Dogma in support of this argument:

There is nothing in the text to support a figurative interpretation; for bread and wine are neither in their nature, nor by current speech usage, symbols of body and blood. The literal interpretation involves no intrinsic contradiction though it presupposes faith in the Divinity of Christ.

Just because the Bible does not employ a metaphor except for in one narrative, does not mean it is not a metaphor. For instance, only in John 10:7-9 is Jesus called a "door." Using Sungenis' logic, this means that Jesus is, substantially, a door, but only has the accidents (outward appearance) of a human person, which is absurd. Indeed, this is where Sungenis contradicts himself on this issue, for on p. 153, he notes that:

John 10 is the only time that Jesus said, "I am the door," or even referred to as a door in all Scripture . . .

For more refutations of arguments in favour of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation from both the Bible and early Christian literature, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)  

Peter L P Simpson's Translation of Book One of Robert Bellarmine's Controversies

Earlier this year, I read Kenneth Baker's translation of books 1-3 of Bellarmine's Controversies published by Keep the Faith (2016). I blogged on some interesting excerpts therein at:

Robert Bellarmine vs. the Socinian interpretation of Luke 1:35

Bellarmine on Justification and Missing Books in the Bible

Bellarmine on Christology, part 1

Bellarmine on Christology, part 2

Bellarmine on Christology, part 3

Robert Bellarmine on the Future Coming of Elijah

Robert Bellarmine refutes Sola Scriptura Proof-texts

Peter L P Simpson has produced his own translation of book 1 of the Controversies, "On the Word of God, Written and Unwritten." As Bellarmine often critiques Sola Scriptura, Latter-day Saints will find some interesting points here and there. Further, Bellarmine interacts with many of the arguments against the canonicity and historical reliability of the books of the Apocrypha, so if one wants to understand an informed defense of these volumes, one will find such here, too, as well as a discussion and defense of the Catholic/Tridentine understanding of "sacred [oral] tradition."

James White Embarrasses Himself on the Book of Abraham

In a recent tweet, James White (who has no training in Egyptology [as with Charles Larson; the Tanners; Michael Marquardt, etc, so talk about strong potential for the Dunning-Kruger effect]) posted the following against the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet:

The article he links to is that of his tract, "Min is not God!"

For a thorough beat-down of White, see Stephen Smoot (who has a M.A. in Egyptology, so unlike White, knows what he is talking about):

Pornography, Agathography, and Egyptian Sex Gods in Mormon Scripture

For more on the facsimiles, see:

Kevin L. Barney, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources

Commenting on Barney's essay, David Bokovoy (PhD, Brandeis) offered the following comments which provides further evidence of biblical authors adapting "pagan" elements (something White and other Evangelical critics of the Book of Abraham attack the text for--a blatant double standard if there ever was one):

In the article, Kevin suggests that “the facsimiles may not have been drawn by Abraham’s hand but may have been Egyptian vignettes that were adopted or adapted by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the Book of Abraham” (108).

In his study, Kevin provides this hypothetical Egyptian-Jewish redactor with the original name J-red. According to Kevin, J-Red adopted or adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustration for the Book of Abraham. In so doing, J-Red reinterpreted the Egyptian symbols in accordance with Semitic traditions.

In my mind, part of the strength of Kevin’s theory includes the fact that ancient Israelite and later Jewish authors demonstrate a strong propensity towards adopting and adapting foreign traditions into their own religious writings.

While Kevin’s article naturally focuses upon the Jewish cultural and religious adaptation of Egyptian materials, including such works as the Instruction of Amenemope, the Bible contains a myriad of examples of Israelite authors adopting and adapting Mesopotamian and Canaanite traditions as well.

Even a cursory survey of this biblical trend towards assimilating while revamping “pagan” religious traditions would involve literally hundreds of examples. In my mind, however, one classic illustration of biblical adaptation includes God’s struggle with Leviathan. For a historical consideration of this legend from Near Eastern, to biblical, to finally rabbinic traditions, I would highly recommend Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Regarding this example of biblical adaptation, C. Uehlinger notes that “some assimilation of Egyptian religious traditions and the Leviathan concept could have occurred in Southern Palestine and Northern Egypt already during the Hyksos period” C. Uehlinger, “Leviathan,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 513.

