Anthony R. Meyer on the Relationship between אדוני and יהוה in the Great Isaiah Scroll

  

The relationship between אדני and יהוה in 1QIsaᵃ deserves special attention because of the context in which the scroll was produced. The scribe who copied 1QIsaᵃ was also the copyist of the yahad composition Rule of the Community (1QS). The material evidence of scribal editing, therefore, needs careful consideration. Most scholars agree that the Tetragrammaton was read as אדני, but written by the 1QS scribe as יהוה, except where he confused the two designations when they occurred near each other. This situation is well illustrated by the example of 1QIsaᵃ 3.24–26 (Isa 3:17–18). In line 24, the scribe cancels אדני and inserts יהוה, but in line 25 the scribe cancels יהוה and inserts אדני; this seems to be a contradiction. For the sectarian scribe copying 1QIsaᵃ, writing the Tetragrammaton itself is not a problem. Skehan provided one possible explanation for this situation, although his theory depends almost entirely on a hypothetical scenario in which the reader of the scroll warned the copyist everytime he was about to encounter the Tetragrammaton in the biblical source text. Skehan describes the process as follows:

 

. . . both he and his reader pronounce Adonay for both יהוה and אדני. When he hears Adonay, unless somehow warned, he automatically writes יהוה...[the copyist] has no problem with the name Yhwh as such, which he writes in his ordinary script. He always has a problem with the name אדני, and when that name occurs in close conjunction with Yhwh, a secondary problem arises for the tetragrammaton. (Skehan, “The Divine Name,” 41 n. 14)

 

In particular, regarding the seemingly contradictory corrections in 1QIsaᵃ 3.24–26, Skehan writes:

 

There are false corrections; unfortunately for readers’ impressions, the first, in 3:17, is the most botched. Warned that אדני occurred in the verse ... the scribe wrote it correctly, then within the same verse and the same line of script, where יהוה should occur, he wrote אדני [see image above: second from the last word in the first line]. Learning (from the 2 אדני in one verse) that he had made an error, he “corrected” the first אדני by writing יהוה above it and placing 5 dots below it. He thus left both names wrong. (Skehan, “The Divine Name,” 41 n. 14)

 

The best way to account for the mistakes or corrections that entered this manuscript is to assume that אדני was read for the Tetragrammaton. And to this extent, we can agree that the divine name was avoided in speech. We should take caution, however, with the degree to which this scenario becomes a model to understand divine name variants more broadly. It is no surprise that the divine name was avoided in the production of this text, at the hands of the same scribe of 1QS. But how do we make sense of the textual evidence itself, the contradiction of writing and cancelling the divine name? (Anthony R. Meyer, Naming God in Early Judaism: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek [Studies in Cultural Contexts of the Bible 2; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 139-40)

 

Anthony R. Meyer on the Use of the Divine Name in Colum XI of Papyrus Amherst 63

Papyrus Amherst 63

 

The diverse collection of Aramaic-Egyptian prayers and psalms written on Papyrus Amherst 63 (P. Amh 63) originated also in Upper Egypt. Similar to the Elephantine material, this papyrus is thought to be the product of Aramean and Judean mercenaries who were stationed near Egypt’s southern border. It was written in the late fourth or early third century BCE and contains twenty-one columns, 422 lines of text. Richard Steiner describes the papyrus as a poetic “liturgy of the New Year’s festival of an Aramaic-speaking community in Upper Egypt, perhaps in Syene.” He supposed that this community was deported from Babylonia to Bethel by the Assyrians, where they picked up the worship of YHWH before migrating to Egypt. One of the most remarkable features of P. Amh 63 is the striking parallel between Column XI and Psalm 20. Some parts of this column in P. Amh 63 contain nearly identical wording to Ps 20, but in the former, the Tetragrammaton does not occur. Instead, we find the typical three-letter Aramaic form of the divine name, syncretized with Horus as “Horus-YHH”:

 

Table 5 Comparison of Column XI and Psalm 20 in P. Amh 63

 

P. Amh 63 col. XI, 11-19

Ps 20:2-7 (MT)

May Horus answer us in our troubles May Adonai answer us in our troubles O crescent (lit. bow) Bowman in heaven, Sahar shine forth; send your emissary from the temple of Arash, and from Zephon may Horus help us. May Horus fulfill— may Adonai not fall short in satisfying— every request of our hearts. Some with the bow, some with the spear; But (lit., behold) as for us—Mar is our god; Horus-Yaho, our bull, is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow. May Baal of Heaven, Mar grant a blessing bless you; to your pious ones your blessings.

May YHWH answer you in time of trouble. May the name of the God of Jacob keep you out of harm’s reach. May he send you(r) help from the sanctuary and from Zion may he sustain you. May he accept the reminders of your meal offerings and accept the fatness of your burnt offerings. May he grant you your heart’s desire and may he fulfill your every plan May we shout for joy at your victory and in the name of our God raise our banners. May YHWH fulfill all your requests. Now I know that YHWH will give victory to his anointed . . .

 

Numerous features of this papyrus continue to be debated, including direction of influence between column XI and Ps 20, the singular versus plural pronouns, and especially the significance of the “name theology” of Ps 20 compared with the plethora of divine designations in P. Amh 63: Horus, Mar, El, El Bethel, Baal of Heaven, Adonai, and Horus-YHW. Important for the current study is the Aramaic divine name, which appears in apposition to Horus, the chief sky-king deity of the Egyptians. Horus and YHWH are paralleled in Ps 20:2, 5, 6, which was likely facilitated by their similar spheres of authority.

 

The use of the divine name in P. Amh 63 is analogous to the Elephantine material in that other deities are mentioned alongside YHW, in similar expressions.  In one instance from Elephantine, the name of the Jewish deity is combined with Anat: “Anat-YHW.” While these naming practices are similar, there are also important differences. For example, the community that produced P. Amh 63 does not explicitly identify themselves as yehudin, as do the authors of the Elephantine material. In summary, this document shows the continued use of the divine name, during the fourth or early third century BCE in Upper Egypt. (Anthony R. Meyer, Naming God in Early Judaism: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek [Studies in Cultural Contexts of the Bible 2; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 64-67)

Addison Pratt Recounting a Theological Discussion with an English Missionary (Protestant) (Septmeber 16, 1845)

Recounting a discussion with Mr. Crowzey, an English missionary (Protestant):

 

He wisht to know what sect I belong to. I told him to the Latter-day Saints. He wisht to know why we were called so. I told him because we bore a strict resembleance to the former-day Saints, or like the church that was established by Jesus Christ and his apostles. He asked if I taught from the Bible. I told him I did teach from that strictly and as Jesus and his apostles taught the gospel.

 

He asked if I had not got another book I called the Bible. I told him I had not. He asked if I had not some book in which our principles were taught. I told him I had. He asked its name. I answered the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. He wisht to see it and I shewed it him. He asked if the Saints were building a city they called the New Jerusalem. I told him “No.” He asked what they were building. I told him a place of residence, like all other civilized citizens of the world. He asked if we believed in a New Jerusalem? I told him we did, but John told us it should come down from God out of heaven. He then asked about the gathering, and I quoted various passages from Genesis, Deuteronomy, and various of the prophets, which he allowed to be all figurative. Said I, “Then what portion of the Bible is there that is not figurative. Is all that Jesus Christ said figurative?” I then turned to Mark and read in the 16th chapter from the 14th to the 19th verses. “Is that figurative?” “Oh! but that was in the days of the apostles.” “So it was,” said I, “But the promise was to all that believed and are you not a believer?” “But do they all follow you?” said he. “If they do then let me hear you speak in tongues. Come, let us talk German together, or if you like Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin” and then boasted of his great learning. I told him I had no great learning to boast of, the Bile was all I was sent out to know. “But, if you have all those gifts you can speak in tongues.” “All of these gifts are in the church, and I am a witness to it, but I did not tell you that I possess’t them all.” I then turned to the 12th chapter of 1 Cor. and read a part of it, and shewd him that these were to be divided among the members of the Church. “But which of them do you possesst?” said he. I told him I did not feel under any obligation to tell him which of them I possess. Two of the American brethren were standing by, listening to the conversation, at this moment, for the first time, they both spoke, and said they were witness to a number of sick people being healed by the laying on the hands of Br. Pratt. (Addison Pratt, Journal, September 16, 1845, in The Journals of Addison Pratt, ed. S. George Ellsworth [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990], 240-41, spelling in original retained)

