Scriptural Mormonism

Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides/Ramban [1194-1270]) on Deuteronomy 6:4

4. HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE ETERNAL, OUR GO-D, THE ETERNAL IS ONE. This too is a commandment that offers explanation. For, already contained in the commandment I am the Eternal thy G-d, is [the principle of] the Unity of G-d. As the Rabbis have said: “Rabbi Nathan says: From here there is a refutation to those heretics who say there are two powers governing the universe. For, when the Holy One, blessed be He, stood on Mount Sinai and proclaimed I am the Eternal thy G-d, who protested against Him?” But here he [Moses] came to explain this commandment [I am the Eternal . . . ] and mentioned it after the Ten Commandments because it is the root of faith, and whoever does not acknowledge it denies the essential principle [of the religion] as if he worships idols. “The Eternal our G-d, the Eternal is One. This means: the Eternal, Who is [now, only] our G-d and not the G-o of the [other] nations, will eventually be acknowledged as the One [and only] Eternal, as it is said, In that day shall the Eternal be One, and HIs Name One. This is Rashi’s language. Now you must contemplate [the fact] that Scripture changed [the normal usage] here by saying the Eternal ‘our’ G-d and did not state “thy” G-d as it says everywhere else: Hear, O Israel: thou art to pass over the Jordan this day etc. Know therefore this day, that the Eternal ‘thy’ G-d etc.; Hear, O Israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle etc. for the Eternal ‘your’ G-d is He that goeth with you. And so also in all sections where [Moses] spoke to Israel he mentioned “the Eternal your G-d” or “the Eternal thy G-d,” and even here [in this very section] he said, And thou shalt love the Eternal ‘thy’ G-d. However, in this declaration of the Unity [of G-d] Moses said, the Eternal ‘our’ G-d because He had done great and awesome things with Moses to make Himself a glorious Name [therefore Moses said “our G-d,” for he had said “your G-d,” he might have appeared to exclude himself from this declaration of Unity]. Now the letter daleth in the word echad (one) is written [in the Torah] large in order to allude to that which is written, He divided the water before them, to make Himself an everlasting Name. And therefore the Rabbis instituted in the reading of the Sh’ma “Blessed be His Name Whose Glorious Kingdom is for ever and ever” and they further said [there]: “This may be compared to a lord’s daughter who smelled the [sweet] odor of some pudding etc.,” for Moses stated it in the Torah by an allusion. And then he reverted [to the general usage] and stated, And ‘thou’ shalt love the Eternal ‘thy’ G-d like the expression found in [the other] sections of Deuteronomy. (Ramban Nachmanides Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy [trans. Charles Chavel; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Shilo House Publishing House, Inc., 1976], 76-77)

To Support this Blog:

Friday, August 30, 2024

David J. A. Clines on אִישׁ (man) in Numbers 23:19 being a contrast between God and a mortal man

6a. mortal, as distinct from God, Gn 32:29; Nm 23:19; Dt 1:17; Jos 10:14; Jg 9:9, 13; 1 S 2:25, 26; 26:15; Is 7:13; 31:8; 40:13; Ho 11:9; Ps 4:3; 62:10; Jb 9:32; 32:13; Lm 3:33; Si 10:4, 7; 45:1; 11QPs^a 27₃; 11QT 64₁₂; 1QS 3₁₃; 4_{15, 20, 26} 1QM 1₁₁; 11₁₄; 1QM 14_17(Baillet) + Sup 2₁₅; 1QH 3₂₂; fr. 10₈; 11_4(Licht) 1Q36 25.2₅; 4QWiles 1₁₇; 4QShir^b 1₁₁ 4QShirShab^a 2_{2, 3} 4QShirShab^b 14.1₈; Kuntillet ‘Ajrud add. inscr. 2. (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 8 vols. [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 1:222)

To Support this Blog:

Judah Goldin on Exodus 15:3

THE LORD IS A MAN (‘yš) OF WAR. How is it possible to speak so, when it is plainly said, “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord” (Jer. 23:24), and it is written, “And one called unto another, and said” etc. (Isa. 6:3), and it says, “And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came” etc. (Ezek. 43:2)? Why, then, does Scripture say, “The Lord is a man of war?” For this reason: Because of My love for you and because of your holiness, I sanctify My Name in your midst. And so too it says, “Indeed I am God; but am I, the Holy One, not also man in the midst of thee?” (Hos. 11:9)—My Name I sanctify in your midst. (Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea: Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990], 135-36))

