Holy Mother Of God!

[consiglieri]

In her book, Temple Theology, p. 80, Margaret Barker makes an extraordinary claim regarding a reference to the "Mother of the LORD your God" in the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran:

I will give first the passage from the King James Version, bold-facing the relevant verses:

Isaiah 7:10

[Nofear]

Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God

Why would the Lord ask Ahaz to ask for a sign from Mary? Seems without precedent. Perhaps asking a sign about Mary would be more sensible (and has consistency with the interaction in 1 Nephi 11). But then again, we don't get to pick and choose how the scriptures are written (well, we do, but have to be careful).

[consiglieri]

Why would the Lord ask Ahaz to ask for a sign from Mary? Seems without precedent. Perhaps asking a sign about Mary would be more sensible (and has consistency with the interaction in 1 Nephi 11). But then again, we don't get to pick and choose how the scriptures are written (well, we do, but have to be careful).

I am not so sure that the sign is being asked of Mary herself, or rather that Hebrew feminine divinity who was the antecedent and prototype for Christian Mariolatry.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Notquitewetyet]

...the antecedent and prototype for Christian Mariolatry.

It's called hyperdoulia, but it sure can be indisitinguishable from Marioloatry.

[smac97]

In her book, Temple Theology, p. 80, Margaret Barker makes an extraordinary claim regarding a reference to the "Mother of the LORD your God" in the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran:

I will give first the passage from the King James Version, bold-facing the relevant verses:

Now, here is what Margaret Barker says about verse 11:

This is so extraordinary a claim that I wanted to put it to the members of the board whether Barker's reading of the DSS Isaiah is considered justified or "quirky," for lack of a better term.

If this is, indeed, the reading of the only known pre-Christian version of Isaiah 7:11, it would seem remarkable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This same text is discussed by James Alison here.

And here is Margaret Barker discussing this same text in a separate article.

-Smac

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I'd have to pull up the picture of that section again, but the other day Dr. Donald Parry addressed this very issue, explained the history of it coming to be, and also gave the actual view of the vast majority of scholars. The bottom line is that it is no "mother" of God, even though Dr. Parry would like it more if it was. It simply isn't.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the links, smac, and I will anxiously await Matthew Tandy's references regarding Dr. Parry's addressing of this issue.

When I hear something so extraordinary as this claim, I want to make sure of how solid it is before passing it on to others (e.g., my Gospel Doctrine class).

Thanks for your help and comments, everyone!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Matthew J. Tandy]

It may be a while (couple of weeks) Consig before I can get to it. I am on very tight deadlines for papers right now and am wasting too much time even reading the boards! Remind me after Dec. 15 and I'll send you some fragment photos and explanations, as well as a little background.

In the meantime, you can always write to Dr. Parry at BYU. Just go to BYU.edu, do a faculty search, and email him. He will be able to give a better answer than I and will likely respond within a few days. He is one of the world's leading scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls and is frequently referenced, along with his Dead Sea Scroll reference work he did with Emanuel Tov.

[Cadizita]

It's called hyperdoulia, but it sure can be indisitinguishable from Marioloatry.

Can you please explain the difference between these two?

Mariolatry: Excessive veneration or worship of the Virgin Mary.

Hyperdulia: Veneration or worship given to the Virgin Mary as the most exalted of mere creatures; higher veneration than dulia.

It seems one is ever MORE excessive than the other but in the context of the thread does it really matter which one is used?

[consiglieri]

In the meantime, you can always write to Dr. Parry at BYU. Just go to BYU.edu, do a faculty search, and email him. He will be able to give a better answer than I and will likely respond within a few days. He is one of the world's leading scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls and is frequently referenced, along with his Dead Sea Scroll reference work he did with Emanuel Tov.

Thanks for the idea!

I just e-mailed Dr. Parry about the issue and we will see what he has to say.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[saemo]

Can you please explain the difference between these two?

Mariolatry: Excessive veneration or worship of the Virgin Mary.

Hyperdulia: Veneration or worship given to the Virgin Mary as the most exalted of mere creatures; higher veneration than dulia.

It seems one is ever MORE excessive than the other but in the context of the thread does it really matter which one is used?

Latria is adoration, reserved for God alone.

Hyperdulia is veneration, not worship, reserved for the Blessed Virgin.

Dulia is veneration reserved for all the rest of the heavenly host ( ie saints and angels).

When anyone falls into Mariolatry (and there are people who do), they are outside of acceptable Catholic doctrines and practices.

I once heard someone refer to this as hyper hyperdulia...a big no,no, but it isn't hard to find examples of it.

[urroner]

Thanks for the links, smac, and I will anxiously await Matthew Tandy's references regarding Dr. Parry's addressing of this issue.

When I hear something so extraordinary as this claim, I want to make sure of how solid it is before passing it on to others (e.g., my Gospel Doctrine class).

Thanks for your help and comments, everyone!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would never, never ever, pass on this info in a GD class. I would love to do so, but it is soooooooooooooo fraught with problems.

[Kevin Christensen]

There was a thread a few weeks ago on this issue, discussing Michael Heiser's criticisms.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=38761

FWIW, I suggest reading the Wisdom, Queen of Heaven essay in which Margaret discusses the issue. And seriously consider this: How much of her overall argument depends on that particular reading of that particular verse? And then consider, why doesn't Heiser ever ask the larger questions? Why just a narrow thrust at that reading without ever discussing the context in which she raises the question?

My own tendency is to give Margaret the benefit of the doubt. That is because I don't see that particular verse as crucial to her overall case, which has a much broader base. And that too, is supplemented by my reading Dever's Did God Have a Wife? and Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, and other things.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[consiglieri]

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your response, inasmuch as you are the recognized expert on all things Barker on the MAD Board.

I have read somewhat in Barker, thanks to your introductory essays, I might add, and understand that this is not just a one-shot argument, but is based on many other indicators both textual and archaeological.

I, too, would tend to give Margaret Barker the benefit of the doubt, but the sheer spectacularity of this claim prompted me to begin this thread this morning.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Dr. Parry was gracious enough to respond to my e-mail query from yesterday, and though he did not wish me to quote from his reply, I think it safe to say that he gives a big thumbs down to Barker's interpretation of Isaiah 7:11.

Matthew J. Tandy was absolutely correcto mundo!

All the Best!

--Consilgieri

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Cool Consig, glad to hear!

Dr. Parry is very careful about retransmission of much information. A few people abused his kindness and he is justly hesitant. But he will always reply in person if asked... plus he's incredibly brilliant.

[consiglieri]

Cool Consig, glad to hear!

Dr. Parry is very careful about retransmission of much information. A few people abused his kindness and he is justly hesitant. But he will always reply in person if asked... plus he's incredibly brilliant.

I will confess I was quite surprised and impressed that Dr. Parry would respond so quickly, and at all, to an e-mail from somebody he doesn't know from Adam. He is obviously not only very intelligent, but extremely gracious.

It appears that what is at issue is an extra line (mark) on a particular letter in DSS Isaiah 7:11. It is this additional mark that changes it from "mother of God" to simply "God."

Obviously, then, this little mark makes a world of difference.

I gather there is a general consensus that this additional mark was not there in the original draft, but was added later, either by the original scribe, or by a subsequent scribe.

The question, I take it, is whether the original writing (which was "mother of God") was an error, which was subsequently corrected to simply "God," or whether the original writing was what the original author intended, and it was subsequently amended to make it less controversial.

I can see why there might be a difference of opinion on this; but as I say, Dr. Parry comes squarely down on the side of the former, and not the latter.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri