Augustine Quoting 1 Esdras as Canon Scripture in The City of God

Interestingly, Augustine, in The City of God Book 18 Chapter 36, quotes 1 Esdras (in some Catholic circles, III Esdras; alt. Esdras A) as canonical scripture:

 

After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

 

On the issue of Esdras and the canon dogmatised at the fourth session of the Council of Trent (April 1546), see:

 

 1 Esdras and the Canon of the Council of Trent 

Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade on "Esdras"

The Freestanding Books of the Apocrypha and Early Christian Lists of the Old Testament

For a Roman Catholic response, see:

Gary Michuta on Trent and the Book of Esdras

1 Esdras Using Previous Canonical Material

The Book of 1 Esdras (in Catholic circles, it is often 3 Esdras; alt. Esdras A) is a rather interesting volume for many reasons, including how it is problematic to the canon dogmatised at Trent. What is interesting about 1 Esdras for this post is that, with the exception of some original material in 3:1-5:6, it is composed entirely of pre-existing canonical material, so much so that it is questionable whether it should be considered along the lines of “Rewritten Scripture.” Charles L. Souvay, in the entry for "Esdras" in The Catholic Encylopedia, wrote that, with respect to the date of this text, "some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that III Esd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C."

 

One is reminded of the use, directly and indirectly, of previous scripture in the Book of Mormon (e.g., the Isaiah chapters and Nephi's reworking of Isa 29 in 2 Nephi 27). If ancient authors like those of 1 Esdras can do it, there is nothing out of place with the Book of Mormon on this point.

The ιερωμα of 2 Maccabees 12:40: Mere "Good Luck Charms" or Idolatrous Amulets?

In 2 Maccabees 12:40, we learn that "under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear" (NRSV). The term translated as "sacred tokens" is ιερωμα. Some (not all) Catholics claim that these amulets were more good-luck charms than something sacred dedicated to a false god, so the soldiers did not die in idolatry (which is a mortal sin in Catholic theology). However, this (rare) word, when used in Josephus, refers to an amulet or something else dedicated to a God, whether they have ontological existence or not:

 

But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus:--``Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels (ἱέρωμα) of Jupiter, (Enyalius,) or conqueror and came to Shinar of Babylonia.'' (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:119)

 

But then, as to the sacred images (ἱέρωμα), he bade him search for them; and when Laban accepted the offer, Rachel, being informed of it, put those images into that camel's saddle on which she rode, and sat upon it; and said, that her time of the month hindered her rising up: (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:322)

 

The apologetic that the amulets were good luck charms and not idols does not hold up, especially in light of what is said in 2 Maccabees 12:42, where we read that the people

 

. . . turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. (NRSV)

 

In light of this, ἱέρωμα in v. 40 is a reference to an "idol, amulet" (Liddell-Scott)

New Laptop Needed

My laptop has been at death's door for a bit now (had it for 5-6 years, so not too much of a surprise). I have been out of work due to the Corona virus and other things, and won't be back for another month, so decided to (1) set up a facebook fundraiser for the new laptop (click here) for those who wish to donate (2) and for those who wish to donate without f/b getting a percentage of the donations, directly through Paypal (click here).

No one who follows me on facebook or here is under obligation to donate. I am just hoping to get a laptop that will be able to last a number of years and be able to run some of the software I use regularly (Word; Excel; Bibleworks; Logos, etc).

Thanks.

The use of αρχη for Jesus in Colossians 1:18 (cf. Revelation 3:14)

In Rev 3:14, Jesus is said to be the beginning (αρχη) of God’s creation. While some argue that this means that Jesus is the “ruler” or “head” of creation, this is a stretch, and instead, many hold that this refers to Jesus being the beginning of either the Old or New Creation. On this being a reference to the Old creation, see D. Charles Pyle on Revelation 3:14 (cf. Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?); for an interpretation favouring Jesus being the beginning of the New creation, see G.K. Beale on Revelation 3:14.

 

While one disagrees with his Arian Christology (see the article linked above), Rolf Furuli (at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo) offered the following commentary on another text (Col 1:18) that predicates αρχη of Jesus in the New Testament vis-à-vis his relationship to creation. As the book is rare to find (and so are attempts by JW proponents to engage in scholarship), some might find the following of interest:

 

[Colossians 1:18] reads, “he is the beginning [archē], the first-born [prōtotokos] from the dead” (RSV). In addition to the word prōtotokos, which we have already examined, we also find another very important word, namely, archē. In John 1:1 we read “in the beginning [archē] was the Word,” but in Colossians 1:18 we are told that Jesus is the archē. Tracking through both the classical and New Testament Greek usage of this word, we find the lexical meanings are as follows: 1) beginning, 2) origin/source and 3) ruler/authority.

