Wednesday, March 4, 2026

Mary Lois Walker Morris (1835-1919) on D&C 87

Recounting an event held in Mexico in 1903:

 

A day or two later a Peace Meeting was to be held here, as in nearly every town in the United States and in Europe also. I was asked by Sister Gladys Bently and Sister Eunice Harris to give some Peace sentiments. I responded by giving quotations from the revelation by the Prophet Joseph Smith given on the subject of the Revolutionary War. (“Exile in Mexico, 1902-1905,” in Before the Manifesto: The Life Writings of Mary Lois Walker Morris, ed. Meissa Lambert Milewski [Life Writings of Frontier Women 9; Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2007], 548)

 

It is interesting that, 38 years after the cessation of the U.S. Civil War, Mary Lois Walker Morris would quote approvingly what is now D&C 87. This indicates that at least she did not interpret the prophecy of the U.S. Civil War in the opening verses of this revelation to be predicting a global conflict; instead, it would be in the future that “war shall be poured out upon all nations” (D&C 87:3).


Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Yun Lak Chang on the Meaning of "Word of God" in Luke-Acts

  

The word of God: Its definition

 

In the Old Testament one of the ways God spoke to the people of Israel was through the prophets. The word of the Lord came upon a prophet; and the prophet proclaimed it to the people in the name of the Lord. Since it was given as a direct saying, the prophet spoke it in first-person — “I, the Lord” speech. Thus, it is clear that the word of God given to the prophets was “what God spoke.”

 

Likewise, in the narrative of Luke-Acts, the narrator has led the readers to understand the word of God through Jesus and the apostles/disciples in the sense of “what God speaks.” The angelic annunciations to Zechariah and Mary are conceived as what God speaks through angels (Luke 1:19-20, 37, 45, 70) and the angelic announcement of the birth of Jesus to the shepherds is recognized as the word spoken by the Lord (Luke 2:15, 20). The OT prophetic word event formula in the case of John the Baptist and the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus also indicate “what God speaks” for the meaning of the word of God. After these preparations, the narrator introduces the notion, “the word of God,” through Jesus (5:1). In Acts, the Jerusalem congregation prays to God that they may speak the word of God in the sense of “what God speaks” (4:29-31). The narrator has prepared the readers to accept this view of the word of God by presenting God’s speaking through the mouths of the OT prophets (Acts 2:16-17; 3:18, 21; 4:25; also see Luke 1:70, 76; Acts 1:16; 7:42-43, 48-50; 13:40-41, 47; 15:15-18; 28:25).

 

Jesus the son of God is qualified and anointed to be the speaker of the word of God par excellence through the Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4:18). Jesus’ relationship with God as his son especially qualifies him as the most authoritative and reliable representative of God (Luke 9:35; 10:22). Thus, in the narrative of Luke-Acts, Jesus claims to have the authority of God on earth (e.g., Luke 5:24; 6:5) and Jesus and God are often “confused” without distinction (e.g., Luke 8:39; Acts 2:21). In the cases of the apostles and other disciples, the role of the Spirit is absolute in enabling them to speak the word of God (Acts 2:4). Jesus proleptically appointed apostles and disciples to speak the word of God with authority (Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-16). In Acts, God pours out the Spirit of God upon all flesh/the disciples to speak the word of God through Jesus (2:17-18, 33). (Yun Lak Chang, “’The Word of God’ in Luke-Acts: A Study in Lukan Theology” [PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Emory University, 1995], 282-83)

 

Yun Lak Chang on the use of λογος and ρημα in Luke-Acts

  

Excursus:

 

At this point, it would be helpful to examine briefly the use of λόγος and ρήμα in Luke and Acts. In Luke, λόγος occurs 32 times and ρήμα 19 times. Λόγος is used for referring to the words of Gabriel given to Zechariah (τοϊς λόγοις μου, Luke 1:20), and to the word(s) of Jesus in the sense of his preaching and teaching (4:22, 32; 6:47; 9:26; 10:39; 20:20; 21:33), and to the word of God (τόν λόγον τού θεού, 5:1; 8:11, 21; 11:28 and in the absolute use, 8:12, 13, 15). Jesus' specific saying or teaching is also referred to by τούς λόγους τούτους (9:28, 44; cf. 24:44). In other cases the term λόγος is employed for a specific greeting from an angel (1:29), prophetic words in a citation formula (3:4), Jesus' authoritative and powerful command/saying (4:36; 7:7), an oral report regarding Jesus (5:15; 7:17) and final written report of the stewardship (16:2), any word/saying against the son of man (12:10), a question (20:3), Herod's many words asking of Jesus as a means of verbal communication (23:9), and a conversation of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:17). Three occurrences of 1:2, 4 and 24:19 may not be obvious. But in light of the Lukan phrase “the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4), “the word” of Luke 1:2 appears to be the word (of God) that the apostles preached. The term λογον of 1:4 may be taken as “things” (RSV), but it is something to be instructed. Thus, the words rather mean several pieces of “teachings.” And “mighty in deed and word before God” of 24:19 indicates that the “word” implies Jesus' powerful message as the word of God.

 

On the other hand, in Luke ρημα is also used for the word of God (ρήμα θεού, 3:2; in a different form, παρά τού θεού πάν ρήμα, 1:37; and as a specific revelatory word of God in a form of “your word,” κατά τό ρημά σου, 2:29). It refers to Jesus' specific teachings or sayings (7:1; 9:45 [twice]; 18:34; 20:26; 24:8; and notice the phrase “τού ρήματος τού κυρίου,” 22:61, and for a specific saying of the boy Jesus in 2:50), an angel's word (1:38), a command to be followed and to be fulfilled as an authoritative and powerful saying (5:5), and the women's sayings/reports (24:11). And ρημα is unique in being used for “events” (1:65; 2:15, 17, 19; 5:51).

 

The term λογος is much more frequently used in Acts (64 times) than in Luke (32 times), while the term ρημα is less frequently used in Acts (14 times) than in Luke (19 times). In Acts, the λογος appears about 40 times as related to a Christian message, either in the phrase of “the word of God / of the Lord” or in other ways. Only one use is in the plural (15:15), and all other occurrences are in the singular. In contrast, all four occurrences of ρημα for such a message are used in a plural form (2:14; [5:20]; 10:22; 11:14), though these may be understood in a different way.

 

In other cases, the term λογος is used in various senses in Acts. It means “volume,” “book,” or “account” (1:1), “suggestion” (6:5), “reason/motive” (10:29; 18:14), “report” (11:22; 19:40), “an act of speaking” (14:12; cf. 7:22), “issue” (15:6), “complaint” (19:38), “language in reference to a religious terminology” (18:15) and “account/mention” (20:24). It also refers to specific saying(s) (2:22; 5:5, 24; 7:29; 16:36; 20:35, 38) and “words” as a means of verbal communication (2:40; 15:24, 27, 32; 20:2). Ρημα means “things/events” (5:32; 10:37; 13:42), “any spoken words” (6:11, 13) and “a statement” (28:25). It also refers to a specific saying (10:44; 11:16; 16:38) and signifies “solemn utterances” (26:25).

