Monday, December 30, 2024

A proposed etymology for "Shaumau" based on šammā (height)

 My friend Robert F. Smith, in his “Some ‘Neologisms’ From Mormon Culture,” wrote the following:

 

A. van Selms has similarly distinguished a Hebrew form šammā, “height,” as in Ugaritic tm and šmm.

 

The reference is:

 

Kurt Bergerhof, Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Johannes C. de Moor, Ugaritic-Forschungen [International Jahrbuch für die Alterumskunde Syrien-Palästinas [Kampen, Netherlands: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelear 1970], 2:264

 

I tracked down the reference; here is the scan:

 

 


 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Icon Veneration in Eastern Orthodox Catechisms and The Synodikon of Orthodoxy

  

Confession of Dositheus (1672)

 

 

Question 4: Of the Honor Given to Icons and the Saints.

 

How ought we to think of the Holy Icons, and of the adoration of the Saints?

 

. . .

 

Moreover, we adore and honor the wood of the precious and life-giving Cross, whereon our Savior underwent this world-saving passion, and the sign of the life-giving Cross, the Manger at Bethlehem, through which we have been delivered from irrationality, the place of the Skull [Calvary], the life-giving Sepulcher, and the other holy objects adoration; as well as the holy Gospels, as the sacred vessels, wherewith the unbloody Sacrifice is performed. And by annual commemorations, and popular festivals, and sacred edifices and offerings; we do respect and honor the Saints.

 

And then we adore, and honor, and kiss the Icons of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the most holy Theotokos, and of all the Saints, also of the holy Angels, as they appeared to some of the Forefathers and Prophets. We also represent the All-holy Spirit, as He appeared in the form of a dove. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 73-74)

 

 

The Catechism of St. Peter Mogila (1898)

 

 

Of Icons.

 

245. What are we to think of the icons which the Church venerates and reverences?

 

There is a very great difference between icons and idols. An idol is a mere fiction and invention of men, as the Apostle testifies, An idol has no real existence (1 Corinthians 8:4). But an icon is a representation showing forth a real thing that has actual existence in the world, as the image of our Savior Christ, of the holy Virgin Mary, and of all other saints.

 

Besides, the heathens worshipped their idols as gold, thinking gold and silver to be true deities, and offered sacrifices unto them, as of old did Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:1-18). Whereas we, in venerating and reverencing icons, do not adore the painting or the word, but we honor the saints who are thereby represented, and venerate them with that kind of reverence which is called dulia, placing them, by means of the representation before our eyes as if they were in our sight and we really beheld them; as, for instance, while we venerate a crucifix, we thereby set Christ himself before our mind hanging upon the Cross for our salvation; and unto him, with religious gratitude, do we bend our knee and bow down our heads. So, in like manner, when we reverence the icon of the Virgin Mary, we ascend in our minds to the most holy Mother of God; to her it is that we bow down our heads, to her we bend our knees, and it is her that, with the Archangel Gabriel, we proclaim the most blessed of all men and women.

 

It is evident, therefore, that the veneration of holy icons, which is received into the Orthodox Church, is not contrary to this commandment, as it is neither the same with that which is given to God, nor is it addressed unto the work of art—that is, the picture—but unto the persons of those saints whom the icons represent to us.

 

Furthermore, as the Cherubim that overshadows the Ark of the Covenant represented the real Cherubim who serve God and stand before his face in Heaven, and the Israelites venerated and reverenced them without breaking this commandment of God; and, in like manner, as the Jews sinned not, nor broke this command of the Decalogue, but rather honored God with more glory, when they venerated the Ark of the Covenant, and received it with honor and respect (2 Samuel 6:13-15); So neither do we transgress this command of the Decalogue by reverencing holy icons, but rather more highly praise God, who is wonderful in his holy places (Psalm 68:35).

 

Nevertheless we must take care that every icon has the name of the saint it represents inscribed on it, that thereby it may the more readily answer the intention and design of the person venerating it.

 

We may add, furthermore, in confirmation of what we have said concerning the veneration of holy icons, that the Ch0ruch of God in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, has pronounced a dreadful anathema against the Image-brakers (Iconoclasts), and has established and confirmed to all ages the veneration of holy and venerable icons: As it manifest in the Ninth Canon of the Council.

 

246. For what reason, then, was Hezekiah praised in the Old Testament, who broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had formerly set up and dedicated? (2 Kings 18:4)

 

Because the Jews began to fall away from the worship of the true God, worshipping the bronze serpent as true God, and offering incense to it, as the Scripture shows. Therefore to cut off this evil, and that it might not spread further, Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent, that it might give no further occasion of idolatry to the Israelites. But had there not been given unto it the worship of latria, he would not have broken the Serpent, nor have condemned the Israelites of idolatry.

 

We Christians do not worship icons as God, nor in our approaches to them do we depart from the latria, which is due only to God himself; but rather by the help of the icons we are, as it were, led by the hand unto God; while in their icons we honor the saints, as the friends of God, with the reverence known as dulia, and beseech them to render our God propitious and favorable unto us.

 

But if any one out of ignorance should worship icons otherwise than herein is taught, surely it would be better that such as one should be instructed rightly in this matter than that the veneration of venerable icons should be banished from the Church. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 507-11)

 

 

 

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy

 

 

To them who in words accept the Economy of the Incarnation of the Word of God, but will not tolerate its representation by icons, and thus in word they make a pretense of accepting, but in fact deny our salvation,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who because of a mistaken adherence to the term uncircumscribed, wish not to depict in icons Christ, our True God, Who like us partook of flesh and blood, and thus show themselves to be Docetists,

 

Anathema (1)

 

To them who accept the visions of the prophets, albeit unwillingly, but who do not—O wonder!—accept the images seen by the prophets even before the Incarnation of the Word, but vainly say that he intangible and unseeable essence was seen by the prophets, or even concede that these truly were revealed to the prophets as image and types and forms, but still cannot endure to depict in icons the Word become man and His sufferings for our sake.

 

Anathema (1)

 

To them who hear the Lord Who said that, “If you believed in Moses, you would have believed in me” (John 5:46), and who understand the saying of Moses, “The Lor our God will raise up for you a prophet like unto me” (Deuteronomy 8:15; cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37), but who, on the one hand, say that they accept the Prophet, yet on the other hand, do not permit the depiction in icons of the grace of the Prophet and our universal salvation such as He was seen, as He mingled with mankind, and worked many healings of passions and diseases, and such as He was crucified, was buried, and arose, in short, all that He both suffered and wrought for us; to those, therefore, who cannot endure to gaze upon these universal and saving deeds in icons, neither honor nor worship them,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who persist in the heresy of denying icons, or rather the apostasy of denying Christ, and are not counseled by the Mosaic law to be led to their salvation, nor are they convinced to return to piety by the apostolic teachings, nor are they induced by patristic exhortations and explanations to abandon their deception, nor are they persuaded by the agreement of the Churches of Go throughout the whole world, but once for all have joined themselves to the portion of the Jews and Greeks, have joined themselves to the portion of the Jews and Greeks: for those things wherewith the latter directly blaspheme the prototype, the former likewise have not blushed to insult in His icon Him that is depicted therein; therefore, to them who are incorrigibly possessed by this deception, and have their ears covered towards every Divine word and spiritual teaching, as already being putrified members, and having cut themselves off from the common body of the Church. (in The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 532-34)

 

 

AGAINST JOHN IRENICUS

 

To the most unlearned John Irenicus the champion of falsehood and vanity, and to those things composed by him against the writings of piety, and to them who embrace his words and who believe and say, that not because of the humanity which our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior and God holds within Himself, and which is enhypostatic and united inseparably, indivisibly and unconfusedly with HIs Divinity, did He, as perfect man, in the Holy Gospels; “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), but they say rather that this phrase is to be considered as being spoken by Him according to His humanity in the same manner as when, by an act of abstract thought, His humanity is divested and entirely divided from His Divinity, and as if it had never been united thereto and as it it were like our common nature,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To the conclave that raged against the venerable icons,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who consider the declarations of Divine Scripture against the idols as referring to the venerable icons of Christ our God and His saints,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who knowingly have communion with those who insult and dishonor the venerable icons,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who say that the Christians draw near to icons as if they were gods,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who say that another besides Christ our God delivered us from the deception of idols,

 

Anathema (3)

 

To them who dare to say that the catholic Church at one time had accepted idols, and thus they overthrow the entire mystery, and blaspheme the Faith of the Christians.