 

In the NT archē occurs 53 times, and 26 of those must have the meaning “beginning,” because they are preceded by a preposition (as “from the beginning”). In 8 instances (Matthew 24:8; Mark 1:1; 13:8; Hebrews 5:12; 6:1; 7:2; 2 Peter 3:4) the word occurs in a genitive construction where the meaning is also, clearly, “beginning.” In 6 instances (John 8;25; Jud 1:6; Hebrews 2:3; 3:14; Revelation 21:6; 22:13. In several of these texts there is a contrast between the “beginning” and the “end”) the meaning “beginning” is also appropriate. In 2 instances (Acts 10;11; 11:5) it has the meaning “corner.” In 11 instances (TEV has the following readings, in parentheses: Luke 12:11 [governors]; 20:20 [authority]; Romans 8:38 [heavenly rulers]; 1 Corinthians 15:24 [spiritual rulers]; Ephesians 1;12 [heavenly rulers]; 3:10 [angelic rulers]; 6:12 [wicked spiritual forces]; Colossians 1:16 [spiritual powers]; 2:15 [spiritual rulers]; Titus 3:1 [rulers]) archē has the meaning “government” or “ruler.” The final uses of this word are in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14, which are both theologically significant texts.

 

From the above it is clear that archē, in more than 75% of its occurrences, meanings “beginning.” Apart from “corner,” which also is a “beginning,” the word is used in some sense connected with “government.” The word archē, with the meaning “source” is nowhere attested in the NT, and 7 of the instances with the meaning “government” are in the plural. Also, the four singular occurrences with this meaning are qualified, either by “every” (1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10) or by a genitive construction (Luke 20:20).

 

The word archē in Colossians 1:18 stands unqualified as a predication of Jesus, and the meaning “government” seems to be out of the question in this verse. In the next clause Jesus is said to be “the first born [prōtotokos] from the dead,” and archē and prōtotokos occasionally occur together, expressing the concept “the first son” (compare Gen 49:3 and Deut 21:17 in the Septuagint). So archē and prōtotokos in verse 18 may express the same thought: Jesus is the first one to experience a resurrection from the dead with continuing life in view.

 

The application of archē to Jesus in Revelation 3:14 is parallel to is use in Colossians 1:15. In Revelation 3:14 archē is qualified by “God’s creation,” and this presents a problem for those who support the trinity doctrine. The sense “government, authority” is hardly fitting here, but if the translator chooses the only other meaning which is found in the NT, namely, “beginning,” then Jesus is described as “the beginning of God’s creation,” and thus a part of creation.

 

To avoid including Jesus in creation, a meaning which is found in the Septuagint and in classical Greek (but not in the NT) is introduced, namely, “origin” or “source.” It is interesting to note that only in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14 is “origin” or “source” for archē in many translations. We cannot call this “bias” because “origin” or “source” is a lexical possibility, but the fact that this rendering is used only in the two above-mentioned passages in many translations shows that theology has exerted a strong influence upon the translators.

 

Getting back to Colossians 1:18, we have found support for rendering archē as “beginning” in other NT examples; even in Revelation 3:14, an important christological passage, the sense of “beginning” is strongly suggested. Additional support is found in the phrase “the firstborn of the dead” in verse 18. The meaning is evidently that he was the first to experience a resurrection (Regarding the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23 Jesus is called the “first fruit” [aparchē]. According to Acts 26:23 he was the “first to rise from the dead,” and Revelation 1:5 uses the same phrase as Colossians 1:18, “firstborn of the dead”). The conclusion of the verse supports both “beginning” and “firstborn of the dead,” because it gives a basis for these expressions, namely, “that he might become the one who is first in all things.” (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 254-56)

 

John Calvin on Adam having a Genuine Free Will Before the Fall

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion 1:15:8, Calvin attributes to Adam a genuine "free will" before his sin, a free will Calvin states that man no longer possesses after the fall. Further, Calvin maintains that God willed, not merely permitted, Adam's sin. This flies in the face of many Calvinists who argue that to be sovereign, man cannot have a genuine free will:

 

8. Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her τὸ ἑγεμονικὸν. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and Judgment, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself. Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

 

For a lengthy discussion of the many problems of Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Double Standards and Intellectual Laziness

Some critics like to throw out arguments and either ignore or discuss (lamely) responses thereto. Note one recent example of one long-standing anti-Mormon on the topic of Moroni’s travels from Mesoamerica to modern-day New York:

 