To Support this Blog:

Joseph Wilford Booth Recording Latter-day Saints Celebrating the Armenian Holiday of "Vartavar" (July 30, 1900)

July 30, 1900 (Monday) [Aintab]

The great “water splashing” Bayram of the Armenians. It has been a custom for ages among these people to keep this day, “Bayram.” Early in the morning our neighbors began the sport of throwing water on each other. Several young men stripped to the sin, excepting towells <hung> about the wait, were drenching each other and women and children who came in their way. I went to the college & spent a few hours with Mr Merril taking on the gosple etc. In the afternoon my self and Bro Page engaged in a water combat with our neighbors and spent nearly two hours in the contest. We & they were soaking wet many times over and enjoyed the sport immensely. Many accounts are given of the origin of this days celebration but they seem to have very little connection with the spirit and practice of the day. Some say it is in honor of the resurrection of Mary the mother of the Savior. Some say it is to celebrate the “Transfiguration of the Mount.” Others connect it with the ancient Armenian Idol named Vartavar to whom water was profusly poured when special prayers were offered to his godship for rain in times of drough[t]. There may be but little good in the custom and yet I see no harm in the innocent and friendly “ducking.” (Joseph Wilford Booth, Journal, July 30, 1900, in Missionary in the Middle East: The Journals of Joseph Wilford Booth, ed. James A. Toronto and Kent F. Schull [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024], 295)

As the editors note:

The holiday of Vartavar, also called “Transfiguration,” is really two holidays in one. It has its roots in a pre-Christian holiday in which Armenians sprinkled water on each other in memory of the goddess Asdig, but after Armenia’s introduction to Christianity it was changed to a commemoration of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ. In popular practice the holiday was more often celebrated with water sports. Sarafan, Briefer History of Aintah, 210; and Villa and Matossian, Armenian Village Life, 141-42. (Ibid., 295-96 n. 26)

This stood out as it shows that early 20^th century Latter-day Saints had no objection to celebrating a popular holiday in the area they lived/were serving; in reality, there is no issue with believing Latter-day Saints doing the same, even if the holiday may have pagan origins or origins in a false religion, etc (cf. the silly debates as to whether one should celebrate Halloween or Christmas in other circles).

To Support this Blog:

Matthew Bowman on Joseph Fielding Smith in 1962 not believing man would land on the moon

In April 1962, Joseph Fielding Smith visited Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was there in his capacity as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, attending a local church conference and visiting with Oklahomans who were not members of the Church but curious about it. He met with a reporter, who, offhandedly, aside the eighty-five-year-old Church leader about travel to the moon.

The moon was on people’s minds. President John F. Kennedy had been in office for just over a year by that point. He had already made a moon landing a priority. In April 1961, the Soviet Union had successfully sent he first human being into space. The next month, Kennedy, hoping to regain the US initiative, convened a joint session of Congress and told them he wanted the United States to send a man to the moon and being him home again before the end of the decade. Congress devoted vast resources to what came to be known as the Apollo Program and, by 1962, the space race with the Soviet Union was regularly making the news and thrilling US citizens.

It surprised the reporter, then, when Fielding Smith threw cold water on the whole idea. “Man does not belong on the moon,” he said shortly, assuring the reporter that he “based his belief on his interpretation of the scriptures.” The story was picked up by press writes and reprinted all over the country, bringing Fielding Smith a bit of grief. “I am flooded by letters in relation to it,” he complained in his journal,” with some editorial criticism. Why such a fuss?” (“Moon Shots Hit by Churchman,” Daily Oklahoman, April 26, 1962, 24; “Mormon Leader Says Moon Not Meant for Man,” Arizona Daily Star, April 25, 1962, 1. Fielding Smith’s diary entries are reprinted in Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. and John J. Stewart, The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1972], 322)

And yet it was not in Fielding Smith’s nature to back down. On May 1, 1962, he sent a letter to Robert Echols, a teacher in the Church’s education system. He told Echols that he was not responding to the vast number of letters he had received about the moon but would make an exception for Echols “because of the importance of the answer to you and the boys and girls in the seminary system.”

Then he explained to Echols why he had made the point. “The moon is of a higher order than the earth according to the reckoning of the Lord,” he said. And he went on: “We were placed here as prisoners, so to speak, at least confined to mortality for a reason, to be tried and proved to be worth of an exaltation or some other condition in the life to come.” His concluding thoughts did not give an inch. He wrote to Echols, “It is my judgment that Earth-men who are mortal have no place on the moon or to have anything to do with the moon.” (Joseph Fielding Smith to Robert Lee Echols, May 1, 1962)

Far from being simply an antiscientific crank, Fielding Smith offered a coherent vision of the nature of human history, one that deviated starkly from that of many other early-twentieth century Americans. To put it simply, Joseph Fielding Smith did not believe in progress.

. . .

The belief arose from fundamental principles in Joseph Fielding Smith’s conception of order in the universe. For him, the gestalt of the universe was not linear, it was cyclical. From pieces as small as the individual human life to as large as the very earth itself, Fielding Smith expected the same pattern, and he thought it not merely foolish but impossible for human beings, in their own lives or as a society, to attempt to defy it. That was why he did not believe a man would ever land on the moon. (Matthew Bowman, Joseph Fielding Smith: A Mormon Theological [Introduction to Mormon Thought; Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2024], 41-42, 43)

To Support this Blog:

F. F. Bruce Addressing Whether the Apostles were Wrong in Choosing Matthias to Replace Judas

It has sometimes been suggested that the apostles were wrong in co-opting Matthias to complete their number; that they should have waited until Paul was ready to fill the vacancy in God’s good time. This is a complete mistake. Paul did not possess the qualifications set out in vv. 21 f. Besides, his apostleship was unique in character, as he himself maintains; he would certainly have dismissed as preposterous the idea that he was rightfully the twelfth apostle on the same footing as the rest of the eleven. (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954], 52)

To Support this Blog:

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Joseph Wilford booth (1866-1928) on Turkish Critics of the Church Playing on the word "Mür" (bitter) to disparage Latter-day Saints

January 31, 1899 (Tuesday) [Aintab]

Wrote a letter to Bros. Larson and Hintze at Aleppo. YMA night. We took a walk to see Bro Samuel but the folks were not home. We also called at Neresis Kulujian and spent a few moments there. We scarcely ever go to the stree[t] without being saluted with a “Mur-r” from the tongue of both boys and men. It is the way in which they express their disfavor of Mormons. (Joseph Wilford Booth, Journal, January 31, 1899, in Missionary in the Middle East: The Journals of Joseph Wilford Booth, ed. James A. Toronto and Kent F. Schull [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024], 254)

Also passing two other calls at the Saints and on our way home as we were passing the door of a weaving room we were met with that usual expression Murrr Murrr from those inside. (Joseph Wilford Booth, Journal, February 2, 1899, in ibid., 255)

As the editors note:

Mür means “bitter” in Ottoman Turkish, so this could be a play on words to disparage the Latter-day Saint missionaries since a nickname for Church members as “Mormon”—a term that, at the time, the Church embraced as part of its identity. (Ibid., 254 n. 19)

To Support this Blog:

An Open Letter To Trent Horn - By Stephen Smoot

An Open Letter To Trent Horn - By Stephen Smoot

My friend Stephen Smoot wrote an open letter to Trent Horn after his debate against Jacob Hansen:

Jacob posted a video based on this letter:

Debunking Trent Horns Flawed Arguments Against The Book of Mormon: An Open Letter By Stephen Smoot

Jacob did reference the review I had of the debate (where I was also joined by Smoot, and later, Blake Ostler):

Review of the Jacob Hansen/Trent Horn Debate

Jacob did also mention that both myself and Blake are more than happy to engage Trent in a debate. Blake did tell me during the review he would happily debate Trent on whether Thomism is coherent and can produce a meaningful, coherent Christology. I would be happy to debate Trent on a de fide dogma of Catholicism, viz., the Immaculate Conception of Mary and whether it is apostolic in origin (as far as I can ascertain, I am the Latter-day Saint who has done the most research into Mariology). Here is the slide where I offered the debate:

(if Trent would rather have Tim Staples, who is the "Mary guy" at Catholic Answers do the debate or have a 2-on-1 debate with Tim [contingent upon both sides having 50% of the time]), I am also game.