 

From this survey, we may draw conclusions about the use of λόγος and ρήμα in relation to the notion of the word of God. Among their wide variety of meanings, the two terms are commonly used to refer to the sayings of God, Jesus, angels, apostles and disciples, and even of opponents. In some cases, the two are interchangeable (e.g., Luke 9:44 and 45; 20:20 and 26; Acts 10:36 and 37; 10:44; 16:36 and 38). Nevertheless, there is a clear distinction of the two terms for the use of the specific phrase “the word of God” of the Lord.” Thus, the significance of this phrase lies in the genitive, “of God / of the Lord” (τού θεού / τού κυρίου). (Yun Lak Chang, “’The Word of God’ in Luke-Acts: A Study in Lukan Theology” [PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Emory University, 1995], 4-5)

 

Monument 2 from Chalcatzingo



 

 

Chalcatzingo was a site that was abandoned in 500 B.C. and contains impressive Olmec-style art. Commenting on Monument 2 (above), David C. Grove commented that:

 

Four persons are depicted on Chalcatzingo’s Monument 2. At the right is a seated personage who faces two central figures walking towards him and a third who walks away on the left. The standing figures wear their ‘bird-serpent’ masks so their faces cannot be seen. The seated individual has turned his mask to the back of his head, revealing his face and pointed beard. All the masks seem to cover the entire face instead of simply the mouth area. The seated figure’s headdress has a long frontal ‘horn’ and is reminiscent of one¬ horned headdresses worn by shamans (medicine men) in some later Mesoamerican art. (David C. Grove, Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier [New Aspects of Antiquity; London: Thames and Hudson, 1984], 118)

 

Commenting on its potential use for shedding light on Words of Mormon 1:15 and "false Christs," Brant Gardner noted that:

 

The masks indicate the presence of the extra-human in the scene. That the seated personage wears a mask turned to the rear highlights that these are men in costume, or even imitating gods, just like the later Aztec teixiptla. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 3:83)

 

 

Jewish Eschatology Acknowledging Changes Due to the Free-Will Actions of People

  

 

24:22: If those days were not shortened.

 

A: Jewish eschatology also knows of a shortening of the last period of tribulation.

 

Midrash Song of Songs 2:7 (99A): R. Yose b. Hanina (ca. 270) said, “Two adjurations are here (namely in Song 2:7 and 3:5): one to the Israelites and one to the nations of the world. He adjured the Israelites not to rebel against the yoke of the kingdoms of the world, and he adjured the kingdoms of the world not to make the yoke heavy on Israel; for if they made the yoke heavy on Israel, they would cause the coming of the end (of the messianic קֵץ, see § Matt 24:6 C) before its time.”—A parallel passage with variations is found in b. Ketub. 111A. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Baba Meṣiʿa 85B: Elijah (the prophet) used to show up in Rabbi’s academy. One day—it was the day of the new moon—he was late and did not come. Rabbi said to him, “What caused the lord’s delay?” He answered, “I set Abraham upright and washed his hands and after he prayed, put him back down again; similarly with Isaac and similarly with Jacob.” He should have set them up at the same time! One thinks that they would be so mighty in their praying that they would usher in the Messiah before his time.

 

B: ἐκολοβώθησαν, perhaps = קִצֵּר, Aramaic קַצַּר.

 

Leviticus Rabbah 21 (120C): Because the high priests (of the Second Temple) sold their office for money, their years (of office) were shortened מתקצרות (hence the large number of high priests during the existence of the Second Temple). ‖ Psalm 89:46: “You shortened הקצרת the days of his youth.” Targum קַצַּרְתָּא. ‖ Targum Yerušalmi I Genesis 28:10: “For Jacob the time of day was shortened אתקצרו, in that the sun went down before its time.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1094-95)

 

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Medical Expenses (Liver-related and other issues)

A few months ago, I was told by my doctor that I may have some (life-long) issues with my liver. And today, I got really bad news, so I will be facing a lot of medical expenses for the foreseeable future. I was adopted at birth, and information about my birth parents’ medical history is not accessible, beyond once finding out my birth mother, like me, suffers from chronic migraines.


I am logged out of my old “gofundme” so I set up a new one. Note: only donate if you are (1) in a position to do so and (2) want to. Also, feel free to keep me in your prayers. Also, feel free to share this link with others (e.g., if you are a YT content creator, do share the URL on your posts; ditto for your wall on f/b, etc)

Medical Expenses (Liver-related and other issues)


https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-expenses-liverrelated-and-other-issues


Alt.: Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/ Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Boylan-16

Robert Alter on the Golden Calves in 1 Kings 12:28

  

two golden calves . . . “Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” The representation of Jeroboam’s act as idolatrous —underscored by the use of “gods” in the plural—is tendentious. Calves or bulls were often conceived as a mount or a throne of God, precisely like those winged leonine figures, the cherubim. In all historical likelihood, Jeroboam’s intention was not to displace the worship of YHWH but merely to create alternate cultic centers to Jerusalem with an alternate temple iconography. But the narrator pointedly represents all this in precisely the terms, with an explicit quotation, of Aaron’s golden calf (Exodus 32). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:486-87)

 

Notice that, while Alter holds to the “pedestal” interpretation, he has to reject what the biblical authors themselves interpret the calves to represent, i.e., deities themselves (in theriomorphic form).

Alexander Wolfe (2006) on the Authenticity of the "Malkiyahu, Son of the King" Seal

  

WSS 15 – 'Belonging to Malkiyahu, son of the king', Moussaieff collection.

 

Apart from the bet the letters appear to be compatible with a genuine piece. (Alexander Wolfe, "A Critical Assessment of Unprovenanced Seals, and Other Artifacts Known Since 1968 and Characterised by a 'Lame Bet'," Kusatu 6 [2006]: 157)

 

The Bodily Assumption of Mary ("Assumptio S. Mariae") in the Gelasian Sacramentary

Commenting on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Ludwig Ott wrote that:

 

In the East, at least since the sixth century, and at Rome, at any rate, since the end of the seventh century (Sergius 1, 687–701) the Church celebrated the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοίμησις). The object of the Feast was originally the death of Mary, but very soon the thought appeared of the incorruptibility of her body and of its assumption into Heaven. The original title Dormitio (Sleeping) was changed into assumptio (Sacramentarium Gregorianum). (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [trans. Patrick Lynch; St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957], 210)

 

Intrigued, I decided to find the relevant source in the sacramentary:

 

[Item ipso die Vig. S. Mariae.

 

Sanctae Mariae semper virginis

Suscipe Dne. sacrificium placationis

*Adiuvant nos q. Dne. haec mysteria]

 

xviii Kal. Sept. Assumptio S. Mariae.

 

Concede nobis q. o. D. ad b. Mariae

Veneranda nobis Dne. huius est

Intercessio q. Dne. beatae Mariae

VD. Nos te in tuis

 

*Caelesti munere satiati (?) o. D. tua nos

*O. s. D. qui terrenis corporibus (H. A. Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary: Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894], 353)

 

 

[Also on the same day, the Vigil of Saint Mary.]

 

Of Saint Mary, ever-virgin.
Receive, O Lord, the sacrifice of propitiation.
May these mysteries help us, we beseech thee, O Lord.

 

 

The 18th day before the Kalends of September — The Assumption of Saint Mary.

 

Grant to us, we beseech thee, O Lord, through blessed Mary.
Venerable to us, O Lord, is the intercession — we beseech thee, O Lord, of blessed Mary.
V[erse]. D[ominus]. — We [place] you in your…
Filled by a heavenly gift, O Lord, make us thine.
O S. D., who in earthly bodies…

 

E. Earle Ellis and the Personal Preexistence of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 10

  

1 Cor 10:1-13

 

1 Cor 10:1-13 has a less clearly defined expository pattern than some other Pauline midrashim. But its opening summary of Exodus events (10:1-5) and its interpretive explanation of the one explicit biblical quotation (10:7) reveal its commentary form. This, its self-contained character, and its broadening of the question of food offered to idols to the more general question of idolatry lend plausibility to Wayne Meeks' view that the passage is "a literary unit, very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context".

 

The christological question becomes explicit when the “spiritual” following rock giving water to the Israelites in the wilderness is called Christ (10:4). By metonomy the miraculous work of God in the Old Testament can be called by the name God. But here the Rock is identified typically and surprisingly not with God but with Christ, and it is related to the typological character of other Exodus events of redemption and judgment (10:6, 11). Paul goes on to warn the Corinthians, "Neither let us tempt Christ (Χριστον p46 D) as some of [the Israelites] tempted him" (10:9). Thus, he places Christ both at the Exodus and in the present reality at Corinth. In a change of mind I now agree with Anthony Hanson that "the real presence of the pre-existent Jesus" is Paul's meaning in 1 Cor 10:4. If so, this preformed piece is a very early witness to the church's confession of the pre-existent Christ and, like 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15—20, may be related to a wisdom Christology. (E. Earle Ellis, “Performed Traditions and Their Implications for Pauline Christology,” in Christology, Controversy, & Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett [Supplements to Novum Testamentum 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 317-18)

 

Prudence M. Rice (2022) on the "macuahuitl"/macana being called a "sword"

  

The macuahuitl and macana

 

The Aztec macuahuitl (mak-WAH-weetl) was a melee weapon: a large broadsword or club wielded in close combat (Hassig, 2016, p. 8; Pohl, 2001, p. 19). The broad, flat wooden shaft, probably of a strong hardwood like oak, had grooved edges inset with obsidian blades secured by resin or other mastic. These armaments were apparently of varying sizes: most about one meter long, brandished with one hand while the other held a shield; others were larger, necessitating two hands (Cervera Obregón, 2006, p. 128, Figures 1, 14, 2007; Pohl, 2001, p. 19, 21; Taube, 1991, Figures 4, 5).

 

Effective in blunt-force slashing and chopping, macuahuitls are illustrated in native pictorial books (Figure 1; Cervera Obregón, 2006: Figures 1, 14; Taube, 1991: Figures 4, 5). Spanish chroniclers described them, perhaps with some hyperbole, as having “sharp blades of flint, set into opposite sides of a club, and … so fierce that … with one blow [the Aztecs] could chop off a horse’s head, cutting right through the neck” or “split a man in two with a single blow” (Cervera Obregón, 2006, p. 134; quoting Acosta, 1589/2003, p. 233 and Hernández de Córdoba, 1959, p. 407). Similarly, fray Francisco de Aguilar (1561/1963, p. 140) claimed that “One Indian at a single stroke cut open the whole neck of Cristóbal de Olid’s horse, killing the horse.” If death were not instantaneous from the blow itself, heavy bleeding from the wound would have quickly brought about the same end. These arms were “primarily restricted to nobles and professionals who had access to the necessary training” to use them (Hassig, 1992, p. 160).

 

A similar weapon was employed by the lowland Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula. In addition to bows and arrows and spears, Spaniards involved in early battles with the Maya reported that their opponents’ armaments included “[s]words that appeared to be two-handed ones” (Díaz del Castillo, 1568/1998, p. 9) and “twohanded swords of very strong wood (set with) obsidian” (Cogolludo, in Tozzer, 1941, p. 49n240). Two sizes were noted (Tejeda Monroy, 2012, p. 150): one about 83 cm (31.5 in) long, and the other approximately 104 × 5 cm (also Barrera Vásquez, 1991, p. 184; Hassig, 1992, pp. 256–257; Roys, 1943, p. 66). The Spaniards called this weapon a “macana,” a term they learned from the Taino in the Caribbean (Hassig, 2016, p. 8), or sometimes a “machete.” Some sources reported that the affixed blades were chert (Barrera Vásquez, 1991, p. 184; Roys, 1943, p. 66; Tejeda Monroy, 2012, pp. 150–151), but their sizes and shapes are not described. Known as a hadzab or hats’ab in Yucatecan Mayan, it had a shaft of strong chulul wood: Apoplanesia paniculata, a small (6–9 m/20–30 ft.) flowering tree.

 

. . .

 

Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico

 

Although the Late Postclassic northern Yucatan Peninsula was ostensibly unified by the League of Mayapan, it was plagued by conflict, conspiracies, and roaming bands of guerrillas (see Edmonson, 1986, pp. 38–39). Early excavations at Mayapan recovered about 1,700 obsidian blade fragments (Proskouriakoff, 1962, pp. 368–369), primarily “pieces broken at both ends” (i.e. medial segments) with evidence of “heavy use” on the edges. Perplexingly, however, the possibility of macana weaponry was dismissed because analysts found “no suggestion in the range of sizes” of these segments, and small “flake-blades” and fragments were identified as scrapers (Proskouriakoff, 1962, p. 369, Figure 35o, p). In more recent work, “almost all” the obsidian artifacts at Mayapan were found to be blade fragments (Masson & Lope, 2014, p. 363). However, there is only oblique reference to armaments: “wooden swords with ‘flint’ (perhaps obsidian) edges” obtained “from beyond the Maya area” (Masson & Lope, 2014, p. 280). Study of cranial trauma on human remains from another site in the northwestern peninsula revealed small, oval wounds to the left frontal and parietal bones, especially in the Postclassic period. These suggest injuries from a right-handed combatant wielding a “wooden club with protruding points … a specialized weapon” (Serafin et al., 2014, p. 148). That is, a macana or hadzab. (Prudence M. Rice, “Macanas in the Postclassic Maya Lowlands? A Preliminary Look,” Lithic Technology 44, no. 22 [2022], 314-15, 318)

 

Jewish/Rabbinical Traditions Concerning the Murder of Zechariah and Other Religious Figures

  

23:35: Until the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple (house) and the altar.

 

1. The murder of Zechariah b. Jehoiada in 2 Chr 24:20ff. in rabbinic tradition.

 

The oldest report is in y. Taʿan. 4.69A.56: R. Yohanan († 279) said, “80,000 young priests were killed because of the blood of Zechariah.” R. Judan (ca. 350) asked R. Aha (ca. 320), “Where was Zechariah killed? In the forecourt of the women or in the forecourt of the Israelites?” He answered, “Neither in the forecourt of the Israelites nor in the forecourt of the women, but rather in the forecourt of the priests (so near the altar of burnt offerings); and they did not deal with his blood as with the blood of a ram and as with the blood of a gazelle. There it is written, ‘He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth’ (Lev 17:13); but here it says, ‘Their blood is in their midst, on a bare rock (cf. Judg 9:5) it (the blood city Jerusalem) made it flow, not poured onto the earth so that the dust covered it’ (Ezek 24:7). Why all this? ‘In order to bring up wrath, in order to take violent vengeance, I have made their blood stray onto naked rocks so that it may never be covered’ (Ezek 24:8). The Israelites committed seven transgressions on that day (of the murder of Zechariah): they killed a priest and prophet and judge, they shed innocent blood, they defiled the forecourt, and it happened on a Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. When Nebuzaradan came up there, he saw how the blood welled up תוסס. He said to them, ‘What is this?’ They answered, ‘It is the blood of bulls and lambs and rams that we presented on the altar as an offering.’ Immediately he had the bulls and rams and lambs brought and slaughtered above it, but the blood still welled up. Since they did not confess to him, ropes (תלי תליין??) were hung up on the place of execution (to hang the priests). Then they said, ‘It pleases God to require his blood from our hands!’ They said to Nebuzaradan, ‘It is the blood of a priest and prophet and judge, who prophesied against us all what you have done to us, and we rose up against him and killed him.’ Immediately he had 80,000 young (i.e., capable of service) priests brought and slaughtered above it (above the blood of Zechariah); but still the blood welled up. In that hour he turned on it and said, ‘Do you want your whole people to be destroyed because of you?’ Immediately God was filled with pity and said, ‘If this man who is flesh and blood and cruel is filled with pity for my children, how much more must this apply to me, of whom it is written, “Yahweh your God is a merciful God. He will neither leave you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them” (Deut 4:31).’ Immediately he gave the blood a nod, and then it was swallowed up in its place.” ‖ The parallel in b. Giṭ. 57B is as follows: R. Hiyya b. Abun (a contemporary of Raba, so ca. 330) said that R. Joshua b. Qarha (ca. 150) said, “An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem recounted the following to me: ‘In this valley (this refers to Biqʿath-Jadajim near Betar) Nebuzaradan, the head of the guard, killed 211 myriads and in Jerusalem he killed 94 myriads on one stone until their blood came and touched the blood of Zechariah, in order to fulfill what is said: “Blood touches blood” (Hos 4:2). He found the blood of Zechariah, as it welled up and rose up. He said, “What is this?” They answered, “It is blood from sacrificial offerings that has been poured out.” He sent for the like; but it was not like the former. He said to them, “If you tell me, good; but if not, I will comb off your flesh with iron combs.” They said, “What should we tell you? There was a prophet among us who rebuked us (in punishment) in divine things. Then we rose up against him and killed him, and behold, who knows how many years it has been that his blood has not been mollified.” He answered, “I will mollify it.” He took the great Sanhedrin and the small Sanhedrin and killed them above it (the blood of Zechariah); but it was not mollified. He took youths and virgins and killed them above it, but it was not mollified. He took schoolchildren and killed them above it, but it was not mollified. Then he said to it, “Zechariah, Zechariah, the best among them I have destroyed; so you want me to destroy them all?” When he said this, the blood was mollified. In that hour he inwardly thought of repentance. He said, “If this happened to them because of one human life, how much more will it happen to this man (i.e., me) who has killed all this human life!” Then he departed. He sent a testament (שטר פרטתא) to his family and converted to Judaism.’ ” In a baraita it has been taught: Naaman (2 Kgs 5) was a resident alien proselyte גר תושב; Nebuzaradan was a real proselyte גר צדק.—A similar text with small variations can be found in b. Sanh. 96B. ‖ In the Midrash literature, the report in Pesiq. 122A follows the Jerusalem Talmud closely; there is a connection of the tradition of both Talmuds in Midr. Lam. 2:2 (64B); 4:13 (76A); Midr. Eccl. 3:16 (21A); Midr. Lam. Introduction #23 (36A) and Midr. Eccl. 10:4 (46B); in the last two passages, the killing of Zechariah is partly grounded in his pride.—In Midr. Lam. Introduction #5 (30B) we find only the question of R. Judan to R. Aha concerning the place where Zechariah was slaughtered. ‖ Targum Lamentations 2:20: “You killed Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the high priest and reliable prophet, in the sanctuary of Yahweh on the Day of Atonement, because he rebuked you (in punishment) that you should not do what is evil before Yahweh.”—In more detail, we read in Tg. 2 Chr. 24:20f.: “The spirit of prophecy from Yahweh dwelt (rested) on Zechariah b. Jehoiada, the priest. When he saw the sin of the king and of the people, how they kindled incense to the idol in the sanctuary of Yahweh on the altar on the Day of Atonement and how the priests of Yahweh neglected to present burnt and drink offerings and the offering of the day together with the additional offerings, as is prescribed in the book of the Torah of Moses, he stepped before the people and said, ‘Thus says Yahweh: “Why do you transgress the commandments of Yahweh, so that you no longer have fortune? Since you have abandoned the service of Yahweh, he will abandon you.” ’ And they rose up against him and stoned him according to the order of the king in the forecourt of the sanctuary of Yahweh.” ‖ Josippon 80: Before the holy temple in your midst the righteous and pious prophet Zechariah was slaughtered נשחט; and he lay there without a grave, and the earth did not cover his blood, but rather still rises up and cries out (literally: chirps) in your midst.”—Here the text probably has in mind the prophet Zechariah, son of Berekhiah, named in Zech 1:1. See also Midr. Lam. 2:20.

 

2. Other murders in the sanctuary.

 

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.7.1: “When the high priest Eliashib had died, his son Judah took over the high priesthood. After him his son John received the high priestly dignity, because of whom Bagoses, the field commander of the second Artaxerxes, desecrated the temple and laid a tribute on the Jews: they were to pay 50 drachmas from the temple treasury before presenting the daily (Tamid) offering for every lamb. The cause of this was as follows: John had a brother, Jesus. Since he was his friend, Bagoses had promised the latter the high priesthood. Confident in this, Jesus provoked his brother in the temple so that the latter killed him.… When Bagoses learned of this, he said full of anger, ‘In your temple you have dared to commit a murder?’ and infiltrated the temple.” ‖ Tosefta Yoma 1.12 (181): It once happened with two priests that they ran up the ramp (to the altar of burnt offering) equally fast (in order to obtain the privilege of removing the ashes). Then one of them pushed his companion four cubits back; but he took a knife and drove it into the heart of the former. Then R. Zadok (ca. 60, himself a priest) came and set himself at the entrance to the forehall (of the temple building) on the temple mount and said, “Hear me, our brothers, house of Israel! It says, ‘If a slaughtered person is found on the soil that Yahweh your God will give you to possess, lying on the field, without it being known who slaughtered him, your elders and judges shall go out and measure to the cities that are around the murdered person’ (Deut 21:1f.). Come and let us measure for whom it is obligatory to bring the calf to the place, the temple or the forecourt!” Then all people broke out weeping. Then the father came and said, “My son still twitches (is still alive) and the knife has not yet become unclean (by touching a corpse)!” This teaches that the impurity of the knife seemed worse to them than bloodshed.—Parallel passages include t. Šebu. 1.4 (446); SNum 35:34 § 161 (62B); y. Yoma 2.39D.13; b. Yoma 23A. ‖ Here the report of Josephus about the murder of Zechariah b. Barukh may also find a place to which some interpreters of Matt 23:35 refer. Josephus, Jewish War 4.5.4: “They (the zealots at the beginning of the Jewish war against Rome) had planned to kill one of the most respected men, Zechariah b. Barukh. It angered them that the man extremely hated every evil thing and loved freedom. He was also rich, so that they might hope not simply to usurp his fortune, but also to do away with a man who was in a position to contribute to their own elimination. They summoned seventy ordinary people as a college of judges and accused Zechariah without proof that he betrayed the land to the Romans. But with courageous words he undermined the complaints brought against him and accused his opponents of their numerous acts of lawlessness. Despite the raging of the zealots the judges acquitted him. Then two of the zealots in the middle of the temple fell upon Zechariah and killed him, crying out to him scoffingly, ‘Here you have also our voice and a reliable acquittal!’ Then they cast him down from the sanctuary to the chasm next to it.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1079-82)

 

Monday, March 2, 2026

Stephen Boyce on Whether One or Two Angels Were at Christ's Tomb

  

One Angel or Two

 

The difference between one angel and two reflects established ancient reporting conventions rather than contradiction. In ancient narrative practice, when multiple figures are present, an author may mention only the primary spokesman without denying the presence of others. Selective identification is not exclusion. When rhetorical focus falls upon the one who speaks, only that individual may be highlighted; when fuller description is intended, all present figures may be named.

 

In the resurrection accounts, Matthew and Mark concentrate on the angel who delivers the proclamation, while Luke and John preserve fuller detail that includes two angelic figures. The difference reflects narrative focus, not numerical disagreement. To report that “an angel spoke” does not imply that only one angel was present; it identifies the messenger who addressed the witnesses. Ancient readers understood that historical narration involves selection and emphasis. There is no compelling reason to treat the resurrection narratives differently. (Stephen Boyce, “Reconsidering the Resurrection Narratives” [2026], 6)

  

This selective reporting phenomenon appears elsewhere in the Gospels. Matthew refers to two demoniacs in the region of the Gadarenes (Matt 8:28), whereas Mark and Luke focus on a single demoniac who engages Jesus in dialogue (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39). Likewise, Matthew records two blind men near Jericho (Matt 20:30), while Mark names only one (Mark 10:46-52; cf. Luke 18:35-43). Similarly, Luke describes two disciples on the road to Emmaus, yet names only one, Cleopas, while leaving the other unnamed (Luke 24:13-18). In each instance, narrative focus falls upon the principal speaker or figure without implying the nonexistence of others present. (Ibid., 6 n. 8)

 

Lucius Columella (AD 4-70) and Paul's Allegory of the Olive Tree in Romans 11:17-24

  

Columella writes a good deal about grafting, in De re rustica 5.11.1-15 and De arboribus 26-27 (although a good deal of the material in the two works overlaps, even to the point of being straight repetition). He includes a considerable amount also about oleiculture, in De re rustica from 5.9.16. He certainly thinks he knows what he is talking about, and it is interesting that in 5.9.16, almost in passing, he says that well-established trees that are failing to produce proper crops can be rejuvenated and made more productive if they are ingrafted with shoots from the wild olive. (A. G. Baxter and J. A. Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11.17-24,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7, no. 24 [1985]: 26)

 

 

Columella, De re rustica 5.9.16-17:

 

It happens also frequently that, though the trees are thriving well, they fail to bear fruit. IT is a good plan to bore them with a Gallic auger and to put tightly into the hole a green slip taken from a wild olive-tree; the result is that the tree, being as it were impregnated with fruitful offspring, becomes more productive. But it must also be assisted by being dug round and by unsalted lees of oil mixed with pigs urine or stale human urine, a fixed quantity of each being observed; for a very large tree an urn will be fully enough, if the sdame quantity of water is mixed with it. Olive-trees also often refuse to bear fruit because of the badness of the soil. This we shall remedy in the following manner. We shall dig deep trenches in circles round them and then put more or less lime round them according to the size of the tree, though the smallest tree requires a modius. If there is no result from this remedy, we shall have to have recourse to the assistance of grafting. How an olivetree should be ingrafted we will describe hereafter, Sometimes also one branch of an olive-tree flourishes somewhat more than the rest and, unless you cut it back, the whole tree will languish. (Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella: On Agriculture, 3 vols. [trans. E. S. Forster; The Loeb Classical Library], 2:85, 87)

 

 

Columella, De re rustica 5.11.1-15:

 

XI. Any kind of scion can be grafted on any tree, if it is not dissimilar in respect of bark to the tree in which it is grafted; indeed if it also bears similar fruit and at the same season, it can perfectly well be grafted without any scruple. Further, the ancients have handed down to us three kinds of grafting; one in which the tree, which has been cut and cleft, receives the scions which have been cut; the second, in which the tree having been cut admits grafts between the bark and the hard wood (both these methods belong to the season of spring); and the third, when the tree receives actual buds with a little bark into a part of it which has been stripped of the bark. The last kind the husbandmen call emplastration or, according to some, inoculation. This type of grafting is best employed in the summer. When we have imparted the method of these graftings, we will also set forth another which we have discovered.

 

You should engraft all other trees as soon as they begin to put forth buds and when the moon is waxing, but the olive-tree about the spring equinox and until April 13th. See that the tree from which you intend to graft and are going to take scions for insertion is young and fruitful and has frequent knots and, as soon as the buds begin to swell, choose from among the small branches which are a year old those which face the sun’s rising and are sound and have the thickness of the little finger. The scions should have two or three points. You should cut the tree into which you wish to insert the scion carefully with a saw in the part which is most healthy and free from scars, and you will take care not to damage the bark. Then, when you have cut away part of the trunk, smooth over the wound with a sharp iron instrument; then put a kind of thin wedge of iron or bone between the bark and the firm-wood to a depth of not less than three inches, but do so carefully so as not to damage or break the bark. Afterwards with a sharp pruning-knife pare down the scions which you wish to insert, at their bottom end to such a size as will fill the space given by a wedge which has been thrust in, in such a way as not to damage the cambium or the bark on the other side. When you have got the scions ready, pull out the wedge and immediately push down the scions into the holes which you made by driving in the wedge between the bark and the firm-wood. Put in the scions by inserting the end where you have pared them down in such a way that they stand out half-afoot or more from the tree. You will be correct in inserting two grafts in one tree, or more if the trunk is larger, provided that the space between them is not less than four inches. In doing so take into account the size of the tree and the quality of the bark. When you have put in all the scions that the tree will stand, bind the tree with elm-bark or reeds or osiers; next with well-worked clay mixed with straw daub the whole of the wound and the space between the grafts to the point at which the scions still project at least four inches. Then put moss over the clay and bind it on so that the rain may not seep through. Some people, however, prefer to make _a place for the slips in the trunk of the tree with a saw and then smooth the parts in which cuts have been made with a thin surgical-knife and then fit in the grafts. If the tree which you wish to engraft is small, cut it off low down so that it projects a foot and a half from the ground; then, after cutting it down, carefully smooth the wound and split the stock in the middle a little way with a sharp knife, so that there is a cleft of three inches in it. Then insert a wedge by which the cleft may be kept open, and thrust down into it scions which have been pared away on both sides, in such a way as to make the bark of the scion exactly meet the bark of the tree. When _ you have carefully fitted in the scions, pull out the wedge and bind the tree in the manner described above; then heap the earth round the tree right up to the graft. This will give the best protection from wind and heat.

 

A third kind of grafting is our own invention; being a very delicate operation, it is not suited to every kind of tree. Generally speaking those trees admit of this kind of grafting which have moist, juicy and strong bark, like the fig-tree; for this both yields a great abundance of milk and has a stout bark, and so a graft can be very successfully inserted by the following method. On the tree from which you wish to take your grafts, you should seek out young and healthy branches, and you should look out on them for a bud which has a good appearance and gives sure promise of producing a sprout. Make a mark round it enclosing two square inches, so that the bud is in the middle, and then make an incision all round it with a sharp knife and remove the bark carefully so as not to damage the bud. Also choose the healthiest branch of the other tree, which you are going to inoculate, and cut out a part of the bark of the same dimensions as before and strip the bark off the firm-wood. Then fit the scutcheon which you have prepared to the part which you have bared, so that it exactly corresponds to the area on the other tree from which the bark has been stripped. Having done this, bind the bud well all round and be careful not to damage the sprout itself. Then daub the joints of the wound and the ties round them with mud, leaving a space, so that the bud may be free and not be constricted by thebinding. Cut away the shoot and upper branches of the tree into which you have inserted the graft, so that there may be nothing to which the sap can be drawn off or benefit from the sap to another part rather than the graft. After the twenty-first day unbind the scutcheon. This kind of grafting is very successful with the olive also. (Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella: On Agriculture, 3 vols. [trans. E. S. Forster; The Loeb Classical Library], 2:101, 103, 105, 107, 109)

 

 

Columella, De arboribus 26-27:

 

Latin:

 

XXVI

 

DE INSITIONE.