 

Addison Pratt on the Arrival of Protestant English Missionaries on the Island of Tubuai and their Claims Against LDS Theology (September 16, 1844)

While serving as a missionary on the Island of Tubuai in French Polynesia, Addison Pratt (1802-1872) recorded the following:

 

[London Missionary Society Missionaries Appear]

 

16th, Sabbath. This morning erly, it was rumored that another vessel was in sight. I hastily wrote a line to Brother Hills and told him if there was any news of importance to write a line and let me know what it is. I dispatcht a messenger with it, and soon after commenced my morning service. Near the close of it, there came in a rummer from Mataura, and after service was over I asked him, “What news?” He said the last vessel had landed 4 English missionaries, and I was wanted immediately. But he brought no letter, and I knew these to be a people easily excited. The weather rainy also. I consulted King Tommatooa who had come over to the see, and he said, “Wait till you get a letter,” and I attended to the farthermore services of the day. In the evening, returned my messenger bearing a letter from Br. Hills stating that those missionaries had been on shore telling the people all the scandalous reports that had ever been reported about the Mormons &c. Stateing that Joseph Smith is a liar and a false prophet and the Book of Mormon is a lie, that his followers worshipped him, and they also worshipped the Virgin Mary and the Saints and there was no differance between the prophet and the pope and much of such like stuff and the church members wished me to come there without fail on the morrow, for they would be there. (Addison Pratt, Journal, September 16, 1844, in The Journals of Addison Pratt, ed. S. George Ellsworth [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990], 191-92, spellings in original retained)

 

One was reminded of other British Protestants, thosebrainlets from Reachout Trust (Mike Thomas and Tony Brown); as the French would say, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." Furthermore, reminded me of the following clip from one of my fave TV shows of all time:

John Day on the Switch from dāgâ (female fish) to dāg (male fish) in the Hebrew of the Book of Jonah

  

A further pointer to the hand of a redactor within Jonah ii occurs with the use of the feminine form of the word fish, dāgâ, in part of the verse introducing the psalm in ii 2 [ET ii 1], whereas the masculine form dāg is found in ii 1 [ET 117] and ii 11 [ET 10]. If both come from the same author it would be very strange, but if the redactor who added the psalm also added the words “from the belly of the fish (dāgâ), and he said” immediately before the psalm by way of introduction, the discrepancy becomes explicable. Accordingly, we may plausibly suppose that the text originally proceeded directly from ii 2a [ET 1a] to 11 11 [ET 10]. Moreover, starting from one verse further back, ii la [ET i 17a], we find in wv. 1a.b, ii 2. 11 [ET i 17a.b, ii 1.10] a chiastic structure ABBA centring on the Lord — Jonah — Jonah — the Lord, thus further supporting the view that the psalm is a later addition, since it disturbs the sequence. The original text thus ran, “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God, and the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” (John Day, “Problems in the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah,” in In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature, and Prophetism. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude [Oudtestamentische Studiën 36; Leiden: Brill, 1990], 41-42)

 

H. G. L. Peels on Psalm 58:1 (Hebrew: v. 2) Containing a Reference to “Gods”

  

‎ לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ אַל־תַּשְׁחֵ֗ת לְדָוִ֥ד מִכְתָּֽם׃  הַֽאֻמְנָ֗ם אֵ֣לֶם צֶ֭דֶק תְּדַבֵּר֑וּן מֵישָׁרִ֥ים תִּ֜שְׁפְּט֗וּ בְּנֵ֣י אָדָֽם

 

<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David.> Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? (KJV)

 

 

 

The interpretation of the psalm is dependent upon the answer to the question who is meant in vs. 2f. How is the word אֵלֶם in vs. 2 to be understood?

 

1.     ‘quiet’; the Masoretic vocalization אֵלֶם hardly makes sense: ‘to silence’, ‘in quiet’ (? cf. Ps. 56:1). Aquila translates with ἀλαλία (= אֵלֶם).

2.     ‘yet’; LXX (ἆρα), Peshitta and Hieronymus (utique) read the adverb אֻלָם (= אֻלָם) ‘yet’, ‘all the same’, ‘nevertheless’. From a syntactic perspective this reading would be striking.⁴⁷⁵

3.     ‘congregation’; an ancient translation (Symmachus, Kimchi, Calvin, SV, KJV) is ‘congregation’, derived from אֵלֶם I ‘to bind’. However, this would be a hapax.

4.     ‘mighty ones’; the word אֵלֶם must be read as אֵילִם (= אֵילִים) ‘rams’, in the figurative sense ‘mighty ones’ (Exod. 15:15; 2 Kings 24:15; Ezek. 17:13, 31:11 and 32:21). This would fit well, but the presupposed double scriptio defectiva within one word weakens this option.

5.     ‘gods’; many exegetes (J.D. Michaelis as the first) accept the conclusion that אֵלֶם is to be read as ‘gods’ (= אֱלֹהִים).

 

The last reading is probably the correct one. Tipping the scales in favour of this choice is not only the realization that the reading ‘gods’ provides the simplest solution, but especially the great affinity between Ps. 58 and Ps. 82.

 

Assuming that in vs. 2 it is gods who are addressed, the question must still be answered as to their precise identity. Two opposing views are defended.

 

According to most exegetes, the speaker in vs. 2f. addresses people, and the designation ‘gods’ is an allusion to judges or officials who enact justice. The word ‘gods’ is understood as either an honorary title for those who uphold justice in God’s name (cf. Deut. 1:17; Rom. 13:1) or as an expression of sarcasm. However, this interpretation is not entirely convincing. Aside from the question whether the presupposed parallel texts can carry the burden of proof for this use of the word ‘gods’, this exegesis does not do justice to the clear correspondence between the beginning and the end of the psalm, as well as the comparisons with Ps. 82, where an interpretation of ‘gods’ as judges would appear to be forced (note especially vs. 6f.).

 

In Ps. 58:2 the word אֵלֶם appears to refer to gods rather than to people. It refers to gods who do not properly exercise their assigned task, the administration of justice amongst the people (בני־אדם), but instead of justice they perpetrate violence (חמס) on earth. In a heavenly tribunal, they are called to accountability by God (אלהים, vs. 12). Ps. 82 contains the same imagery, only there the forensic situation is clearer. The gods are condemned by God in a gathering of the gods because of their unjust judging. Extra-biblical literature, especially Ugaritic, provides illuminating parallels for this complex of ideas.

 

With the determination that the word אֵלֶם refers to gods and not people, everything is not yet said. The most important question is how this element functions in the psalm. The address in vss. 2-3 is usually interpreted in a realistic sense. The psalmist would then be seeking the reason for corruption of justice and the general breakdown of society in the heavenly sphere. The transcendant origin is indicated with the (lower) gods who do not act as God’s functionaries of justice but manifest themselves as demonic powers. If the godless on earth can simply go their own way, something must be wrong in heaven!

 

This realistic interpretation, however, clashes with the seamless transition from ‘gods’ (vss. 2-3) to ‘godless’ (vs. 4ff.) and with the fact that no word is spoken about a punishment of the gods. Evidently, the psalmist is not thinking of gods but people. Vss. 2-3 should be viewed, therefore, as a mytho-poetic fragment, which the writer employs to typify the diabolic driving force of the godless. Just as the psalmists and prophets could rework the mythological material of the chaos struggle (e.g. Ps. 74:12ff.; Isa. 51:9f.), so too the writer of Ps. 58 (and that of Ps. 82) does the same with mythological descriptions of a heavenly tribunal where God judges the unrighteous gods. These descriptions are well-suited to be applied to the people who, by their abuses of justice, destroy the foundation of society, so that the question of theodicy arises. The anti-godly dimension of the godless receives a particular emphasis through this mythological illustration.

