Sunday, November 2, 2025

The Old Testament Canon According to the "Apology of al-Kindī"

  

The Old Testament is this: the Law, the book of Joshua son of Nun, the book of Judges, the book of the prophet Samuel, the book of Kings, the Psalms of David, the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Job, the book of Isaiah, the book of Jeremiah, the book of Ezekiel, the book of Daniel. This is the whole of the Old Testament. (“Apology of al-Kindī,” in Medieval Latin Lives of Muhammad [trans. Julian Yolles and Jessica Weiss; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 51; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2018], )

 

Theosis in Homily 1 of Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638)

  

And this is what David, the ancestor of God enlightened by the grace of prophecy and foreseeing clearly the gifts and divine deeds of Christ who was destined to be born of his line, was singing in his psalm, I say, ‘You are gods, and all sons of the Most High.’” God is among us, so let us by divine transformation and imitation become gods. The Most High is earthbound, so let us for our part be raised up by our good intentions and let us carry out his most lofty and sublime will, and let us make ourselves capable of receiving such God-given gifts. (Sophronius of Jerusalem, Homily 1, in Homilies: Sophronius of Jerusalem [trans. John M. Duffy; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 64; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2020], 25, emphasis in bold added)

 

The Greek for the material in bold reads:

 

"Εγω ειπα θεοι εστε και θοιυ 'Υψιστου παντες." Θεος εν ημιν θεωθωμεν θειαις μεταβολαις και μιμησεσιν. 'Ο 'Υψιστος επιγειος γεγονεν υψωθωμεν και ημεις ταις προθεσεσιν και την υψηλην αυτου και υπερτατην πληρωσωμεν βουλησιν <και> των τοιουτων θεοσδοτων δωρεων δεκτικούς εαυτους εργασωμεθα. (Ibid., 24)

 

Saturday, November 1, 2025

Baptismal Regeneration in Medieval Latin Lives of Muhammad

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is universal in early and medieval Christianity. We can see how it is ubiquitous even in the medieval-era “Lives of Muhammad.” The following excerpts come from:

 

Medieval Latin Lives of Muhammad (trans. Julian Yolles and Jessica Weiss; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 51; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2018)

 

 

Embrico of Mainz, “Life of Muhammad”:

 

As you know, an enemy in one’s own house does more harm in every way, and the matter at hand teaches how it harms. For a certain man, lacking in devotion but cleansed by baptism, lived in the church, though completely faithless, seeking men’s praises for himself through magic deception and bringing the Church’s ruin by his efforts. (p. 31)

 

 

Walter of Compiègne, “Poetic Pastimes on Muhammad”:

 

“Therefore since he was willing on his stretched out [on the cross]. Although gentle himself, he suffered cruelty: nails, blows, insults, the cross. When he died on the cross and had been committed to earth, he went to the regions of Tartarus; he broke them down and returned with the spoils. He appeared to his disciples for forty days; he himself gave his side to be touched by Thomas and he accepted bodily food with all looking on in order to show that the true flesh lived. Finally, he ordered them to travel the whole world and convince the peoples of the true faith, so that they believe, so that they act, so that they be washed in the sacred spring and saved; otherwise they will perish (ut sacro fonte laventur, et salvi fient: sin alias, perient). (p. 137)

 

 

“Apology of al-Kindī”:

 

After he granted us faith, with which we might believe in him, he also gave us baptism, saying: “If anyone has not been reborn from the water and Holy Spirit, he will not be able to enter the Kingdom of God.” This is the baptism, by which we are freed from the inextinguishable fire. (Qui, postquam dedit nobis fidem, qua in eum crederemus, addidit nobis baptismum dicents: “Nisis quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. » Hic est baptismus, quo baptizati liberamur ab igne inextinguibili) (p. 507)

 

Baptismal Regeneration and Baptism of Desire in “On the Liturgy” by Amalar of Metz (c. 775-850)

The following excerpts comes from:

 

Amalar of Metz, On the Liturgy, Volume 1: Books 1-2 (trans. Eric Knibbs; Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 35; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014)

 

 

Book 1.24:

 

In a sense, the child is said to have faith because of the sacrament of faith, and he is said to convert to God because of the sacrament of conversion, for the likeness of faith and the likeness of conversion are celebrated in that rite. Thus, the same author as above, in the same letter: “For if the sacraments did not have some likeness to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. And they often take their names from their likeness to these things. Thus, just as the sacrament of Christ’s body is, in some sense, Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, to the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing but having faith, and for this reason, when it is responded that the children (who do not have the disposition of faith) believe, it is responded that they have faith because of the sacrament of faith, and that they are converted to God because of the sacrament of conversion—since this response, too, pertains to the celebration of the sacrament. In the same way, the Apostle says of baptism: ‘We are buried together with him by baptism into death.’ He does not say, ‘We have signified the burial,’ but rather he says: ‘We are buried together.’ Thus he called the sacrament of this thing by nothing other than the word of the thing itself.” (Sacramentum ergo tantat rei non nisi eiusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit) Through this sacrament, which operates through likeness, it is as if the child has faith through the mouth of those offering their faith, as if he were responding himself. Just as we, after the likeness of the Lord’s burial that we received in baptism, enact that event (that is, the burial), so too is faith enacted in infants through the response of their parents or others who offer the child and who perform a likeness of the children’s faith. (pp. 235, 237)

 

 

Book 1.27:

 

I heard someone ask whether a neophyte can possess the kingdom of heaven without the bishop’s laying on of hands. The thief who confessed the Lord on the cross and heard from him: “This day you shalt be with me in paradise,” did not receive the laying on of hands, although we believe that he was baptized on the cross with his own blood. Gregory of Nazianzus speaks about this baptism in his sermon On the Second Epiphany: “For I also know of a fourth baptism, in which one is baptized through martyrdom by one’s own blood. Christ was also baptized by means of this baptism”—so that also in this, as in everything else, he might provide an example to believers and those who followed him. Augustine speaks about this baptism in his letter to Seleucianus: “We should not now ask when someone has been baptized, but we ought to understand that whoever we gather into the body of Christ (which is the church) belongs to the kingdom of heaven only if they have been baptized—unless perhaps the hardship of suffering finds some who are unwilling to deny Christ and are killed before being baptized. For these, this suffering is considered baptism.” Even the words of Saint Sylvester—who, to remedy the difficulty of finding a bishop before the soul’s departure, ordered that the neophyte be anointed by the priest “with the chrism of salvation unto eternal life”—suggest that one can be received into the kingdom of heaven without the imposition of the bishop’s hand. For these are different mansions in my Father’s house.

 

As for those who, through negligence, do not bother with the bishop’s presence, and do not receive his laying on of hands: We must wonder whether they are damned for the just reason that they exercise justice negligently, for they should have hastened to receive the laying on of hands. For just as Christ says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” he also says; “Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” It is true that in baptism our sins are forgiven and we are buried with Christ. (pp. 255, 257)

 

 

Book 1.39:

 

Since the grace of the Holy Spirit is seven-fold, it is right that we celebrate the solemnity of his coming with the requisite praise of hymns together with the celebration of Masses. Since the church has been accustomed to gather new people to God through the water of rebirth (per aquam regenerationis) from throughout the whole world at the time of Pentecost, and rightly rejoices together in their salvation until they are dressed in white vestments and reveal the luster of their purified minds through the splendor of their dress, we offer a hymn of devout praise o God, according to the command of our most holy pastor and redeemer, who said: ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’ (pp. 347, 349)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 86: Steven C. Harper on the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89)

 

Episode 86: Steven C. Harper on the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89)








Augustine (354-530) on Luke 3:23

  

(Luke 3:23)

 

QUESTION 5: HOW COULD JOSEPH HAVE TWO FATHERS.—This question is not absurd. St. Matthew says that Joseph was begotten by Jacob (cf. Matt. 1:16), and St. Luke says that he is the son of Heli. This difficulty cannot be solved by saying that the same personage bore two names, as was the custom sometimes among the Gentiles and the Jews. The series of other generations is a dogmatic refutation of this kind of solution. For how do you explain why the names of the grandfather, the great-grandfather, the great-great-grandfather, and the other ancestors are different in two Evangelists? How do we explain the difference in the number of generations? Saint Luke counts forty-three, going up from Our Lord to David. St. Matthew, descendant of David to Our Lord, counts twenty-seven or twenty-eight; and, for some mysterious reason, the name that ends the series of generations that come to Babylon’s captivity, it repeated as the first of those what begin upon the return from captivity. The question of knowing in what sense Joseph could have two fathers, is not solved. I see three hypotheses among which there may be one that relates to the thought of the Evangelist. Either Joseph had an adoptive father in addition to his father according to nature, or by virtue of the custom according to which, in the case of the Jews, when one of these died without leaving a succession, a close relative took the wife of the deceased and assigned the son to the deceased relative. (Cf. Deut. 25:5-6). So, being begotten by one and assigned to another, it is quite rightly stated that Joseph had two parents designated a maternal grandfather, or someone of the ancestors whose relationship, Joseph, could be called the son, without any improbability. In this hypothesis, the genealogy of St. Luke to David would be different from the genealogy of St. Matthew. The second of these explanations seems less solid, because when a man with the Jews had a child of the widow of his brother or a close relative, the name of the deceased husband was given to this child. The difficulty will therefore be solved by the hypothesis of adoption, or by admitting that one of the genealogies supposes the collateral ancestors, or in any other manner which escapes our thought. But what folly and what end to accuse an Evangelist of lying, instead of seeking an explanation for this difference in the name of the ancestors says Christ? It would be boldness already, to pretend that there are only two possible solutions. Only one, however, suffices to make all the difficulties disappear. (Augustine, “Questions on the Gospel of Saint Luke,” in Questions on the Gospels By Augustine of Hippo [trans. John Litteral; Litteral Truth Publishing, 2019], 37-38)

 

Tony W. Cartledge on "Chaldeans" and the Abrahamic Narrative

  

. . . The Bible makes several references to God bringing Abraham from ’Ur-Kasdim, translated as “Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen. 11:27, 31; 15:7; Neh. 9:7). No one in southern Mesopotamia was called a “Chaldean” in Abraham’s day, but since the story was written much later, we assumed that the author retrojected a contemporary label to an ancient situation. Some of the texts imply that Abraham went straight from “Ur of the Chaldees” to Canaan, but the story in Gen. 11:27-32 says that he moved with his father Terah from Ur-Kasdim to Haran (now in northeastern Syria), but stopped there, remaining until Terah died. Genesis 12 picks up the story in Haran, with God’s call for Abraham to proceed to “the land that I will show you” (12:1).

 

We know that there were Chaldeans in southern Mesopotamia during the Neo-Babylonian period, 1000 years after Abraham’s time, and the Babylonians of that time were also popularly known as Chaldeans. Some ancient sources, however, suggest that the Chaldeans’ original home was in Anatolia, now a part of Turkey, before some of them migrated south. (Tony W. Cartledge, “Have we erred on Ur?,” Goodfaith Media, January 6, 2020)

 

Blog Archive