End of Year Facebook Fundraiser: Research/Podcast Costs for Scriptural Mormonism in 2022

Taken from Research/Podcast Costs for Scriptural Mormonism in 2022 (my end of year facebook fundraiser)

As many know, I run the blog "Scriptural Mormonism" and have authored a couple books on Latter-day Saint topics, with a focus on the exegetical evidence for various "Mormon" beliefs (e.g., baptismal regeneration; rejection of sola Scriptura).

I hope to delve more into various topics in 2022, such as textual criticism of the Bible, the reception history of Daniel 7 and the identity of the "Ancient of Days," and other topics relating to Latter-day Saint theology and Scriptures.

I also hope to start podcasting and producing youtube videos, so hope to invest in good equipment for such.

All funds raised will be used for books and articles (print and electronic [e.g., Logos]) and podcasting material for these and other projects.

Thanks!

Alexander A. Di Lella on the Old Greek of Daniel 7 and the "Son of Man" Appearing As the "Ancient of Days"

  

Since every translation, even the best, is an interpretation, F. F. Bruce has argued that OG-Dan displays evidence of theological Tendenz. (F. F. Bruce, "The Earliest Old Testament Interpretation," OTS 17 [1972] 37-52; and idem, "The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel," OTS 20 [1977] 22-40.) He examines, for example, the most celebrated verse: OG-Dan 7: 13, which reads, ιδου επι των νεφελων του ουρανου ως υιος ανθρωπου ηρχετο [967 places ηρχετo after ουρανου] και ως παλαιος ημερων παρην. This text clearly states that "the one like a son of man" appears "as the Ancient of Days. " (Bruce, "The Oldest Greek Version," 25-26.) In agreement with the MT, Th-Dan reads ως υιος ανθρωπου ερχομενος ην και εως του παλαιου των ημερων εφθασεν, "one like a son of man was coming, and to the Ancient of Days he reached." But S. Pace Jeansonne argues against the position of Bruce; she affirms Ziegler's conjectured reading (Ziegler, Daniel, 170) (following Montgomery) (Montgomery, Daniel, 304) that ως παλαιος is a deliberate corruption of εως του παλαιου, a reading reflected also in Tertullian (died ca. 220 CE), Cyprian (died 258 CE), and the Consultationes, which are based on OG-Dan.34 But curiously, both she and Bruce fail to mention that 967, which Ziegler did not have available but which had already been published in 1968, reads the same as 88-Syh. This unique reading found in all three OG-Dan witnesses should not be dismissed simply on the basis of a conjectured reading in Ziegler's eclectic edition. (Alexander A. Di Lella, "The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,II; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 2:591; Tendenz is a term used to denote the actual authorial intent)

 

James D.G. Dunn on the Merging of the "Son of Man" and the "Ancient of Days"

  

Particularly intriguing for an interest in the Danielic son of man is, of course, the combined influence of Dan 7:9 and 13 in Rev 1:13-14 - that is, the use of elements of Daniel's description of the Ancient of Days ("his head and his hair were ... as white wool, '"like a flame of fire") in Revelation's description of the "one like a son of man." This suggestion that the figures of the Ancient of pays and the "one like a son of man" were in some way merged in John's vision has stimulated considerable discussion in NT scholarship. It has also posed various issues: whether it strengthens the case that the reading of Dan 7: 13 LXX was current ("as the Ancient of Days," rather than "to the Ancient of Days"); how it correlates with the issue of angel christology that is also addressed in Revelation;  and whether, as with the talk of "the lamb in the midst of the throne" (Rev 7: 17; cf. 22: 1,3), it amounts simply to a merging of symbolical descriptions, or was intended to provide something more in the nature of an ontological statement about the relationship between Christ and God. (James D.G. Dunn, "The Danielic Son of Man in the New Testament," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,II; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 2:537)

 

Klaus Koch on the Old Greek of Daniel 7 and the Son of Man Probably Denoting the Archangel Michael

  

The message of the Old Greek version differs in some important respects from the Aramaic-Hebrew version . . .Whereas in the Vorlage the eschatological Son of Man probably denotes the archangel Michael who is authorized for the coming kingdom of God by the Ancient of Days (See Collins [Daniel, 304-10]), the Old Greek identifies the coming savior with the Ancient of Days himself and apparently interprets him as the Messiah, "whose origin is from old, from ancient days" (Micha 5:2). As a consequence of this, the holy ones of chapter 7, originally angels, (Collins, Daniel, 313-17) were seen as "the holy people of the Most High" on earth (7:27). (Klaus Koch, "Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,II; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 2:426-27)

 

As Collins notes in his commentary on Daniel,

 

Third, a considerable number of authors have remained persuaded that the “one like a human being” is individual but understand him as a heavenly, angelic being rather than the messiah. We have seen above reason to expect that the “one like a human being” be understood as a realistic symbol, representing a being who was believed to exist, and that a human figure in a vision represent an angel or divine being. Within the Book of Daniel the individual who is singled out as the heavenly counterpart of Israel is the archangel Michael, “the great prince who stands over your people.” The view that Michael is the “one like a human being” was put forward by Nathaniel Schmidt in 1900. Schmidt was followed by several scholars, but his view gained wide support only in recent years, in the wake of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which threw new light on the prominence of angelic forces in the religion of the Hellenistic period. The identification of the “one like a human being” with Michael is greatly strengthened by the arguments below that the holy ones of the Most High are the angelic host.291 We return to the identification below, in connection with the holy ones. (John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1993], 310)

 

A variant of the angelic interpretation would identify the “one like a human being” with Gabriel rather than Michael. Ziony Zevit has offered the ingenious argument that Dan 9:21, “the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at first,” must refer back to the “one like a human being” in Daniel 7. It is more plausible, however, to trace this reference to 7:16, where Daniel asks “one of the attendants” for an interpretation. Gabriel serves as interpreter in 8:15 and 9:21, so he was probably identified as the interpreter in chap. 7 too. Michael, the prince of Israel, is the more appropriate recipient of the kingdom. (Ibid.)

 

André Lacocque on the "Son of Man" in 1 Enoch being a "New Adam" and the "Understudy" of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7

  

. . . the "Animal Apocalypse" (1 Enoch 85-90), which shows the "Son of Man" as a new Adam, more perfect than the first one, and inaugurating a new world, more glorious than the old one. Himself a combination of angelic and Adamic, this personage appears in Daniel 7 as the "understudy" of God [the Ancient of Days], a phenomenon already found in Ezekiel (for example, chapter 8) and, later, in Qumran and Christian literatures. The Community Rule presents the "God of Israel and his Angel of Truth" as, in fact, one and the same person. In Rev 1.14, Christ's "hair of his head is white as snow-white wool, and his eyes are flaming like fire." (André Lacocque, "Allusions to Creation in Daniel 7," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,I; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1:123-24, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

Elsewhere in this essay, we read that

 

In Christian ancient art, Christ is sometimes represented as the Ancient of Days, for example, on an ivory diptych of the 6th century now in Berlin's Staatliche Museen, and on a mural painting in Kastoria. See photographs in Le Monde de La Bible I 14 (Oct. 1998) 21 and 29. (Ibid., 124 n. 36)

As Collins notes,

 

Early Christian interpreters assume the identity of the “son of man” with Christ and usually read Dan 7:13 as a prophecy of the second coming. A possible exception is found in Rev 14:14, where a figure seated on a cloud, like a son of man, may be an angel rather than Christ, in view of the reference to “another angel” in the following verse. This passage is not an interpretation of Daniel 7 in the sense of claiming to give the meaning of Daniel’s vision, but it is a valuable illustration of how this imagery was understood and used in antiquity. (John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1993], 307–308)

 

John H. Walton on Daniel 7 and the Grammatical Distinction between the "Ancient of Days" and the "Most High"

  

In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days has always been an intriguing yet obscure figure, though there is little doubt that in Daniel he can represent none other than Yahweh. He is seated on the throne of dominion (v. 9), grants authority (vv. 13-14), and passes judgment (v. 22). The only mitigation of this identification is that there is grammatical cause to draw a distinction in v. 22 between the "Ancient of Days" and the "Most High" (an epithet generally used for Yahweh). Since the Most High, (עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין) does not occur until after the introduction of the "Son of Man," it is alternatively possible that as a result of the Son of Man being granted authority (v. 14), he thereby qualifies for the epithet "Most High." This creates the expected correspondence between the kingdom being given to the son of man in v. 14 and to the Most High and his holy ones in v. 27.

 

Regardless of what name we attach to the Ancient of Days and of what connections can be drawn between the description of him and descriptions in other biblical or extra-biblical texts, what is important for our study is the role that he plays. The Ancient of Days is the one who is responsible for responding to the threat. He shows no anger, distress, turmoil or confusion, but convenes the assembly (of which he is the head) to address the problem. In this he is most comparable to Anshar in Ee and Anu in Anzu.

 

In Ee, the solution sequence is mediated first by Anshar, who fails to find a champion, and then by Ea, who selects Marduk to play the role of champion.

 

In Anzu, the solution sequence is mediated first by Anu, who fails to find a champion, but then accepts Ea' s offer to find one (I: 157-62). Ea selects Ninurta, but enlists Mami (Belet-ili) to persuade her son. Mami is not near as close a match for the "Ancient of Days" imagery as EI is in the Ugaritic material, though her status as the ancient creatrix puts her in a similar category.

 

In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days rolls all of these into one as the head of the assembly and the one who both mediates the solution sequence and designates a champion. (John H. Walton, "The Anzu Myth As Relevant Background for Daniel 7?" in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,I; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1:79-80, emphasis in bold added)

 

As an aside, Walton provides the following table (Ibid., 85) on Daniel 7 and ancient literature:

Gabriele Amorth (Catholic Priest and Exorcist) on the Importance of Mary and Marian Veneration in Exorcisms

Gabriele Amorth (1925-2016) was a renowned exorcist in Rome and a priest of the Congregation of San Paolo. He is internationally recognised as the world’s greatest exorcist. In his book, An Exorcist Explaining the Demonic: The Antics of Satan and His Army of Fallen Angels (2016) he discusses the importance of Mary vis-à-vis exorcisms and predicating it on the various Marian dogmas and doctrines, which again shows why Mariology is not a minor issue, but is a true “dividing line” between Roman Catholics and Latter-day Saints (and others):

 

Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces

 

"In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph": Mary's prophecy at Fátima reassures us that besides the body-to-body [struggle] with the demon the exorcism), the earthly anticipation of the eschatological struggle between the Mother of God and the ancient dragon (cf. Rev. 12) also has her attention. Despite rampant sin and despite the man who abandons God, considering him only a useless impediment to his own unrestrained liberty, the tribulations of the Church will have an end. And the finale will be good: God will have the last word on history. For this reason, Mary is always invoked during the exorcism; although, to tell the truth, the old ritual did not include an invocation to her. Adding her to the ceremony is a practice I borrowed from Father Candido, however. It is a necessity, and the current ritual has gotten around this deficiency. During the prayer, the priest repeatedly invokes her intercession and her powerful protection. Without her, little is accomplished in the struggle against Satan. it is always God who liberates one from his influence—it is good to keep and repeating it—bus His ear is especially attuned to the mediation of Mary, the Mother of His Son.

 

What role does the Virgin have in the liberation of the obsessed? Mary, as the Hail Mary says, is "full of grace." She is the mediatrix of God's every grace for all men, particularly for those who suffer much, including those who suffer from spiritual evils. The enmity between Mary and Satan—proclaimed solemnly by God in the first book of Genesis (Gen. 1:3-15) and manifest in the eschatological struggle with the dragon—makes her the number-one enemy of the demon. She will be the one to crush his head at the end of time.

 

The help of the Virgin, however, goes beyond the exceptional situations of the demoniacs. In man's every struggle against Satan and sin, it is always she who represents the extraordinary and the irreplaceable. The demon is terrified of her. In order to be very clear, I wish to cite an episode at which I personally assisted many years ago. During an exorcism, Father Candido asked the devil a question: "Why are you more afraid when I invoke Mary than when I implore God Himself?" He responded: "I feel more humiliated being conquered by a simple creature than by God Himself."

 

Mary is a creature like us, but, having been elevated to be the Mother of God, she has extraordinary power. Also for this reason I ask the persons who assist me to pray the Rosary. It is the most advisable prayer in that context, prayed individually, not aloud and collectively, as it is often prayed in church before Mass, so as not to disturb the exorcism. I would add that the Rosary, being the prayer most appreciated by our Lady, is an extremely powerful arm against the devil, and I warmly recommended it to anyone suffering from spiritual evils. This prayer has, in fact, a strong power of protection and liberation from evil. One day Sister Lucia, a seer of Fátima, revealed that God has conferred a power to great on the Rosary that there is no evil—personal, family, or social—that cannot be defeated by its recitation with faith.

 

What, then, can we ask of Mary in the Rosary? There is nothing else to ask of her except for the gift of peace—for the world certainly, but also for ourselves; for the serenity of our heart, so that we may be able to accept our crosses, so that we may know how to recognize the gifts that we receive each day from the good God and thank Him for this. It is also important to pray the Rosary together as a family in order to invoke peace in our homes, and in the world. Wars and the division of souls are unequivocal signs of the presence of the devil, which, not by chance, in Greek means "divider."

 

I also recall that on March 25, 1984, St. John Paul II consecrated the world to Mary. It was a very important gesture in an epoch in which communism still represented an explicit threat to Christianity. During an exorcism, I asked an unclean spirit who was persecuting someone why he had so much hatred toward John Paul II. He replied: "Because he has ruined our plans." I imagine that he was referring to the fall of communism. At Fátima, when the Virgin affirmed that her "Immaculate Heart will triumph," what could it mean if not to trust in the Lord and her maternal help always—particularly before the danger of discouragement that lies in wait for everyone but, above all, for those suffering from evil spirits, because often waiting for the results can seen interminable. It also means that, with the help of Mary, we must continuously engage ourselves in converting to God, so that we will know how to do His will—that is, to pardon and to love—and so that we may know how to make every event an occasion of sanctification and the realization of God's plan for us. Mary beings us to Jesus, because initially she allowed the Holy Spirit to touch her intimately, permitting her to generate Jesus in time. (Gabriele Amorth, An Exorcist Explaining the Demonic: The Antics of Satan and His Army of Fallen Angels [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2016], 122-24)