 

Omnis surculus inseri potest, si non est ei arbori, cui inseritur, dissimilis cortice; si vero fructum etiam eodem tempore fert, sine ullo scrupulo optime inseritur. Tria autem genera insitionum antiqui tradiderunt: unum, quod resecta et fissa arbore recipit insertos surculos; alterum, quo resecta inter librum et materiem admittit semina, quae utraque genera verni temporis sunt; tertium, cum ipsas gemmas cum exigua cortice in partem sui delibratam recipit, quam vocant agricolae emplastrationem; hoc genus aestatis est. [2] Quarum insitionum rationem cum tradiderimus, a nobis quoque repertam docebimus. Omnes arbores simulatque gemmas agere coeperint, luna crescente inserito, olivam autem circa aequinoctium vernum usque in Idus Apriles. Ex qua arbore inserere voles et surculos ad insitionem sumpturus es, videto, ut sit tenera et ferax nodisque crebris, et cum primum germinatum ebunt, de ramulis anniculis, qui solis ortum spectabunt et integri erunt, eos legito crassitudine minimi digiti; surculi sint bisulci. [3] Arborem, quam inserere voles, serra diligenter exsecato ea parte, quae maxime nitida et sine cicatrice est, dabisque operam, ne librum laedas. Cum deinde truncam reddideris, acuto ferramento plagam levato; dein quasi cuneum ferreum vel osseum inter corticem et materiem, ne minus digitos tres, sed lente dimittito, ne laedas aut rumpas corticem. [4] Postea surculos, quos inserere voles, falce acuta ab una parte eradito tam alte quam cuneum demisisti, sed ita ne medullam neve alterius partis corticem laedas; ubi surculos paratos habueris, cuneum vellito statimque surculos demittito in ea foramina, quae cuneo adacto inter corticem et materiem facta sunt. Ea autem fine, qua adraseris, surculos demittito ita, ut sex digitis de arbore exstent. In una autem arbore duos aut tres ramulos figito, dum ne minus quaternum digitorum inter eos sit spatium. Pro arboris magnitudine et corticis bonitate haec facito. [5] Cum omnes surculos, quos arbor patietur, demiseris, libro ulmi vel vimine arborem adstringito; postea paleato luto bene subacto oblinito totam plagam et spatium, quod est inter surculos usque eo, utduobus digitis insita exstent; supra lutum muscum inponito et ita adligato, ne pluvia dilabatur. [6] Si pusillam arborem inserere voles, iuxta terram abscidito, ita ut sesquipedem a terra exstet. Cum deinde abscideris, plagam diligenter levato et medium truncum acuto scalpro modice findito, ita ut fissura trium digitorum sit. In eam deinde cuneum, quo dispaletur, inserito et surculos ex utraque parte adrasos demittito, ita ut librum seminis libro arboris aequalem facias. Cum surculos diligenter aptaveris, cuneum vellito et arborem, ut supra dixi, alligato et oblinito; dein terram circa arborem aggerato usque ad ipsum insitum. Ea res a vento et calore maxime tuebitur. [7] Tertium genus insitionis, cum sit subtilissimum, non omni generi arborum idoneum est, et fere eae recipiunt talem insitionem, quae humidum sucosumque et validum librum habent, sicuti ficus. Nam et lactis plurimum remittit et corticem robustam habet. Optime itaque ea inseritur tali ratione. [8] Ex qua arbore inserere voles, in ea quaerito novellos et nitidos ramos. In his deinde observato gemmam, quae bene apparebit certamque spem germinis habebit; eam duobus digitis quadratis circumsignato, ut gemma media sit, et ita acuto scalpello circumcisam diligenter, ne gemmam laedas, delibrato. Item quam arborem inserere voles, in ea nitidissimum ramum eligito et eiusdem spatii corticem circumcidito et a materie delibrato. Deinde in eam partem, quam nudaveris, gemmam, quam ex altera arbore sumpseras, aptato, ita ut ante emplastrum circumcisae parti conveniat. [9] Ubi haec feceris, circa gemmam bene vincito, itane laedas; deinde conmissuras et vincula luto oblinito, spatio relicto, qua gemma libere germinet. Materiem quam inseveris, si sub olem vel supra ramum habebit, omnia praecidito, ne quid sit, quo possit avocari aut cui magis quam insito serviat. Post unum et vicesimum diem solvito emplastrum. Hoc genere optime etiam olea inseritur. Quartum illud genus insitionis iam docuimus, cum de vitibus disputavimus; itaque supervacuum est hoc loco repetere iam traditam rationem terebrationis.

 

XXVII

 

Sed cum antiqui negaverint posse omne genus surculorum in omnem arborem inseri et illam quasi infinitionem, qua nos paulo ante usi sumus, veluti quandam legem sanxerint, eos tantum surculos posse coalescere, qui sint cortice ac libro et fructu consimiles iis arboribus, quibus inseruntur, existimavimus errorem huius opinionis discutiendum tradendamque posteris rationem, qua possit omne genus surculi omni generi arboris inseri. [2] Quod ne longiori exordio legentes fatigemus, unum quasi exemplum subiciemus, qua similitudine quod quisque genus volet omni arbori poterit inserere.

 

OLIVAM FICO INSERERE.

 

Scrobem quoquoversus pedum quattuor ab arbore olivae tam longe fodito, ut extremi rami oleae possint eam contingere. In scrobem deinde fici arbusculam deponito diligentiamque adhibeto, ut robusta et nitida fiat. [3] Post triennium aut quinquennium, cum iam satis amplum incrementum ceperit, ramum olivae, qui videbitur nitidissimus, deflecte et ad crus arboris ficulneae religa atque ita amputatis ceteris ramulis ea tantum cacumina, quae inserere voles, relinquito; tum arborem fici detruncato plagamque levato et mediam cuneo findito. [4] Cacumina deinde olivae, sicuti matri inhaerent, utraque parte adradito et ita fissurae fici aptato cuneumque eximito et diligenter conligato, ne qua vi revellantur. Sic interposito triennio coalescet ficus olivae, et tum demum quarto anno, cum bene coierit, velut propaginis ramulos olivae ramos a matre resecabis. Hoc modo omne genus in omnem arborem inseritur.

 

 

English Translation:

 

XXVI

 

On Grafting

 

Any shoot may be grafted, provided its bark is not unlike the bark of the tree into which it is grafted; and if it also bears fruit at the same season, it is grafted most successfully without any doubt. The ancients handed down three kinds of grafting: one in which a cut and split tree receives inserted shoots; a second in which, after cutting, seeds (or scions) are admitted between the bark and the wood — both of these kinds belong to the season of spring; a third in which the very buds, with a little bit of bark, are received into a portion cut away from the stock, which farmers call “emplastration” (budding); this last kind is for summer. [2]

 

Having explained the method of those graftings, we will also teach a method we ourselves have discovered. Whenever all trees begin to set buds, graft during the waxing moon; but for the olive graft from about the vernal equinox until the Ides of April. From whatever tree you wish to take grafts, and from which you will take shoots for grafting, see that they are tender, vigorous, and with frequent nodes; and as soon as they begin to put out shoots, gather them from year-old little branches that face the rising sun and are sound, taking them to the thickness of the smallest finger; the shoots should be double-grooved. [3]

 

Carefully saw away the part of the tree you wish to graft into on the spot that is most smooth and free of scars, taking care not to injure the inner bark. When you have exposed the trunk, with a sharp instrument raise a flap; then insert, slowly and carefully (so as not to tear or break the bark), an iron or bone wedge between bark and wood to the width of not less than three fingers. [4]

 

Next, with a sharp sickle cut away the shoots you intend to graft from one side, as high as the wedge was driven, taking care not to wound the pith or the bark of the other side. When you have the shoots ready, withdraw the wedge and immediately place the shoots into the openings made by the wedge between bark and wood. Put the shoots in at the end where you pared them so that they project six fingers from the tree. In one tree insert two or three small branches, leaving at least the space of four fingers between them. Do this according to the size of the tree and the goodness of the bark. [5]

 

When you have set all the shoots the tree will take, bind the tree with an elm strip or withes; then with well-prepared clay mixed with chaff smear over the whole incision and the space between the shoots up to where the grafts project two fingers; lay moss over the clay and bind it so that rain will not wash it away. [6]

 

If you wish to graft a small tree, cut it down near the ground so that it stands a foot and a half above the earth. After cutting, carefully lift the bark and split the middle of the trunk moderately with a sharp chisel so that the cleft is three fingers wide. Then insert the wedge with which it is to be spread, and let down shoots shaved on both sides from each side, so that the bark of the scion matches the bark of the tree. When you have fitted the shoots carefully, withdraw the wedge and bind and smear the tree as I described above; then heap earth around the tree up to the graft itself. This will protect it greatly from wind and heat. [7]

