Robert Rezetko on the Complications with the Common Evangelical Appeal to the Text of the Book of Isaiah in light of the Great Isaiah Scroll

 

First, there are many differences between 1QIsaa and the MT. Overall there are more than 2,600 variants between 1QIsa^a and the other witnesses to the book (MT, LXX, other Qumran scrolls of Isaiah, etc.). Anybody who examines the data will see 1QIsa^a and the MT are hardly “almost identical” (as claimed in Price 2007, 200). Second, another more fragmentary Qumran scroll of Isaiah, 1QIsa^b, is actually closer to the MT than 1QIsa^a. Textual critics describe 1QIsa^b as proto-MT, MT-like, belonging to the MT family, etc., but 1QIsa^a is instead considered non-aligned, unaligned, or independent. Specifically, according to Ian Young’s (2005, 94; 2018, 8) preliminary figures, there is one (non-orthographic/ spelling) difference between 1QIsa^b and the MT every 23.9 words, but one between 1QIsa^a and the MT every 9.7 words which is more than twice as often as in 1QIsa^b. Third, when evangelicals cite 1QIsa^a compared to the MT as the example par excellence of the OT’s reliable transmission for over a millennium, they overlook that no individual biblical DSS, 1QIsa^a, 1QIsa^b, or any other scroll, is representative of all the Qumran scrolls or of the diverse relationships between the individual scrolls and their MT counterparts. In other words, they commit the logical fallacy of inferring something is true for the whole because it is true for some part of the whole. The truth is, while some biblical DSS are like the MT, others are not. Fourth, turning to the evaluation of individual textual variants, some-times the MT is superior, sometimes 1QIsaa, sometimes another Qumran Isaiah scroll, or sometimes the LXX. Readings in Isaiah’s non-MT texts are judged more often than not to be secondary to readings in the MT, but this is not always the case, so each difference between the textual witnesses must be evaluated one by one on an egalitarian basis. In addition, the editors of the official publication of 1QIsaa, Ulrich and Peter Flint (2010, 90), argue:

 

With regard to most individual linguistic features, 1QIsaa does exhibit a later profile; however, with regard to the development of the text, the case is the reverse. These seven major secondary additions indicate that MT displays a later stage of textual development than that of 1QIsa^a, even if the linguistic features of MT did not undergo as much updating as those of 1QIsa^a.

(cf. Ulrich 2001b; 2015, 109–29)

 

In other words, they argue MT Isaiah is both early and late in different ways when compared to 1QIsa^a. In summary, evangelicals stand on shaky ground when they claim 1QIsa^a as proof of the MT’s accuracy and reliability. The complex textual situation cannot be boiled down to a single simplistic generalization. (Robert Rezetko, “Building a House on Sand: What Do Evangelicals Do When They Do Textual Criticism of the Old Testament?,” in Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With the Bible?, ed. Mark Elliott, Kenneth Atkinson, and Robert Rezetko [Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies; London: Routledge, 2023], 112-13)

 

Further Reading:

Donald W. Parry, Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3; Leiden, Brill: 2020)

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a): A New Edition, ed. Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998)

Robert A. Sungenis (RC) on Numbers 23:19-20 and God Changing His Mind

  

God is Not Like Man

 

Numbers 23:19-20

 

¹⁹God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. (Hebrew: נחם, here in the hithpael imperfect, which means he will not arbitrarily change his mind, will, actions, etc.) Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it? ²⁰Behold, I received a command to bless: he has blessed, and I cannot revoke it.

 

This passage repeats and confirms the manner Scripture envisions God’s immutability. It is not from an abstract metaphysical perspective but from a personal and moral perspective. This is not to say that God does not have an ontological immutability and only an ethical one; rather, it is the case that Scripture teaches us about God’s ontological immutability through his ethical immutability. Scripture tells us that we can always depend upon the fact that God will be true to himself, which is the essence of divine immutability. God will always do the right thing; all his actions will be just; he will never lie; he will never act on a whim or be impetuous; in short he will always honor who he is and what he has stated, for they are one in the same.

 

As such, we can begin to see how Aristotelian metaphysics can sometimes get in the way of how to understand God and Scripture. Whereas the tendency of the former is to categorize God in rather sterile and mechanical terms, the latter displays God in very personal and moralistic terms. Although it is true that the God of Scripture is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, these attributes do not supersede or overpower any of God's finer attributes (e.g., the personal and moralistic attributes); rather, they coalesce with them. For example, common child-like questions posed about God, such as, "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God make someone more powerful than himself?" or "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" are designed to make it appear that if God cannot do them then God is not all-powerful. But all these types of questions are correctly answered in the negative not because God is the "unmoved mover" but simply because God cannot lie. A square circle is a lie. Someone more powerful than God is a lie. A rock so big that God could not lift it is a lie. Hence, even though Scripture describes God as omnipotent, it is a fact that God cannot do things that are untrue. Therefore we must also conclude that God cannot do things that are logically impossible. Hence when Scripture says that "with God all things are possible" it is referring only to those things which do not infringe on God's righteousness and integrity. Only things that are good and true are possible with God (unlike the Devil who can accomplish his desires by doing good or evil), for Scripture is equally clear that "it is impossible for God to lie." (Robert A. Sungenis, The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind, The Impassible God Who Can Show Emotion [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2016], 92-93)

 

 

J. R. Soza on God "Repenting" in Numbers 23:19 and Genesis 6:6

  

We find a somewhat surprising use of repentance (niḥam) in Numbers 23:19:

 

God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind [niḥam]. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (NRSV)

 

The contradiction appears to be with passages such as Genesis 6:6, which readily describes God as repenting (niḥam). What, then, is the meaning of Numbers 23:19, which states that God does not repent (niḥam)? The passage is not a contradiction of Genesis 6:6 but rather shows that God is faithful in a way that human beings are not. Although God can and will change his mind (Gen 6:6, niḥam) about things relating to human beings and their particular attitudes and actions, there are some things about which God would never change his mind. For example, God is committed to the house of David (1 Sam 15:29; 2 Sam 7:8–17). Another example is God’s commitment to Israel via his initial covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3). It is God’s nonnegotiable commitment to Israel that is in mind here. God may change his mind about other things, but to this issue he will not. The context of Numbers 23:19 is the speeches of Balaam, who is attempting to curse Israel at the wish of Balak, king of the Moabites (Num 22:1–4). Balaam is unable to bring a curse and instead proclaims that he can only bless Israel (Num 23:20). God’s blessing of Israel is therefore seen to be irrevocable, and this immediately following the wanderings and the rebellions in the wilderness recorded throughout the book of Numbers. In this way, God is shown to be faithful to his covenant in a way that Israel was not, as witnessed in the golden calf incident of Exodus 32–34. In other words, God will not repent of those things to which he has made covenant commitments. (J. R. Soza, “Repentance,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003], 686, emphasis in bold added)

 

Examples of Rabbinic Interpretations of Hosea 6:6

  

Targum Hosea 6:6: “There is more pleasure before me in those who practice mercy than in the altar.”

 

ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan 4: (Regarding the saying of R. Simeon the righteous I [ca. 300 BCE] in m. ʾAbot 1.2: “On three things the world stands, on the Torah, the sacrificial service, and demonstrations of love,” it says:) “On demonstrations of love” in what way? Behold, it says, “In love I am well pleased, and not in sacrifice” (Hos 6:6). The world was created from the beginning only by love: “I say, ‘Love builds up the world’ ” (Ps 89:3, according to the Midrash). At one time Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai († ca. 80 CE) went out of Jerusalem and R. Joshua walked behind him (followed him as his disciple), and he saw the sanctuary destroyed, the place where atonement was procured for the sins of Israel. He said to him, “My son, do not be displeased! We have an atonement like it; and what is it? These are the demonstrations of love; see Hos 6:6 (as above).” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 49B: R. Eleazar (ca. 270) said, “He who practices charity is greater than all sacrifices; see ‘That one practices charity (so the Midrash) and justice is dearer to Yahweh than sacrifice’ (Prov 21:3).”—In Midr. Prov. 21:3 (45A), R. Eleazar b. Simeon (ca. 180) says, “He who practices charity and justice, Scripture reckons it to him as if he offered burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Prov 21:3).” ‖ Deuteronomy Rabbah 5 (201D): “That one practices charity and justice is dearer to Yahweh than sacrifice” (Prov 21:3). It does not say “as dear as sacrifice” כזבח, but “more than sacrifice” מזּבח. In what way? Sacrifices were offered only while the temple stood; but charity and justice are in practice while the temple existed and at the time when it does not. Another explanation: Sacrifices atone only for the one who sinned accidentally; but charity and justice atone both for the one who sinned accidentally and for the one who sinned presumptuously. Another explanation: Sacrifices are in practice only with the inferiors (persons); charity and justice both with the superiors (angels) and with the inferiors. Another explanation: Sacrifices are in practice only in this world; charity and justice both in this world and in the future world. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Berakot 55A: R. Yohanan († 279) and R. Eleazar (ca. 270) both said, “As long as the temple existed, the altar provided atonement for Israel, but now the table of human beings provides atonement for it (i.e., feeding the poor).” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:560)

 

Francisco Marín Sola: Every Roman Catholic Dogma That Would Be Defined "existed in the minds of the Apostles" Immediatelly, Formally, and Explicilty

  

57. THE MEANING OF THE FORMULAE IN THE MIND OF THE APOSTLES.—What has just been said of God’s mind must be likewise said of the minds of the Apostles. Not precisely because revelation was made to them immediately by God—since both the Prophets and the Hagiographers also received their revelations immediately from God,--but because revelation was made to them as the heads or chiefs of the Church of the New Testament, in whom the plenitude of divine revelation on earth was consummated and brought to a close.

 

Where mere prophets or inspired authors are concerned it is not absolutely necessary that they should explicitly know all the implicit meaning contained in the formulae revealed or inspired by God to them. According to St. Thomas, not even true prophets know all that the Holy Spirit intends to signify by the visions, words or events revealed to them; and there is no inconsistency in saying that today we understand the prophecies and revelations of the Old Testament much more explicitly and fully than the Prophets themselves on account of the fuller divine or dogmatic explication of those prophecies and revelations given us by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and His Church.

 

But the Apostles were much more than mere prophets or mere hagiographers. As supreme teachers of the full and definitive revelation, and as foundations of the Church until the end of time, traditional theology acknowledges in the Apostles the special privilege of having received through infused light an explicit understanding of divine revelation greater than that which all the theologians, or even the Church as a whole, possess or will possess up to the end of time.

 

Hence, all the dogmas are already defined by the Church and all those that will be defined in the future existed in the minds of the Apostles, not mediately or virtually or implicitly, but immediately, formally, explicitly. Their mode of knowing the revealed deposit was not like ours. We know by means of partial and human concepts, that implicitly and virtually contain much more understanding than they express, and require effort and time successively to unfold or explicate what is contained in them. They knew by means of divine or infused light, which is a simple supernatural understanding that in one stroke actualizes and illumines all the implicitude and virtuality.

 

Thus, if we take as a term of comparison the meaning of the revealed deposit as it was in the mind of the Apostles in order to compare it with the meaning that we know, then something similar to what we said of the mind of God must be said; namely, that there has been no progress but rather diminution or retrogression. We know, and will know, the meaning of the revealed deposit much less and less explicitly than what the Apostles knew. When we talk of dogmatic progress, it must not be understand to mean progress beyond what the Apostles knew. Therefore, the mind of the Apostles cannot be the starting point or primitive datum required in order to detect the presence or the absence of dogmatic progress. (Francisco Marín-Sola, The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma [trans. Antonio T. Piñon; Manila, Philippines: Santo Tomas University Press, 1988], 171-73, emphasis in bold added)

 

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) on Psalm 106 and Phinehas’s Actions Appeasing God’s Wrath

  

The Cause and Remedy of the Plague. Lancelot Andrewes: The plague comes not by chance, but has a cause. That cause is not altogether natural and pertains to the physical, but has something supernatural in it, and pertains to divinity. That supernatural cause is the wrath of God. This, however, is not the first cause; for the wrath of God would not come down unless he was provoked by our sins. Indeed certain sins have provoked his wrath. Our own inventions produced the sins that incurred his wrath, resulting in the plague among us. To stay the plague, God’s wrath must be stayed. To stay God’s wrath, there must be a ceasing from sin; for that sin to cease, we must stop loving our own inventions, and no longer whore after them. Prayer which assuages anger, and the execution of justice abates sin. With respect to the latter, this means executing justice publicly as the magistrate does, or privately as every individual may do on themselves [by means of repentance]. The execution of justice joined with prayer will soon rid us of [the plague] of which we complain. Otherwise, “his anger will not be turned away, but his hand is still stretched out.” Sermon on Psalm 106:29–30. (Psalms 73-150: Old Testament, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis and Timothy George [Reformation Commentary on Scripture 8; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2018], 189)

 

Further Reading:

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (contains a discussion of Num 25 and Psa 106:30-31 and the justification of Phinehas)

Robert Alter on Numbers 23:19

  

El is no man who would fail,
no human who would show change of heart.
Would he say and not perform
would he speak and not fulfill it? (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:564)

 

 

EL is no man. The monotheistic point briefly stated in the first oracle (verse 8) is here expanded to a full-fledged theological proposition on God’s fixed intentions that resist any human manipulation. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:564)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Exegesis of texts quoted in Micah Beauford, "A comparison between Joseph Smith's 'King Follett Sermon' and the Bible"

 

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Ian Young and Thomas J. Elms on the Common Evangelical Abuse of Deuteronomy 18 and the Test of a Prophet

  

