Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Origen on Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμένη

  

7. The angel greeted Mary with a new address, which I could not find anywhere else in Scripture. I ought to explain this expression briefly. The angel says, “Hail, full of grace.” The Greek word is κεχαριτωμένη. I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture. An expression of this kind, “Hail, full of grace,” is not addressed to a male. This greeting was reserved for Mary alone. Mary knew the Law; she was holy, and had learned the writings of the prophets by meditating on them daily. If Mary had known that someone else had been greeted by words like these, she would never have been frightened by this strange greeting. Hence the angel says to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary! You have found grace in God’s eyes. Behold, you will conceive in your womb. You will bear a son, and you will name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most High.’ ” (Homily on Luke 6.7 in Origen, Homilies on Luke and Fragments on Luke [trans. Joseph T. Lienhard; The Fathers of the Church 94; Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009], 26)

 

Monday, May 29, 2023

Some Highlights from Last Night's Debate/Dialogue with Paul Gee and Diego

Last night, my friend Travis Anderson invited me to join him on a Zoom chat between some Latter-day Saints and Protestants. Paul Gee, who ran away from debating me on Sola Scriptura (literally on the day of the debate) was on the call, so I decided to join it. One can watch the full exchange here. Here are two really revealing sections showing that the Protestants were utterly clueless about Scripture, theology, and history:


Diego and Paul Gee Failing in Early Church History




Paul Gee being Clueless about Sola Scriptura and the Canon




One has to give Paul some credit; at least he did not rage quit when I joined, and tried to make his case, unlike Daniel Ortner, Tony Brown, Lynn and Micah Wilder, and other Protestants who have refused to debate me.


Update


Travis "I earn peanuts and rely on my wife" Morgan has shown he is a complete and utter idiot and is self-deceived (and that I live in his head rent-free) when he and "Bill Billiams" (either a spare account he has or another of his low IQ friends) made the following comment on the video:



The only coward is Travis Morgan (whose Intelius report is available upon request) who hides behind his Chemnitz Fan account and posts low IQ tirades. Though I should clarify my comment near the end of my cross ex of Paul: no intelligent person who is also not a pitiful excuse of a human being who earns peanuts as a prison CO will see that Paul Gee was clueless. Thanks "Bill Billiams."




Sunday, May 28, 2023

Baptismal Regeneration in the Panarion and De Fide by Epiphanius of Salamis (310/20-403)

 The following excerpts are taken from:

 

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1 (Sects 1-46) (2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 2009) for sects 1-46

 

and

 

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide (2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79; Leiden: Brill, 2013) for sects 47-80 and De Fide

 

Note that the enumeration of sects/heresies listed in the Panarion follows the enumeration of the Brill edition (e.g., “Against Apostolics” is no 41, but 61 of the series)

 

Sects 1-46:

 

6, 7 The Law provides for physical circumcision. This serves for a time until the great circumcision, baptism, which cuts us off from our sins and has sealed us in God's name. (Panarion 8, p. 29)

 

4, 7 And if the law were saying, "If ye touch a corpse," the sentence would be pronounced against everyone, and the word in question would simply apply <to> every dead body. But since it says, "If one touch the corpse," it is referring to one particular corpse—I mean to the Lord, as I have already explained. (8) The Law was saying this symbolically, of those who would lay hands on Christ and consign him to a cross, since they had need or purification till their sun should set, and another light dawn on them through the baptism of water, "the laver of regeneration." (9) Peter bears me out here in speaking to the Israelites at Jerusalem who asked him, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" because he had said "this Jesus whom ye crucified," to them. And when they were pricked to the heart he said, "Repent, men and brethren, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and your sins will be forgiven, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Panarion 9, pp. 35-36)

 

4, 1 But these doings took place then at the instigation of that false apostle Cerinthus. Another time too, he and his friends caused a discord at Jerusalem itself, when Paul arrived with Titus, and Cerinthus said, "He hath brought in men uncircumcised with him"—speaking now of Titus—"and polluted the holy place." (2) And so Paul says, "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But because of the false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, to whom we have place by subjection not even temporarily." And he used to command the uncircumcised, "Be not circumcised. For if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." (3) Circumcision was a temporary expedient until the greater circumcision arrived, that is the laver of regeneration—as is plain to everyone and is shown more clearly by the things the apostles said, especially the holy apostle Paul. For he insists, "To them we gave place by subjection, not even temporarily." (Panarion 28. 119)

 

4,5 When Ellel was dying he asked for the bishop who then lived near Tiberias, and received holy baptism from him in extremis for a pretendedly medical reason. (6) For he had sent for him by Josephus, as though he were a doctor, and he had the room cleared and begged the bishop, "Give me the seal in Christ!" (7) The bishop summoned the servants and ordered water prepared, as though intending to give the patriarch, who was very wick, some treatment for his illness with water. They did what they were told, for they did not know. And sending everyone from pretended modesty the patriarch was vouchsafed the laver and the holy mysteries. (Panarion 30, p. 134)

 

29, (11) So one who holds upright within him the rule of the truth which he has received through baptism will recognize the names, expressions, and parables from the scriptures, but not recognize this blasphemous subject. (Panarion 31, p. 202)

 

19, 1 Their conferral of "redemption" is characteristically invisible and impossible to grasp, stemming as it does from the untouchable, invisible Mother and therefore, because of its instability, cannot be simply summarized—since they each hand it down as they choose. For there are as many "redemptions" as there are mystagogues of this persuasion. (2) When I refute them I shall declare at the proper place that this type of thing has been fobbed off by Satan, as a denial of the baptism of regeneration to God, and for the abolition of all the faith. (Panarion 34, p. 249)

 

2, 9 I have already said that they execrate baptism as "deadly flies causing the preparation of the oil of sweetness to stink"—as the parable is given by the Preacher, which reference to them and people of their kind. For they are truly flies which are deadly and death-dealing, and which spoil the aromatic oil of sweetness—God's holy mysteries which are granted us in baptism for the remission of sins. (Panarion 40, p. 285)

 

Sects 47-80 and De Fide:

 

1, (5) Thus the circumcised, who boast of priesthood, could not dispute the priesthood of God's holy church, which observes neither bodily circumcision nor the absence of it, but possesses the greater and more perfect circumcision, the laver of regeneration. (Panarion 55, p. 80)

 

1, 3 We ourselves say that there is one repentance, and that this salvation comes through the laver of regeneration. But we do not ignore God’s lovingkindness, (4) since we know the message of the truth, the Lord's mercy, nature's pardonability, the soul's fickleness, the weakness of the flesh, and the way everyone's senses teem with sins. "No man is sinless and pure of spot, not if he liveth even a single day upon the earth." 5 Perfect penitence comes with baptism but if someone falls [afterwards] God's holy church does not lose him. She gives him a way back, and after repentance, reform. (Panarion 59, 104)

 

2, (3) And it is in fact impossible to renew those who have been renewed once and have fallen away. Christ cannot be born any more to be crucified for us, nor can anyone crucify again the not yet crucified Son of God. Nor can anyone receive a second baptism: there is one baptism and one renewal. (4) But in order to heal the church and care for its members, the holy apostle at once prescribes their cure and says, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak, For God is not unrighteous to forget your good work." (Panarion 59, p. 105)

 

5, 3 And anyone can see that the rule of the truth is of this nature. After the first repentance through the laver of regeneration, by which repentance everyone is renewed, there is no second repentance of this sort. (4) For there are not two baptisms but one, Christ was not crucified twice but once, nor did he die for us and rise twice. And this is why we need to take care, or we may lose the crown of our renewal by transgression. (Panarion 59, p. 108)

 

4, 10 But "sinneth not" cannot apply to him without baptism. For if "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace," this is plainly through the laver of regeneration. For baptism has adorned the soul and the body, washing every sin away through repentance. (11) Thus the gift of baptism both enfolds the virgin and, because of her sinfulness, hastens to seal the non-virgin. (Panarion 61, p. 119)

