This is part 2 of my response to Robert Bowman; to read part 1, click here.
Implicit throughout the article, especially on the topic of Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Gen 1:1, is the notion that there can only be one valid interpretation of a text. This is tied intimately into the Protestant concept of both sola and tota scriptura, a doctrine that has been discussed and refuted, both on historical and exegetical grounds, many times on this blog (click here). The biblical authors themselves did not hold to such a perspective as seen in the typological interpretation (as well as other interpretations) of Old Testament texts that were seen to have a greater fulfilment in the Christ event, such as the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15:
The formula of fulfillment introducing the quotation from Hos 11:1 reads exactly as 1:22b . . . The preceding mention of Egypt has united with “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” in the tradition of Jesus’ nativity (Luke 1:32, 35) and with Matthew’s own interest in Jesus’ divine sonship . . . to suggest the statement in Hos 11:1. There, the Lord addresses the nation of Israel as his son. The multiplicity of parallels drawn between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus suggests that Matthew saw that history as both recapitulated and anticipated in the “king of the Jews”; like Israel in the messianic age Jesus receives homage from the Gentiles (2:11); as a son he, like Israel, receives God’s fatherly protection in Egypt (2:15); his oppression brings sorrow as the oppression of Israel brought sorrow (2:17-18); like Israel he is tempted in the wilderness (4:1-10). The messianic reference preceding the statement “God brought him [the Messiah] out of Egypt” in Num 24:7-8 LXX may also have facilitated quotation of the similar statement in Hos 11:1, for Matthew has recently used Numbers 24. (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 33-34)
We even see this in Mark 12:26, where, to settle a dispute about marriage in the hereafter, we read, "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake uto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" Jesus here uses a passage from the OT that is unrelated to the topic being debated within the perspective of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, and instead, uses it to convey another meaning of doctrinal importance against the Sadducees who were trying to trip him up (see vv.27-28).
Further evidence of (1) acceptance of there being more than one meaning to a text and (2) that Scripture (however defined) is not the final authority by the New Testament church can be seen in Acts 15 where a faulty biblical text is used as the scriptural support for the council’s teaching that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised to enter the New Covenant!
On the topic of the nature of the text appealed to, as I wrote, as part of an exchange with anti-Mormon activist, Doug Harris:
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation settles the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches toHebrew Bible Textual Criticism (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Why is this significant? It shows that, applying the fundamentalist, all-or-nothing hermeneutic that you hold to, one must admit to accepting, as inerrant, a text (i.e., Acts 15), and a dogmatic decree therefrom (viz. circumcision not being a prerequisite for salvation and the entry of Gentiles into the New Covenant), notwithstanding it being a text that is dependent upon a faulty translation of Amos 9! So much for the fiction of inerrancy and your fundamentalist assumptions! Will you reject the New Testament as "another," that is, different/false testament? Will you conclude, being consistent in your approach to the Book of Mormon, that the God of the New Testament is not trustworthy and that God's word is nullified if one holds to the New Testament?
A similar incident happens when Judas is replaced by Matthias, demonstrating further that, in some instances, one may have, at best, a text or pericope that is, at best, weak or an allusion, and can be used by the Church to support a doctrine, whether in the biblical corpus or elsewhere. The New Testament gives witness to this. For instance, in Acts 1, the remaining apostles come together to choose a successor to Judas. As scriptural warrant for a successor and a continuation of the twelve, Peter cites two Old Testament texts. In Acts 1:20, we read:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses say anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine.
Examples of doctrines where, at least in my (hopefully learned) consideration, Latter-day Saints have, at best, implicit biblical evidence for a doctrine that was explicated by uniquely LDS Scriptures and/or the Church would include eternal marriage and belief everyone personally pre-existed, not just Jesus.
What should be noted is that Latter-day Saints do have an active authority, external to Scripture that can provide definitive answers on these important moral and theological issues. That is one reason, among many, why one should become a Latter-day Saint. Bowman and his flavour of Protestantism, is, funnily enough, anti-biblical to its core (cf. Gal 1:6-9). It is Protestantism that has nothing to offer except the consolation prize of a false gospel and spiritual deception in this lifetime and destruction in the next.