We have seen evangelicals invoke Deuteronomy 18:22 as proof that, unless Daniel’s prophecies were literalistically fulfilled, Daniel is a false prophet. However, the fact that Deuteronomy 18’s description, of a true prophet as being evidenced by fulfillment of prophecies, does not imply a literalistic fulfillment of prophecies is evident even in a Deuteronomistic text such as Kings, for all its interest in prophecy and fulfillment. Note how, while in 1 Kings 21:19 Elijah prophesies “Thus says the LORD: ‘In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth [meaning Jezreel], dogs will also lick up your blood,’” this is explicitly noted as fulfilled “according to the word of the LORD that he had spoken,” even though “they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; the dogs licked up his blood,” not matching the apparent thrust of the prophecy that Ahab’s punishment would hap-pen in the very place where Naboth was killed. On other occasions it is accepted a prophecy may come to nothing since God’s sovereign will might change in response to human actions. Thus in 2 Kings 20:1, Isaiah tells King Hezekiah plainly: “Thus says the LORD: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover,’” yet after Hezekiah’s prayer, this prophecy is superseded in 2 Kings 20:5–6a by “Thus says the LORD, the God of your ancestor David: ‘I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life.’” According to the interpretation of Deuteronomy 18 as requiring literalistic fulfillment by the evangelicals mentioned above, Elijah and Isaiah must join Daniel as “false prophets.” Evangelicals must be aware of the various cases such as these of imprecise fulfillment of prophecy, but it seems a different standard of literal fulfillment is set when it comes to Daniel’s apocalyptic symbols. (Ian Young and Thomas J. Elms, “Avoiding the Apocalypse in the Book of Daniel,” in Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With the Bible?, ed. Mark Elliott, Kenneth Atkinson, and Robert Rezetko [Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies; London: Routledge, 2023], 207)

 

 

Outside Kings, there are of course various examples, such as Ezekiel 26:1-21 and 29:17-21. In the former passage, Ezekiel predicts Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Tyre, while in the second passage, dated 16 years later, Ezekiel admits Nebuchadnezzar’s siege failed. God now promises the Babylonians an Egyptian conquest as a consolation. As another example, a key plot element in Jonah involves an unfulfilled prophecy. (Ibid., 220 n. 27)

 

Further Reading:

Richard L. Pratt (non-LDS [Presbyterian] scholar), "Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions" (PDF Version)

Edward P. Martin (RC) on the Reality of the "Authority Crisis" that has Erupted Since Mater Populi Fidelis (November 11, 2025)

Commenting on the debate that has resulted from Mater Populi Fidelis, November 11, 2025, Catholic apologist Edward P. Martin admitted that the Magisterium has not resulted in “clarity” (which means he is more honest than ‘pop’ level apologists like most at Catholic Answers):

 

The Authority Crisis Is Real

 

The controversy has exposed tensions within Catholic ecclesiology that Vatican I left unresolved and Vatican II complicated.

 

What happens when non-infallible magisterial teachings contradict each other? Does later teaching automatically supersede earlier teaching? Does later teaching automatically supersede earlier teaching? Does the authority level matter (papal encyclical vs. dicastery document)? What role does reception by the faithful play? Can Catholics conscientiously dissent from non-infallible teaching?

 

These aren’t merely academic questions. Real Catholics must decide: Do I follow Leo XIII’s teaching about Mary or Mater Populi Fidelis’s teaching? Both claim authority. Both demand “religious submission of mind and will.” Yet they contradict each other—at least in the language of mind and will.” Yet they contradict each other—at least in the language they permit, if not in the substance they affirm.

 

The fact that learned, faithful Catholics disagree about which teaching to follow reveals that the Church’s theology of non-infallible magisterium is underdeveloped. This underdevelopment creates crises like the present one. (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 320)

 

Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck on Parallels to Matthew 8:26 and Jesus Calming the Winds and Sea

  

8:26: He subdued the winds and the sea, and there was a great silence.

 

Babylonian Talmud Baba Meṣiʿa 59B: Rabban Gamliel (ca. 90) had gone on a ship; an impetuous sea rose against it to sink it. He said, “It seems to me that this happens only because of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus” (whom he had put under the ban). He stood on his feet and said, “Lord of the world, it is manifest and known before you that I have not done it for my honor, nor for the honor of my father’s house, but for your honor, that the factions in Israel may not increase.” Then the sea calmed from its raging. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 73A: Rabbah († 330; perhaps Rabbah bar bar Hana [ca. 280] is meant?) said, “The sailors told me, ‘This wave that sinks a ship looks like a white ray of fire at the top, and we strike it with a rod engraved with, “I will be who I will be, Yah, Yahweh Sabaoth, Amen, Amen! Sela,” then it calms down ונייח.’ ” ‖ See another narrative belonging here from y. Ber. 9.13B.22 at § Matt 7:7 A, #2, n. a, about a quarter of the way through the paragraph. ‖ We are told of the authority of R. Phineas b. Yair over the waters of a stream as follows. Babylonian Talmud Ḥullin 7A: R. Phineas b. Yair (ca. 200) went to release captives. He came upon the river Ginai (according to the context of the passage, at any rate, in Galilee); he said to it, “Ginai, divide for me your waters, that I may pass through!” It answered, “You go to do the will of your creator, and I go to do the will of my creator; of you it is doubtful whether you will carry it out or not, but I carry it out with certainty!” That one said, “If you do not divide, I impose on you the decree that never more will water flow into you.” So it divided for him. Now there was a man there carrying wheat for the Passover. R. Phineas said to the river, “Divide for this one also, because he is busy with a duty!” It parted for him. There was also a Tajite (Arab) there who had joined those two. R. Phineas said to the river, “Part also for this one, lest he say, ‘Is this the way to act towards traveling companions?’ ” So it divided for him. Rab Joseph († 333) said, “How much greater is the man (R. Phineas) than Moses and the 60 myriads (for whom Moses parted the Reed Sea); for there (at the Reed Sea) the parting took place once and here three times” (cf. incidentally 2 Kgs 2:8, 14). (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:548)

 

Notes on Numbers 19:2 and "Cow" Being a Better Rendering of pārâ(h) פָּרָה than "Heifer"

  

a perfect red cow that had no blemish. The traditional rendering of parah as “heifer” is not warranted by the Hebrew, which in no way suggests that the beast is not mature. The red color appears to be associated with the importance of blood in the purification ritual that follows, an association reinforced by the phonetic overlap in Hebrew between dam, “Blood,” and ‘adam, “red.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 1:544)

 

 

cow. Hebrew pārāh tells us little about the precise age of the requisite animal, because par ‘bull’ and pārāh ‘cow’ are used rather loosely in biblical Hebrew. English “heifer” designates a cow that has not borne a calf, and it is nowhere near certain that such an animal was intended by the present law. One assumes that a degree of physical maturity is implied by the term pārāh, though we lack detailed information on animal husbandry in biblical Israel. Clearly, a pārāh is older than an ʿeglāh ‘calf’ (female), and, according to Mic 6:6, a yearling is called ʿēgel. (Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 4; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 461)

 

 

Taylor Halverson (LDS), in his translation of Num 19:2 also renders it as “a perfect red cow without defect or blemish that has never been under a yoke.”