Note on Paul preaching “the whole counsel of God” to the Ephesians

. . . we must also point out that nowhere in the Galatian epistle does Paul say that all his revelations from God were going to be confined to Scripture. A parallel situation occurs in his dealings with the Ephesians. In Acts 20:25-31 Paul explains that he was with the Ephesians for three years. He says that during this time he preached “the whole counsel of God” to them. Yet in Ephesians 3:2-3 Paul says, “Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me be revelation, as I have already written briefly.” Here Paul is speaking about the same kind of revelations he received in Gal. 1:12, yet he adds that he has only written briefly about these revelations to the Ephesians. We can only conclude that not all of Paul’s divine revelations were confined to Scripture. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Pont/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 210)

To Support this Blog:

Robert A. Sungenis on 78% of New Testament Passages Having Some Textual Variation/Corruption

An exhaustive investigation into a standard Protestant Greek text of the New Testament (Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979) reveals that of the 7,948 total verses from Matthew to Revelation, 6,176 verses contain textual variants. In other words, 78% of the New Testament verses are to some extent corrupted. The variations range from simple letters which change a word or its tense, to whole sentences which are either missing or significantly different. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Pont/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 228 n. 54)

Thus, the arguments that Protestants levy against the survival of oral tradition beyond the first century, we can use the same type of arguments against the survival of Scripture beyond the first century, since, obviously, neither of them are pristine. (Robert A. Sungenis, “A Critique of Keith Mathison’s book: ‘The Shape of Sola Scriptura,’” p. 47)

To Support this Blog:

Basil, On the Holy Spirit 29.71

Basil (330-378) in his On the Holy Spirit, defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit thusly:

In no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. "I praise you," it is said, "that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;" and "Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle." One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for "at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established." And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, "but of yesterday." I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of to-day--because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently,--at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned. (Basil, On the Spirit, 29.71 [NPNF₂ 8:44-45] = PG 34:200-1)

Interestingly, Basil does not defend such a central doctrine based on the final authority of the Bible, instead, as one commentator noted,

Basil’s primary basis for the defense of the Holy Spirit’s divinity was the unwritten Tradition expressed in liturgy of the Church rather than Scripture. The Tradition consisted of the liturgical phrase ‘Glory be to the Father with the Son together with the Holy Ghost.’ This doxology is not in Scripture, though the teaching is coincident with it, and provides Basi with this central argument for the deity of the Holy Spirit. (Joseph Gallegos, “What did the Church Fathers Teach Concerning Scripture, Tradition and Church Authority?,” in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 420)

Here are the relevant portions of PG 34:200-1:

To Support this Blog:

Example of Thomas Aquinas Believing in the Infallibility of Other Rules of Faith Other than Scripture

Once in a while, one will find a Protestant claim that Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) held to a view similar to the later Protestant conception of Sola Scriptura. While I am not an apologist for Thomism (for e.g., I think absolute divine simplicity is anti-biblical), Aquinas was not a “proto-Protestant.” Note for example the following:

Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 5 A. 3 [trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province; London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.], 81)

To Support this Blog:

F. F. Bruce on Acts 20:28

Gk. δια του αιματος του ιδιου should be translated here “by means of blood of HIs own one”; this sense of ιδιος is well attested in the papyri where it is “used thus as a term of endearment to near relations, e.g. ο δεινα τω ιδιω χαιρειν [‘So-and-so to his own (friend), greeting’]” (J. H. Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek I [Edinburgh, 1906], p. 90). As used here, it is the equivalent of Heb. yachid (“only”), elsewhere represented by Gk. αγαπητος (“beloved”), εκλεκτος (“choice”) and μονογενης (“only begotten”). In view of this, it is unnecessary to suppose, as HOT did, that υιου (“son”) may have dropped out of the text after ιδιου. (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954], 416 ν. 59)

In In Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, we read the following under ιδιου (emphasis added):