He quotes part of what I said on the matter, offers a defense of the plausibility of Moroni’s journey, and lambasts me for failing to interact with Book of Mormon scholar/apologist John L. Sorenson’s defense . . . Sorry to disappoint those who wanted a book of three thousand pages, but I wanted to produce a book people might actually read. (Source)

 

In an attempt to defend being intellectually deceptive (as I stated, his book is boundary maintenance for ignorant Evangelicals, not informed Latter-day Saints), he tries to excuse himself for not interacting with well-known responses to his comments on the topic. However, when others do this, Bowman calls them out on this. In his review of Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999), he calls out Furuli out for not interacting with one of his books (notwithstanding Furuli’s interacting with his Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John [Baker, 1989]):

 

Furuli does not interact or even mention my book Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereafter Bowman, Understanding), which deals more comprehensively with many of the issues raised in his book. This is surprising, since I am (after Countess) the second-most cited author in Furuli’s book. (Source)

 

Perhaps Furuli wanted to write a book that was just over 300 pages people would want to read and not a book with 3,000 pages that no one would ever read ;-)

Imagine if a Latter-day Saint wrote a book critiquing the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and went on a brief tangent discussing justification. If they were to bring up James 2 and were to say "Protestants struggle with this chapter as it proves justification is synergistic, good works (empowered by God's grace) results in an increase in justification, that it is not a mere once-for-all external forensic event, etc" it would be deceptive if they did not at least acknowledge Protestant responses thereto (e.g., the [bogus] claim that the "justification" of Abraham and Rahab are not soteriological and instead, James is speaking of the vindication or demonstration, etc) and then responded, "well, I wanted to write a book people would read!" ask yourself (esp. if you are a Protestant) the following: is that a meaningful response or a dodge? (Update: judging from Bowman's "response" to this, Doubling Down on Diversionary Polemics: Robert Boylan’s Response on Moroni’s Move this has proven to be true; it also, as with typical Bowman fashion, a lame attempt to defend his double standards [btw, if/when I get the chance, I might respond in full to him--one can make a blog post about a point someone brings up, etc--he and other bloggers and writers do this too, I mean, take his focusing on the issue of "Temple of Solomon" in the Book of Mormon for instance . . .  - for those wondering, it took goading from a friend to get him to reply to the original blog post, notwithstanding the hack treatment in his book, and I stand by the reason--boundary maintenance. I know he claims that he wants to be taken seriously by more LDS, so hopefully if this is true, even if I believe him not to be a good-faith actor, he will do a better job in the future. As for me, I only interacted with some of the book due to Corona restrictions]).

Examples of Pre-Exilic Texts Discussing Bodily Suspension

One criticism levelled against the Book of Mormon is that Nephi’s knowledge of crucifixion is an anachronism. However, this is a misguided criticism as crucifixion was known in the time and area of Nephi and his family, so texts such as 1 Nephi 11:33 and 19:10 are not anachronistic.

 

In their masterful book which I highly recommend, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson, 2019), David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel provide translations and a corresponding commentary on many pre-exilic texts from the ANE (e.g., Assyrian; Egyptian) affirming knowledge of people (sometimes posthumously) being suspended as a form of punishment/execution (see 3.2 Bodily Suspension in the Ancient Near East, p. 322f). Here are some quick examples of the texts that are of interest:

 

Code of Hammurabi §21 [col. 9a, lines 14-21]

 

14 šum-ma a-wi-lum 15 bi-tam 16 ip-lu-u š 17 i-nna-pa-ni 18 pí-il- ši-im 19 šu-a-ti 20 i-du-uk-ku- šu-ma 21 i-ha-al-la-lu- šu

 

Translation If a man has broken into a house they shall put him to death and hang him before the breach which he has made. (p. 324)

 

Code of Hammurabi §153 [col. 9b, lines 61-66]

 

61 šum-ma aš- ša-at a-wi-lim 62 a š- šsum zi-ka-ri-im 63 ša-ni-im 64 mu-sà-uš-di-ik 65 SAL šu-a-ti-i-na-ga-ši-ši-im 66 i-ša-ak-ka-nu-ši

 

Translation. If a woman has procured the death of her husband on account of another man they shall impale that woman.

 

Commentary. . . .here, the woman has been impaled aloft. (pp. 325-26)

 

Papyrus B.M. 10053 3.3-5

 

Translation. 3 Now after some days we went to the door of the gateway of stone of Elephantine and brought away the 40 ½ . . . and we put them in our . . .s 4 the attendant Nekhtamenwēse took 7 deben of copper, the foreigner Ptahkhau took 3 deben of copper and the young priest Paherer ½ a deben of copper. There remained to us 30 deben of copper. 5 He took an oath by the Ruler, if all that I say is not true may I be placed on the stake.

