Helen Neuenswander (1981) on knowledge of a 7-day week in Mesoamerica

  

THE SEVEN-DAY WEEK

 

The 7-day period, like the 5-day period, is conjugated differently than are other periods of days: wukub ’ih “seven days,” wukubix “a week from today,” wukbixir “a week ago.” Actually, the future term is being replaced by Spanish except where associated with ritual periods, so that both 7-day and 5-day compounds are now used almost exclusively to refer to “last week.” Some speakers seem to use wukbixir, others hobixir, while still others use a contracted form which combines the two: hukbixir. Since the 7-day term occurs throughout the Maya area, and since the Spanish use ocho días “8 days” to refer to the week, it is obviously not a borrowed term. Its authenticity is further validated if Thompson’s bix glyph (glossary, glyph Nos. 9-11) which he found only with coefficients of five or seven, actually represents 5-day and 7-day periods as he supposed. However, I have severe misgivings about this interpretation in view of the elements which occur with it in compounds which relate the main glyph to the sun in the southern hemisphere; in this case, the coefficients of five and seven would probably refer to the 5-uinal and 7-uinal periods which precede the winter solstice at the end of the Yaxkin (see Fig. 5), counting back (notice anterior indicators on all bix forms of glyphs 9-11 in glossary) to zenithal sun position in Pop (seven uinales) or equinoctial sun position in Zip (five uinales).

 

An explanation of the cognation of bih (b’ih) “name” and ih “day” is facilitated by Troike’s (1978:559) discussion of the common origin of the terms in Proto-Mixtec (Longacre and Millon 1961) due to the practice of naming individuals for the day name and number of the 260-day cycle on which they were born. Since this practice was common in the Maya area, we may assume a common proto-term. The phonetic change of h to x is standard, especially in deriving intransitive from transitive forms (bih “to name,” bix “to be named”).

 

As to the semantic basis for the 7-day cycle, the context in which it is most frequently used is that of the 7-day moon phase: four phases compose a month, plus a burial period of the moon for from one to three days, a pre-Columbian awareness which is concisely expressed in the full lunar glyph showing four phases (glossary, glyph 15).

 

Wukubix cwartah panok, pa quince dias ca c’iso. “In seven days begins the fiesta and in fifteen days it will finish.” (“Seven-days-ahead it-is-slept over there” is an archaic expression for the first night of ritual.)

 

Wukubixir, rih i ka tit, xc’is i oxib ic’. “Seven-days-back, (when was) old our grandmother, were-finished three months (of pregnancy).”

 

Even though the Achi have not adopted the Gregorian month names into their system of “counting days,” they have found the names of the days of the week to be convenient markers of moon phases:

 

Ca c’is i oxib ic’ chupam i martes ca c’unic. “It will be three months on this coming Tuesday.” (“It finishes the three months during the Tuesday it is-coming.”)

 

Some young girls have grown indolent about watching their grandmother’s journey and count time by the week only:

 

Xin coh ta retatil wach xo’on ka tit; xa pa semana weta’am chi ya xc’is i cahib, ch’apom chic i ho’ob. “I put not attention-to what she-did our grandmother; only by weeks I-know that already it-finished the four (months) and has-grabbed already the five (months).”

 

Nabe semana chupam ocho meses are xin tzakic. “It was the first week of my eighth month when I aborted.” (“First week inside-of eight months when I fell.”)

 

Ya ca c’is cahib semana pa lunes wukubix ca c’unic. “Four weeks will be up a week from this coming Monday.” (“Already it finishes four weeks on Monday seven-days it comes.”) (Helen Neuenswander, “Glyphic Implications of Current Time Concepts of the Cubulco Achi (Maya)” [Prepublication draft submitted for publication to the Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónomo de México, February 1981], 10-12)

 

Further Reading:

 

Helen Neuenswander on knowledge of a 7-day week in Mesoamerica

Raymond E. Brown on the Custom of Releasing a Prisoner at the Feast

  

The Custom of Releasing a Prisoner at the Feast (Mark 15:6; Matt 27:15; John 18:39a)

 