 

Here are scholarly lexicons on the meaning of פָּרָה in the context of Num 19:2:

 

פָּרָה I _26.0.6 n.f. cow—cstr. Q פרת; sf. פָּדָתוֹ; pl. פָּרוֹת (פָּרֹת); cstr. פָּרוֹת—cow, female bovine (עֶגְלָה is the young ‘female calf’, פֵּר is the adult male, ‘bull’), as sacrifice (Nm 19:2, 5, 6, 9, 10; 1 S 6:7, 7, 10, 12, 14; 4QTohB^a 1_3.7; 4QTohB^b 1.2_1.2 [both [הפרה]] 1.2₃; 4QMMT B₁₃), present (Gn 32:16), trade object (MurEpBeth-Mashiko₃), possession of the wicked (Jb 21:10), animal in the messianic kingdom (Is 11:7), symbol in a dream (Gn 41:2₊₁₀), image of stubborn Israel (Ho 4:16=CD 1₁₃) and of upper-class women in Samaria (Am 4:1). (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 8 vols. [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007], 6:758)

 

 

II פָּרָה: fem. of פַּר, SamP. farra, cf. ? Amorite n.f. parratum (Finkel RA 70 (1976) 48): sf. פָּרָתוֹ, pl. פָּרוֹת: cow Gn 32:16 41:2-27 Nu 19:2 (אֲדֻמָּה), 5f, 9f 1S 6:7 and 10 (עָלוֹת), 12, 14 Is 11:7 Hos 4:16 Jb 21:10; metaphorical פָּרוֹת הַבָּשָׁן Bashan cattle, meaning the prominent and haughty women of Samaria Am 4:1 :: Barstad VT 25 (1975) 286-297: a figurative description of the whole of the population that had fallen into idolotrous practices; cj. Nu 19:2 for חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה prp. חֻ׳ הַפָּרָה. † (HALOT)

 

 

1. Occurrences. The terms par/pārâ are related in substance to the word group → בקר bāqār and occur over 150 times (131 and 25, respectively) in the OT; the frequent occurrence of these words in the pentateuchal sacrificial regulations is responsible for this high number.

 

2. Meaning. The frequently used complement ben-bāqār (Lev. 4:3, 14; Nu. 7:15ff.; 8:8; 15:24, etc.; Ezk. 43:19, 23, 25, etc.) provides little information about the meaning of par; although it does indicate that the animal belongs to the category “ox, bovine,” it says nothing about the animal’s age.

 

While GesB translates par as “steer, esp. younger bull (different from ʿēg̱el),” HAL says, “sometimes the animal is a young one.”⁸ Only two passages provide any indication of age along with par, and even this information is uncertain (Jgs. 6:25; 1 S. 1:24–25). The specification of the term par as a “young bull” has been influenced perhaps by the tractate Parah, which discusses the age of an ox suitable for sacrifice and of the heifer required for preparing the water of purification (Nu. 19:2ff.; Mish. Parah 1:2: “but out of respect, do not bring old animals”). According to R. Péter-Contesse, par/pārâ can be understood as a fully grown, i.e., sexually mature, steer (or bull) and cow, while the → עגל ʿēg̱el/ʿeg̱lâ refers to the younger animals. The terms bāqār and šôr would then allegedly refer to the category “ox, bovine,” collectively or as an individual animal without saying anything about age or gender.

 

He also considers the other possibility, namely, that šôr, “bull,” and pārâ, “cow,” belong together, while par is to be translated as “young bull.” Militating against this view, however, is that the OT never uses par = “young bull” to refer to the cultically venerated bull image, but rather ʿēg̱el = “calf.” We have as yet no persuasive etymological explanation of par. Gesenius mentions a root prr with the meanings “cito ferri, currere” (cf. in this regard the name of the river near Damascus, parpar, mentioned in 2 K. 5:12), or “vehi … ut iuvencus dictus sit a vehiculo trahendo,” yet also refers to the possibility of understanding prr = prh in the meaning “fertilis fuit,” which would fit with the mythological context mentioned below. In all probability par is a primary noun. (K.-M. Beyse, “פַּר,” in TDOT 12:67)

 

Remembering Sarah Allen

 

SPECIAL EPISODE! | Remembering Sarah Allen

Maldwyn A. Jones on Europe and the American Civil War

  

Europe and the Civil War

 

Although by the end of 1863 the Confederacy was obviously tottering, the outcome of the war would not necessarily be decided on the battlefields. If the South could secure European recognition and persuade Great Britain and France to intervene. Confederate independence would be certain. At the outset the South confidently expected that Great Britain in particular would be forced by her dependence on Southern cotton to intervene to break the blockade, or at least to press mediation on the North. Southerners even tried to precipitate British intervention by placing an embargo on the export of cotton in 1861 and burning a large part of the year’s crop.

 

But Southern faith in King Cotton was misplaced. Thanks to heavy imports in the previous two years British manufacturers held large stocks of cotton when the war broke out; shortages of raw material did not become acute until 1863, by which time alternative supplies were beginning to arrive from India and Egypt. The so-called ‘Lancashire cotton famine’, which inflicted widespread hardship on mill-workers during the war, could not have been alleviated by breaking the blockade since it was caused primarily by overproduction. In any case Great Britain was reluctant, as a great sea power which had traditionally relied upon the blockade weapon, to question Lincoln’s authority to use it. Then, too, British industry as a whole did well out of the Civil War. Northern wartime purchases produced a boom in steel, munitions, and shipbuilding, and in the manufacture of woolen textiles and boots and shoes.

 

Economic factors do not, however, explain why in the end neither Great Britain nor France was prepared to intervene. Nor does the Emancipation Proclamation. In the last analysis, it was the military situation in America that was crucial. The European powers were prepared to contemplate intervention only when the Confederacy seemed about to win. Had Lee’s invasion of Maryland in the autumn of 1862 succeeded, Great Britain would have recognized the Confederacy. But when he was repulsed such thoughts were put aside and, after Gettysburg, virtually abandoned. France would have followed Great Britain’s lead in recognizing the Confederacy but was unwilling to act alone.

 

The long-standing belief that the British government gave up its plans for intervention because of fears of a working-class outcry is a myth. There is no evidence that the government took working-class sentiment into account. In any case British opinion on the Civil War was not wholly divided along class lines. True, most of the ruling classes were strongly sympathetic to the Confederacy. Despising Northerners as a breed of acquisitive vulgarians, and cherishing a sense of kinship with aristocratic Southerners, they further welcomed the break-up of the Union because it weakened a dangerous rival and would tend to discredit popular government. Ranged against the established classes were middle-class anti¬ slavery liberals like Bright and Cobden, who had long admired American democracy. But working-class support for the North was far from solid. The numerous pro-Northern mass meetings in Lancashire in the spring of 1863 to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation were not wholly spontaneous and there was a substantial amount of pro-Southern—or at least anti-Northern—sentiment in trade-union and working-class circles. Since the North was avowedly fighting to preserve the Union rather than to abolish slavery, the South, it was felt, was simply fighting for independence.