 

Commentary. The trial represented on this text is dated to “Year 9” (in line 2.1) which Peet argues refers to the 9^th year of whm mswt from the era of Ramesses XI (beginning of the eleventh century B.C.). PEET also reasons that it concerns trials for those caught stripping precious decorations from the Ramesseum of Ramesses II. Unfortunately, the fragmentary text preceding the lines quoted above does not provide the name of the individual being examined. The lines above also contain some fragmentation (represented in the ellipses). Note how, at the conclusion of his testimony, this man vouched for the trustworthiness of his account by taking “an oath by the Ruler,” that invokes the punishment of being “placed on the stake” (i.e., impaled) should his statement be proven false. (p. 338)

 

Papyrus B.M. 10052 13.10-14

 

Translation. 10 Examination. There was brought the servant Pekeneny son of Wennefer of the temple of Amün. He was given 11 the oath by the Ruler not to speak falsehood. They said to him, What have you to say concerning the affair of the Tombs? He said, As Amün lives and as the Ruler lives if it be found that I had to do with the men 13 or hat they gave me a kite of silver of a kite of gold let me be mutilated and placed on the stake. He was examined with the stick. Said (end, sic).

 

Commentary. We return to the examinations of individuals associated with Bukhaaf and his fellow thieves. Ukhaaf had listed Pekeneny among those who had received a portion of “Bukhaaf’s share of precious metal” in the form of two deben of silver (2.17-18), though Bukhaaf did not name him as one of his fellow thieves who entered the tomb. A kite is a tenth of a deben receive a twentieth of the portion Bukhaaf alleges. In this text, the form of the “oath by the Ruler” that is recorded as administered initially is simply “not to speak falsehood” (13.11). Pekeneny is represented as voluntarily invoking an oath later in the examination in the same of Amün and of the Ruler to the effect that he is willing to be “mutilated and placed on the stake” should his testimony be proven false. (13.13) (pp. 342-43)

 

For further evidence, consider the following:

In Lam 5:12, authored by Jeremiah, a contemporary of Lehi et al., we read the following:

Princes are hanged up by their hand: the faces of elders were not honoured.

In this verse, we read of princes being “hanged up by their hand” which is part-and-parcel of what crucifixion entails. Furthermore, this is strengthened by an examination of the LXX which uses the verb κρεμαννυμι. This is the same verb Luke uses of the malefactor in Luke 23:39:

And one of the malefactors which were hanged (κρεμαννυμι) railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

Richard Carrier in his book, On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield, 2014), p. 61, provides further evidence that the concept of crucifixion was known by pre-exilic Israelites:

[T]he Bible described one method of execution as to ‘hang in the sun’ (in the Septuagint, literally, exeliazo = ex heliou, ‘out in the sun,’ or apenanti tou heliou, ‘against the sun’), which implies the intent was for the hanged to die from exposure (Numbers 25:4 and 2 Samuel 21:6, 9, 13). That is essentially a form of crucifixion, however it was effected. Likewise, when Joshua hung on trees the king of Ai and the kings of Amorites (Joshua 8:29 and 10:26-27), and when the Law of Moses calls for the executed to be hanged on trees or planks (xulon in the Greek) even when already dead (Deuteronomy 21:22-23), or when Haman and his sons are hung on a giant pole (xulon again in Greek translations of Esther 5:14; 7:9-10; and 8:7), these are all forms of crucifixion.

Nephi's Slaying of Laban in light of 11Q19

In the text from Qumran 11Q19 (alt. 11QT^a), we read the following in column LXI:

 

7 . . . If a false witness should stand up against a man to accuse him 8 of wrongdoing, the two men between whom there is /the litigation/ shall stand before me, and before the priests and the levites, and before 9 the judges who will be there on those days; and the judges shall investigate. And if it happens that a witness has given falsely testimony, falsely 10 accusing his brother, then you shall do to him so as he intended to do to his brother; thus shall you eradicate the evil from the your midst. 11 The rest shall hear it and fear and not dare to do a similar bad thing /again/ in your midst. Not 12 shall your eye take pity on him; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, eds. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1283, 1285)

 

As we read in a commentary on this passage:

 

This text, which reproduces the law of testimony in Deut 19:15-21, addresses the case of a malicious witness (עַד חָמָס), who deliberately makes a false declaration against the accused (לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה) before the high court at the sanctuary (לְפָנַי, “before me”). When the lie is uncovered during the investigation of the court, the false witness is to receive the punishment that his testimony was intended to bring upon the accused. (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 39, emphasis added)

 

One is reminded of how Laban (falsely) accused Nephi of being, not a thief, but a robber (1 Nephi 3:13). Why is this significant? In the Ancient Near East, being a thief was not a capital offense, but a robber was (for a fuller discussion, see John W. Welch, Theft and Robbery in the Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Law). Nephi, in slaying Laban at the command of the Spirit, can be viewed as distributing divine justice, as if Laban was found guilty of this false witness in a court of law, he would probably have been executed.

