Friday, May 4, 2018

Edward Irving's Catholic Apostolic Church and the concept of the modern Twelve Apostles

While reading a volume on prophecy and eschatology in the history of the USA, one encountered the following, showing that the LDS Church and other groups belonging to the broad “Mormon” restorationst movement are not the only ones who claim to have 12 Apostles, similar to the primitive Church:

John Darby and the Rise of Dispensationalism

While patriotic popularizers found a glorious destiny for the United States in prophecy, evangelical ministers and Bible scholars (and soon a great many ordinary believers) responded to a very different interpretive approach, which originated in Great Britain in the 1820s. The key figures were Edward Irving, Henry Drummond, and John Darby. Irving, a minister of a Scotch Presbyterian chapel in London in the early 1820s, won a following for his charismatic preaching, sharp social criticism, and proclamation of Christ’s imminent return He elaborated his eschatological views in an 1828 Edinburgh lecture series on John’s Apocalypse. Excommunicated by the London presbytery in 1830 for heresy (he taught that Jesus’ earthly nature was sinful), Irving continued to preach by encouraging glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”) as one of the “signs and wonders” foretold by Jesus as a harbinger of the last days.

In 1835 Irving’s followers organized the Catholic Apostolic Church, led by twelve apostles, of whom at least one was expected to be alive at the Seconding Coming. (When the last of the original twelve died at an advanced age in 1901, the sect died out.) (Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture [Studies in Cultural History; Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1992], 86-87)



Thursday, May 3, 2018

William Most on Genesis 3:15

Commenting on Gen 3:15, William G. Most offered the following defence of the “woman” being Mary, the mother of Jesus, and not Eve:

Objections to the Marian Interpretation.
Objection 1. It is a general principle of interpretation that in one and the same context a given word must everywhere have the same sense. Furthermore, a prophecy must be explained according to its context. But the word woman elsewhere in this context refers to Eve. Hence it must mean her also in vs. 15. Mary is nowhere mentioned in the context.

Answer: The above principle is incomplete. If two different speakers use the same word in the same context, the sense need not necessarily be the same. E.g., in Isa. 28:10-13, compare the words of the drunkards in vs. 10 to those of the Prophet in vs. 13. Or again, in John 2:19-21 the word temple is used in one sense by Our Lord, in another by the Jews. But in Gen. 3:15 there are two speakers; the human writer, and the words of God Himself to Adam and Eve. As to the context of a prophecy, consider Isa. 42:1 and 19. In vs. 1, the word servant refers to the Messias, while in vs. 19 it refers to blind Israel. Now Gen. 3:15 certainly refers to the Messias. Is it out of context to find the Mother of the Messias with Him?

Furthermore, in interpreting Gen. 3:15, we can learn from St. Peter the Apostle himself. On the day of the first Pentecost, Peter gave a sermon in which he quoted the prophecy made in Ps. 15:

 . . . because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer the Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:27, citing Ps. 15:10)

Now in this Ps. 15 Christ is not even mentioned. The Psalmist speaks in the first person, and so seems undoubtedly to mean himself. Yet St. Peter tells us that he does not mean himself, but Christ. Why? Because the sense of the part of the Psalm simply could not fit David:

Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day . . . he was a prophet . .. he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:29-31)

David’s flesh obviously did see corruption; hence he cannot be the one meant in the prophecy. Christ alone fulfilled it, so argues St. Peter. There are many prophecies to which this technique could be applied, and has been applied by the Fathers of the Church.

Similarly, in Gen 3:15, although the prophecy may seem to refer to Eve, yet she surely does not fulfill it, except perhaps in a very imperfect sense. (William G. Most, Mary in Our Life [Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1955], 269-70)


Interestingly, such would support the Book of Mormon which presents pre-Christian knowledge of the Mother of the Messiah within the context of Messianic prophecy (e.g., 1 Nephi 11; Mosiah 3:8; Alma 7:10).

It should be noted that Most tried to bring in the concept of the complete sinlessness of Mary, a la the Immaculate Conception, into this passage, something the text does not require. For more on this dogma, see my two chapters discussing the Immaculate Conception in light of the Bible and Christian history in Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology.

Blake Ostler vs. Simon Southerton on DNA and the Book of Mormon

Simon Southerton has been recently interviewed on the Gospel Tangents youtube, and his interview will be posted, in segments, there, beginning with the following:

Simon Southerton Talks DNA, Excommunication

Sadly, Southerton remains as intellectually disingenuous as ever. For a thorough beat-down of Southerton's weak arguments, see Blake Ostler,  "Simon Says, But That Doesn't Make It So (letter to the editor)." Sunstone 139 (November 2005): 4–8.

Blake Ostler has also written the following articles on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon for those interested:

"Assessing the Logical Structure of DNA Arguments Against the Book of Mormon." Sunstone 135 (December 2004): 70–72.