 

1, 4 I often have discussed this extensively, and have given an authentic proof, at considerable length, in every Sect, that he is to be called "Lord," with the Father and the Son. For the "Spirit of the Lord filleth the whole world"—the "Spirit of truth," the Spirit of God. He is called the Spirit of the Lord, who "proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son," "giveth gifts severally as he will," "searcheth the deep things of God," and is with the Father and the Son, baptizing, sealing, and perfecting him whom he has sealed. (Panarion 74, p. 484)

 

11, 7 (And the Spirit is a holy spirit, but the Son is a God The Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son, "searcheth the deep things of God," "sheweth" the things of the Son to the world, and hallows the saints through the Trinity. He is third in the enumeration [of the Trinity]—the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for scripture says, "Go baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He is the confirmation of the grace (i.e., of baptism), the seal of the Trinity, not apart from the numeration, not different from its naming, and not other than its gift—but there is one God, one faith, one Lord, one gift, one church, one baptism. (Panarion 74, p. 500)

 

4, 1 Thus he shows the world his intent, unbelief, and his mad teachings, again mischievously brought to the world by him. (2) But I shall go on to the arguments against him, make a few points, and then pass him by. <From> his saying that a bishop and a presbyter are the same, it is plain to people with sense that he is simply foolish. How can this be? The one is an order that generates fathers. For the episcopate produces fathers for the church. But the presbyterate, which cannot produce fathers, produces children through the laver of regeneration, but surely not fathers or teachers. (Panarion 75, pp. 506-7)

 

7, 5 For Abraham gave Hagar, a bondmaid and cast out by Abraham—([she was] like the Jerusalem below who was in bondage with her children, of them it is said, "I have cast out thy mother," and again, "I gave the bill of divorcement into her hands.") Abraham gave this bondmaid, I mean Hagar, a skill full of water, the more of a type because of the hope of her conversion. This was to show the power of the "laver of regeneration," which has been given to unbelievers for a gift of life, and for the conversion of all the heathen to the knowledge of the truth. (De Fide, pp. 661-62)

 

18, 3 For whatever the apostle and all the scriptures say is true, even though it is taken in a different sense by unbelievers and those who misunderstand it. (4) But this is our faith, this is our honor, this is our mother the church who saves through faith, who is strengthened through hope, and who by Christ's love is made perfect in the confession of faith, the mysteries, and the cleansing power of baptism (De Fide, p. 676)

 

 

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Email Exchange with Tony Brown

Tony Brown is the author of the book, Sharing the Gospel with a Mormon (Leyland, England: 10Publishing, 2023) (see Refuting Tony Brown on 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead for an example of the eisegesis that permeates the book). He has presented lectures against "Mormonism" which are also online, and portrays himself as a "missionary to Mormons," so is obviously a public figure when it comes to opposing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Due to this, I contacted Tony to see if he would be interested in debating an informed Latter-day Saint on (1) Sola Scriptura and (2) baptismal regeneration. I even offered to have a Protestant host and moderate the debates.


As you will see from this exchange, Tony Brown is a coward who will not engage with a knowledgeable opponent. 


N.B: If you want to see these debates take place, you can email Tony Brown at tony@reachouttrust.org and tell him to accept the challenge.

Also note: If Tony wants backup, he can bring on Mike Thomas, the current director of Reachout Trust. I do not mind it being 2 vs. 1 as long as the time is split 50-50 between the two sides.

  

Email #1

 

From: Robert Boylan

To: Tony Brown

Subject: Querying Interest in Debates on Baptismal Regeneration and Sola Scriptura

Date: May 11, 2023

 

Hi Tony,

 

Let me first briefly introduce myself: I am Robert Boylan, originally from Ireland, and the proprietor of the Scriptural Mormonism blog and a senior research analyst for the B. H. Roberts Foundation in Holladay, Utah. I am a graduate of theology and anthropology from the Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth, and am pretty well-read in historic Protestant works (e.g., Calvin; Turretin; Charles Hodge).