The Targumim Interpreting Genesis 40:19 to be a Reference to Crucifixion

 

Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee. (Gen 40:19)

 

Commenting on this text, we read the following from the Targumim a reference to crucifixion (albeit, posthumous crucifixion):

 

(Tg. Onq.) At the end of three days Pharaoh will remove your head from you, and he will suspend you on the cross, and the birds will eat your flesh from you

 

(Tg. Neof.) Toward the end of three days Pharaoh will lift your head from upon you, and will suspend you on a cross, and the birds will eat your flesh from upon your head.

 

(Tg. Ps.-J.) At the end of tree days Pharaoh will remove by the sword your head from upon your body, and he will suspend you on the three, and the birds will eat your flesh from you.

 

Commenting on how these Aramaic paraphrases understood Hebrew תלה as a reference to crucifixion, Chapman and Schnabel note that:

 

Although Aramaic תלא was available as the equivalent of Hebrew תלה the targumim commonly employed צלב in translating OT passages that mention human suspension. The terminology of צלב (and cognates) is much more exclusively focused on human bodily suspension, including crucifixion, and thus it represents a shift toward more technical terms. This is true throughout targumim on other biblical books as well as here in Genesis . . .this sample from Genesis will serve to illustrate some key trends in the targumic traditions. First, one does observe the shift toward more technical suspension vocabulary with צלב and צליבה. These terms also served as standard Aramaic vocabulary for the kinds of crucifixions that the Romans performed. And thus by using this language, the original readers and hearers of the targumim may have felt some increased resonance between the biblical text and the suspension practices of their day. Second, in two of these targumic texts the meturgeman also clarifies the Hebrew for “lift up your head” here means to “remove your head by the sword.” Thus the suspension is even more clearly post mortem in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. Note how similar trends were observed above concerning targumic renderings of Deut 21:22-23 (the language becomes more technical concerning bodily suspension, but the rabbinic desire to emphasize post mortem suspension is also evident). (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 696-97)

 

Philo of Alexandria's De specialibus legibus 2.252-254 as a parallel to Matthew 5:33-36

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

 

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. (Matt 5:33-36)

 

Such warnings against false oaths were rather common before the time of Jesus. For instance, in his De specialibus legibus 2.252-254, Philo wrote:

 

τοῖς μάρτυρα καλοῦσιν ἐπὶ μὴ ἀληθεῖ θεὸν ὥρισται δίκη θανάτου· προσηκόντως· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος τῶν μετρίων ἀνέξεταί ποτε παρακληθεὶς συνεπιγράψασθαι ψεύδεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχθρὸν ἄπιστον ὑπολαβεῖν ἂν μοι δοκεῖ τὸν εἰς ταῦτα προτρέποντα. ὅθεν ῥητέον· τὸν ὀμνύντα μάτην ἐπ᾽ ἀδίκῳ θεὸς ὁ τὴν φύσιν ἵλεως οὔποτε τῆς αἰτίας ἀπαλλάξει δυσκάθαρτον καὶ μιαρὸν ὄντα, κἂν διαφύγῃ τὰς ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων τιμωρίας. διαδράσεται δ᾽ οὐδέποτε· μυρίοι γὰρ ἔφοροι, ζηλωταὶ νόμων, φύλακες τῶν πατρίων ἀκριβέστατοι, ἐπὶ καταλεύσει τι δρῶσιν ἀμειλίκτως ἔχοντες· εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἐπὶ μὲν ἀτιμίᾳ πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς φονᾶν ἄξιον, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ὀνόματι τῷ καὶ αὐτῆς εὐκλεεστέρῳ σεμνότητος ὑπ᾽ ἀσεβῶν ἀτιμουμένῳ μετριώτερον οἰστέον.  ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως ἐστί τις ἀνόητος, ὡς ἕνεκα τῶν ἐλαττόνων κτείνων τοὺς αἰτίους ἐπὶ τοῖς μείζοσιν ἐᾶν· μεῖζον δ᾽ ἀσέβημα τοῦ πρὸς γονεῖς κακηγορουμένους καὶ ὑβριζομένους τὸ περὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πρόσρησιν θεοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ ψευδορκίας.