To understand the importance of this, Let me quote an Evangelical (Eric Laranjo) who commented on Bobby Gilpin’s facebook page earlier this year:
It seems to me that the Mormon Church, with its living prophets and apostles, and Joseph Smith's seer stone and priesthood authority, that they would have come out with their own translation of the Bible by now. They have had nearly 200 years.
Simple—such is not necessary. The reason why the leadership of the LDS Church has not sought to (and probably never will) produce a critical edition of the Old and New Testaments, answering authoritatively every single textual variation and any other objection, is that, as we have seen, the Latter-day Saint hermeneutic is informed, not just by the biblical revelations, but also the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the LDS Church, the latter authority being an active authority that can, as with the upper echelons of the Church in Acts 15 and elsewhere, answer authoritatively issues relating to theology and morals if and when a dispute arises.
Take, for instance, the phrase found in all four of the institutional narratives of the Eucharist, “this is my body” (Greek: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου [Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19]; alt. τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα [1 Cor 11:24]). The theological meaning of Christ’s words in this phrase has long been disputed, and not just between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the former who accept the authority of Fourth Lateran (1215) that dogmatised transubstantiation wherein the phrase is understood that Christ transformed all but the outward appearances of the bread into His body, but within Protestantism itself, both historically and modern. For instance, amongst the magisterial Reformers, while all disagreeing with the Catholic view of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (intimately tied into Transubstantiation), Luther held to consubstantiation, wherein Christ was truly and substantially present with and in the consecrated bread (and wine), but there was no change in the substance thereof and was not a propitiatory sacrifice offered up to God; Calvin, while wishing to hold to a variety of Real Presence but also wishing to reject such crassly literal readings of the Catholics and Luther et al., held that Christ was present in a “spiritual” sense during the celebration of the Eucharist, while Zwithwingli and the Swiss Sacramentarians held to a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist, jettisoning any concept of “Real Presence.” Luther also battled the likes of Andreas Karlstadt et al. on the nature of the Eucharist and its relationship to salvation (see his 1525 work, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments.” One can find an on-line edition here or consult pp. 153-301 of The Selected Works of Martin Luther, Volume 3: 1523-1526, ed. Theodore G. Tappert).
When one examines the disputes between the Protestant Reformers and their followers on this issue, they divided with one another over this issue, viewing it of being salvific, not a “minor, tertiary at best” issue, and one Luther wanted to go to war over!. Indeed, writing years after the Marburg Colloquy held in October 1529, Calvin wrote a booklet wherein he stated that a correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper (and baptism) were necessary for salvation (see his A Treatise on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for a discussion of the Marburg Colloquy and the disparate theologies of the Eucharist amongst the early Reformers and their followers, see Hermann Sasse, This is My Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar and George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation).
While the LDS Church has never produced an “official” exegesis of this contentious phrase and its relationship to a theology of the Eucharist, the entirety of Latter-day Saint scripture and the guidance of the Church has explicated that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are not transformed in any substantial manner, and that allows one to know which interpretations are acceptable and which are not, and one has the backing of both modern revelation and the Church as guides (although careful exegesis of the phrase, “this is my body” supports the LDS view of rejecting the Lutheran and Catholic/Eastern Orthodox views of “Real Presence”; see my exegesis of the phrase here), and this represents one truly important theological issue that can be resolved, not by providing an authoritative perfect translation of the Bible, but in light of the entirety of God’s revelation, something Protestants of all stripes are cut off from.
While much more could be said, the reader should be familiar with the author’s presuppositions of sola/tota scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Reformation, and a doctrine that I have argued many times before, is without any meaningful biblical and historical support. As a friend of mine noted:
Bowman is pushing Huggins point too far that the various interpretations Joseph gave cannot be reconciled. The assumption is based on implicit evangelical bias. They *do not* have to be reconciled with each other. As the Talmudic phrase goes, the Torah has seventy faces, meaning that there are multiple facets and interpretations, each revealing something else. One 19th century Moroccan rabbi even wrote a book of two hundred interpretations of Genesis 1:1 alone. This removes the sting from Bowman's theological critique. Sola scriptura is just not how we roll.