 

I recently read your book Sharing the Gospel with a Mormon, deciding to order it after watching a brief intro to the book here. As you say that you try to speak with Mormons as often as opportunity allows, I am querying if you would be willing to engage in a debate or two (moderated, neutral moderator [maybe Jeremiah Nortier, a friend who is also a Reformed Baptist or someone else], etc) with someone who is informed about Latter-day Saint and Protestant theologies.

 

One debate I think would be worthwhile would be a debate on baptismal regeneration (me affirming; you denying) as it would also touch upon a number of topics you implicitly or explicitly refer to in your book (e.g., imputed righteousness; forensic justification; forensic model of atonement)

 

I would also be interested in debating the issue of biblical sufficiency and related topics related to your use of passages such as Acts 17:11, i.e., Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, and whether it is biblical (you affirming, me denying, naturally).

 

There is a 7-hour time difference between us, but I am willing to have these debates early on a Saturday or whatever day suits. We do not have them straight away; we can aim for July/August or whenever suits.

 

In terms of proposed structure:

25 mins opening statements each

10 mins rebuttals each

15 mins cross ex each

7 mins concluding statements

 

Robert Boylan

ScripturalMormonism.blogspot.com


Email #2

 

From: Robert Boylan

To: Tony Brown

Subject: Querying Interest in Debates on Baptismal Regeneration and Sola Scriptura

Date: May 19, 2023


Hi Tony,


I am just emailing you again to let you know that Jeremiah Nortier (a Reformed Baptist) said he would happily moderate the proposed debates.


I have not heard from you re. the challenge Sola Scriptura and baptismal regeneration; as someone who says in presentations on youtube and elsewhere that you try to speak with Latter-day Saints as often as possible, I am sure you are more than willing to engage with an informed Latter-day Saint, and not simply 18-20 year old missionaries who know very little if anything about theology and non-LDS faiths, including Protestant theologies, being a self-described missionary to Mormons  on your Instagram account

 

Email #3

 

From: Tony Brown

To: Robert Boylan

Subject: Debate

Date: May 23, 2023


Hi Robert

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. 

 

It is not everyday I get a message from someone I don't know, suggesting topics of their choosing, and challenging me to a debate (with a moderator already in place) lol. 

 

As you don't know me, and I don't know you, it would have been good to have a little 'let's get to know each other' session, before jumping into the 'let's debate' mode.   

 

Speaking of a debate on the topics - you decided - I have no interest whatsoever in debating you on these topics. There are many others out there who debate these topics, and they would be far more experienced and knowledgeable than I. If that's your thing, why not try James White or the like? 

 

I, as an evangelist, am more concerned about people's eternal destiny. I love Mormons but, knowing that Mormonism preaches a different Gospel, with a different Jesus and a different Spirit, I am compelled to share truth with those young Missionaries who you say, 'know little of theology and other non-LDS faiths'. Seems strange that the church you are part of would send out vulnerable and ill-equipped young people out to represent them. 

 

My prayer is that God would use me and many other born-again bible believing Christians, to share the truth in love with those caught in falsehood.

 

I would be interested to hear your journey into Mormonism if you are willing to share it. In the meantime, here is a video of someone you may have heard of, it is a good watch. 

 

(8) Mormon Missionary Meets Jesus - Powerful Testimony - YouTube

 

Kind Regards

Tony


Email #4

 

From: Robert Boylan

To: Tony Brown

Subject: Debate

Date: May 24, 2023


Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Let us be honest here: you have written a book critiquing Latter-day Saint theology, present lectures against the LDS faith in favour of your flavour of Protestantism, and portray yourself as a missionary to Mormons online. You are more than a public figure critiquing “Mormonism” and so should have the courage of your convictions to interact with informed members of the other side. I, for one, have written much against Roman Catholic theology, and will be debating Peter Doumit (a lay Catholic apologist and Catechist who lives in here in Utah) on the Immaculate Conception later this year and whether it is apostolic in origin and, hopefully when his schedule clears up, Trent Horn of Catholic Answers on creation ex materia vs. ex nihilo.