 

The complaint lodged against the godless in vss. 4-6 is metaphorical and stereotypical. That is also true of the prayers and wishes for cursing in vss. 7-10. It is certainly justified to assume that this terminology reflects ancient, well-known curse formulae. The conclusion of the psalm speaks about the results of God’s punishing intervention: the joy of the righteous (vs. 11) and the theodicy (vs. 12).

 

The צדיק, the opposite of the רשע, is the unnamed subject of the complaint and prayer in vss. 4-10. That is the one who is oppressed and persecuted, who sees justice on earth being destroyed by the fury of the unrighteous, yet he does not grasp at vengeance himself but in the midst of his deepest need he calls upon God, his God who is the Judge of the earth. It is a situation of ‘do or die’. Is there still a God who does justice on earth? Does it still make sense for the צדיק to trust in Him, or does evil ultimately triumph? The foundational principles of existence are on trial.

 

It is against this background that the joy (שמח) of the righteous in vs. 11 must be understood. Following this exegesis of vs. 2f., the joy expressed at the witnessing of vengeance can no longer be explained – somewhat apologetically – as rejoicing over the fall of the demonic powers. Nor is this rejoicing a form of personal malice. The righteous one rejoices when God comes in vengeance to break the rule of the wicked, to punish injustice and through this restoration of justice to put to rest all doubts and questions. It is the joy and the eternal relief to see (היה) the liberation, the restoration of justice, and the acquittal of God.

 

This motif has a secure place in the Old Testament. Vs. 11b, so offensive to modern ears, simply intends to employ a powerful image, borrowed from the all too realistic situation of the battlefield following the fight (wading through the blood), to highlight the total destruction of the godless.

 

The subject of דם in vs. 11 is not the righteous one himself, but God. The righteous one had prayed for God’s vengeance. Through the vengeance of God, who punishes the evil ones, it appears that the case of the צדיק is a righteous one, which bears fruit. Vs. 12 is the conclusion of the psalm and expresses its scope; apart from vs. 12, vs. 11 would be unintelligible. In the mythology, the gods commit injustice on earth; in reality the godless commit injustice on earth; but in faith the צדיק knows that there is a God who does justice on earth. ‘The cry of the afflicted he does not forget’ (Ps. 9:13): God is God and justice is justice. When that finally becomes evident in the vengeance of God, he rejoices. (H. G. L. Peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament [Oudtestamentische Studiën 31; Leiden, Brill, 1995], 215-19)

 

Paulus Orosius (385-420) on “Sinlessness,” Being “without guilt” and “without blame” being a process

 On Job et al. being said to be “blameless” in Scripture:

 

For also, to be "without blame" is ascribed to the recognition and judgment of those to whom there is a readiness to notice mildness in one's face and not to notice the turbulence in the heart. Hence, too, Paul decrees with confidence these words: "It behooves a bishop to be without guilt" (Tit. 1.7) and elsewhere gives a general testimony to the Corinthians and asserts: "So that you not lack in of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the very end without guilt." (Cor. 1.1.7 and 8) Lo, Paul reproaches in the very same letter the very same people whom he assured by his own testimony that they are without guilt to the very end when he writes: "Now to be sure, generally, there is fault in you because you have lawsuits with one another." (Cor. 1.6.7) (Thus), under the one title, and referring to the same persons, lo and behold, (here we have): "being without guilt" and here: "fault."; hence, he declares that those whom you would see to be called, "without guilt", are not immediately asserted to be "without fault." For also Lord Jesus has said: "John came without eating and without drinking," (Luc. 7.33) and again, it is written: "His (John's) food was locusts and wild honey." (Matt. 3.4) grace while you await the revelation Are we to believe on the basis of one or another statement, that either John has not eaten or that the Lord was mistaken? On the contrary, in both statements there is truth because John had taken some food into the substance of his flesh, and, on the other hand, the Lord had spoken truly about John, that he had not eaten with the rest, nor what the rest had eaten; proving that he and holy Scriptures disclose men's purposes when the knowledge of God has often been concealed, Therefore it is compliantly accepted that whenever the Scripture mentions "someone just and without blame", he is so called only according to the notion of time and in the judgment of men, not in that final judgment of God; God, to whom the conscience of the whole world is subjected and who should be praised by every tongue.

 

. . .

 

to the Septuagint) And after much reproaching through teaching and after much teaching through reproaching, Job answering, said to the Lord: "Why am I judged to have been admonished and rebuked by the Lord, hearing such things, when I am nothing?' (Iob 39. 34 sec. LXX) Such also (was) Zacharias, a man "without blame", worthy of being honored by men, worthy in the testimony of the Scriptures, who, as a result of this, was already being tickled by his swollen pride and was beginning to believe more the fame than his conscience, and (therefore) was censured with the brand of infidelity by a reproaching angel and punished with a temporary silence. Hence, also Paul says: "Therefore let him who thinks that he is standing, watch out that he does not fall." (Cor. 1.10.12) And serving, so to speak, as a model for men, he declares about himself and says: "I chastise my body and subdue it to slavery lest perhaps I myself should be cast away after preaching to others." (Cor. 1. 9.27) Thus, to call someone "without guilt" and "without blame" is not evidence of perfection, but an example of frequent (Scriptural) use. (Ruth May Gover, “The Liber Apologeticus of Paulus Orosius: A Translation and Commentary” [MA Thesis; Queens College of the City University of New York, May 1969], 34-45, 36)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Origen on the two meaning of "to be without sin" in Scripture

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli on the Lack of the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Theology of Origen

  

Origen never developed a doctrine of 'original sin' (Teichtweier 1958: 98). Adam's sin symbolizes human sin, but sin is not inherited (Cels. 4.40; H.Ex. 9.1). Inherited sin clashes against free will, which never abandons rational creatures (e.g. Or. 29.13; C.Rom. 5.10 ). Only concupiscence in the reproductive act seems to leave some impurity (rhupos, sordes) in the human being, which makes it advisable to baptize children, to wash it away, although they have not yet committed sins of their own (C.Rom. 5.9; H.Luc. 14.3, 5; H.Lev. 8.3; C.Matth. 15.23). This can be inscribed within the Origenian concept of universal culpability, pointed out above. Origen, an ascetic, is often negative about intercourse, although he recognizes that marriage was instituted by God ( e.g. Pasch a 36; H.Luc. 6.1-2). This is why Mary, the Theotokos, had 'a holy womb, worthy of all veneration, because no male absolutely touched it' (H.Luc. 14.8). She had an 'immaculate giving-birth; without any 'contagion of earthly corruption; since 'the Holy Spirit poured an immaculate seed in her inviolable womb'; therefore, 'Jesus alone is holy among all those born of woman' (Exp.Luc. 2.55-56). Origen explains Christ's identification with a worm in Psalm 21:6 on this basis: 'the origin of worms does not come from a seed stemming from outside, but from themselves' sexlessly, according to the science of Origen's time (H.Luc. 14.8). Augustine, probably basing himself on Origen, gave the same interpretation, claiming to be following his predecessors (prioribus, Ep. 140.21.8). Nevertheless, having taken up a human body, Jesus needed a purification in the Temple (Luke 2:22). For 'no one is free from impurity, not even if he has lived just one day' (Job 14:4-5 [LXX]). This is not sin inherited through generations, but the aforementioned universal state of sinfulness, based on Scripture and Philo (VM 2.29.147) and linked to the fall of all humans. (Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Pre-History of the Pelagian Controversy, Part 1: Grace and Free Will, Intellectualism, and the Birth of Original Sin,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Pelagian Controversy, ed. Anthony Dupont, Giulio Malavasi, and Brian Matz [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025], 33)

 

 

Pope Leo (c. 430-449) Teaching Baptismal Regeneration in "Anti-Pelagian Summaries of the Epistles of Saint Paul"

  

XI. Concerning the sacrament of baptism, in which we die to sin so that we might live to God (6:3). (Pope Leo, “Anti-Pelagian Summaries of the Epistles of Saint Paul: To the Romans,” c. 430-449, trans. Francis X. Gumerlock, in Francis X. Gumerlock, “Translation of Four Neglected Texts from the Pelagian Controversy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Pelagian Controversy, ed. Anthony Dupont, Giulio Malavasi, and Brian Matz [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025], 595. According to Gumerlock, “These summaries, or chapter headings, . . . were found in a codex at Fulda, written in the year 546” [Ibid., 594])