"Responses to Letters to the Editor." Sunstone 136 (March 2005): 3–8.

"DNA Strands in the Book of Mormon." Sunstone 137 (May 2005): 63-71.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Robert Spencer on Textual Editing and Variants in the Qur'an

Under the section, “Signs that the Text Has Been Altered,” Robert Spencer wrote about evidence that the Qur’an has been edited:

The pioneering Qur’anic scholar Richard Bell (1876-1952) closely examined the Qur’anic text and identified numerous signs that the text has been changed. Lack of continuity and inherent contradictions are two of the most common indications. One curious passage Bell highlighted comes in a polemic against the Jews and Christians (2:116-21):

116. And they say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will—
117. The Creator of the heavens and the earth; And when He decrees a thing, He but says to it “Be,” and it is.
118. And they that know not say: “Why does God not speak to us?, Why does a sign not come to us?” So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts as much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs unto a people who are sure.
119. We have sent thee with the truth, good tidings to bear, and warning. Thou shalt not be questioned touching the inhabitants of Hell.
120. Never will the Jews be satisfied with thee, neither the Christians, not till thou followest their religion. Say: “God’s guidance is the true guidance.” If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, thou shalt have against God neither protector nor helper.
121. Those to whom We have given the Bok and who recite it with true recitation, they believe in it; and whoso disbelieves in it, they shall be the losers.

Bell points out that all the polemical assertions in verse 116 and 117 answer the claim in verse 120, that the Jews and Christians will never be satisfied with the Muslim believers until they convert to their religions. He suggests that these verses were inserted later and were originally intended to follow verse 120 (Richard Bell, “From Introduction to the Qur’an,” in Ibn Waraq, ed., What the Koran Really Says [Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2002], 547). It also appears that verses 118 and 119 introduce some other argument, against those who demand miracles of the Muslim prophet, whose only miracles are the verses of the Qur’an themselves. As presented in the Qur’an we know today, these verses unaccountably interrupt the polemic against the People of the Book. The passage reads much more logically in this order:

120. Never will the Jews be satisfied with thee, neither the Christians, not till thou followest their religion. Say: “God’s guidance is the true guidance.” If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, thou shalt have against God neither protector nor helper.
116. And they say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will—
117. The Creator of the heavens and the earth; And when He decrees a thing, He but says to it “Be,” and it is.
121. Those to whom We have given the Book and who recite it with true recitation, they believe in it; and whoso disbelieves in it, they shall be the losers.

Bell also sees considerable manipulation of the text in this passage from sura 4:

23. Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father’s sisters, and your mother’s sister’s, and your brother’s daughters, and your sister’s daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mothers-in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection, born of your women unto whom you have gone in—but if you have not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you—and the wives of your sons who spring from your own loins. And (it is forbidden to you) that you should have two sisters together, except what has already happened in the past. Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
24. And all married women (are forbidden to you) save those captives whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful to you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom you seek content by marrying them, give them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you do by mutual agreement after the duty has been done! Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
25. And whoever is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knows best your faith. You proceed one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness, they shall incur the half of the punishment prescribed for free women. This is for him among you who fears to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
26. Allah would explain to you and guide you by the examples of those who were before you, and would turn to you in mercy. Allah is Knower, Wise. (Muhammad M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran [Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 1999], language modernised)

Bell posits that “the marriage laws in Sura IV are a clear case of alternative continuations”—that is, an instance in which an editor simply tacked on his addition to an already complete passage, doing nothing to address the resulting contradictions. The first verse above, says Bell, “lays down the forbidden degrees of relationship, and reproduces the Mosaic list with some adaptation to Arab custom.” This was deliberate, Bell argues, as indicated by verse 26: “Allah would explain to you and guide you by the examples of those who were before you.” But, Bell continues, “at a later time . . . some relaxation appeared necessary.” This verse 25 was added, “allowing marriage with slaves,” and finally verse 24, which “gives ample liberty.”

Bell points out that the similar endings of verse 24 (“Allah is ever Knower, Wise”), the first part of verse 25 (“Allah knows best your faith”), and the latter part of verse 25 (“Allah is Knower, Wise”) provide evidence that “substitutions have been made” (Bell, “From Introduction to the Qur’an,” 547). Repeating whole phrases as taglines may have been an attempt to make sense out of what would otherwise be the most awkward of rhyme schemes—an attempt to make poetry out of prosaic, didactic material.” (Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins [Washington, Del.: ISI Books, 2014], 138-42)

Elsewhere (Ibid., 194-95), Spencer wrote:

Hafs, Warsh, and Other Variants

The edition of the Qur’an published in Cairo in 1924 has won wide acceptance as an accurate reflection of the Uthmanic text. But little known even among Muslims is the existence of an entirely separate and officially sanctioned manuscript tradition. The Warsh tradition of the Qur’anic text predominates in western and northwest Africa; the Cairo Qur’an represents the more common Hafs tradition.