 

Henry G. Bohn offered this translation of the Greek:

 

Against those who call God as a witness in favor of assertions which are not true, the punishment of death is ordained in the law [Deuteronomy 19:19]; and very properly, for even a man of moderate respectability will never endure to be cited as a witness, and to have his name registered in support of a lie. But it seems to me that he would look upon any one who proposed such a thing to him as a thoroughly faithless enemy; on which account we must say this, that him, who swears rashly and falsely, calling God to witness an unjust oath, God, although he is merciful by nature, will yet never release, inasmuch as he is thoroughly defiled and infamous from guilt, even though he may escape punishment at the hands of men. And such a man will never entirely escape, for there are innumerable beings looking on, zealots for and keepers of the national laws, of rigid justice, prompt to stone such a criminal, and visiting without pity all such as work wickedness, unless, indeed, we are prepared to say that a man who acts in such a way as to dishonor his father or his mother is worthy of death, but that he who behaves with impiety towards a name more glorious than even the respect due to one's parents, is to be borne with as but a moderate offender. But the lawgiver of our nation is not so foolish as, after putting to death men who are guilty of minor offenses, then to treat those who are guilty of heavier crimes with mildness, since surely it is a greater iniquity than even to speak disparagingly or to insult one's parents, to show a contempt for the sacred name of God by means of perjury.

 

 Commenting on this text, David Chapman and Eckhard Schnabel wrote:

 

The comments on the penalty for breaking the third commandment, i.e., for committing perjury, are parallel to pec. 2.27-28 (No. 27). This text, while not commenting on a specific Old Testament text, alludes to Exod 20:7 (Deut 5:11) and Lev 19:12; 24:16. Philo understands these texts to prohibit uttering the Tetragrammaton, which explains his reluctance to sweeping oaths in general in which God’s name may be carelessly uttered. He regards perjury as a very serious crime: it represents a subversion of the laws (νομων) and of the ancestral customs (των παρτιων [εθων]), i.e., it threatens Israel’s constitution of the people of God. The death penalty is to be carried out by the witnesses to this cries; if the offender is spared, he (she) cannot escape God, who will treat perjurers forever as impure and thus unworthy of his presence and blessing. Philo asserts that there will be countless Jews willingly and ready to take decisive action against perjurers: Jews eager to detect and remove violators of the law of God, zealous in their commitment to the law, and consistent in guarding the ancestral customs and thus the constitution of the Jewish commonwealth. Such pious Jews are pitiless (αμειλικτως) against all who violate this basic law. While Philo may have exaggerated the possibility of lynch justice exacted by Jews on Jewish violators of the commandments of Torah whose violation warranted death, his statement suggests that he regarded the scenario that Jews zealous for the law would take action against transgressors as a real )or at least desirable) possibility in Roman Alexandria. (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 50)

 

Donald W. Hemingway on Infant Baptism in Central America

Donald W. Hemingway, in his book, Christianity in America Before Columbus? (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, 1988), attempted to present evidence of knowledge of Christianity in the Americas before Columbus. While, as with many works, it engages in parallelomania, it did have some good material here and there. One such topic relates to knowledge of something akin to infant baptism in Central America among the natives when the Spaniards arrived. On why this is relevant to the Book of Mormon, see The Dispute about Infant Baptism among the Nephites: Evidence of 19th century origins for the Book of Mormon?. Note the following quotes provided by Hemingway:

 

The lords, leading men, nobles, and rich merchants, when a son or daughter was born to them, paid much heed to the sign, the day, and the hour in which he was born. And of this they forthwith set out to inform the judicial astrologers, and to ask as to the good fortune or ill of the child who was born. And if the sign in which he was born was propitious, they had him baptized at once; and if it was adverse they sought the most favourable house of that sign [in which] to baptize him. When they baptized him, they banqueted the kinsmen and friends, so that they would be present at the baptism, and then they gave food and drink to all the guests, and also to the children of the whole suburb. They baptized him at sunrise in the house of his father. The mid-wife baptized him, uttering many prayers and performing much ceremony over the child. This [same] feat they also observe today in the baptism of their children, as to feasting, eating, and drinking. (Sahagun, Book 2, p. 39) (pp. 52-53)

 

And when the midwife had arranged the baby, when he had cut his naval cord, then she bathed the baby. [As] she continued washing him, she proceeded to address him. She said to him, if male: ‘Approach thy mother the goddess Chalchiuhtli icue . . . May she receive thee! May she wash thee, may she cleanse thee! May she remove, may she transfer the filthiness which thou hast taken from thy mother, from thy father! May she cleanse thy heart; may she make it fine, good! May she give thee find, good conduct! (Sahagun, Book 6, p. 175) (p. 53)

 

Then she poured water on the crown of his head. He said to him: ‘My youngest son, my youth, take receive the water of the lord of the earth, our sustenance, our refreshment, which is that which cleanseth one, that which batheth one . . . May it remove, may it destroy the manner of things thou wert given with which thou wert arrayed in the beginning the bad, the evil’ . . . Thereupon she bathed him all over; she massaged him. She proceeded to speak to him: ‘Wherever thou art, as thou art a baby cast down to earth: go, move! Now the baby liveth again; she is born again; now be becometh clean, he becometh pure again.’ (Sahagun, Book 6, p. 202) (p. 55)

 

They [the Spaniards] witnessed another ceremony, that of the Aztec baptism; in which, after a solemn invocation, the head and lips of the infant were touched with water, and a name was given to it; while the goodness Cioacoatl, who presided over childbirth, was implored, . . . ‘that the sin, which was given to us before the beginning of the world, might not visit the child, but that cleansed by these waters, it might live and be born anew!’ (Prescott, Mexico, p. 696) (p. 55)

 

When the sun had risen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms, called for a little earthen vessel of water . . . She placed herself with her fact towards the west, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies . . . After this she sprinkled water on the head of the infant, saying, ‘O my child! take and receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and is given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash and to purify.’ (Prescott, Mexico, p. 696, note 26) (pp. 55-56)

 

When these things were ended, they gave the child the name of some one of his ancestors, in the hope that he might shed a new lustre over it. The name was given by the same midwife, or priestess, who baptized him. (Prescott, Mexico, pp. 696, 697, note 26) (p. 58)

 

The full bibliographical information for the sources above are:

 

Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, A History of Ancient Mexico, volume 1: 1547-1577 (trans. Fanny R. Bandelier; The Rio Grande Press, Inc.)

 

William H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico and History of the Conquest of Peru (New York: The Modern Library)

Rolf Furuli on Old Testament YHWH texts being Used of Jesus and Others in a Representational/Agentival Sense

 

As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an “ontological” identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious. In Hosea 11:1 the reference in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint is Israel. But in Matthew 2:15 the words are applied to Jesus. Will anybody suggest that Jesus is ontologically identical to Israel? In Jeremiah 31:15, Rachel, representing the ten-tribe kingdom, is portrayed as weeping over her sons, yet Matthew 2:17, 18 applies the words to the murder of the small children in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and those who wept over them.

 

Then there is the identification of John the baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that “Elijah had already come.” Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, “He himself is Elijah who is destined to come.” There can hardly be a more direct way to express ontological identity than the say that John the baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor the reincarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which were comparable to those of Elijah.

 

We could also quote the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5, 6 referring to the Chaldeans, which was fulfilled not many years after the prophecy was given. However, Paul quotes this prophecy in Acts 13:40, 41, indicating that it would get a second fulfillment through a people playing the same role as the Chaldeans, but who were not identical with them. Given the background of the unique position of Jesus and how prophecies may be applied without any ontological identity, let us look at some prophecies that originally referred to YHWH but which are applied to Jesus in the NT.

 

The most interesting prophecy in our context is Psalm 68. The one referred to in this Psalm is YHWH, a fact which is already stressed in verse 1. The Psalm tells how God went forth before his people (verse 7), women were telling the good news of victory (verse 11), the Almighty One scattered the kings (verse 14), YHWH had come from Sinai into the holy place (verse 17), and how he had ascended on high, had carried away captives and had taken gifts in/among men (verse 18). We are also told how the enemies had seen God’s processions into the holy place (verse 24), how the singers went in front, then maidens with tambourines (verse 25), and how the congregated throngs blessed God (verse 26).

 

How did YHWH do all these things? Not by being personally present on earth, but through a proxy, namely, the king sitting on his throne (1 Chr 29:23), in this case probably David. David conquered his enemies, took captives and then led them in a triumphal procession up to the holy place. But because David acted as the representative of YHWH, it could be said that YHWH did all of this.

 

The Psalm is quoted in Ephesians 4:8-10 and Paul applies the words about YHWH in the Psalm to Jesus. Does this mean that there is an ontological identity between Jesus and YHWH? Not at all! In both cases two individuals are affected. In the past, David actually performed the acts but YHWH was given the honor. In the first century CE Jesus actually performed the work but YHWH is again given the honor. If Ephesians 4:8-10 is taken to mean there is an ontological identity between Jesus and YHWH, the consequence is that there should be an ontological identity between David and YHWH, also. This quote from Psalm 68 only tells us that Jesus acted as YHWH’s representative. This fact is stated frequently in the NT (Joh 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50; Heb 1:1-3; 3:1).