 

Anathema (3)

 

Whoever would defend an adherent of any heresy which disparages the Christians, or would defend someone who died in that heresy, let him be,

 

Anathema (3)

 

If anyone does not worship our Lord Jesus Christ depicted in the icons according to His humanity, let him be,

 

Anathema (3) (in The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 548-50)

 

 Further Reading:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Baptismal Regeneration in Various Eastern Orthodox Catechisms

  

The Confession of Dositheus (1672)

 

 

Decree 16: Of Holy Baptism.

 

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens” (John 3:5). And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to the original sin (GK), and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens, must be regenerated.” (in The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 56)

  

The Shorter Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow (1824)

 

34. Why are we baptized?

To the end that we may be mystically washed from sin, and receive a new life of grace. (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 94)

 

The Catechism of Peter Mogila (1898)

 

 

101. What is the first Sacrament, or Baptism?

 

Baptism is a washing away and rooting out of the Ancestral Sin being (του προπατορικου αμαρτηματος; Latin peccati originalist), by being thrice immersed in water, the Priest pronouncing these words: In the name of the Father, Amen; and of the Son, Amen; and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

 

After which regeneration (αναγεννησιν; Latin: regenerationem) by water and the Spirit a man is restored to the grace of God, and the way opened him into the Kingdom of Heaven; as our Savior said, Except a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he canoe enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Olyphany, Pa.: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020], 395)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Quinten Zehn Barney on the Relationship between Hieroglyphic Captions and Associated Pictures

The following comes from:

 

Quinten Zehn Barney, “The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham” (MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 2019), 86-87

 

 

While this is indeed a complex issue, we must remember that the relation between the hieroglyphic captions and the pictures which we assume they describe is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be. For example, Papyrus Rhind 1 and 2 (Edinburgh 908 + 540, and 909) contain several vignettes in which a jackal-headed figure, that we would assume to be Anubis, is sometimes labeled as Thoth, Horus, and even Osiris. [53] A text on the wall in the tomb of Ramses VI labels a bearded mummiform figure as “Corpse of Isis,” and a similar figure as “Corpse of Anu(bis),” when we would normally expect Isis to be portrayed as a female, and Anubis as a jackal. [54] At the temple of Ramses II at Abydos, the relief of a fully humanoid male is also given the caption “Anubis, Lord of the sacred land.” [55] If such a phenomenon could happen on these Theban documents, there is certainly a possibility that the figures in Facsimile No. 3 can be interpreted independent from their hieroglyphic captions as well.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

[53] See Mark Smith, Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 333, 348. In Papyrus Rhind 1, two identical figures of Anubis are shown purifying the deceased Menthesouphis with water. However, the figure on the left of the deceased is labeled as “Thoth” and the figure on the right as “Horus.” The text accompanying the scene also describes the scene as a “Spell for the purification of Horus and Thoth.” Papyrus Rhind 2 features a depiction of Anubis and Thoth holding hands, though the caption gives the name “Osiris” to the jackal-headed figure, and the accompanying text in the column below the vignette mentions nothing at all of Thoth. These and other examples ultimately lead Smith to observe that “there is not always a complete correspondence between illustration and text” (Smith, Traversing Eternity, 317).

 

[54] Joshua Aaron Roberson, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Earth (Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2012), 176–178

 

[55] Sameh Iskander, The Temple of Ramsses II in Abydos: Volume 1: Wall Scenes (Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2015), 399–400.

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Gerald Hiestand on Irenaeus' Theology of the Millennium

  