Most of the differences between the Hafs and Warsh traditions are one of orthography, some of which can be significant. There are also several instances of small but unmistakable divergences in meaning. In Qur’an 2:125, for example, the Hafs text has Allah commanding the Muslims: “Take the station of Abraham as a place of prayer” (Ibn Warraq, Virgins? What Virgins? And Other Essays [Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010], 221). In Qur’an 3:13, Allah recalls of the Battle of Badr that there was “one army fighting in the way of Allah, and another disbelieving, whom they saw as twice their number, clearly, with their very eyes.” At least so goes the Hafs text. In the Warsh, the pronoun is different, so that the text reads “whom you saw” rather than “whom they saw” (Ibid., 222). In the Hafs Qur’an, sura 3:146 asks, “And with how many a prophet have there been a number of devoted men who fought?” the Warsh question is significantly different:” And with how many a prophet have there been a number of devoted men who were killed?” (Ibid., 223)

In recent decades, numerous other Qur’ans have been published that differ markedly in orthography from the Cairo text (Ibid., 219). In 1998 the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qu’an released an edition. In this Saudi edition, the Fatiha calls Allah “Master of the Day of Judgment” (1:4). The word malik means “master” with a long alif (a). With a short alif, however, the word means “king.” King of the Day of Judgment” is exactly how some other texts of the Qur’an render this verse, including a text published in Istanbul in 1993 (23).

At least one variant in modern Qur’ans involves a fat contradiction. The Hafs tradition presents Qur’an 3:158 this way: “And if you die, or are slain, lo, it is certainly to Allah that you are gathered.” On the other hand, a Qur’an published in Tehran in 1978 asserts: “And if you die, or are slain, lo, it is not to Allah that you are gathered” (Ibid., 223).





Robert Spencer vs. David Wood: Did Muhammad Exist?

Today I read the book by Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins (Washington, Del.: ISI Books, 2014). While I disagree with the central thesis, Spencer did raise a number of interesting points about the standard narrative of early Islamic history and the complete lack of evidence supporting such. Notwithstanding, I believe he did a hit-and-miss job on the criteria of embarrassment (ch. 5 [pp.107-24]) vis-a-vis the historicity of certain events in the life of Muhammad, so reader beware. I first became aware of the book after learning of Spencer's debate with David Wood on the thesis of the book:

Robert Spencer vs. David Wood: Did Muhammad Exist?




Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is now back in print

I just found out that Louis Bouyer's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism has been reprinted by Ignatius Press. This is a must-read for any Latter-day Saint who interacts with Protestants. Bouyer was a former Protestant who wrote very fairly on his former faith, but soundly refutes many of the major heresies of Protestantism, such as Sola Fide. See, for e.g., the following blog post:

Louis Bouyer on Transformative and Forensic Justification


On the current "to read" pile

Firstly, thanks to everyone for the prayers/positive vibes the past few days--I am now back to full health! Hopefully this will mean more regular blogging.

For those who are interested, the following are the current volumes on the "to read" pile in case any title(s) interest any reader of this blog to pursue for themselves:

LDS:

Susan Easton Black, Glorious Truths about Mother Eve

Mary V. Hill, Angel Children: Doctrinal Perspectives on the Salvation of Little Children

Ralph C. Hancock, Just and Holy Principles: Latter-day Saint Readings on America and the Constitution

Carol Cornwall Madsen, Journey to Zion: Voices from the Mormon Trail

David G. Stewart, Jr. The Law of the Harvest: Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work

Sterling W. Sill, The Three Infinities: To Know, To Do, To Be

Keith W. Merrill, ed. Why I Believe

Paul M. Edwards, Our Legacy of Faith: A Brief History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints

Arvin S. Gibson, Fingerprints of God: Evidences from Near-Death Studies, Scientific Research on Creation and Mormon Theology

Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon

William J. Whalen, The Latter-day Saints in the Modern World

Non-LDS:

Nathan D. Mitchell, Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass

Anthony Cekada, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI

Anthony Cekada, trans. The Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass

Eugene H. Sullivan, Proof of the Reception of the Sacraments: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary

Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering our Past

Larry R. Gerlach, Blazing Crosses in Zion: The Ku Klux Klan in Utah

Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy in Modern American Culture

Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

William G. Most, Mary in Our Life: Our Lady in Doctrine and Devotion

Peter S. Williamson, Ephesians (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)

A.C. Cawley, Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays

Karl Deenick, Righteous by Promise: A Biblical Theology of Circumcision

W. Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous


Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

Blog Archive