 

This situation may be viewed as a pattern or precedence for any other situation were words or actions are applied to YHWH in the OT, and the same words and actions are applied to Jesus in the NT. This need mean nothing more than a functional unity; it does not necessarily involve ontological unity. Additional evidence supporting this reasoning is found in Genesis 18:13, where it is said that YHWH visited Abraham as a visible person and spoke to him, Evidently it was the angel of YHWH and not YHWH himself who personally acted. We are told that that YHWH was present at Sinai, gave the law to Moses and spoke with a loud voice to the people. But Paul says in Galatians 3:19 that it was God’s angel who actually did all of this. (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 195-97)

 

 

(Pseudo?) Lucian Affirming the Use of a Crossbeam in Crucifixion in Iudicium vocalium 12

The Greek text of (pseudo?) Lucian (second century A.D.) Iudicium vocalium 12 reads:

 

οὕτω μὲν οὖν ὅσον ἐς φωνὴν ἀνθρώπους ἀδικεῖ:  ἔργῳ,δὲ πῶς; κλάουσιν ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὴν αὑτῶν τύχην ὀδύρονται καὶ Κάδμῳ καταρῶνται πολλάκις, ὅτι τὸ Ταῦ ἐς τὸ τῶν στοιχείων γένος παρήγαγε: τῷ γάρ τούτου σώματί φασι τοὺς τυράννους ἀκολουθήσαντας καὶ μιμησαμένους αὐτοῦ τὸ πλάσμα ἔπειτα σχήματι τοιούτῳ ξύλα τεκτήναντας ἀνθρώπους ἀνασκολοπίζειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτά: ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου καὶ τῷ τεχνήματι τῷ πονηρῷ τὴν πονηρὰν ἐπωνυμίαν συνελθεῖν. τούτων οὖν ἁπάντων ἕνεκα πόσων θανάτων τὸ Ταῦ ἄξιον εἶναι νομίζετε; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἶμαι δικαίως τοῦτο μόνον ἐς τὴν τοῦ Ταῦ τιμωρίαν ὑπολείπεσθαι, τὸ τῷ σχήματι τῷ αὑτοῦ τὴν δίκην ὑποσχεῖν.

 

Chapman and Schnabel offers the following translation

 

Therefore, thus much by [his] voice he [Tau] injures men, but how about by [his] work? Men weep and mourn their fortune, and frequently utter imprecations against Cadmus because he placed the Tau in the offspring of the letters. For, it is said that tyrants, having followed Tau’s body and having imitated his form, then having devised wooden beams in such a from, crucify men on them; and from him [Tau] and by his evil handiwork the evil consider the Tau to be worthy of many deaths? For I think it right to leave him behind alone unto the vengeance of the Tau, to undergo the judgment which accords to his own form, [which certainly was fabricated to be a cross from this one, but was named by men.] (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 311)

 

As Chapman and Schnabel notes, “Lucian . . . intentionally mimicked crucifixion practice when he applied cross terminology to the myth of Prometheus. Lucian indicated that the god’s arms would be spread out that he would barely be able to stand on tiptoe on a narrow ledge”: (p. 310). Furthermore, they provide this commentary:

 

In this mock court battle, the alphabetic letter Sigma prosecutes the letter Tau before a jury consisting of the Vowels. Tau has been supplanting Sigma in a host of Greek words, and Sigma asks that Tau be condemned for his actions. Modern grammarians of late Hellenistic Greek do indeed attest to the tendency of Greek speakers and authors to write tau in place of sigma in many Greek words during this (and later) periods. The vital material comes at the end of the dialogue, where the Sigma (since Tau has supplanted other letters), have also injured humankind physically by serving as the form of the cross employed in crucifixion (note ανασκολοπιζειν). By way of punishment, Sigma calls Tau to be crucified on a Tau-shaped cross. Certainly this short ironic discourse implies that its author believed it common practice to attach a crossbar to an upright pole in order to crucify those condemned by a court of law. (Ibid., 311)

 

 

Rolf Furuli on 1 Corinthians 15:29

Rolf Furuli, at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, notwithstanding his book being a defence of the New World Translation, and, being a Jehovah’s Witness, rejecting (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) a conscious intermediate state (two foundational doctrines for posthumous salvation) admitted that the “traditional” rendering is the best, which supports the LDS view:

 

There can be no question that the most natural rendering of baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn would be “being baptized for the dead” or “being baptized in behalf of the dead.” In almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen. (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 289)