However, even the prophet Isaiah draws upon this “pagan” theme stating in Ugaritic that Baal “smote Litan the wriggling serpent, finished off the writhing serpent” through his prediction that the Lord will eventually punish Leviathan “in that day.” Isaiah’s adaptation of the Baal cycle, therefore, ultimately provides a nice analogy for Kevin’s theory regarding the Book of Abraham.

Similarly, the conflict between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Son of Man depicted in the book of Daniel parallels the Baal Cycle in which the younger god Baal empowered by the older god El defeats Yam (The Sea); see J.J. Collins, “Stirring up the Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7,” The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings; A.S. van der Woude, ed. (Levuven 1993): 121-126.

As another example of Canaanite influence upon late biblical texts, Simon Parker has argued that the depiction of El’s residence at Ugarit “at the springs of the Rivers among the streams of the Deeps” is “exploited in Ezekiel’s account of the presumptuousness of the king of Tyre, who, Ezekiel says, has claimed, ‘I am God (El), I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas’ (Ezek 28:2).” Simon B. Parker, “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63:4 (2000): 231.

Indeed, as André Caquot has suggested, imagery associated with early Canaanite mythology may even appear directly reflected within the New Testament:

No one contests today the fact that knowledge of Ugarit is indispensable for exegetes of the Old Testament.  But those of the New Testament should not neglect it either for it attests to details that were long retained by popular memory.  The seven-headed best of the Apocalypse of John (12:3) does not come from the visions of Daniel, and Psalm 74 does not mention the number of Leviathan’s multiple heads.  On the other hand, the Ugaritic ancestor of this dragon, reportedly defeated by Baal, is certainly the beast with seven heads.  We have perhaps not considered sufficiently the fact that in Matthew 6:30-52, Mark 14:13-33 and John 6:1-20, the story of the multiplication of the loaves is immediately followed by the scene describing Jesus walking on the waters as if deliberately recalling two events in the cycle of Baal wherein Baal gives men their nourishment and vanquishes the sea; André Caquot, “At the Origins of the Bible,” Near Eastern Archeology 63:4 (2000): 227.

As these examples illustrate, if Kevin’s theory concerning J-Red is correct, then the development of the Book of Abraham via a Jewish adaptation of foreign symbols is perhaps even more similar to the development of the Bible than any of us had previously before assumed (personally, I would even take Kevin’s theory one step further in suggesting that the first person references in the Book of Abraham fit the general pseudeopigraphic trend witnessed in such biblical books as Deuteronomy and therefore, the Book of Abraham many not have been written by Abraham at all).

Kevin’s theory regarding a Semitic adaptation of Egyptian traditions explains why the Book of Abraham features so many ideological links with ancient Semitic texts—many of which were unknown to 19th century audiences.

While in addition to the examples provided by Kevin in his ground-breaking study, we could point to a number of supplementary examples of Semitic ideology reflected in the Book of Abraham, one of my favorites includes the BOA’s depiction of the divine council.

Semitic texts from the ancient Near East that feature stories of the divine council of gods typically begin with a crisis in which the head God calls together the gods of the council to resolve the dilemma. During the council, a series of proposals are offered. Finally, a “savior” steps forward, offering his services to the council. This savior then receives a commission to perform his redemptive role (this summary is based upon the pattern identified by Simon Parker, “Council,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Karel van der Toorn, et al. eds. Leiden: Brill, 1999: 206).

This common Semitic pattern is witnessed, for example, in the Mesopotamian story of divine kingship known as Enuma Elish. In the Babylonian myth, the head god of the pantheon calls together the gods in a council to resolve the dilemma created by the goddess Tiamat. Following a series of proposals, Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, receives a commission as savior.

In the myth, Marduk agrees to perform the role of savior on the condition that his Father, Ea, the head god of the council, will grant Marduk all power and glory. The same pattern appears in the Assyrian myth Anzu, however, in this rendition, the god Ninurta agrees to serve as council savior while allowing his father to retain his position.

These myths, unknown to 19th century audiences at the time of Joseph Smith, feature important parallels with the view of the divine council provided in the Book of Abraham.

Finally, Kevin’ theory also works well with research that I have performed on the connection between Semitic presentation scenes depicted on Mesopotamian cylinder seals and facsimile 3.

As a Jewish-Egyptian redactor, J-Red may have simply converted the Egyptian drama featured in facsimile 3 from a scene that originally fit an earlier Semitic context.

 James White is clearly out of his depth on the topic of the Book of Abraham. For a discussion of the "hits" within the facsimiles in favour of Joseph Smith, see Jeff Lindsay's discussion here.