If the Lucan Pilate calls together the chief priests, rulers, and people, and the Johannine Pilate goes outside the praetorium to speak to the already gathered “Jews,” in Mark 15:8, the crowd now comes up to add its presence to the whole Sanhedrin (15:1) before Pilate. Matt 27:17, with a reflexive use of the passive of synagein, has “when they had gathered together,” without specifying the “they“—the pronoun would include “all the chief priests and the elders of the people” from 27:1, 12, as well as “the crowd(s)” of 27:15, 20. Matt’s synagein gives a more official tone to those present than Mark’s anabas (“having come up”); but for the latter there is an interesting textual variant in the Koine tradition and the OS^sin: anaboēsas (“having screamed/cried out”), related to epiboēsis (“acclamation”). Colin (Villes 14) accepts this reading as part of his thesis that the verdict in the Roman trial was by acclamation of the crowd/people (§31, D3c above); copyists would have misunderstood this rare verbal form and substituted anabas. Matt’s “gathered,” however, means that he read a verb of motion in Mark, not a verb of calling out. Probably the copyist’s change went in the other direction, i.e., removing “having come up” because it contradicted the picture in Luke and John where the addressees were already present.

 

Mark explicitly and Matt implicitly give as the purpose of the coming up or gathering of the crowd(s) before Pilate the custom of releasing a prisoner at a/the feast. John 18:39a also mentions the custom. But before we discuss this custom, let us note that Luke 23:17, which refers to it, is absent from the best textual witnesses to Luke (P⁷⁵, Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sahidic). Some scholars who think that the custom mentioned in Mark 15:6–8 is a secondary addition by Mark to an original tradition that lacked it (Dibelius, “Herodes”) evaluate Luke 23 without v. 17 as closer to that original tradition. Others doubt that Luke had special access to such an original tradition and explain his text (without v. 17) as a deliberate shortening of Mark to facilitate the storyline. The opposite approach is to affirm 23:17, “But he had the obligation to release one person to them at a/the feast,” to have been originally written by Luke (despite its weaker, Koine attestation) and to have been omitted by a copyist’s error as his eye skipped from the anagkēn de that began v. 17 to the anekragon de beginning v. 18. To the more common thesis that v. 17 is a copyist’s insertion in imitation of Mark and Matt (because all the words I have italicized are in those two Gospels) an objection is raised that neither of them speaks of an “obligation” (anagkē), something an imitative copyist would not have introduced. Recognizing the difficulty of settling the issue, although I shall follow the majority view that 23:17 is a copyist’s addition, I will not speculate about Luke’s reason for omitting all reference to the custom. His silence cannot with surety be used as an argument that he thought the custom incredible (see p. 819 below).

 

In the three Gospels that mention the custom of release there is a combination of agreements and disagreements. John attaches the custom specifically to Passover; but Mark/Matt (and Luke 23:17) use kata heortēn anarthrously, which could mean “at a feast” (every or any: kata as a distributive). The same expression, however, in Josephus (War 1.11.6; #229) means “at the feast.” Now, in the last instance of heortē (“feast”) in each Synoptic (Mark 14:1–2; Matt 26:2, 5; Luke 22:1) the reference has been to Passover. Thus it seems likely that Mark/Matt refer to every year’s occurrence of the feast, i.e., Passover, and thus implicitly agree with John. No evangelist, however, necessarily places the release on Passover day itself.

 

To describe the habitual character of the custom, Mark 15:6 employs the imperfect of apolyein (“used to release”); and in 15:8 the Koine ms. variant has “as he always used to do for them.” Matt 27:15 uses the verb eiōthein (“to be accustomed”); John 18:39a has the noun synētheia (“custom”). The dubious Luke 23:17 hardens it to an obligation. Mark (along with Luke 23:17) indicates that this is Pilate’s custom. In speaking more generally of “the governor,” Matt 27:15 is not necessarily describing every governor’s custom, since he equates Pilate with the governor in 27:2 and 27:13–14. On the other hand, the “You have a custom” in John 18:39a makes it a custom of “the Jews.” All the Gospels agree that the content of the custom is to release one person or prisoner—one whom they requested (Mark: paraiteisthai), or willed (Matt: thelein), or desired (John: boulein).

 

The release is “to you” (= for you) in Mark, Matt, and John. The crowd constituted by the Jewish or Jerusalem populace is the main agent in choosing the one to be released. In John (and in Luke 23:17) the chief priests are part of the choosing group, whereas in Mark/Matt the chief priests have to lobby the crowd(s).

 

By way of summary, then, the Gospels agree on a festal custom attached to Passover (explicitly in John, implicitly in Mark/Matt) whereby a prisoner was released whom the Jewish crowds chose. The major disagreement is whether it was a custom of Pilate the governor or a Jewish custom recognized by Pilate. (Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah–From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols. [The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994], 1:793-95)

 

Mark Wilson on αρμα (KJV: “Chariot”) in Acts 8:29

  

Finally, the geographical dimensions of Acts 8 are mind-boggling. From Jerusalem to their meeting point outside Gaza, Philip and the Nubian official have traveled separately for some 30 miles over a day and a half. Philip is directed by an angel to this route near Gaza, more properly termed “wilderness” than “desert” (v. 26). Traveling by foot, he overtakes the African official, whose return trip to Nubia from Jerusalem is by a different mode of transportation. Philip is told by the Spirit to approach a vehicle called a harma (v. 29). Most English versions misleadingly translate this word as “chariot”; however, chariots were not appropriate for long-distance travel. A double-axled carriage, known in Latin as a petorritum, was more comfortable and served as the limousine of the Roman world. With a wooden roof (which allowed shade for the Nubian to read his scroll of Isaiah [v. 28]) and a decorated interior, the petorritum was pulled by a team of horses or donkeys. Such carriages averaged up to 5 miles per hour on level ground. It is plausible that the African man is riding in such a vehicle. (Mark Wilson, “Philip’s Encounter with the ‘Ethiopian Eunuch,’” Biblical Archaeology Review 52, no. 1 [Spring 2026]: 64)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Matthew 27:25

  

27:25: His blood come upon us and upon our children.

 

The words mean “May the responsibility and guilt affect us and our children!”

 

A baraita in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 12B: A person does not drink water in the night—and if he drinks, his blood comes upon his head (i.e., he must attribute the guilt of his misfortune to himself). ‖ A baraita in b. Yoma 21A: Whoever gets on the road before the rooster’s crow, his blood comes on his head (he has to bear the responsibility and consequences himself). ‖ Sifra Leviticus 24:14 (424A): They (the witnesses of the blasphemy) shall put their hands on his (the blasphemer’s) head (Lev 24:14) and say, “Your blood is on your head; for you have caused this” (brought it on yourself). ‖ Babylonian Talmud ʿAbodah Zarah 30A: With boiled wine, the prohibition concerning remaining open does not come into consideration. Someone said, “Can we rely on this?” R. Yannai b. Ishmael (ca. 300) indicated to them by a movement of the hand, “Let it come on me and my neck” (I take responsibility). ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 6.23B.46: Once it happened that someone was led out to execution. Someone said to him, “Say (as a confession of sin), ‘May my death be an atonement for all my sins.’ ” But he said, “May my death be an atonement for all my sins, except for this sin (for which I am condemned); if I have done it, it shall not be forgiven me, but the court of Israel shall be innocent!” When this came before the scholars, their eyes teared. They said, “It is not possible to bring him back; then the case would have no end. Behold, may his blood hang on the neck of the (false) witnesses!” ‖ Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.5: (Fear was put into the witnesses with the words …:) “Know that capital cases are not like disputes about money. With disputes about money, a person can give money and there will be atonement for him; but with capital cases his (the executed person’s) blood and the blood of his (possible) descendants clings to him until the end of the world.” (See the whole passage at § Matt 5:21 B, #3, B, #3, n. c and § Matt 26:60, #2.) ‖ Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10: (When the ship companions wanted to toss Jonah into the sea,) they said, “God of the world, Yahweh, do not bring innocent blood on us; for we do not know what this has to do with this man.”—The phrase “His blood comes on his head” דמו בראשו is also found in y. Ber. 7.11C.61; b. Pesaḥ. 111A; 112A (twice); b. Nid. 17A. (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], 1:1188-89)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 97: Craig Foster on Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain (1837-1860)

 

Episode 97: Craig Foster on Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain (1837-1860)

Strack and Billerbeck on Jewish/Rabbinical Attitudes Towards Suicide

  

27:5: Went and hanged himself.

 

The ancient synagogue found the prohibition of suicide in Gen 9:5.

Genesis Rabbah 34 (21B): “Yet אַךְ your blood, that of your souls לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, I will require” (Gen 9:5). אַךְ, this intends to include the one who strangles himself החונק עצמו (by hanging).—In this case, Gen 9:5 was interpreted as “Yet your own blood I will require of you yourself,” if you put a hand on yourselves as suicides.—In b. B. Qam. 91B, this interpretation is found in the mouth of R. Eleazar b. Azariah (ca. 100): “Yet your blood I will require לנפשתיכם” (Gen 9:5); R. Eleazar (b. Azariah) said, “From the hand of your souls (i.e., from yourselves) I will require your blood.”

The average opinion about the reprehensibility of suicide is expressed most clearly by Josephus, J. W. 3.8.5:

 

“Suicide, ἡ αὐτοχειρία, is both foreign to the general nature of all living beings and a godlessness towards the God who created us.… Do you not think that God will be angry if a person impiously scorns his (God’s) gift? For we both have received existence from him and must leave our no-longer-existing to him.… Additionally, if someone allows a person’s deposit to be lost or spends it badly, he appears to be evil and unfaithful; but if someone expels the deposit of God (the soul) from his own body, does he suppose that he will remain hidden from the one he has offended?… Their hands have raged against their own life, their souls will be received by the darkest Hades, and God their father will visit the guilt of evildoers on their descendants. Therefore, this (the offense of suicide) is hated by God, and by the wisest lawgiver it has been assigned a penalty. Among us at least it has been found to be good to leave suicides unburied until the sun sets, although it is considered just to bury one’s own enemies. With other nations, though, it has even been commanded to cut off the right hands of such dead people with which they went to battle against themselves, since it is supposed that, as the body must be separated from the soul, so too the hand from the body.…”

 

Mourning suicides is regulated as follows in tractate Semaḥot 2 (beginning):

 

Whoever consciously takes his life המאבד עצמו לדעת, with him one undertakes nothing in respect to him (to mourn him publicly). R. Ishmael († ca. 135) said, “One calls out over him, ‘Woe because of this severity, woe because of this severity!’ ” (We read נַטְלָא instead of the incomprehensible נטלה.) R. Aqiba († ca. 135) said to him, “Leave aside any remark about him; do not honor him and do not curse him. One does not tear one’s garment for him, one does not expose one’s shoulder for him and one does not mourn him publicly; but one may stand in the line because of him (through which the mourners go with comforting statements from the retinue) and say the blessing of mourners (see the excursus “Works of Love”), because this serves to honor the living. The general rule about this is as follows: in everything that serves to honor the living, one may occupy himself with him (the suicide); but in everything that does not serve to honor the living, the multitude may not occupy itself with him. Who is someone who consciously takes his life? Not someone who climbs to the top of a tree and falls down and dies, or someone who climbs to the top of a roof and falls down and dies. Rather the one who says, ‘Behold, I will climb to the top of the roof to the top of the tree and cast myself down to die’; and then he was seen as he climbed up to the top of the tree and fell down and died—behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he consciously took his life, and whoever consciously takes his life, with him one occupies himself (with respect to mourning) in no regard. If he was found strangled חנוק and hanging on a tree תלוי באילן, slain הרוג (with the sword) and laid out with the sword, behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he unconsciously שלא בדעת took his life and nothing (with respect to mourning) is withheld from him.” ‖ In closing, reference may also be made to a later saying. TanḥumaB ויצא § 6 (74B): Let our teacher teach us: What is the difference between the death of the righteous and that of the godless? R. Justa b. Shunam (ca. 400) said in the name of R. Joshua of Sikhnin (ca. 330), “The death of the godless is neither on earth nor in heaven, for so it is written of Ahithophel: ‘He arranged his house and hanged himself’ (2 Sam 17:23). And likewise Haman was neither on earth nor in heaven; see Esth 7:10: ‘Then they hanged Haman on the tree trunk,’ and similarly his sons: ‘He and his sons had been hanged on the tree’ (Esth 9:25). Yet with the death of the righteous, there is something in heaven and on earth; see 1 Sam 25:29: ‘The soul of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living.’ And whence do we know that it is also on earth? See 2 Chr 32:33: ‘He (Hezekiah) was buried on the steep road to the graves of the house of David, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem showed him honor at his death.’ ” (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], 1:1181-83)

 

Examples “Curious Workmanship” in Pre-1830 Literature

 In his article, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” John Tvedtnes noted that:

 

Misconceptions abound concerning the text of the Book of Mormon, among both Latter-day Saints and others.

 

For example, how do people understand the term “curious workmanship” in such passages as 1 Nephi 16:10 and 1 Nephi 18:1? Some undoubtedly take the word “curious” to mean “peculiar, strange,” or, less likely, “inquisitive,” which would be the normal usage of the word in 21st century English. Its original meaning is “skilled” or “artful,” a meaning still retained in Joseph Smith’s day, as seen by Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary of American English. So the expression should be understood as “skilled workmanship.” (John A. Tvedntes, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” September 20, 2010, Meridian Magazine)

 

This is borne out by an examination of how the phrase was used in pre-1830 liteature

 

One of these Maces is of very fine Workmanship, all of Silver, gilt, and very heavy, of fine imagery, and curious workmanship, made at Paris by the Archbishop’s Special Directions, as appears by an Inscription on a Plate, fastened to the Mace by a little Chain, and preserved with it. (Daniel Defoe, Curious and Diverting Journies, Thro' the Whole Island of Great-Britain [1734])

 

The lower part of the border upon the table was neatly engraved, but the outside part excelled in curious workmanship, and was placed fuller to view: . . . (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XII [London: 1754], 273)

 

 

A Diadem of great Value, in the Eastern Taste, such as is wore for the principal Ornaments of the Great Mogul, Nabobs, and Princes of Asia, consisting of very large Diamonds and other fine Jewels of curious workmanship, has lately been made by an eminent Jeweller of this City, designed, as we are informed, for the Lord Clive, as a Present from his Lordship to the Nabob of Bengal. (“An Historical Detail of Publick Occurrences, &c.,” The Weekly Amusement [1765], 4:37)

 

This Morning at ten o’Clock, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor and the Committee, consisting of fix Aldermen and 12 Common Council Men, went in Procession from Guildhall, attended by the Recorder, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, and other City Officers, to Savile House, and presented to his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester the Freedom of this City in a Gold Box of very curious workmanship . . . (“Ode for His Majesty’s Birthday, June 4, 1765,” The Weekly Amusement [1765]: 4:94)

 

 

One of the gateways of this palace has an arch of curious workmanship, and in the tower over it is kept the magazine for the county militia. (England Described: Or, The Traveller’s Companion [London: R. Baldwin and J. Prescott, 1776] 164)

 

 

A sword of Gen. Moreau’s, and one of Marshal Duckner’s.—in another room are various specimens of plate armour, helmets, and weapons, some Indian armour of curious workmanship, composed of steel ringlets, similar to the hauberk worn by the Knights Templars, but not so heavy, and the helmets are of a different construction; . . .  (“The Prince of Wales’s Armoury, at Carlton House,” La Belle Assemblée 2, no. 9 [August 1810], 102)

 

Barabbas (Bar Abba) as a Common Personal Name

  

27:16: Barabbas, Βαραββᾶν.

 

Bar Abba בר אבא “son of Abba,” a common personal name.

 

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 18B: Funds for orphans had been deposited with the father of Samuel († 254). When his soul entered into rest, Samuel was not with him. He was called a son who consumes orphan funds (from the deposit). He went out to his father at the cemetery. He cried out to them (the dead), “I’m looking for Abba” (so his father was called). They answered, “There are many Abbas here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba!” (Samuels grandfather was also called Abba.) They answered, “There are also many Abbas bar Abba here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel. Where is he?” They answered, “He has ascended into the heavenly academy.… (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], 1:1186)

 

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears

 I am cross-posting this from youtube. As of writing, I hope to join Blake Ostler on Jacob Ryder's youtube channel to interact with the book.

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears The first half of the book was okay; lot of problems, but was hopeful it would be at least decent. Second half was a huge let down. Here are the good points: (*) I believe that Beshears is a good-faith actor. (*) He admits some popular arguments against LDS theology and other claims are not that good. Consider, for e.g., the following from p. 67: ==It is unlikely Smith intentionally revised his First Vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to secure power, as some critics have suggested. The church’s explanation is more convincing, which suggests differences between the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” = (*) Beshears does not believe that Joseph Smith (or Solomon Spalding et al) wrote the Book of Mormon (see pp. 112-13 Some of the cons of the book: (*) The exegesis offered in favor of his (Reformed Protestant) understanding of doctrines (e.g., forensic justification; perseverance of the saints) is lacking--the MO is just throw out a proof-text and expect one's readers to agree with it (*) One would not know from the book that the overwhelming evidence from modern biblical scholarship supports LDS theology on God being substantially anthropomorphic in nature in the Old Testament and that the biblical authors did not hold to creation ex nihilo. Ditto for the "number" of God(s) in the Old and New Testaments. To use Deut 6:4 as evidence for strict monotheism is a joke (*) Relating to the above, not quoting/interacting with/critiquing Blake Ostler's 2005 response to Copan and Craig? Even if you think Blake is wrong about his interpretation of the KFD & Sermon in the Grove, he is not "outside the LDS mainstream" on the nature of creation. Also, May's work (who is not LDS) is not interacted with, too. (*) Beshears claims that the "gospel" (as he understands it) has always been present since the end of the NT period, ergo, no Great Apostasy, ergo, LDS claim of a need of a restoration through Joseph Smith is nullified. Outside eisegesis, there is no evidence of any patristic author holding to an understanding of sola fide similar to that of Protestantism (yes, Ambrosiaster and even Aquinas used 'sola fide' approvingly, but they both held to baptismal regeneration and transformative justification; also, Aquinas used that phrase in the context of a hymn in favor of Transubstantiation [which is intimately related to the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice!]). (*) The chapters on soteriology were a disappointment. No meaningful defense of his Reformed understanding of baptism, wrestling with the fact that baptismal regeneration is the unanimous teaching of the patristics and even medievals, and no meaningful exegesis of texts such as Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-7, etc. *Sola Scriptura Assumed, Never Proven* Throughout his book, Beshears assumes (his Reformed understanding of) Sola Scriptura. Whenever he tries to defend it, even in passing, it is lame. 2 Tim 3:15 is speaking of the Old Testament writings Timothy knew since his childhood, and as he was living during times of public revelation, "scripture" (which would not have been exhausted by the Protestant 66 book canon at the time [even if Sola Scriptura is true]) was not the sole infallible authority or the sole authority that could immediately bind the conscience of believers. Furthermore, one would not know there is a debate throughout history of Heb 4:12 is about "scripture" (which Beshears reads into this as being "the Bible" a la tota scriptura, which is anachronistic eisegesis) or the person of Christ (the latter is supported by it having volition of will [being able to discern thoughts]). And to read biblical sufficiency into 2 Pet 1:16 (which again, was revealed during times of public revelation) is eisegesis to the extreme. With that being said, I will happily interact with Kyle on the topic of Sola Scriptura. As with so many Protestant treatments of “Mormonism,” that is something he assumes/reads into the Bible (such as Heb 4:12; 2 Pet 1:19; 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc). If anyone can swing a debate between us on that topic, I will be appreciative. Robert Boylan ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

R. Alan Culpepper on Matthew 27:15-16 and the Barabbas Event

  

While releasing a prisoner would have been appropriate for the observance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, it is not attested outside the Gospels. The Mishnah allows slaughtering a Passover lamb “for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison” (m. Pesaḥ. 8:6). A papyrus text records the governor of Egypt releasing a prisoner named Phibion and declaring, “You were worthy of scourging, … but I give you to the crowds.”⁸³ Josephus also records instances of procurators releasing prisoners and crowds demanding the release of a prisoner on various occasions (Ant. 17.204; 20.215). The custom is credible, therefore, although the evidence for it is inconclusive. It is the kind of gesture that the prefect might have made as a way of maintaining good relations with the chief priests and the pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem. (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Lousiville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 544)

 

Ulrich Luz and R. Alan Culpepper on the Use of both Psalm 22 and Wisdom of Solomon in Matthew 27:43

 

 

■ 43 The Jewish leaders go even further with their ridicule and in so doing use words of the godless from Ps 21:9 LXX. The words are even more malicious than those of v. 42. There the Jewish leaders challenged Jesus to save himself; now they speak of God: “He trusts in God.” God should save him, and he should do it right away! They thereby expose themselves in their own godlessness. They end by referring also to Jesus’ divine sonship and state that he claims to be God’s Son. We probably have echoes here of the mocking words of Wis 2:18: “If the righteous man is God’s son (υἱὸς θεοῦ) … , he will deliver him (ῥύσεται αὐτόν).” Matthew is probably thinking of the way of the suffering righteous man depicted in Wis 2:5. However, for him “God’s Son” is much more than an exemplary righteous man from the Bible. He is the one whom God himself has revealed as his only Son (Matt 3:17; 17:5), who is intimately united with the Father (11:27), whom people confess as their savior (14:33; cf. 16:16). It is this one who in the manner of the biblical righteous man goes the way of obedience. Only when “God’s Son” (θεοῦ υἱός) is invested with all of the connotations of the Matthean understanding of Son of God, of which his obedience to God’s will is only one, does it become clear what it means that the Son of God, Jesus, does not come down from the cross but goes the way of obedience. Then it also becomes clear how deep the truth is that the Jewish leaders in their malicious irony unknowingly state. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005], 539)

 

 

In 27:43, Matthew quotes Ps 22:8 with echoes from the Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous one “calls himself a child of God” (2:13) and God “will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:18). Twice in Matthew the voice from heaven has said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (3:17; 17:5). The verb “to deliver” (hryomai, 27:43) links Matthew with both Ps 22:8 and Wis 2:18 while echoing the Lord’s Prayer (6:13; see also 26:39–42). Not surprisingly, the hope of deliverance is repeated frequently in the NT (Luke 1:74; Rom 15:31; 2 Thess 3:2; 2 Pet 2:9). (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 558)

 

A. T. Robertson on the Present Participle

  

5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative.

 

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντες ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. Cf. πωλήσας ἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶν δύναται (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10:22), ὁ βλέπων ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.

 

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3:26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15:27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, ἐξῆλθεν διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the pres. part. is coincident with the verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτιζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. part. is common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408).

 

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).

 

(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. as in πείθων (Ac. 28:23) or τοὺς εἰσερχομένους (Mt. 23:14).

 

(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). So τυφλὸς ὣν ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo. 12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. ὁ βαπτίζων (Mk. 1:4).

 

(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres. part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of sensation) is found in εἴδαμέν τινα ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1; 13:1, 11; 14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκει τὴν πόλιν οὖσαν.

 

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁ κλέπτων (Eph. 4:28)=‘the rogue.’ Cf. ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27:40); οἱ ζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kühner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, τοῖς γαμοῦσι, C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.d.). Cf. τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, ἡ οὑ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα.

 

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.

 

(i) “Subsequent” Action. Blass finds “subsequent” action in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν—ἐπιστηρίζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, the aorist ind. is “effective” and accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the “effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.