 

Pope Leo (c. 430-449) Teaching that Only Jesus was Exempt from Original Sin in "Anti-Pelagian Summaries of the Epistles of Saint Paul"

  

X. Concerning the sin of Adam, which passed on to all people without any exception, neither has it been absent [in anyone] except in Christ Jesus, who alone received human nature in such a way that the contagions of the ancient sin did not hold him. And just as through the sin of one the death of everyone was introduced, so through the righteousness of one the life of all was repaired (5:19). (Pope Leo, “Anti-Pelagian Summaries of the Epistles of Saint Paul: To the Romans,” c. 430-449, trans. Francis X. Gumerlock, in Francis X. Gumerlock, “Translation of Four Neglected Texts from the Pelagian Controversy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Pelagian Controversy, ed. Anthony Dupont, Giulio Malavasi, and Brian Matz [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025], 595. According to Gumerlock, “These summaries, or chapter headings, . . . were found in a codex at Fulda, written in the year 546” [Ibid., 594])

 

Geoffrey D. Dunn on Pope Zosimus (417-418) and His Actions During the Pelagian Controversy

  

Zosimus

 

Things took a dramatic turn under Innocent's successor, Zosimus (417-418). Almost immediately, Caelestius agreed to follow up the appeal he had demanded back in 411 by turning up in Rome before a gathering of Zosimus and his clergy.

 

We could say that Zosimus was concerned with procedural fairness, following not only Roman law (Dalmon 2009) but the scriptural example of Daniel examining the accusers of Susannah (Dan. 13). After all, Pelagius and Caelestius had been exonerated at the preliminary hearing in Jerusalem and at the synod in Diospolis, and Zosimus' predecessor had condemned them without giving them a personal hearing or chance to defend themselves. In September 417, Caelestius appeared at San Clemente in Rome, the details of which we know from a letter Zosimus sent to the Africans (Ep. 2 = Collectio Avellana, Ep. 45; following the CSEL numbering of sections of this letter) and from rather forced comments later made by Augustine, who felt the need to defend Zosimus against criticism from Julian of Aeclanum, even though he was far more critical of Zosimus at the time (De gr. Chr. et de p. o. 2.6.7-2.7.8; C. duas epp. Pel. 2.3-5-2.4.6; Lamberigts 1992: 312-317; 2004: 374; Carefoote 1995: 212).

 

The letter reveals that Caelestius had not come to Rome to fulfil Innocent's demands that he repudiate his views and seek forgiveness (Burns 1979 ), but to have Innocent's decision overturned (Ep. 2.2). He was not asking for clemency or pardon; he was appealing against the initial verdict, and Zosimus was satisfied enough to rescind it (Dunn 2013). Zosimus pointed out to the Africans that he questioned Caelestius extensively on his recent confession of faith (Ep. 2.3; van Egmond 2011). I do not think that Caelestius showed how much he had emended his views (Lamberigts 1992: 319; Carefoote 1995: 186) but explained satisfactorily how his views in fact agreed already with what Innocent required and that he had been condemned unfairly. This was possible because, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops did not share the theological sensitivities about original sin and the baptism of infants held by the Africans (Wermelinger 1975: 138-139 ). Caelestius might not have needed to be too explicit in what he really believed to satisfy Rome.

 

Zosimus was also concerned that the Africans had not condemned Caelestius in 411 when he was present but had done so in 416 in his absence, all too hastily and after having been persuaded by Heros and Lazarus, individuals he found disreputable (Ep. 2.4-7; see Dunn 2015a, 2015b, 2016a). Zosimus challenged the Africans to find fault with Caelestius' confession of faith within the next two months (Ep. 2.8) or let it lapse, since it did no one any good to quibble over words out of an endless curiosity rather than follow Scripture (Ep. 2.9). He certainly saw himself as an impartial arbitrator and not a Pelagian sympathizer. He asserted Rome's authority quite firmly in the letter, also employing Innocent's image of Rome as a spring (Ep. 2.1).

 

Pelagius too had written to Innocent, but it was received only by Zosimus (Pelagius, Libellus fidei; Augustine, De g. Chr. et de p. o. 30.32; van Egmond 2007, 2012) after Caelestius' appeal was upheld. Zosimus wrote again to the Africans (Ep. 3 = Collectio Avellana, Ep. 46). Having read Pelagius' statement of faith, he found it to be much like Caelestius' and therefore acceptable (Ep. 3.3). Much of the vitriol in the letter is directed against Heras and Lazarus (Ep. 3-4-8). The sense again is of Zosimus' concern that procedural fairness had not been observed by the Africans (Ep. 3.10).

 

Further reaction from the Africans and Zosimus, including the latter's March 418 letter (Ep. 12 = Collectio Avellana, Ep. 50) again justifying his procedures in response to an African synod in November 417 and the African synod of May 418, has been analysed by Wermelinger (1975: 146-152), Ocker (1991), Carefoote (1995: 213-218), and Marcos, Chapter 6, this volume.

 

While Zosimus could wrangle with the African bishops all he liked, he could not resist the full force of imperial law, once it became involved in April 418 thanks to the savvy manoeuvring by the Africans. It is clear that Zosimus needed to align himself with the imperial position. This he did by the middle of the year when he issued his Tractoria epistula, only extracts of which survive (Augustine, Ep. 190; Celestine I, Ep. 21; Prosper, C. coll. 5.3), in which it appears that he amended his earlier acceptance of the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Caelestius and excommunicated them and their teachings, but only to the extent that he no longer opposed the imperial edict and was sufficiently in agreement with the position of lnnocent that the Africans would not object, without probably accepting that his position really had changed (Wermelinger 1975: 204-218; Carefoote 1995: 260-269 ). From the fragments, we see Zosimus affirm the reality of original sin and the reality of its forgiveness in baptism (Augustine, Ep. 190.23), of the need for divine grace as established in Scripture (Celestine, Ep. 21.9 ), and of the primacy of that grace (Prosper, C. coll. 5.3) (Floëri 1955). While the Africans rallied around Zosimus and promoted the idea of his unwavering orthodoxy, put forward to marginalize Julian of Aeclanum, whom together with eighteen fellow bishops Zosimus had to excommunicate when they resisted Zosimus' change of heart, the fact that the Tractoria epistula was not preserved probably indicates a lingering frustration with it by the Africans.

 

Meanwhile, in Italy there were now those who thought Zosimus did not go far enough and those who thought he had gone too far. The division in the Roman clergy led to a delegation going to Ravenna in opposition to Zosimus (Ep. 14; Dunn 2016b), although it is a matter of conjecture which type of opponent went to Ravenna. This division plagued the Roman Church after Zosimus' death in December 418 in an electoral controversy over a successor, which, in part, must have been caused by theological divisions in Rome over grace, free will, original sin, baptism, and Zosimus' handling of the affair. (Geoffrey D. Dunn, “The Creation of Pelagianism: Orosius, Roman Bishops, and Marius Mercator,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Pelagian Controversy, ed. Anthony Dupont, Giulio Malavasi, and Brian Matz [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025], 403-4)

 

Theodore De Bruyn on the Transmission of Pelagius's Commentaries

  

Authenticity, Transmission, and Authenticity

 

No manuscript ascribing the commentaries to Pelagius has survived, but there is no doubt that he was their author. When Augustine introduces the third book of On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism, composed in 411 CE, he explains that he had read 'some works by Pelagius . . . containing very short explanations [expositiones breuissimas] of the letters of the apostle Paul' (Pecc. merit. 3,1.1; Souter 1922: 4). This motivated him to refute certain arguments against the transmission of sin from Adam to his descendants, relayed by Pelagius in his comment on Rom. 5:15, which Augustine then quotes (Pecc. merit. 3.2.2, 3.3.5; Souter 1922: 40-41). About two decades later, in a brief prepared for the church in Constantinople, Marius Mercator states that Pelagius composed commentaries (commentarios) on the Pauline letters for a circle of friends prior to the sack of Rome in 410 (Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii 2.1; Souter 1922: 4). In that work Mercator paraphrases Pelagius' comments on Rom. 5:12-14 (Souter 1922: 41-44).

 

A century later, if not earlier, the commentaries were already circulating under another name. When Cassiodorus in his Institutes (begun in the 530s) describes commentaries on the apostolic (not just Pauline) letters, he begins with a set of glosses (annotationes) on thirteen Pauline letters that were widely known and admired but erroneously attributed to Pope Gelasius. Cassiodorus, detecting 'the poison of the Pelagian error' in these glosses, undertook to remove the offending passages, a task he completed for the commentary on Romans, leaving the rest of the commentaries to his students (Inst. 1.8.1; Johnson 1989).

 

Early on, the commentaries were used in monastic circles in Ireland (Zimmer 1901; Kelly 1978), England (Dumville 1986), and the Continent (Frede 1975-1991: 1026), as one can see from quotations taken from the commentaries or copies made of them. Although the commentaries were popular in Irish circles, the Irish were not the exclusive means of their early transmission, as was once thought ( de Bruyn 1993: 28-29 ). From glosses introduced into early medieval copies of the text of the Pauline letters with a sign indicating that they came from Pelagius (Zimmer 1901: 39-112, 137-155; Souter 1922: 5, 25-28, 326-330; Picard 2003; De Paor 2016; Dunphy 2019), it is evident that Pelagius was known to have produced commentaries on the Pauline letters, probably because the manuscripts from which the glosses were derived attributed the commentaries or the comments to Pelagius (Zimmer 1901: 156-158; Souter 1922: 28). But otherwise the commentaries were transmitted throughout the Middle Ages anonymously or under the name of Jerome.

 

The texts preserved in manuscripts of the commentaries, some of which can be grouped into families, differ. Although early modern scholars from Erasmus onwards no longer accepted that the commentaries were by Jerome and suspected or argued that they were by a Pelagian, they were misled in their efforts to ascertain the author by the absence in the prevailing text of the commentaries (in the tradition now called pseudo-Jerome) of exact parallels to the passages quoted by Augustine and paraphrased by Mercator. This led them to conflate the pseudo-Jerome commentaries with the expurgated version produced by Cassiodorus and his students (Souter 1922: 6- 24), which in the first printed edition in 1537 was erroneously attributed to Primasius (Souter 1922: 319-321). It is owing to the observations of Heinrich Zimmer (1901), Cuthbert Turner (1902), Sigmund Hellmann (1906) (see Souter 1922: 28-33), and above all Alexander Souter that several strands of the commentaries' early transmission were unravelled and distinguished: the original commentaries by Pelagius; copies of Pelagius' commentaries with additional material found primarily but not exclusively in the pseudo-Jerome family of manuscripts; and the revision of Pelagius' commentaries by Cassiodorus and his students.

 

As Souter demonstrated in the introduction to his edition of the commentaries, two manuscripts to which Souter gave the sigla A and B-Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Augiensis CXIX (A; 8th-9th c.) and Oxford, Balliol College 157 (B; 15th c.)-have the strongest claim to preserving the text of Pelagius' commentaries. They attest to the passages quoted by Augustine and paraphrased by Mercator completely and, importantly, without the additional material found, to varying degrees, in all the other witnesses (Souter 1922: 34-48). Their fidelity to a very early transmission of the commentary is further demonstrated by leaves from a sixth-century manuscript, Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana lat. 10800 (Mercati 1907). The leaves preserve a text similar to that in B (Souter 1922: 48-51, 226-228). In reconstructing the text of Pelagius' commentary, Souter justifiably relied on A and B, while also taking into consideration the witnesses of the other manuscripts, Cassiodorus' revision, and early medieval glosses.

 

The two manuscripts are not without difficulties. They present different versions of the text of the Pauline letters (see below), and they each include material that the other omits. The text in A is shorter and, on the whole, more reliable than the text in B, whose scribe was copying from a defective manuscript (Souter 1922: 211-212, 216-223). The text in B includes comments that were added to Pelagius' commentary by a 'Pelagian' writer within decades of its circulation-the so-called pseudo-Jerome interpolations that were published by Souter (1922: 265-267; 1931) and then verified with greater precision by Hermann Frede in his edition of a manuscript-Budapest, Hungarian National Museum codex latinus medii aeui 1 (800 CE)-that preserves comments from an anonymous commentator used by Pelagius as well as comments from the later interpolator (Frede 1973: 164-205; 1974; on the manuscript, see further Dunphy 2013, 2014, 2015; Maclachlan 2014). Occasionally A also includes comments not found in the other witnesses.

 

More problematic in A, however, are variations in the phrasing of a comment that alter its meaning in what might be considered an 'Augustinian' direction. These variants are often, but not always, also found in one other manuscript, St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 73 ( G; 9th c.). Many of the variants occur in the commentary on Romans, the Pauline letter that had the greatest bearing on the central interpretative questions of the early Pelagian controversy (de Bruyn 1993: 32-33). Were these variants present in the original commentary and later altered by a reviser, or were they absent from the original commentary and later added by a reviser? While there is no decisive evidence to eliminate one of these possibilities, the presence elsewhere in Pelagius' commentaries of remarks similar to those that are disputed, but with the support of multiple witnesses, argues in favour of regarding these variants as coming from Pelagius ( de Bruyn 1993: 33-34; Matteoli 2011). But, even if one questions the authenticity of these variants, most of the text of the commentaries has been transmitted with only inconsequential discrepancies among the witnesses. To exclude the entire work from consideration when studying Pelagius' thought and practice (see A. Bonner 2018: pp. xvii-xviii) is too radical as a general method, since it dispenses with much that probably comes from Pelagius. A more nuanced approach would be to be cognizant of variants that introduce significant alterations in meaning and weigh their value as warranted (see e.g. Matteoli 2011) . Souter's practice ( 1926: p. viii) of marking points where A and B diverge with square brackets in his edition is useful for that purpose. These are replicated in the translations of de Bruyn ( 1993 ) and Scheck (2022), as well as in the quotations below. However, one must always consult the apparatus in Souter's edition, since the variants differ in type and importance. (Theodore De Bruyn, “Exegetical Commentaries by Pelagius,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Pelagian Controversy, ed. Anthony Dupont, Giulio Malavasi, and Brian Matz [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025], 281-84)

 

Isaiah 52:7-10 in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets

  

7     מָא יַאְיָן עַל טוּרֵי אַרעָא דְיִשׂרָאֵל רַגלֵי מְבַסַר מַשמַע שְלָם מְבַסַר טָב מַשמַע פוּרקָן אְמַר לִכנִשתָא דְצִיֹון אִתגְלִיאַת מַלכוּתָא דַאְלָהִיך׃

8     קָל פַרנָסַך דִמרִימִין קָלְהֹון כַחדָא מְשַבְחִין אְרֵי בְעֵינֵיהֹון יִחזֹון גְבוּרָן דְיַעְבֵיד יוי כַד יָתִיב שְכִינְתֵיה לְצִיֹון׃

9     בוּעוּ וְשַבַחוּ כַחדָא חָרבָת יְרוּשלַם אְרֵי עְתִיד יוי לְנַחָמָא עַמֵיה פְרַק יְרוּשלַם׃

10     גְלָא יוי יָת דְרָע קוּדשֵיה לְעֵינֵי כָל עַמְמַיָא וְיִחזֹון כָל דְבִסיָפֵי אַרעָא יָת פוּרקָנָא דַאְלָהַנָא׃

 

 

 

52.7 How beautiful upon the mountains of the land of Israel are the feet of him who announces, who publishes peace, who announces good tidings, who publishes salvation, who says to the congregation of Zion, “The kingdom of your God is revealed.” 52.8 The voice of your guardians, who lift up their voice, together they sing for joy; for with their eyes they will see the prodigies which the LORD will do when he will return his Shekhinah to Zion. 52.9 Shout and sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem; for the LORD is about to comfort his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. 52.10 The LORD has disclosed his holy arm to the eyes of all the peoples; and all those at the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God (The Isaiah Targum, [trans. Bruce D. Chilton; The Aramaic Bible 11 [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1990], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

Giuseppe Monno (RC): The Father Being Embodied, in LDS Theology, is not a “limitation” or “Imperfection” but “The Fullness of His Glory”

  

Secondo la teologia mormone, il corpo del Padre non rappresenta un limite o un'imperfezione, ma la pienezza della sua gloria. Dio è quindi concepito come un essere personale e corporeo, distinto dalle creature ma dotato di una forma fisica reale. Questa dottrina costituisce uno degli elementi più caratteristici della teologia mormone e la distingue nettamente dalla concezione cristiana tradizionale della natura di Dio.(Giuseppe Monno, Il Mormonismo: Analisi Teologica E Confronto Con La Dottrina Cattolica [Cristiani Cattolici Romani; 2026], 38)

 

 

According to Mormon theology, the Father's body does not represent a limitation or an imperfection, but rather the fullness of his glory. God is therefore conceived as a personal and corporeal being, distinct from creatures but endowed with a real physical form. This doctrine constitutes one of the most characteristic elements of Mormon theology and distinguishes it sharply from the traditional Christian conception of the nature of God.