 

The third kind of grafting, because it is most delicate, is not suitable for every species of tree; generally those trees accept such grafting which have moist, juicy, and strong bark, such as the fig. For it yields much milky sap and has a robust bark. It is therefore best grafted in this way. [8]

 

From the tree you mean to take the bud, look for young, glossy shoots. On these choose a bud that is clearly visible and shows a sure promise of growth; mark it out squarely with the width of two fingers so that the bud is in the middle, and then carefully pare it with a sharp knife so as not to injure the bud. Likewise, on the tree you will graft into, choose the smoothest branch, cut the bark of the same size and pare away the wood there. Then fit the bud you took from the other tree into that spot you have stripped, so that it matches the circumscribed area of the emplaster. [9]

 

When this is done, bind well around the bud so as not to injure it; then smear the seams and the bindings with clay, leaving a space so that the bud may freely sprout. Trim off any of the material you inserted if it projects below or above the branch, so that nothing remains which could draw away nourishment or serve itself rather than the graft. After twenty-one days remove the plaster. By this method the olive is also grafted most successfully.

 

We have already taught that fourth kind of grafting when we discussed vines; accordingly it is superfluous to repeat here the procedure for boring which has already been given.

 

XXVII

 

But since the ancients denied that every kind of shoot can be grafted into every tree, and as if they had fixed that limitation — the rule we used a little earlier — like some law, thinking that only those shoots could unite which were similar in bark and wood and fruit to the trees into which they are inserted, we thought the error of this opinion ought to be refuted and a method handed down to posterity by which any kind of shoot can be grafted into any kind of tree. To avoid tiring readers with a long preface, we will offer a single example by which, by analogy, any desired kind may be grafted onto any tree.

 

GRAFTING AN OLIVE INTO A FIG.

 

Dig a pit in any direction about four feet from the olive-tree, far enough that the outermost branches of the olive can reach it. Then place a young fig sapling in the pit and take care that it grow robust and vigorous. After three or five years, when it has acquired a sufficiently large growth, bend down an olive branch that looks the glossiest and tie it to the stem of the fig tree, and having cut away the other little branches in this way leave only those tips which you wish to graft. Then, having cut the fig tree and raised a flap of bark, split the middle with a wedge. Next pare the tips of the olive, as they adhere to the parent, on both sides, fit them into the cleft of the fig, remove the wedge, and bind carefully so that they are not torn away. Thus, after three years the fig and the olive will have united, and then at the fourth year, when they have joined well, you will cut off the olive’s branches from the mother tree as if they were simple offshoots. In this way any kind may be grafted onto any tree.

 

 

Strack and Billerbeck on the Seat of Moses (cf. Matthew 23:2)

  

23:2: The scriptural scholars and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.

 

ἐπὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως καθέδρας = בְּקָתֶדְרָא דְמשֶׁה.

 

The words “they sit on Moses’ seat” designate the scriptural scholars as holders of teaching authority.—From a scholar from the beginning of the 4th century we learn that there was a special kind of leaning chair (probably seats for the heads of the schools) that were called “Moses’ seat” קתדרא דמשה.

 

Pesiqta 7B: “The throne had a round head in the back” (1 Kgs 10:19). R. Aha (ca. 320) said, “Like a seat of Moses.”727—In the parallel passage in Midr. Esth. 1:2 (85A) the text is corrupt.—Things are different with Moses’ קתדרא in Exod. Rab. 43 (99B): “I sat on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights” (so the Midrash, Deut 9:9). Is it possible that Moses sat while God stood? R. Darosa (in the 4th century) said, “God made him a leaning chair קתדרה after the kind of the leaning chair of a solicitor. When the latter come before a sovereign, they appear to stand while they merely sit. And here too (in Moses’ case) it was so: there was a sitting that appeared like a standing.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1043)

 

Sunday, March 1, 2026

Debate Challenge on the Immaculate Conception and Personal Sinlessness of Mary to Joe Heschmeyer of "Shameless Popery"

 Cross-posting from youtube


I have been very critical of Joe Heschmeyer  @shamelesspopery  and his work on (1) Catholicism and especially (2) Mormonism. I do not believe Joe is an honest actor, and this is not just Latter-day Saints who think this: many atheists, Protestants, and even one ex-LDS now Roman Catholic agree with this assessment. With that being said, I will happily debate Joe on the following thesis in a moderated debate: “The Immaculate Conception and Personal Sinlessness of Mary are Apostolic in Origin” Here is the structure of the debate (though please note below): Opening: 20 mins each Rebuttals: 10 mins each Cross-Ex: 15 mins each Conclusion: 7 mins I doubt Joe will agree to debate this topic (in spite of it being a primary object of infallibility and a de fide dogma) but I will add the following to sweeten the deal: (1) I will grant Joe 50% more time than I will receive, so instead of a 20 min opening, he will get 30, instead of a 10 min rebuttal, he will receive 15 mins, etc. (2) He can also include other people on his side for this debate, such as Isaac Hess and/or Trent Horn and/or Tim Staples (who has written a book on Mariology), etc. I do not mind if it is 2, 3, or even 4 on 1. We could host the debate on a neutral channel, such as Jeremiah Nortier's (who can also act as a moderator). Alternatively, if Joe wants to genuinely reach Latter-day Saints with Rome's gospel and claims to authority, we could do it on a large LDS channel, such as Jacob Hansen's  @thoughtfulfaith2020  Robert Boylan ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com


Lee Martin McDonald on 1 Corinthians 6:3

  

6:3. Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Paul appears to draw on the Greek translation (LXX) of Dan. 7:22 which reads: “… until the Ancient of days came, and he gave judgment to the saints of the Most High; and the time came on, and the saints possessed the kingdom.” The belief in a judgment of God on some of the angels is presupposed in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, as well as in pre-Christian Jewish literature. Speaking of God’s directive to Michael the archangel (see Jude 9), the author of 1 Enoch (ca. 180 b.c.) writes:

 

Make known to Semyaza [an angel] and the others who are with him, who fornicated with the women, that they will die together with them in all their defilement. And when they and all their children have battled with each other, and when they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is concluded. In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the fire—and in torment—in the prison (where) they will be locked up forever. And at the time when they will burn and die, those who collaborated with them will be bound together with them from henceforth unto the end of (all) generations (1 Enoch 10:11–14, OT Pseud 1:18).

 

This view is presupposed in Paul who believed that bringing minor civil issues before a secular court was a scandal in the church and pleads with his hearers to take care of such matters among themselves. Since they will participate in the judgment of angels, surely they can take care of minor or civil issues themselves. Epictetus (ca. a.d. 54–68) encourages his listeners to worthy behavior that will result in participation with the gods in their rule.

 

So act [properly] toward children, so toward a wife, so toward office, so toward wealth; and then some day you will be worthy of the banquets of the gods. But if you do not take these things [what is inappropriate to take] even when they are set before you, but despise them, then you will not only share the banquets of the gods, but share also their rule (The Encheiridion of Epictetus 15, LCL).

 

Similarly, in Sallustius’ De deis et mundo (Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ca. a.d. 361–3), he claims that the pious, or religious devotees, will share with the gods the governance of the whole universe (Deor. et mund. 21, LCL). (Lee Martin McDonald, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon, ed. Craig A. Evans and Craig A. Bubeck [Colorado Springs, Colo.: David C. Cook, 2004], 286-87)

 

Birthday This Month//For Those Who Want To Support the Blog/Podcast

It will be my birthday in a few days. Last year, some of you kindly purchased some items from my Amazon wishlist. No one is expected to do so, but if you wish to support the blog and/or YT channel, you can do so via:

Amazon Wishlist:


Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com


Alt.:


Paypal


Venmo



Thanks!