There is debate about the extent to which Irenaeus maintained a literal thousand year reign. A number of recent interpreters of Irenaeus have attempted to distance Irenaeus from traditional chiliastic thought by arguing that Irenaeus makes no mention of a literal thousand years in Haer. 5.32-36 (or elsewhere). See Wingren, Man and Incarnation, 190-92; Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 52-53. For the definitive treatment on this perspective, see Smith, ‘Chiliasm and Recapitulation in the Theology of Irenaeus’, 313-20. This claim is only narrowly accurate. While Irenaeus does not use the term ‘millennium’ or ‘thousand’ in the Latin text of these chapters, he is clearly working within the constraints of the events and timeline found in Revelation 20-21. For Irenaeus the ‘kingdom’ has a beginning and an end, and is marked on both sides by the first and second resurrections (Rev 20:4 and 20:12, respectively). Thus Irenaeus’ many references to the ‘kingdom’ throughout Haer. 5.32-36 are most naturally understood as a reference to the millennial kingdom of Rev 20:1-10. (Even Wingren notes this point, stating that ‘the regnum is not described as being of a thousand years’ duration, but in fact corresponds to the millennium of the Book of Revelation’, Man and Incarnation, 191). Further, it is clear that Irenaeus believes himself to be faithfully transmitting the chiliasm of Papias, who clearly maintained a literal thousand years (see Haer. 5.33.4). Likewise, Eusebius believes Irenaeus to be transmitting Papias, see Hist. eccl. 3.39.13. Even more convincingly, Minns (as recently as 2010) has shown that the 1910 Armenian text of Adversus haereses, does indeed include an explicit reference to the ‘thousand’ years of Rev 20:1-10. The relevant passage occurs in the last paragraph of the last chapter of the last book of the Armenian Adversus haereses, where we find a reference to ‘the seventh thousand years of the kingdom of the just’, after which kingdom follows the new heavens and the new earth. See Minns, Irenaeus, 143-44. This corresponds to Irenaeus’ view of the ‘kingdom’ as a Sabbath rest, the final seventh age where God’s people are rewarded. See Haer. 5.33.2, ‘These [earthly rewards are granted] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day’. In any case, whether the kingdom is for Irenaeus a literal thousand years, or more abstractly an extended age of time, is a question largely tangential to my primary concern, namely that Irenaeus conceives of a future earthly kingdom of limited duration preceding the general resurrection of the dead and the eternal age when God will raise the righteous dead to reign with Christ upon a renewed earth. (Gerald Hiestand, “'Passing Beyond the Angels': The Interconnection Between Irenaeus' Account of the Devil and His Doctrine of Creation” [PhD Thesis; University of Reading, October, 2017], 54 n. 71)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Gerald Hiestand on Creation Ex Materia in Athenagoras and Justin Martyr vs. Irenaeus' Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo

  

Athenagoras seems to assume the basic Platonic account of creation, where the demiurge shapes matter, rather than bringing it into existence. See Leg. 10.2f. Scholars are divided about this doctrine in Justin. The relevant passages are 1 Apol. 1.10, 58, where Justin speaks of God shaping unformed matter. Notably, Justin does not make a statement one way or the other regarding how this unformed matter came to be. Osborne states, ‘If one looks to concepts rather than to words…. it is clear that Justin would never have considered the concept of unoriginated matter because it contradicted his central belief about God, the sole unoriginate’ (Irenaeus, 67). That Irenaeus so clearly articulates a doctrine of creation ex nihilo where Justin fails to do so shows that Irenaeus is willing to push beyond Justin, despite the close association of their thought. (Gerald Hiestand, “'Passing Beyond the Angels': The Interconnection Between Irenaeus' Account of the Devil and His Doctrine of Creation” [PhD Thesis; University of Reading, October, 2017], 46 n. 38)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Marcos Antonio Ramos on Irenaeus' Low Mariology In Spite of His Belief Mary is the "New/Second Eve" in Against Heresies 3.16.7

  

. . . there is never a hint of seeing Mary as something other than a human being called to an extraordinary mission, a mission and a vocation that calls her to be in solidarity with the rest of the human race. Irenaeus gives Mary an exalted position in God's plan of salvation, but he does so without removing her humanity or putting her on a pedestal as someone distant from the rest of the human race. A great example of this can be found in Adversus haereses III. 16. 7:

 

With him [Christ] is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come"- waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.

 

In this passage Irenaeus is describing Mary as someone who was in "untimely haste", pressuring Jesus to do something before its proper time. Irenaeus is chiding Mary for wanting to partake in something that was going to happen later in the Passion. Irenaeus does not show a extreme censure towards Mary in this passage, just a comment that Mary in Cana was too hasty in demanding something from her son that was not on the hour and time of God. Irenaeus in this passage shows Mary as a limited human being who was able to collaborate in a special way with God by her faith. (Marcos Antonio Ramos, “The New Eve: The Virgin Mary in Irenaeus of Lyon's Adversus Haereses” [MA Thesis; University of St. Michael's College, 2008], 70-71)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Blog Archive