 

 

Further Reading:

 

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

Frank J. Sheed (RC; 1897-1981) Claiming Gabriel was Ignorant of Certain Facts Concerning Mary’s Character At the Annunciation in Luke 1

  

Gabriel’s opening words are: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.” Mary made no reply. Gabriel misunderstood her silence. Perhaps remembering Zachary, he told her not to be afraid. Clearly he did not yet know her very well. Contact with Zachary was no preparation at all for understanding Mary of Nazareth. Her silence was not from terror, but from perplexity—she was “much perplexed at hearing him speak so, and cast about in her mind what she was to make of such a greeting.” (Frank J. Sheed, To Know Christ Jesus [Sheed and Ward Educational; London: Sheed and Ward Ltd., 1972], 17)

 

Brant Gardner on the use of “God” vs. “gods” when quoting the Decalogue in Mosiah 12:35

  

This change may be another simplification measure, but it may also be Abinadi’s deliberate adaptation to his trial before the priests. Because they were building new religious elements on the fundamental law of Moses, they probably had not attempted to alter with its most basic belief in one God, even if the people included converts from polytheistic cultures. In fact, such converts are typically even more protective of their new religious principles than lifetime believers. Thus, it seems unlikely that the priests of Noah had attempted to introduce new gods. Rather they had probably reinterpreted the law to effectively deny the salvific role of that one God. . . . Because Abinadi’s defense of the Messiah accuses them of departing from that belief he may have deliberately shifted to the singular form (“God”) rather than quoting the original (“gods”) because it would be easy for the priests to deny that they worshipped multiple gods. However, Abinadi’s point is not polytheism but a perversion of the worship of the One God. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 3:275)

 

Further Reading:

Shon D. Hopkin on the Textual Variant between Exodus 20:3 and Mosiah 12:35

Chandler David Hendry (Restored Truth) (1999-2026)

Chandler sadly passed away on Friday, August 7. Do keep his family and friends in your prayers, especially his young wife.

I never met Chandler in person, but we were "online friends." We collaborated twice to review his debate on soteriology with a Calvinist:

Review of Chandler Hendry (LDS) vs. Reitmeier (Calvinist) on "How Are We Actually Saved?" (Part 1)

Review of Chandler Hendry (LDS) vs. Reitmeier (Calvinist) on "How Are We Actually Saved?" (Part 2)

Thomas Aquinas on God the Father being "Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7) in his "An Exposition of the Divine Names"

  

 

859. Having considered Omnipotent, here Dionysius considers Ancient of Days. And regarding this he does three things: first, he shows why God is called Ancient of Days; second, he explains the reason given (at [389] “And indeed . . . “); third, he manifests what he had said by the authority of Scripture (at [391] “On account of which . . .”).

 

860. Now we must realize that among us something is called ancient for two reasons: first, because it has [endured for] much time; and second, because it precedes in time those things that are younger. And that is called ancient which is in the past, remote from the present; and this is prior in time. Thus God is called the Ancient of Days for two reasons: first, because “he” pre-possesses the duration “of all things” and of aeviternity and of time (by aeviternity is meant the duration which measures being itself, but by time the duration which measures becoming or moving). Second, because he is “before” all “days and before aeviternity and” before “times.”

 

861. Next, when he says [389] “And indeed . . .” he explains the reasons given, and first the first one; second, the second one (at [390] “And as . . .”).

 

862. So he says first [389] that when we say that God is “time” or some part of time, such as a “day” or “reasons,” and when we say he is “aeviternity,” one must understand this in a way which “befits” God, not of course in such a way that God is anything whose being is something successive and divisible or adjacent to another [time or day, etc.]. But rather he is called aeviternity, which is the measure of the permanent, inasmuch as he is unchangeable “by any motion,” because he is not moved by any motion.

 

And he is called time, which is the number of motion, from the fact that God himself is always moving in the manner which was mentioned earlier in Chapter 9 on motion [379-380 Dionysius; 840-842 St. Thomas]. Yet he does not move in such a way that there is any succession in his motion, as there is in the motion which is numbered by time, but God himself is “always” remaining “in himself.”

 

863. Next, when he says [390] “And as . . .” he explains the second reason: for he is said to be, before days and aeviternity and times, not in the manner of the past, as things which are called ancient among us, but in the manner in which the cause is prior to its effects: for he is the cause “of aeviternity and of time and of days.”

 

864. Next, when he says [391] “On account of which . . .,” to manifest the foregoing things, he introduces some authorities of Scripture. And he says that, on account of the foregoing, “in the” appearances” of the hidden “visions-of-God,” God is described both as “new” and as “old”: new, according to Isaiah 62:2, “And to you shall be called a new name,” and old, according to psalm 70:18, “and unto old age and frailty, God, may you not abandon me,” and Isaiah 46:4, “all the way to [your] old age I [remain] myself and unto [your] gray hairs I will carry [you].”

 

Now through his being called aged or old is signified by ancientness: namely that he always exists “from the beginning” of eternity; and through his being called new or young is signified that he is ancient “without old age,” that is, without any faltering or being past, because, as was said earlier [379 Dionysius; 840 St. Thomas], he moves while remaining immobile in himself.

 

Or: since old age and ancientness seem to pertain to the beginning on account of their priority, and youth to the end on account of its posteriority, through both being attributed to God we are taught that he proceeds “through all things from the beginning all the way to the end.”

 

He gives the third explanation according to the thought of Hierotheus, whom he calls his perfector, that is, mater in divine matters, who said that through both of the foregoing is shown the priority of God himself and the fact that he is the principle: for through his being called old is shown his priority “in time,” for we call old those things which are prior in time. But through his being called young is indicated a priority or principality is “in respect of” the idea of number: for he is called younger who has advanced less in time. But among numbers, to the extent that [a number] advances less, to the extent it is prior: for “the unit” and the numbers close to the unit are prior to those “more advanced.” (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 10, Reading 2 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press, 2021], 409, 411)

 

 

The Change from "violence" to "evil" in the Quote of Isaiah 53:9 in Mosiah 14:9

  

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (Isa 53:9 | KJV)

 

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no evil, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (Mosiah 14:9)

 

The NT quote (which does not attribute the passage to Isaiah) is found in 1 Pet. 2:22 (see also Zeph. 3:13; Rev. 14:5). LXX reads anomian . . . dolos, “lawlessness . . . deceit”. Actually, the MT mrmh means both “evil” and “violence”, and hence both KJV and BM are valid translations from the Hebrew. (John A. Tvedtnes, Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1981], 93)

 

The use of “evil” as opposed to “violence” seems to fit the ethical character of the Suffering Servant. As M. Kartveit noted in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament:

 

The prophetic usage of these terms is also somewhat stereotyped, as in catalogs of vices: Mic. 6:12 (r^emîyâ); Jer. 9:5(6) and Hos. 12:1(11:12) (mirmâ). In Am. 8:5 the prophet cites the questions of the tradesmen: “When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain? And when will the sabbath be past so that we may offer wheat for sale? We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances (mōʾz^enê mirmâ).” Mic. 6:11 asks rhetorically: “Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of weights of mirmâ?” The prophets may be drawing on a wisdom tradition that false balances are an abomination to Yahweh (Prov. 11:1; cf. 20:23). Zeph. 1:9 castigates those who “fill their master’s house with violence and fraud.” Jer. 23:26 likens the prophets who prophesy šeqer to the prophets whose hearts are tarmîṯ. In Jer. 14:14, in a similar context, šeqer, qesem, ʾ^alîl, and tarmîṯ appear as synonyms. Jer. 8:5 equates apostasy and tarmîṯ. The various terms tend to lose their distinctive meanings, being employed simply to characterize the wicked. Contrariwise, Isa. 53:9 describes the servant of Yahweh: “He had done no ḥāmās, and there was no mirmâ in his mouth.” In Zeph. 3:13 the same language describes the ethical character of the righteous remnant of Israel. (M. Kartveit, “רמה,” TDOT 13:503-4, emphasis added)

 

William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry on Genesis 16:5

  

Genesis 16:5

 

In what happens next we can again find a parallel in documents of the period that describe the marriage customs of a society in Abram’s part of the world. There are provisions in the Code of Hammurabi for the situation where a priestess, who was free to marry but not to give birth, gives her husband a slave girl to provide him with a son. In this case, if the slave woman attempts to claim equality with her mistress, her mistress may reduce her again to being a slave.

 

Sarai said to Abram: Sarai does not punish her former slave girl until she has claimed her legal rights, which she does now as she speaks to her husband.

 

May the wrong done to me be on you! The wrong or “injustice” refers to the superior attitude Hagar has taken in regard to Sarai. Sarai is saying something equivalent to “I have been treated unjustly, and it is your fault” or, as Speiser translates, “This outrage against me is your fault.” tev has “It is your fault that Hagar despises me,” and gives an alternative rendering in a footnote: “May you suffer for the wrong done against me.” As head of the household Abram has the power and authority to set relationships right between these two women. But so far he apparently has failed to do so. Sarai is now appealing to Abram’s legal responsibility to act.

In translation this construction must often be reworded to say, for example, “I have been wronged and it is your fault,” “It is your fault that Hagar has treated me wrongly,” or “I have been treated unfairly by Hagar, and you are responsible for it.”

 

I gave my maid to your embrace translates the idiomatic phrase “I gave … into your bosom,” which Speiser says is not “a fanciful expression, but a recognized legal phraseology.” For expressions relating a man’s wife to his bosom, see Deut 13:6; 28:54. tev renders the expression “I gave her to you,” with the purpose of the action being understood from the context. frcl, neb, reb, njb say “into your arms,” gecl says “I turned over my slave girl to you,” and spcl “I myself gave her to you for a wife.” Since the context makes clear the purpose for which Sarai gave Hagar to Abram, it may not be necessary to say more than “I gave my maid to you” or “I let my maid be a wife for you.” However, it is important to understand and convey the feelings of Sarai, who is grieved that she has acted in the proper legal way, but that things have turned out wrong for her. One translation goes on in Sarai’s words, after she has accused Abram of being the cause of the trouble, “It’s true that I myself gave you my working girl. But now.…” Another takes a more angry tone: “I gave you my working girl, and what happened? When she found that baby, she started to look down on me.”

 

When she saw she had conceived: see verse 4.

 

She looked on me with contempt: see verse 4.

 

May the Lord judge between you and me! completes the speech by Sarai that began at the beginning of the verse. Sarai demands a legal decision. Her case is not between her and her maid but between her and her husband, Abram. Since Hagar became Abram’s “wife” her conduct is the legal responsibility of Abram. Sarai appeals to the Lord to judge who is at fault—Sarai who gave Hagar to her husband, or Abram who has not corrected Hagar’s misconduct in relation to Sarai. Sarai’s demand that the Lord judge is a formula found many times in the Old Testament. See for examples Gen 31:53; Exo 5:21; 1 Sam 24:12, 15. This expression is sometimes rendered “I ask the Lord to decide this affair between you and me,” “I call on the Lord to say who is right in this matter between us,” or idiomatically “I ask the Lord to cut the words between us.” One translation that may serve as a good model says “Well God has to find out who is right out of us two.” (William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1998], 352-53)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 104: Jacob Vidrine on the Transfiguration of Brigham Young

 

Episode 104: Jacob Vidrine on the Transfiguration of Brigham Young

E. A. Speiser on Genesis 16:5

  

5. This outrage. Literally “my injustice” in objective construction: the injustice done to me; the possessive is adequately reflected by “this,” as happens so often in interchanging possessive and defined forms, cf. “the boys”: “my men,” 14:24. For Heb. ḥāmās “lawlessness, injustice,” cf. 6:11; it is a strictly legal term, which trad. “violence” fails to show adequately. The same force is reflected in the Akk. verb ḫabālum “to deprive someone of his legal rights,” adjective ḫablum “wronged.” The Code of Hammurabi states explicitly that a slave girl who was elevated to the status of concubine must not claim equality with her mistress (par. 146). Sarah is thus invoking her legal rights, and she holds her husband responsible (literally “it is against you”) for the offense.

 

I myself put my maid in your lap. This is not just a fanciful expression, but recognized legal phraseology. For the identical usage, cf. the old Sum.-Akk. dictionary of legal expressions known as ana ittišu (B. Landsberger, MSL I, 1937): “he placed his daughter in [the other’s] lap,” Tablet 3, column iv, line 34. (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 117-18)

 

Excerpts from Chapter 4, Reading 18 of Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names

  

522. Regarding the first, one must know that angel translates as messenger.

 

Now [an angel] conformed to the divine goodness is said to announce “the divine goodness” inasmuch as in angels “in a secondary way” by “participation” there exists “that which” is enunciated about God not by participation, but “by the cause”; just as if I were to say that illuminated air announces the brightness of the sun, inasmuch as in a secondary way and participatively [the brightness] is in the air, and in a primary way and causally it is in the sun. And because that which something has participatively and in a secondary way is an “image” of that which has in it a primary way and causally, and the act of an image is to manifest that of which it is the image, consequently he infers a certain definition of a good angel: the manifestation of the divine “light” which is hidden from us on account of its excellence and simplicity. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press, 2021], 233)

 

 

527. Next, when he says [213] “But are they . ..,” he excludes an objection; and first, he gives it: for someone might say that “because” the angels “Punish” sinners, “they” are “evil.” And Matthew 13 [verses 41-42, 49-50] expressly says that they punish sinners, because they will cast out all scandals from the kingdom. Therefore, there is a question: whether they are evil in the fact that they punish.

 

Second, he shows that they cannot be called evil on account of this, because by the same argument those who chastise bad people by punishing them would be “evil,” such as judges and teachers; “and” likewise it would follow that certain priests “who” exclude “the unclean,” that is, a sinner, “from the divine mysteries,” by excommunicating him, would be evil, which is against the Apostle, who commands this in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.

 

But because to multiply its awkward consequences is not to revolve [an objection], third, he resolves all the foregoing matters. And he says that “to be punished” “is not evil” simply and in itself, but it is in itself good, since it is just, but it is evil in some respect, inasmuch as it removes something good from someone. “But to become” a sinner, that is evil simply; and so he who punishes a sinner is not evil, but he who sins is evil. For the same reason, it is not evil in itself to be excluded “from holy things” “with” justice, but it is in itself evil that someone be tarnished by sin and abandon sanctity and by his become “unworthy of” divine things, which are in themselves “undefiled.” And he does not sin who excommunicates, but he sins who does something from which he becomes deserving of excommunication. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press, 2021], 235)

 

Charles A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled” (1945)

  

The Book of Mormon prophecies were uttered centuries before the events occurred, and the events that fulfilled the prophecies were of such a character that no human foresight or judgment “unaided by divine inspiration or revelation could have foretold them.”

 

Let us begin by citing the following prophecy uttered between 600 and 592 B.C.:

 

“Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands.” (I Nephi 13:30.)

 

“The Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land.” (I Nephi 22:7.)

 

This was spoken between 588 and 570 B.C.

 

The Nephite prophet in vision, saw by an excellent spirit that the United States would be founded by the Almighty and become a mighty nation of acknowledged preeminence in the world.