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Daniel J. Sahas on the Edict of Leo III (726)

  

The Seventh Ecumenical Council called “‘Saracen-minded”’ Beser, a Christian apostate to Islam who, allegedly, with Constantine bishop of Nacoleia, influenced Leo III to take measures against the icons and their defenders.’ Theophanes called Leo, also, “‘Saracen-minded” for his ideas and his edict against the icons (726).' (Daniel J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" [Leiden: Brill, 1972], 9-10)

 

Mordechai Cogan on 1 Kings 8:60

  

YHWH, he is God; there is no other. So too Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9. Because the affirmation “there is no other (beside him)” is so frequent in the polemics of Second Isaiah (Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9), Weinfeld sees this as evidence for late (i.e., exilic) origin (1972, 212). But the use of this phrase in the spontaneous outcry of the people at Mt. Carmel (cf. 1 Kgs 18:39) suggests that it may have been a traditional creedal exclamation. (Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 288)

 

Is Mormonism Incoherent? Responding to Joe Heschmeyer and Matt Fradd

 

Is Mormonism Incoherent? Responding to Joe Heschmeyer and Matt Fradd






R. ALan Streett on the Phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) in Matthew 26:28

  

In the Matthaean version of Luke 22:20, the words are added, “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Carter notes this is not a reference to forgiving personal or individual sins. The term ἄφεσιν (“forgiveness” or “release”) is the same word as used in Leviticus 25 (LXX) where it is translated fourteen times as “a Jubilee” and “year of Jubilee,” and refers to a “massive social and economic restructuring (return of land; freeing of slaves . . . remission of debt, etc.).” Seen from this perspective, Jesus’ impending death establishes a new covenant in which those under sin (i.e., under a world ruled by the oppressors) will be set free in a restructured world where God, not the elites, will rule. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 190)

 

R. Alan Streett on the Sacrifical Connotatoins of δίδωμι in Luke 22:19

  

The Body

 

Jesus follows standard Passover procedure by blessing, breaking, and distributing the unleavened bread, which is called the “bread of affliction” in Deut 16:3. Jesus next departs from tradition by connecting the bread with his person: “This is my body.” That he speaks metaphorically is evident, since his actual body is reclining on the couch. In this sense the verb “is” indicates representation, not identification. Does Jesus see himself as taking the affliction which is meted out by the forces of tyranny? In executing God’s eschatological spokesperson, Roman and Jewish authorities stand opposed to God’s kingdom agenda.

 

Then Jesus adds the explicatory words, “which is given for you.” Luke uses the term “given” (δίδωμι) elsewhere to connote a sacrificial offering (Luke 2:24) and other writers use it similarly (see Mark 10:45; John 6:51; 2 Cor 8:5; Gal 1:4). The phrase “for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) likely means for your sake or on your behalf, and likely has vicarious implications. Since this was not the ordinary meaning assigned to unleavened bread at Passover, the new explanation must have caught the apostles off guard. Although confused they may have associated it with the messianic woes. Whatever the case, Jesus’ affliction would somehow work out to their benefit. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 184, emphasis in bold added)

 

R. Alan Streett on the Significance of the Dove at Christ's Baptism

  

The Flight of the Dove

 

For Luke’s readers, the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus “in bodily form” at his baptism would be seen as an avian sign that God had chosen him to be Israel’s king, just as the gods used the flight of birds to confirm their choice of the Roman emperor. As such, this text should be viewed as a hidden transcript, containing a veiled message directed to those within the Jesus movement.

 

This question remains: “In what way was the baptism of Jesus antiimperial or antithetical to Roman inauguration? The answer lies in the kind of bird that accompanied the baptism. Jewish, Christian, and Greco- Roman literature extant in the first-century CE identifies the dove as antithetical to the eagle. In the Hebrew Scriptures the dove is associated with tranquility and tenderness (Gen 8:8–12; Cant 2:14; 5:2; 6:9; Nahum 2:7). Homer portrays the dove as powerless, serving as prey for other birds, particularly the eagle. Plutarch saw the dove as a gentle domesticated creature that loves and nurtures its own and refuses to harm other living things, unlike an eagle that devours and destroys even its own. Greeks and Romans associated the dove to the goddess of love, rather than the powerful Zeus/Jupiter. Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, describes the dove (περιστερά, same word used in gospels) as “the gentlest of those whose nature is tame and gregarious.” Likewise, the Roman author and equestrian, Pliny the Elder also contrasted the aggressive actions of the eagle with the gentle behavior of the dove. Jesus admonished his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt 10:16).

 

Why would Luke want his audience to know that God publicly confirmed Jesus to be king through the flight of a dove, when the normative avian sign was the flight of an eagle? The dove narrative likely functioned in the same manner as the account of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Each depicts Jesus’ kingship in contradistinction to imperial expectations. The flight of the dove is a confirming sign that Jesus is God’s king, whose rule stands contrary to the Roman notion of power as confirmed by an eagle. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29– 30; 18:16; 22:25–27). Jesus is a different kind of king than Caesar. He is a king who brings peace not at the expense and suffering of others but through his own service and suffering. This is symbolized by the descent of a dove rather than an eagle, the national emblem of Rome.

 

This anti-imperial understanding of Jesus’ baptism based on the dove is strengthened when the accompanying voice also quotes from Isa 42:1, “Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring justice to the nations.” By combining Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1, the heavenly voice creates an oxymoron—a king who serves. Kings do not serve, they rule. Others serve them. Thus, Jesus is inaugurated to be a king of a different stripe—a humble king. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 119-20)

 

Ralbag Beur HaMilot (c. 1326-1340) on Deuteronomy 17:17

As background, “Beur HaMilot ('Lexical Definitions') is one of three sections of Ralbag's commentary on the Torah.” (source


Ralbag Beur HaMilot on Torah, Deuteronomy 17:17:1

 

ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור לבבו. מגיד שאם ירבה לו נשים יסור לבבו מהשם יתעלה ומתורתו לרוב נטות מחשבתו על הנשים מצד רבויים הלא תראה כי שלמה שלא קם כמהו במלכים ושרתה עליו רוח הקודש הטו נשים לבבו והנה המספר המותר למלך לקחת מהנשים ואינו רבוי ביחס אל המלך י"ח שהרי מצאנו בדוד שהיו לו שש נשים ואמר לו השם יתעלה ואם מעט ואוסיפה לך כהנה וכהנה ולא התיר לעצמו לקחת יותר ממה ששלח לו הש"י עם הפלגשי' ושלקח ולזה כאשר הוצרך אל אבישג השונמית לחממו לא לקחה לאשה ולא ידעה ולזה היה שואל אותה אדוניה בן חגית להיות לו לאשה כי לא לקחה דוד לו לאשה: (source)

 

 

And he shall not multiply wives for himself, nor shall his heart turn aside. It explains: if he multiplies wives for himself, his heart will turn away from the Lord — may He be exalted — and from His Torah, for his thoughts will be increasingly inclined toward the women because of their number. Do you not see that Solomon — who had no equal among kings and upon whom the Holy Spirit rested — had his heart turned by women? And behold, the number permitted for a king to take of wives is not an undue excess in relation to the king (י״ח). For we find regarding David that he had six wives, and the Lord, may He be exalted, said to him, ‘If that is too few, I will add to you such-and-such,’ and he did not permit himself to take more than what the LORD allotted him along with the concubines he took. Therefore, when he needed Abishag the Shunammite to warm him, she was not taken as a wife and he did not ‘know’ her; and for that reason Adonijah son of Haggith asked to make her his wife, because David had not taken her as a wife.

 

 

Blog Archive