 

There were nonetheless two occasions when Great Britain might have been drawn in. The first was in November 1861, when Captain Charles Wilkes, commanding the American frigate, San Jacinto, stopped the British mail steamer, Trent, on the high seas and removed two Confederate diplomats, Mason and Slidell, who were on their way to represent the Confederacy in Europe. The British government denounced Wilkes's action as a violation of international law and of neutral rights and demanded the release of the prisoners and an apology. Feelings ran high on both sides of the Atlantic and for several weeks war seemed unavoidable. But after the British had adopted a less threatening attitude Lincoln and Seward gave way and released the captives.

 

The second crisis resulted from the building of vessels for the Confederacy in British shipyards. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 for¬ bade the construction of warships for belligerents, but Confederate agents found that the regulations could be evaded by not actually arming the vessels until they had left British waters. This loophole enabled the Confederacy to build or purchase in England a number of fast commerce-raiders like the famous Alabama, which slipped out of the Mersey in July 1862 and, together with her consorts, harried Northern commerce to such effect that, because of prohibitive insurance costs, the Stars and Stripes all but disappeared from the high seas. The efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the American Minister in London, to prevent the departure of the Alabama came to naught, but his angry protests at the building of the ‘Laird Rams' were more effective. These were not mere commerce-raiders but powerful ironclad steam warships, whose underwater rams could have crippled the wooden ships of the Union blockading squadron. In September 1863 Adams solemnly warned Lord John Russell, the British Foreign Secretary, that if the rams were permitted to sail ‘it would be superfluous in me to point out to Your Lordship that this is war’. The ultimatum was unnecessary for the government had already ordered their seizure. It realized that to do otherwise would create a precedent which might be cited against Great Britain in future wars. (Maldwyn A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1980 [The Short Oxford History of the Modern World; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983], 231-33)

 

 Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Edward P. Martin (RC) on Origen Imputing Personal Sin to Mary in Homilies on Luke 17

Commenting on Origen imputing personal sin to Mary in his interpretation of the “sword” of Simeon’s prophecy in Homilies on Luke 17:6-7, Catholic apologist Edward P. Martin noted that:

 

Origen’s motive seems to have been pastoral. He wanted to show that even the holiest believers face trials of faith, and that God permits these trials for purification. Mary’s faith, tested by the sword of doubt, emerged stronger and purer. She is a model for Christians who face dark nights of the soul.

 

. . .

 

Yet Origen’s view reminds us that patristic Mariology developed gradually and through debate. It was not monolithic. Even on fundamental questions—Did Mary doubt? Was her faith perfect?—the early Fathers could disagree. (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 39)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Did Origen believe in the Immaculate Conception?

 

Henri Crouzel, François Fournier, and Pierre Périchon: Mary, in Origen's Theology, "is not entirely without fault"

Philip W. Comfort on Matthew 11:19

  

Matthew 11:19

 

WH NU            ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς

“wisdom is justified by her works”

 

א B* W syr^h, cop MSS^{according to Jerome} (f¹³ it^k add παντων = “all [her works]”)

nkjvmg rsv nrsv esv nasb niv tniv neb reb njb nab nlt hcsb net

 

variant/TR       εδικαιωθη η σοφια απο των τεκνων αυτης

“wisdom is justified by her children”

 

B² C D L Θ f¹ 33 Maj syr^c,

kjv nkjv rsvmg nrsvmg esvmg njbmg hcsbmg netmg

 

The WH NU reading has superior manuscript support inasmuch as it is found in א B* W, several early versions (notably it^k, syr, cop), and was known by Jerome to be the reading in some manuscripts (which had to be earlier than ca. 400). The variant has support from later manuscripts and is probably the result of a scribal attempt to conform this verse to Luke 7:35, a parallel passage. Wisdom, though momentarily jeered, is always proven correct by her future deeds. The emphasis in Luke is on Wisdom’s future generations. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 33)

 

Francesca Rochberg on the Use of "Cubit" as a Measurement in Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia

  

Use of the Normal Star reference system is more characteristic of the earlier horoscopes, in which case the evidence argues somewhat more forcibly for the first method, that is, excerpting the desired lunar position with respect to a Normal Star from the appropriate diary text. We have the following excerpt from a third-century B.C. horoscope (BH rev. 1-3, dated 258 B.C.): “night of the 8th, beginning of night, the moon was ½ cubits below (the bright star of the Ribbon of) the Fishes, the moon passed ½ cubit to the east.” Similarly, from another third-century example (BH 13:2—4, dated 224 B.C.), we have “night of the 4th, beginning of night, the moon was below the bright star of the Furrow by 15/, cubits, the moon passed 1/, cubit to the east.”3* This horoscope also gives the zodiacal sign of the moon”: “In his hour (of birth), the moon was in Libra” (BH13:5).

 

. . .

 

The Normal Stars provided a positional system in which distance with respect to a certain Normal Star was noted in cubits (Kùš = ammatu) and fingers (šu.sI = ubānu). The equivalence between the finger and the degree is 12 fingers = 1°. Because some astronomical texts seem to be at variance where the cubit is concerned, some measuring this unit apparently as 30 fingers, others as 24 fingers, it has been assumed that the Babylonian cubit was reckoned variously as 2° or 21/2°.13 The 21/2° cubit, however, does not accord with the distances from Normal Stars as determined from the diary texts directly, in which the size of the cubit seems to be something just a little more than 2°.

 

. . .

 

Calculations of astronomical phenomena in Greek, Arabic, and Indian astronomy are carried out in the Babylonian sexagesimal (base-60) system, the origins of which may be traced to Sumerian bookkeeping of the third millennium, preserved in the archaic texts of Uruk. Units of measure for time and arc in the Babylonian system give us the 360° circle, as the day was measured as 12 DANNA units, each subdivided into 30 Uš: 12 x 30 = 360 uš. Because the day is the equivalent of one rotation of the heavens from sunrise to sunrise (or sunset to sunset), the circle was thereby divided into 360 uš units, or "degrees." This convention, along with the use of sexagesimal notation, is attested in Greek astronomy by the mid- second century B.C., associated with Hipparchus and Hypsicles (ca. 200 B.C.). The cubit (Kùš = ammatu), with its subdivision the finger or digit (ŠU.SI = ubānu), was a unit of distance in Babylonian metrology with an astronomical application for measuring distances in the heavens between, for example, fixed stars and the meridian, or between planets and ecliptical stars, and also for measuring eclipse magnitude. The equivalence I cubit = 30 fingers = 2 ½ uš, gives us 1 finger = 0.5° and 1° = 12 fingers. The cubit is used in two of the earliest observations (of the planet Mercury) recorded in the Almagest, from 245 and 237 B.C. (Almagest IX, 7). Ptolemy cites Babylonian eclipse reports, giving the time the eclipse begins, statement of totality, time of mid-eclipse, and direction and magnitude of greatest obscuration in digits, in the manner of cuneiform eclipse reports.5 Ptolemy (Almagest IX, 7) also cites distance in cubits from ecliptical norming stars (Normal Stars) at dawn for Mercury, the dates for which are given in the Babylonian calendric system of lunar months (translated into Macedonian month names) and Seleucid Era years, and he also cites the distance of Saturn in digits from a Normal Sar in the evening (Almagest XI, 7). These observational reports attest to Greek awareness of the Babylonian astronomical diaries and related observational and predictive texts. The Babylonian cubit is also used by Strabo in his Geography (2, I, 18). (Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 106, 125, 238-39)

 

Hermann Hunger and David Pingree on the Use of "Cubit" as a Measurement in Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia

The following comes from:

 

Hermann Hunger and David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (Handbook of Oriental Studies; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 160, 177

 

 

BM 34758 (LBAT 1057) for 194 SE (= -117/6) on pp. 100-105 (transliteration) and 112 (computation), and Tafel VI (copy); Kugler had only two of the three fragments of this tablet. The Diary for -117 agrees in some particulars, disagrees in others:

 

Diary	Normal Star Almanac
XII 5 or 6. Φ of Saturn 4 ½ cubits below a Gem.	XII 5 or 6. Φ of Saturn 4Yz cubits below α Gem.
	XII 10. Φ of Saturn in Gemini
XII [10. Venus] 4Y2 cubits [below a] Arietis	XII [9]. Venus 4 ½  cubits [below α] Arietis
XII 29. Solar eclipse (after) 5 months; omitted	Xll19. 54o (= 3;36 h) after sunset, solar eclipse.

 

. . .

 

Jupiter

 

 

 

 

Ed Christian (Evangelical) Against the Common Misreadings of Luke 16 and the Rich Man and Lazarus

The following comes from:

 

Ed Chrisitan, “The Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham’s Bosom, and the Biblical Penalty Karet (“Cut Off”),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 3 (2018): 519, 523:

 

 

What could have led so many readers to assume Abraham and his bosom were in heaven? Luke 16:23 reads, “In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.” The literal translation is not “looked upon” but “Lifting up the eyes.” Readers without access to the textual tools we have might assume that “lifting up the eyes” meant looking up into the air. However, the phrase is a Hebrew idiomatic expression that usually means “looking.” [28]

 

Does anything else in the parable suggest that the rich man was looking up to heaven? No. Verse 26 reads, “Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass [diabainō, to step across or cross over] from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us [diaparaō, to pass over or cross over].” A “chasm” usually separates two things that are more or less on the same level. It’s not the usual word for separating something above from something below. Similarly, we don’t “step across” or “cross over” from one stair to the next, or from earth to heaven. We step across a crack or cross over a river a river or a street from one side to the other. Thus, we should imagine that rich man with his eyes down. He lifts his eyes to a horizontal position—in hades—and across a chasm he sees “Father Abraham.” [29] The rich man does not speak to Lazarus, and there is no sign at all in the parable that Lazarus sees or hears him. Only Father Abraham speaks to him.

 

. . .

 

By this light, we see that in Jesus’s parable, the rich man has been “cut off” from “Father Abraham,” and so evidently from the rest of “the fathers.” They are all in hades, but the rich man is “tormented,” while Lazarus is “comforted.” The rich man has suffered the penalty of karet, and between him and his fathers is a chasm he cannot cross over. Meanwhile, Lazarus, though a beggar in life, is with “the fathers” in death, awaiting the resurrection.

 

I myself agree with the psalmist when he says, “For in death there is no remembrance of you,” and asks, “in Sheol who can give you praise?” (Ps 6:5). I believe that both the righteous and the wicked are in the grave, awaiting the resurrection and their eternal reward, for good or ill. I believe the Pharisees and people of Jesus’s day had taken OT figurative language as literal while ignoring more literal verses. Why then did Jesus use such language? Was he not confirming the truth of their beliefs? No, I think he was, rather, meeting people where they were, explaining the truth in terms they would remember and understood, even though the story was not literally true.

 

There is a word for using what is imagined to explain what is transcendent parable. Those who prefer to believe this parable is not a parable at all but a revelation of something that had actually happened, however, or of the actual state of the dead, must now accustom themselves to the revelation that their loved ones are not in heaven after all, but in hades, awaiting the resurrection. This is the literal meaning of the text.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

[28] The phrase used in the Greek in Luke 16:23 is also found in John 4:35, where Jesus invites his disciples to lift up their eyes and see that the fields are ripe for harvest. He is not suggesting that the fields are on mountaintops or in the sky. The Hebrew idiom occurs more than four dozen times. Sometimes the context reveals that it does mean looking up—to heaven, or the hills. Usually, however, the idiom suggests an eye movement from looking down to looking out or looking at. Among the texts supporting this are Gen 13:10; 18:2; 22:4, 13; 24:63, 64; 33:1; Exod 14:10; Deut 3:27; Isa 49:18; 60:4; Jer 13:20; Ezek 8:5; 23:27.

 

[29] Hippolytus wrote, of the wicked looking at the righteous in hades, “And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it” (emphasis added). (Note that by the time of Hippolytus those in Abraham’s bosom are aware of those cut off from it by the chasm, but this may be due to the Greek influence, and it goes beyond the words of the parable.)

 

. . .

 

[40] In Pseudo-Philo 40:4, we find another mention of the “bosom,” though with an unusual usage. God says, about the daughter of Jephthah, “Her death will be precious before me always, and she will go away and fall into the bosom of her mothers.” (It is interesting that in 33:2, Deborah says, “Listen now, my people. Behold I am warning you as a woman of God and am enlightening you as one from the female race; and obey me like your mother and heed my words as people who will also die.” This motherly authority is rare indeed in the Bible, more’s the pity.)

 

[41] The parable, whether literal or figurative, also makes it clear that neither the righteous nor the wicked dead can return to this world to give messages. This negates the possibility that what the witch of Endor saw “coming up out of the ground” was in fact Samuel or his spirit or host. However, it is significant that this man of God is said to come “up” (v. 16), rather than from some heavenly place, as this reinforces the idea of “Abraham’s bosom” being understood to be part of Sheol in Jesus’s day.

 

 

Caesarius of Arles (d. 542) on Addressing Jeremiah 18 and the Contingent Nature of Blessings and Cursings

  

(2) Someone may say that even if they had repented they could not have entered the promised land, because God had passed definite sentence upon them when He said: ‘You shall not enter the land which I promised on oath to your fathers, but your bodies shall fall here in the desert.’ This is not true, beloved brethren; if only the sinner would have recourse to repentance as quickly as God is willing to change that fixed sentence. Listen to the Lord Himself through the prophet promise the greatest hope to the human race: ‘I will suddenly threaten a nation that I will do evil to them for their sins; but if they repent of their iniquities, I also will repent of the evil which I threatened to do to them, and will not do it.’ Behold how great is our God’s goodness to us, brethren, and learn whether He will refuse His mercy, since He longs to change His sentence if we be converted. Therefore, let us turn to Him, dearly beloved, and not wish to defer our amendment until the end of our life. Let us listen to the prophet when he says: ‘Delay not your conversion to the Lord, put it not off from day to day,’ ‘for you know not what any day may bring forth.’ O man, why do you delay from day to day, when perhaps today you are going to have your last day? For this reason let us always call to mind with great fear and trembling, dearly beloved, that so great is the justice of our God that, as was already said above, out of six hundred thousand only two men entered the land of promise. If we will continually reflect upon these truths with a humble and contrite heart, instilling into ourselves a salutary fear, we will derive remedies for ourselves from the wounds of others and their death will avail to our salvation. Notice carefully who those two men are that invite the Jewish people to the land of promise, and what they spiritually signify. The two of them represent the New and Old Testaments; under the leadership of those two men, that is, of the Old and New Testaments, the promised land or eternal happiness is reached. Concerning those two Testaments, we read: ‘In the middle of the two animals you will be known’; for although the Old and New Testaments in some places differ in the letter, still they agree in truth and both say one thing in a different way. Nevertheless, those two men can be understood in another way. The ascent to the promised land was made under two leaders, because Christ is reached historically and allegorically, by faith and works, by love of God and charity toward the neighbor. (Caesarius of Arles, “Sermon 109: On the Spies and the Forty Years Spent in the Desert,” in Saint Caesarius of Arles: Sermons, 3 vols. [trans. Mary Magdelene Mueller; The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1964]: 2:140-42)

 

David O. McKay's Affirmation of the Virginal Conception and Birth of Jesus in "The Miracle of the Resurrection"

  

The greatest of all miracles is Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Professed followers of the Risen Lord are celebrating at Eastertime, in form at last, this great miracle. There are many people who reject the reality of the resurrection of the Lord. They believe, or profess to believe, in the teachings of Christ, but do not believe in the immaculate conception nor in his literal resurrection from the grave; yet, this latter fact was the very foundation of the early Christian church.

 

. . .

 

To me the testimonies of these men mean but one thing, and that is that Jesus Christ—who was born of the Virgin Mary; who preached the gospel after his own name; who sought the lost ones; whose life as we know it, even from the fragmentary accounts thereof, is an inspiration and has been an inspiration to millions for two thousand years; who was crucified in ignominy; and who was buried—that this same Jesus Christ arose from the grave literally, and that the early Christian Church was founded upon that divine fact. (David O. McKay, “The Miracle of the Resurrection,” in Treasures of Life, comp. Clare Middlemiss [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1962], 32, 35)

 

Note that McKay affirmed the virginal conception [which he incorrectly called the immaculate conception] of Jesus and stated Jesus was born of the virgin Mary—affirming the virginal birth, too. For more, see:

 

Refutation of “Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex”

David O. McKay on the Atonement and Ephesians 2

  

Self-preservation became not only the first law, but I can imagine, the only law he knew. As the race increased, and the struggle for existence became more acute, selfishness and strife would manifest themselves. Man would struggle with man for supremacy or for the best things nature could offer for the prolongation or the comforts of life. Thus would man become “carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature.” (Alma 42:6-13.)

 

Now, what was there in man to lead him up to a Godlike life? The divinity within him, I grant you, would be ever urging him to rise above himself. But his reverence for the Infinite could express itself only in a worship of the manifestations of divine power—the sun, the moon, the thunder, the lightning, the cataract, the volcano, etc.

 

How significant is that passage, then, which says, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

 

The Lord revealed to man the gospel, and one of the very first commandments given suspended in essence the self-preservation law. It was the law of sacrifice. The effect of this was that the best the earth produced, the best specimen in the flock or herd should not be used for self, but for God. IT was God, not the earth, whom man should worship. How this simple test of sacrifice affected the divine nature as well as the carnal man, the story of Cain and Abel graphically and appropriately illustrates. For one, the best, the “firstlings of the flock” was all too poor as a means of expressing his love and appreciation of the revelation of life that God had given; for the other, he would go through the form because God had commanded, but he would keep the best for himself. (David O. McKay, Letter to David McKay, December 20, 1920, repr. Treasures of Life, comp. Clare Middlemiss [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1962], 276)

 

Edward P. Martin on Genesis 3:15 and Mary

  

But who is the woman?

 

The most straightforward reading identifies her simply as Eve, the first women, whose offspring would ultimately produce the Redeemer. . . . What should we make of this text? At minimum, Genesis 3:15 establishes a pattern that runs throughout Scripture: God’s work of redemption involves human cooperation. Adam and Eve’s disobedience required human obedience to reverse it. (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 3, 4)

 

 

The Scriptural Argument: Biblical Minimalism as Biblical Faithfulness

 

Dr. Maria Cristina Bartolomei: The Biblical Scholar’s Defense

 

Professor Bartolomei, in her November 5 press conference remarks and subsequent article in L’Osservatore Romano (November 10, 2025), articulated the scriptural case for the doctrine:

 

“When we examine Sacred Scripture with modern exegetical methods—attending to liturgy genre, historical context, and authorial intent—we find modest Mariology, nor maximalist. The Gospels present Mary primarily as model believer; she hears God’s word and keeps it (Luke 11:28). She ponders mysteries in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51). She obeys God’s will (Luke 1:38). She stands faithfully at the Cross (John 19:25). This is exemplary discipleship, not cosmic mediation.”

 

Bartolomei addressed specific texts:

 

Genesis 3:15

 

“The ‘protoevangelium’ is legitimately read as prophecy of redemption. But identifying the ‘woman’ specifically with Mary requires theological elaboration beyond what the text itself says. The original context suggests the woman is Eve or her descendants collectively. Reading Mary into Genesis 3:15 is typological interpretation—valid but not literal exegesis. We cannot build dogmatic formulations on typology alone.”

 

Luke 1:38 (Mary’s Fiat)**

 

“Mary’s ‘let it be done to me according to your word’ expresses perfect receptivity to grace. She consents freely to God’s plan. But consent is not causation. She permits the Incarnation; she doesn’t produce it. The Holy Spirit overshadows her (Luke 1:35)—she is recipient, not agent. Her cooperation is essential in God’s chosen plan, but it’s the cooperation of reception, not accomplishment.”

 

John 19:25-27 (Mary at the Cross)

 

“John places Mary at Calvary, faithful when others fled, Jesus entrusts her to the beloved disciple and vice versa, establishing spiritual motherhood. But the text doesn’t say Mary ‘offered’ Jesus to the Father. It doesn’t attribute salvific causality to her presence or suffering. She is there—present, faithful, suffering. But presence isn’t causation. Deriving ‘co-redemption’ from this text requires importing concepts the text doesn’t contain.”

 

The Maximalist Response

 

Maximalist scholars like Dr. Mark Miravalle (Franciscan University) countered that Bartolomei’s exegesis was reductionist:

 

“Professor Bartolomei applies historical-critical method rigorously—too rigorously. She reads Scripture as if the literal-historical sense exhausts its meaning. But Catholic hermeneutics affirms spiritual senses: allegorical, moral, anagogical. The Fathers unanimously read Genesis 3:15 as prophesying Mary’s cooperation. Are we wiser than they? Exegesis must be informed by Tradition, not by naked historical-critical reading.”