For an “exhausted” ἴδιος in Hellenistic Greek, equivalent to little more than the possessive pronoun, Kuhring (p. 13) cites such passages as BGU IV. 1061 ²¹(B.C. 14) ἐν τῶι ἰδίωι αὐτοῦ κλήρωι, P Oxy III. 483²⁵(A.D. 108) ὀ]μνύω . . εἶναι τὰς προκ@ειμ]ένας ἀρούρας εἰδίας μου, ib. 494³³(A.D. 156) ἐγνώρισα τὴν ἰδίαν μου σφραγῖδα, ib. 495¹⁵(A.D. 181–9) γράψω τῇ ἰδιᾳ μου χειρί, BGU III.865²(ii/A.D.) ἀκολούθω@ς τῇ ἰδ]ίᾳ σοι (l. σου) ἐπιστολῇ, ib. I. 13¹⁵(A.D. 289) ἐκδικήσωμεν . . τοῖς ἰδίοις ἑαυτῶν δαπανήμασιν, P Grenf II. 8o¹⁴(A.D. 402) ὑπὲρ ἰδιας σου κεφαλῆς. It will hardly be denied, however, that in all these passages ἴδιος adds a certain emphasis, and this undoubtedly holds good of the general NT usage, as e.g. Jn 1⁴¹, 1 Cor 3⁸, Gal 6⁵: Heb 7²⁷, etc.: see more particularly Proleg. p. 87 ff. (as against Deissmann BS p. 123 f.), and cf. Souter (Lex. s.v.) where the word is rendered “one’s own,” “belonging to one,” “private,” “personal,” without any mention of a weaker meaning. WinerSchrniedel Gr, § 22, 17, on the other hand, claims for the word both senses in the NT, and illustrates these in detail. It is probably impossible to draw the line strictly, so much depends on the special nuance of the context. Thus in the interesting papyrus in which proceedings are instituted for the recovery of a foundling child that had been put out to nurse, the defendant asserts that the foundling had died, and that the child now claimed was her own child—τὸ] ἴ@δι]όν μου τέκνον (P Oxy I. 37^ii.1—A.D.49) (= Selections, p. 51). But when in P Goodsp Cairo 4⁸(ii/B.C.) (= Selections, p. 25) Polycrartes writes to a friend introducing one Glaucias—a.πεsτάlκαμεν πρὸς σὲ Γλαυκίαν, ὄντα ἡμῶν ἴδιον, κοινολογησόμενόν σοι, the meaning can be little more than “who is one of ourselves”: cf. P Par 41¹¹(B.C. 158) οὗ <ἐν> κατοχῇ ἰμὶ μετὰ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ἀδελφοῦ ἰδίου (= ἐμοῦ) Πτολεμαίου, P Tor I, 8²⁷(B.C.119) εἰς τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν (= εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν) μετοικισθῆναι (both cited by Mayser Gr. p. 308). This last ex. illustrates the absolute use of ὁ ἴδιος as in Jn 1¹¹,13¹, etc.: cf. also P Oxy XIV. 1680⁵(iii/iv A.D.), where a son prays for his father—ὑγιαίνοντί (l. —τά) σε ἀπολαβεῖν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις “that we may receive you home in good health” (Edd.). On the principle of the ἰδία, involving a man’s personal attachment to the house and soil of his birth, see Zulueta in Vinogradoff s Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History i. (1909), p. 42 ff., and cf. Exp VIII. iv. p. 487 ff., where Ramsay applies this principle in connexion with Lk 2³. In Proleg. p. 90 f. special attention is drawn to the use of ὁ ἴδιος in addressing near relations at the beginning of a letter. Thus in P Fay 110²(A.D. 94) Gemellus sends greeting Ἐπαγαθῶι τῶι ἰδίωι, Epagathus being probably a nephew, and similarly in other letters of the same correspondence: when the son Sabinus is addressed, the words τῷ οιεἱῶι (= τῷ υἱῷ) are always used, as ib. 113²(A.D.100). If this were at all a normal use of ὁ ἴδιος it might add something to the case for translating Ac 20²⁸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, “the blood of one who was His own” (Weiss, etc.).

To Support this Blog: