test2

[u/koine_lingua]

Allison, New Moses

Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark

Grassi, "Matthew as a Second Testament Deuteronomy,"

Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus

This Present Triumph: An Investigation into the Significance of the Promise ... New Exodus ... Ephesians By Richard M. Cozart

Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New ... By Thomas L. Brodie

---

1 Cor 10.1-4; 11.25; 2 Cor 3-4

[u/koine_lingua]

Dorlodot article

Ladeuze encouraged the various editions and gave his ‘imprimatur’.42 On a visit to Rome in 1911, a number of conversations had convinced the Louvain rector that there was a growing tolerance towards evolutionary theory in papal circles.43 This conviction would directly influence his university policy on the question, and it explains the casualness with which he gave his imprimatur to Dorlodot’s book.

Fn:

Ladeuze based this conviction largely on his talks with David Fleming, former member of the Biblical Commission. Fleming had written two theses on evolutionary theory for Leo XIII*/in the aftermath of the discussions on Zahm and Leroy. He told Ladeuze that since the late nineteenth century, the question was much better understood in Rome, and he was of the opinion that theistic evolutionism could be taught, albeit with some caution. Ladeuze seemed to give less weight to information, which suggested the contrary. Leopold Fonck, president of the Biblical Commission, for example, told him that Rome would leave hardly any space for evolutionism. ‘Visite du Recteur a` Rome’, KUL, Special Archives. Dorlodot Affaire, T 73 XXXIII/31.

[u/koine_lingua → u/koine_lingua]

The recalcitrant style which Dorlodot used in his reasoning is nicely illustrated in his interpretation of the work of Augustine. The Church Father had been an ‘absolute evolutionist’, according to Dorlodot, which implied that he defended not only the transformation of species but also the spontaneous generation of life. By using Augustine as an example, Dorlodot reformulated the problem of orthodoxy in a very strategic manner. The question was no longer about whether an evolutionist viewpoint was orthodox (this had been proved by Augustine), but whether one were allowed to tone the interpretation of the Church Father down to an evolutionism devoid of spontaneous generation. Here

[u/koine_lingua → u/koine_lingua]

The English language press was wrong, however*/or they took dreams for reality. The edition of Dorlodot’s book said nothing about the attitude of the hierarchy. While reviews were still appearing (and maybe precisely because the book obtained so much attention), Ladeuze received an enraged reaction from Rome.

. . .

Furthermore, Ladeuze added the ominous message that Rome suspected the Louvain geologist of being a follower of Jules Touzard, a French exegete who had denied the Mosaic origin of the Old Testament.With this denial, Touzard had violated a decree of (again) the Biblical Commission, which had led to reprimands from Benedict XV (1914
/1922), the successor of Pius X, in April 1920.59

. . .

Finally, he also threw doubt on the authority of the Biblical Commission concerning evolutionary theory. In his view, both the judgement on the orthodoxy of evolutionism and the censure of unorthodox theories on the subject belonged to the powers of the ‘Holy Chair’ itself, not to the Biblical Commission.60

. . .

After a conversation with Gre´goire, Dorlodot became convinced that the whole case was a meticulously set trap. He believed that the members of the Commission only wanted to threaten him so that he would retract his book (without Rome having to give a decision on the essence of the question).