 

I do not think us getting to know one another would actually help in any way; but if you are interested in my character, I am on good terms/friend with Bobby Gilpin, someone who I believe you did ministry work with when he was a Reformed Baptist, and someone who I have had friendly disagreements with over the years.

 

As for having a moderator in place, I asked Jeremiah Nortier, who has participated in debates before, if he would moderate/host it if you agreed to debate; Jeremiah is also a Reformed Baptist, so one would not claim I was picking a friend but someone who would be impartial (and actually one who, in terms of theology, would be much closer to you on these and other issues).

 

As for the topics, I don’t know why you think they are not worthy to debate: Sola Scriptura is the formal doctrine of Protestantism and something you simply assume in your book and other presentations on youtube that I have watched, and baptismal regeneration is a topic that encompasses many other topics, such as the question of free-will, the nature of justification and righteousness, and other topics.

 

As for James White, I have reached out to him and so have others—just radio silence from his end. He knows who I am, and he and Jeff Durbin were lambasted, even by Protestants, for their lame response to my Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism” paper. The same with Micah and Lynn Wilder who has said that debate is not “Christ-honoring.” BTW, you might want to be careful about plugging anything from Micah Wilder—if you read his book, he engages in a number of Christological heresies, even by creedal Trinitarian standards.

 

You say that you “love Mormons” and the whole false Jesus argument, but if that is the case, you would engage informed opponents of your view, not 18-20 year olds. “Coward” is a term that comes to mind. And it is all fine that you think “Mormonism” is a false gospel; I think Protestantism is a Satanic counterfeit, one that teaches God lies in the act of justification and other heresies, which in Protestantism is an act of legal fiction. And unlike you, I am willing to defend and substantiate my assertions. See, for e.g.

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (review of John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Sharing the Good News with Mormons, ed. Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339)

 

and

 

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"

 

It is not Latter-day Saints but Protestants like you who fall under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9.

 

If you ever change your mind, let me know.







 

 

 


Happy 9,000th post!

I set up this blog in August 2014. This post is the 9,000th post! I would like to thank everyone who has followed this blog over the years, and here is to another 9,000 posts


I shared before that when I started this blog in August 2014, I thought my enthusiasm for blogging would fizzle out after a few weeks. Flash forward about 8 years and I am still blogging, and hopefully such will continue.


In 2022, I started podcasting (the Scriptural Mormonism Podcast) and doing streams on my youtube channel.


For those who wish to support my writing/research, feel free to donate via Paypal and/or Patreon and/or Venmo.



Susan Gillingham, Benjamin Sommer, and Carmel McCarthy on the Plurality of Gods in the Old Testament

  

Psalms that use mythological language to describe how God is greater than all the other deities presumes an early view that other deities actually exist. They, too, are likely to be preexilic. Psalm 82:1, for example, speaks of God taking his place in a divine council, holding judgment in the midst of other deities; it then describes how God (Elohim) demotes these gods (elohim) for their lack of justice and compassion (verses 2-7). Psalm 29 also starts with God in a heavenly council: here he is to be both praised and feared as he brings about a storm. Several verses have correspondences with various references to Ba’al Hadad, the Canaanite storm deity. See, for example, verses 1 and 3: “Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. . . . The voice of the Lord is over the waters, the God of glory thunders, the Lord, overmighty waters.”

 

Thunder is also represented as the voice of Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU2 1.4:VII:29-31). The voice of God’s thunder is heard seven times in this psalm; Baal also appears “seven times” in the lightning and “eight times” in the thunder, and he, too, is seated enthroned over the waters. For example, in KTU2 1.101:1-4 Baal is the one who brings about

 

3b šb t. brqm. [[.t]] . . . seven lightnings . . .
4 tmnt. ‘iṣr r’t. ‘s. brq.y [] Eight storehouses of thunder.
The shaft of lightning.

 

In the same way, several hymns celebrate God’s world rule by comparing him with other deities and declaring him sovereign over them. This again suggests sometime before the more monotheistic faith of the Persian period. Psalms 95:4 (“The Lord . . . is a great king above all gods”), 96:4 (“The Lord . . .is to be feared above all gods”), and 97:9 (“You are exalted far above all gods”) are typical examples. (Susan Gillingham, “The Psalms and Poems of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 208-9)

 

On Exo 20:3//Deut 5:7 and 6:4:

 

The Decalogue’s wording does not deny the existence of “other gods”; it merely directs Israelites to have no relationship with them. The Shema’s language is obscure: What does it mean to say that “the LORD is one”? According to some modern scholars, this line merely asserts that the God of Israel does not subdivide into local manifestations in the way many ancient Near Eastern deities did. In Mesopotamia there was a goddess Ishtar of Nineveh, an Ishtar of Arbela, and an Ishtar of Carchemish; in Canaan, there were dozens of local Baal-Hadads; but, the Shema tells us, the LORD, the God of Israel, exists only in a single manifestation. Even if one rejects this interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4, understanding it instead to mean “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone,” this verse may teach not that no other gods exist, but that they are not Israel’s deity. Further, in the Hebrew original the Shema, like the Decalogue, speaks not of “the LORD” but of “Yhwh,” which is the personal name of the God of Israel. The use of a name to refer to this deity suggests that there may be other deities out there; names are necessary when we talk about a particular member of a larger class. In allowing for the possibility that additional heavenly beings exist, these two verses are not alone. The Hebrew Bible often refers to heavenly creatures other than Yhwh, calling them “gods” (Genesis 6:2; Psalms 29:1, 82:6, 86:8, 89:7; Job 1:6), “angels” (Numbers 20:16; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Kings 13:18; Zechariah 1:11-12; Psalm 78:49; Job 33:23), and “the council of holy ones” (Psalm 89:6-8). (Benjamin D. Dommer, “Monotheism,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 239-40)

 

Poor Evidence for Biblical Monotheism

 

Some biblical texts seem at first glance to present Yhwh as genuinely unique and thus to exemplify monotheism. “Who is like you among the gods, Yhwh? Who is like you, exalted in holiness, acknowledged as awesome, performing wonders?” Moses and the Israelites sing at the shore of the Reed Sea (exodus 15:11; cf. 1 Kings 8:23; Isaiah 40:18; Jeremiah 10:6-7; Psalms 35:10, 71:19, 89:9). Such a verse sounds tailor-made to exemplify monotheism as I have defined it, since it posits an essential distinction between Yhwh and all other heavenly beings. Indeed, this line appears in the daily liturgy of rabbinic Judaism, where it functions in a genuinely monotheistic way. But a line such as this does not always function in that way. Other ancient peoples (for example, in Sumerian and Akkadian liturgical texts) also laud various gods as incomparable. This is the case not only in prayers to the heads of the pantheons such as Ashur in Assyria and Marduk in Babylon but in prayers to other gods and goddesses as well. Consequently, we cannot cite verses such as Exodus 15:11 as proof of early monotheism in Israel. Such a verse would have been recited by a monotheistic monolatrist, by a polytheistic monolatrist, or even by a nonmonolatrous polytheist.

 