 

Bartolomei’s Rejoinder

 

In subsequent interviews, Bartolomei clarified:

 

“I don’t reject spiritual senses or typological reading. I affirm them. But we must distinguish what Scripture clearly teaches from what later theology develops from Scripture. ‘Co-redemptrix’ isn’t clearly taught in Scripture—that’s simply factual. This doesn’t make it false, but it does mean we should be cautious about making it central to faith or defining it as a dogma. Not everything true is equally central.” (Edward P. Martin, Mary Under Siege: How a Recent Vatican Document is Dividing Catholics Over the Mother of God [2025], 275-76; the book is a discussion about the debates resulting from Mater Populi Fidelis, November 11, 2025)

 

Pope Innocent I (c. 416) on Fasting on Saturday

  

IV. That Saturday should be a fast day, as a regular religious observance

[IV. Quod rite omni sabbato ieiunetur, Db fo. 81va]

 

A most obvious reason makes it clear that one should fast on Saturday. For if we do not celebrate Sunday out of reverence for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ only at Easter, but also represent the image of that day repeatedly week by week, and if we fast on Friday because of the Lord’s passion, we ought not to ignore Saturday, which seems to be interposed between the sadness and the joy of that time. For it is very well known both that the apostles were in mourning, and that they hid themselves for fear of the Jews, on those two days. For indeed there is no doubt that on those two days they fasted to such a degree, that according to the tradition of the Church the celebration of the sacraments is altogether suspended on those two days. This pattern is indeed to be followed week by week, for the reason that the commemoration of that day is to be celebrated always. For if they think that the fast should happen once on one Saturday only, it would follow that Sunday and Friday should indeed also be celebrated once, in the Easter period. But if the image of the Sunday and Friday is to be renewed again and again every week, it ismad to keep the custom of the two-day period while ignoring the Saturday, since the cause of it is no different, from the Friday that is, in which the Lord suffered, andwhen hewas in the Underworld, so that he might rise up and restore joy on the third day, after the preceding two-day period of sadness. Therefore we do not deny that there should be a fast on the Friday, but we say that this should be done on the Saturday also, since both days brought grief to the apostles and those who followed Christ, who were filled with cheer on the Sunday and wished that not only that one [i.e. Easter] should be a great feast, but that it should be renewed again and again every week. (“Innocent I to Decentius bishop of Gubbio, Si instituta, 416 CE,” D. L. d’Avray, Papal Jurisprudence, c. 400: Sources of the Canon Law Tradition [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019], 61)

 

This stood out as I read the book, The Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism (Uncut Mountain Press, 2024) a few days ago, and the issue of fasting on Saturday was condemned by John II, Metropolitan of Kiev (d. 1089) in a letter to Pope Clement II (see here).

Pope Siricus (c. 385) Interpreting the "husband of one wife" texts (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6) as a Prohibition Against Widowers Remarrying

  

XIII. That a man should not be a cleric if he has had a second wife

 

Let not any man who has married twice become a cleric, for it is written: ‘A husband of one wife’ [1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6]; and again: ‘Let my priests marry once’; and elsewhere: ‘My priests should not marry again.’ And if it is thought by some that if perchance someone takes a wife before baptism, and after she has passed away marries another, he is released by baptism, he definitely breaks the rule, since in baptism sins are forgiven, but the number of wives taken is not wiped out, since, indeed, a wife is married in accordance with a command of the law, to such an extent that even in paradise, when the parents of the human race were joined together [cf. Gen. 2:24–25], they were blessed by the Lord himself; and that Solomon could say, ‘a wife is prepared for a man by God’ [cf. Prov. 19:14]; and the custom of the Church shows that even all the priests of the Church keep this form. For it is quite ridiculous for someone to believe that a wife taken before baptism does not count, since we are taught that the benediction which is conferred through the priest on bride and groom has not provided an occasion for wrongdoing, but kept to the form of a law instituted by God from of old. For if a wife married before baptism is not thought to count, then neither will children who were begotten before baptism be held to be children. (“Siricus to Himerius bishop of Tarragona, Directa ad decessorem, 385 CE,” in D. L. d’Avray, Papal Jurisprudence, c. 400: Sources of the Canon Law Tradition [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019], 159-60)

 

D. L. d’Avray on the Canons of Sardica having "an embarrassing after-history fo the papacy"

  

Note on Parallel Conciliar Legislation

 

As noted above, the Council of Nicaea laid down some ground rules for the system of episcopal authority. Bishoprics should be grouped together in provinces under ‘metropolitans’ – over-bishops, so to speak, whose approval of the election of a bishop was required; the initial election should be by the bishops of the province. The mid fourth-century Synod of Serdica, or rather the western contingent at Serdica, also legislated on authority structures. Its troubled history has recently been examined closely by Christopher W. B. Stephens, Canon Law and Episcopal Authority: The Canons of Antioch and Serdica (Oxford, 2015). The death of Constantine ushered in a period of division among Christian bishops but Stephens directs emphasis away from theological controversy about the Trinity to canon law (p. 238) and to ‘divergent ideas about the nature and location of power and the authority for decision-making in the Church’ (p. 7); the ‘crisis was one focused on the nature of episcopal and conciliar power’ (p. 8; cf. p. 10). The canons of Antioch are redated by Stephens to after the death of Constantine (p. 6). They required that the metropolitan be present at synods: he ‘could not act alone, but the synod and the bishops under his care could not act without his consent’; the Serdican canons reacted against the canons of Antioch (p. 236) and placed the bishop of Rome at the head of the hierarchy (p. 224). ‘The Serdican legislation attempted to overstep the Eastern model of ecclesiastical government and develop in the bishop of Rome an oversight role amongst the bishops with real power to make decisions that would influence activities across the whole Church’ (p. 232; cf. p. 33). The ‘see of Peter claimed a new appellate jurisdiction over all bishops . . . Something so bold could only have been attempted at a time when the Church had been torn apart by its divided leadership, mourning the loss of unified imperial guidance, but ripe for change’ (p. 234). That was not acceptable to Eastern bishops. With two emperors who didn’t agree, consensus could not be achieved (p. 230). ‘We can understand what was going on at Serdica more fully when we understand the canon law of this period as being written in the context of a vacuum of leadership and of power in the Church left by the death of Constantine in 337’: the idea of universal ecclesiastical legislation had taken hold but there was now no Constantine to enforce it (p. 229).

 

The canons of Serdica had an embarrassing after-history for the papacy. It appears that ‘[i]n the Roman chancery the canons of Serdica were transcribed in a codex following the canons of Nicaea’, so that they came to be regarded as Nicaean. This became a serious problem at a time of tension between Rome and the African Church, under the successors of Innocent I. With studied politeness, it was suggested to a papal representative at a council at Carthage in 419 that the Nicaean authenticity of the canons in question needed checking against the text in Constantinople.

 

Conciliar legislation relating to the hierarchy of authority found an important channel of diffusion in the first part of the canon law collection of Dionysius Exiguus. The material has been conveniently summarized in an article by Gennadios Limouris. There are relevant sections on the role of metropolitan bishops, on dioceses and the spatial limitation of episcopal authority, on bishops, and on monks. (D. L. d’Avray, Papal Jurisprudence, c. 400: Sources of the Canon Law Tradition [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019], 130-32, emphasis in bold added)