 

The Lord has not in modern times forgotten the prophecies of His servants, nor His own promises concerning this mighty nation. True to its inspired destiny the mission our unconquerable republic is battling mightily to preserve “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

 

. . .

 

The Nephite prophet, speaking some time between 559 and 545 B.C. said:

 

“For after the book of which I have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up against unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which are written.” (II Nephi 30:3.)

 

Since the organization of the Church in 1830, countless thousands have, with joy and gladness of heart, obeyed the Gospel; they have sincerely and earnestly avowed a belief in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and accepted it as one of the authoritative guides in faith and doctrine.

 

“And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ.” (II Nephi 30:7.)

 

This prophecy was uttered six hundred years before the birth of the Savior.

 

It is estimated by careful statisticians that upwards of 224,000 Jews during the nineteenth century entered the Christian churches of Europe and America.

 

. . .

 

It has been the ardent hope and faith of the prophets of God that the Jews, not only by degrees, but as a nation, shall accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Redeemer.

 

We are justified in laying stress upon the fact that what the prophets foretold has to the present time been fulfilled.

 

“And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.” (II Nephi 28:10. This was said between B.C. 559 and 545.)

 

From the day that the blood of righteous Abel was shed, many men and women who have thought differently from their neighbors concerning religious belief have had to lay down their lives as proof of the sincerity of their convictions.

 

The innocent blood of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that of his brother, Hyrum Smith, testifies to the fulfillment of this prophecy. They sealed their testimony with their blood.

 

In the path of expulsion from homes, milestones changed into headstones. The great souls who were victims of unlawful and cruel deeds died for the word of God. They could not bend their conscience. Their blood cries from the ground up to heaven “through every blue gate of the sky.” Yes, this prophecy has been fulfilled in blood and tears.

 

. . .

 

“And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” (II Nephi 29:3. Between B.C. 559 and 545.)

 

Every missionary can bear testimony to the fulfillment of this prophecy made upwards of five centuries before Christ. To those who opposed the Book of Mormon it was the last word. But the claims of the Book of Mormon cannot be dismissed so lightly. (Charles A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled,” in Fundamentals of Religion: A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 102-103, 107, 108-10)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Charles A. Callis (1865-1947) on Isaiah 2 Being a Prophecy Concerning the Two Future Capitals in the Kindom of God

  

Jesus Christ will rule the earth in truth and love. He will sanctify it and prepare it for celestial glory. Throughout the Millennium there will be two capitals in the kingdom of God,--Jerusalem in Palestine and Zion in America.

 

Then the words of the prophet shall be fulfilled. “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2.) (Charles A. Callis, Fundamentals of Religion: A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 49)

 

A. H. C. Van Eijk (1971) on Clement of Alexandria's Eucharistic Theology

  

We have to face, however, another problem concerning the interpretation of these texts. Catholic scholars have seized upon them to make Clement a witness of the doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation, whereas their protestant colleagues claimed them as supporting their conception of a symbolic or spiritualistic presence. The latter view undoubtedly finds a strong support in Clement's own terminology. It could be, however, that this is asking the wrong question; it does not take into account, or rather it ignores, the context of Clement's language. His preoccupation is not with the precise nature of the Lord's presence in the Eucharist, as seems to be that of his interpreters; if this were so, Clement's terminology would urge us to admit a similar (real or symbolic) presence of the Logos in milk (e.g. 49,3) or honey (51,1). In fact, what he wants to show is that one and the same Logos is in many ways allegorically described (πολλαχῶς ἀλληγορεῖται ὁ λόγος, 47,2). He is more interested in the communion with the Logos, i.e. the res sacramenti, than in the visible, sacramental means by which this happens. If we consider the Logos as food (a common idea in Clement, and, indeed, in Alexandrian theology, since Philo), it does not really matter, whether this food is described as bread, wine, or milk, and honey. It is the communion with the divine Logos on which Clement's concern seems to turn. This also accounts for the allusive character of his exegesis of John 6,53 in 42,2–43,3, which must be particularly disconcerting for the advocates of a “massive” realism. We should by no means say, therefore, that 42,4–43,3 gives only an allegorical interpretation of John 6,53 (the real one being the eucharistic), or that his exegesis has no bearing on the Eucharist, but only on “doctrine” (Batifol's opinion). That this does no justice to Clement's theology, is particularly evident from a passage in which he comments Mk. 14,25:

 

“‘Take, drink, this is my blood’. He allegorically calls (ἀλληγορεῖ) the blood of the vine (cf. Ped. 2,19,3) the Word, ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’, a holy stream of gladness.” (Ped. 2,32,2)

 

The “holy stream of gladness” (εὐφροσύνης) undoubtedly refers to the Eucharist, εὐφροσύνη being often used in this context. We see, then, that Clement uses also the word ἀλληγορεῖν when speaking of the Eucharist. Moreover, we notice that he replaces αἷμα by λόγος as subject of ἐκχεόμενον: here again, the Logos seems all-important. A better understanding of the allegory as theological method would keep us from making such statements as the above; it would appear, that Clement ignores the distinction between allegory, and typology or symbolism. All such terms as ἀλληγορία, τύπος, εἰκών, παραβολή, αἴνιγμα, σύμβολον are equivalent. A more detailed study of this method would show, that it has its reason in the hidden character of the Truth, which is only accessible to those who are initiated. This hidden-ness is an essential characteristic of the whole revelation.

 

To conclude, in this (6th) chapter of the first Book of Clement's Pedagogue (esp. from 33 onwards), many allegories or symbols are used to signify one and the same res, i.e. the Logos; milk, or honey are as much a symbol of the Logos as bread, or wine. So it has no sense here to ask questions about the real presence in bread and wine; these questions prove themselves inadequate.

 

At the end of this discussion of Ped. 1,25–52 let us list the points on which some passages of this section can be usefully compared with some sayings of Ev.Phil.:

 

(1) The elements of the Eucharist are in both writings bread and the mixed cup.

 

(2) Though these elements are not explicitly mentioned, Ev.Phil. 23 and Ped. 1,42,3–43,3 refer in a rather allusive way to the Eucharist. In both passages John 6,53 is quoted, though more literally in Ev.Phil.; for both Clement and the author of Ev.Phil. the ultimate reality “behind” the images of flesh and blood are Logos and Pneuma; but whereas the former speaks of a κρᾶσις of Logos and Pneuma in the Lord, and of a κρᾶσις of these both with man, the latter expresses this “communion” in terms of Valentinian mythology; according to this myth Soter and Sophia (or Achamoth), i.e. in Ménard's interpretation Logos and Pneuma from say. 23, are united in a συζυγία, of which the συζυγία of the pneumatic man and his angel is a part. Ped. 1,39,1 shows that John 6,51 ff was also used by the gnostics fought by Clement.

 

(3) If we take Ev.Phil. 23 (104,31–105,3) as a description of the effect of the Eucharist, it seems that both here and in Ped. 1,43,1 this effect is seen as a stripping off the flesh and as a putting on Christ, i.e. Logos and Pneuma.

 

(4) Neither Clement nor the author of Ev.Phil. excludes the body from the salutary effect of the Eucharist.

 

(5) Finally, the resemblance between the two writings is not only verbal, there is also a similarity of thought-pattern which becomes particularly evident in the exegesis of John 6,53. For both Clement and Ev.Phil. words or names, and all (other) symbols refer to a deeper, or rather, the ultimate reality “behind” them. For both the words of the Scripture and the sacramental liturgy of the Church give access to the eschatological reality, this is only disclosed (in these symbols) for one who has γνῶσις. Both seem more interested in this eschatological reality itself (what we have called the res sacramenti), than in the symbols because of the provisory, and according to Ev.Phil., even deceiving, character of the latter. Both agree, that “Truth”, “Pleroma”, “God” can only be known and only reveal themselves by means of symbols, images and allegories, and that only the gnostic succeeds in reaching the eschatological res. In short, Clement shares with Ev.Phil., the same pattern of symbolic, even sacramental thinking. The main difference seems to lie in the fact that for Ev.Phil. the sacraments are the mirror by means of which the gnostic (re-)discovers his true self. (A. H. C. Van Eijk, “The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and the Eucharist,” Vigiliae Christianae 25 [1971]: 116-19)