The same may be said of biblical texts that stress Yhwh’s kingship over the gods (such as Psalms 47:2-3, 95:3-5, and 96:4-5) and perhaps even those that maintain that Yhwh assigned other gods their roles (Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint). These passages stress Yhwh’s power in contrast to the relative weakness of other deities. Additional passages require other gods to praise the one true God (see Psalms 29:1-2, 103:20-22, 148:1-3). But similar lines occur regarding high gods of polytheistic pantheons. Thus in the Babylonian creation epic known as Enuma Elish the gods themselves praise Marduk as unrivaled and supreme (4:3-15). One might want to take the description of Marduk in these lines literally and therefore suggest that Marduk is being raised to the short of level we associated with a monotheistic God. However, earlier in Enuma Elish the goddess Tiamat had spoken of Qingu in nearly identical terms when she acclaimed hi king of the gods in 1:153-58. Qingu’s command, which Tiamat claimed was unchangeable, did not in fact endure: like Tiamat, he died at the hand of Marduk. That the gods’ guarantee of eternal power to Marduk is phrased in the same language as Tiamat’s short-lived guarantee to Qingu suggests that we should read this sort of language with a grain of salt. This language is an exaggerated form of praise for whatever deity happened to be on the throne. As a result, we cannot be sure that similar lines from the book of Psalms and Deuteronomy are intended to posit an essential distinction between Yhwh and other gods of the short that Hermann Cohen and Yehezkel Kaufmann require for their definition of monotheism. (Ibid., 253-54)

 

Deuteronomy 32:8

 

The Song of Moses in Deut. 32:8 contains a scribal intervention, the aim of which was to render this poetic description of Israel’s coming into being as the Lord’s special people in a more theologically acceptable way. The verse speaks of the Most High organizing the division of peoples within their various territories, fixing their boundaries “according to the number of the sons of Israel” (= M). A different form of v. 8b, “according to the number of the sons of God,” occurs in Qumran (4QDeutj). This is also the reading of a section of the Greek tradition: “sons of God.” M’s reading, “sons of Israel,” is generally accepted as a later theological correction, a textual intervention aimed at avoiding any possible hint of polytheism or suggestion that the Lord was simply one of the lesser gods in a pantheon presided over by “the Most High.” Only JPS follows M—“He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel’s numbers”—without further comment. By contrast, the remaining three modern translations adopt the reading of 4QDeutj and G, in varying formulations. NRSV renders it as “the number of the gods,” REB has “the number of the sons of God,” and NABRE reads “the number of the divine beings.” All three include a footnote explaining the origin of their preferred reading. (Carmel McCarthy, “Textual Criticism and Biblical Translation,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 551-52)

 

 

Benjamin D. Sommer on the Ontological Similarity between Humans and the Gods in the Divine Council

  

[The] ontological similarity of humanity and the gods becomes apparent in Psalm 29:1-2 and Psalm 103:20-22, in which humans call out to the gods to praise Yhwh, just as humans call on each other to praise Yhwh in most psalms of praise. Here the human beings are on the same level as the gods or angels; indeed, the humans are a little higher than the angels, whom they lead in worship. (Benjamin D. Dommer, “Monotheism,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 256)

 

Rebecca Scharbach Wollenberg on Rabbinic Traditions Concerning the Superiority of the First Edition of the Law over the Second (Exodus 31-34)

  

The Book That Unwrote Itself: Tales of the Second Tablets as a Poor Second Edition

 

Other classical rabbinic traditions suggest that it was not an accident of history that the inherited biblical text was a contingent and reworked product. As Sifre Deuteronomy elevates these occurrences to an abstract principle: “The Torah is destined to change” (Sifre Deuteronomy 160). Early rabbinic stories that unflatteringly contrast the first and second version of the tablets of the law (Exod 31-34), for instance, can be read as a form of narrative theorizing that elevates the contingent and secondary nature of the extant biblical text to a fundamental principle. This hermeneutic locates the roots of the historical vicissitudes of the biblical text in the deeper dictates of mythical time.

 

As the first instance of written revelation in the Hebrew Bible, the story of the two tablets (Exod 31-34) served as a natural locus for early rabbinic reflection on the nature of written revelation more generally. These biblical chapters took on even broader implications in a religious imaginary in which the tablets of the law were frequently as a metonymy for the Pentateuch as a whole. (See, for instance, tBerakhot 6:2, yShekalim 6;1 [49c], and ySotah 8:3 [22b]) Read in light of these traditions, Exodus 31-34 was often refigured in early rabbinic traditions as the story of two biblical revelations—a first, lost, revelation written by God in a moment of hope and a second, extant, revelation written by Moses during a period of human failing. From its inception, these inception written by Moses during a period of human failing. From its inception, these traditions suggest, the text of the Torah that was ultimately given to the world was a second edition, which had already been shaped by human inadequacies and marked by the compromises inherent to written communication. This initial deficiency, in turn, would echo through the text’s reception history. As bEruvin 54a puts it, “If the first tablets hadn’t been broken, the Torah would never have been forgotten in Israel” (אלמלי לא נשתברו לוחות הראשונות לא נשתכחה תורה מישראל).”

 

Many traditions concerning the first tablets suggest that this more perfect version of the written revelation could never have entered historical time. Several traditions in this vein express doubts, for instance, that the materiality of the written medium was capable for capturing divine revelation. There was a widespread notion, for instance, that the first tablets represented a “miraculous product” (מעשה נסים) that defied the laws of nature. As Songs of Songs Rabbah 5:14 variously pictures the impossible nature of the writing surface prepared for the first perfect form of the written revelation:

 

Rabbi Yehoshua bar Nehemiah said, “They were made of [hard] blue gemstone but they could be rolled up [like a scroll].” While Rabbi Menahma said in the name of R. Abun, “They were carved out of the orb of the sun.”

 

Since the original writing surface is identified with multiple (and irreconcilable) metaphorical vehicles, the particular substance of these images cannot be what interested the formulator of this tradition so much as their shared conceptual theme: the conviction that any material upon which the divine will was successfully inscribed must have been a substance that defied the laws of nature as we know them.

 

YShekalim (6:1) (49d) maintains that not only the writing surface but the writing materials for this first revelation took a dramatic and impossible form:

 

The Torah that the Holy One, blessed be he, gave to Moses [the first time] was given to him as white fire carved on black fire. [The Torah] was fire. It was combined with fire. It was cut with fire. And it was given from fire. As it is written, “At his right hand the fire of knowledge” (Deut 33:2).

 

In traditions like this one, the gesture toward a more abstract principle is achieved through a repetition of the key image in different registers. Repeated variations on the claim that the first revelation consisted entirely of fire emphasize that the first (and fullest) attempt at a tangible revelation of the divine will was never captured or confined in the mundane materials of historical writing—stone and chisel, parchment and ink. Instead, it was manifest only in the most intangible and otherworldly of the material forces: fire.

 

The conviction that nothing short of a miracle could allow a fully divine revelation to be contained in the cold and limiting medium of written words on stone is given a more narrative form of expression in classical rabbinic traditions about the collection of sacred objects God established in the twilight before the first Sabbath—a period of paradox when the laws of nature were temporarily undermined and when each o the instances when God would countermand the natural order and shake the created world were set for all of history. While the other objects in the list vary from one tradition to another, (Alternative lists appear, for instance, in Sifre Deuteronomy 355 and bPesahim 54a and parallels. Consider, similarly, traditions that list the first tablets among the five miracles of God’s hand, along with events such as Noah’s ark and the plagues on Egypt [Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 18:1]) but the writing on the first tablets and the writing materials that allowed the first inscription of divine revelation in writing are always counted among the miraculous and impossible objects. According to mAvot 5:6, for instance:

 

Ten things were created in the interstitial hour [at twilight between the six days of creation and the first Sabbath]: the mouth of the well that watered the Israelites in the desert], the mouth of the furnace [that failed to consume Abraham], the rainbow [after the flood], the manna [that sustained Israel in the desert], the staff [of Aaron and Moses that performed miracles in Egypt], the shamir [the worm that miraculously carved stones for the Temple without metal-cutting instruments], the writing [on the first tablets], the writing implements ]with which the first ablets were written], and the [first] tablets (הכתב והמכתב והלוחות).

 

To the authors of such traditions, the notion that divine revelation would be successfully reduced to writing was just as uncanny and miraculous as a staff that could turn rivers of water into blood or a worm that cut through boulders of stone. (Rebecca Scharbach Wollenberg, The Closed Book: How the Rabbis Taught the Jews (Not) to Read the Bible [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023], 44-46)

 

Blog Archive