 

(j) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Logos Bible Software, 2006], 891-92)

 

Notes on the Present Participle of ἐκχέω (to pour out/shed) in Matthew 23:35 and 26:28

  

Which is shed for many (το περι πολλων ἐκχυννομενον [to peri pollōn ekchunnomenon]). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in 20:28. There ἀντι [anti] and here περι [peri]. Unto remission of sins (εἰς ἀφεσιν ἁμαρτιων [eis aphesin hamartiōn]). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins. (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1933], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

In Jewish legend there is the murder of Isaiah. Further, the Zechariah whose murder is recorded in 2 Chron 24 20ff. came to be identified with Zechariah the prophet. We should perhaps make allowance for a certain amount of poetic licence here, and taken Jerusalem as typical of Israel as a whole. The present participles of the Greek text may then be taken to mean something like 'ever ready to slay the prophets and stone her messengers'. (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary [London: SCM Press Ltd., 1937], 127)

 

 

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς τροφήτας καὶ λιθοβολουσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν. Compare 21:35; also Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30. So also Luke and therefore Q. Note the (Semitic?) solecism and the catchword connexion with v. 34 (‘I send to you prophets’, ‘the prophets sent’). The double vocative here adds, as Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 1:9–7:9, saw, emphasis and pathos (cf. Acts 9:4), and the divine passive (‘sent’) distinguishes the speaker (Jesus) from the sender (God). For the killing of the prophets see on 23:31, and for stoning (see on 21:35) note Jn 8:59 (Jesus); Acts 7:59 (Stephen); Heb 11:37 (OT heroes); 4 Baruch 9 (Jeremiah); Josephus, Ant. 4:22 (Moses); b. Sanh. 43a (Jesus); Exod. Rab. on 6:13 (Moses). The Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20–2 (cf. 5:35) was stoned, and this fact enhances narrative continuity. Manson, Sayings, pp. 126–7, rightly observing that Jewish tradition does not place many executions of prophets in Jerusalem, suggested that the present participles may mean ‘ever ready to slay and stone’. This is probably correct, although we observe that in our Gospel ‘all Jerusalem’ has been complicit in the slaughter of infants (2:1–12), has sent Pharisees to oppose Jesus, and has been predicted as the place of the Messiah’s execution (16:21; 20:17–18). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 3:320)

 

 

Jesus speaks first of what the inhabitants of the city have done in the past. Jerusalem is the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers (the present participles point not to an occasional aberration, but to the continuing practice). (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992], 590-91)

 

 

Poured out has sometimes been rendered “shed” (for example, Brc). Whichever expression is used, the readers must understand that it refers to death. (Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 805)

 

 

My blood: see Lv 17:11 for the concept that the blood is “the seat of life” and that when placed on the altar it “makes atonement.” Which will be shed: the present participle, “being shed” or “going to be shed,” is future in relation to the Last Supper. (Donald Senior, John J. Collins, and Mary Ann Getty, eds., The Catholic Study Bible, 2 vols. (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2:1391)

 

Joseph Symes (non-LDS) on the Book of Mormon in "The Best Attested of All Bibles"

  

THE BEST ATTESTED OF ALL BIBLES

 

[The Liberator is the title of a journal published in Melbourne, Australia, Joseph Symes being the editor. He is a skeptic in religious matters. The following occupied a page in recent issue of his paper.]

 

The Book of Mormon is the best attested of all holy books or Bibles. I may go further and say that it is the only Bible that is attested at all, except perhaps the Koran. I must explain. . . .

 

[Then follows the story of the first vision and the coming of Moroni]

 

The story told above is thoroughly consistent with itself, and in perfect keeping with the leading doctrines of the Bible. No Christian can consistently refuse to credit it.

 

2. It is quite likely that God should reveal himself on plates of metal as on tablets of stone; to Joseph Smith as to Moses; in America as in Western Asia. Here the plates are described; the stones Moses received are nowhere described. Here dates are given; in the Bible important and necessary dates are never given.

 

3. As no one knows what the Urim and Thummim was, no one can prove that Joseph Smith’s description and use of it are incorrect or improbable. To his positive and detailed statement, what can the Christian oppose?

 

4. It must be admitted that the world needed a divine revelation in Smith’s day quite as much as it ever did; and therefore a compassionate God was as likely to reveal himself to Mr. Smith as to Mr. Moses, Mr. Isaiah, etc. In the next place let us see what others relate to Mr. Smith’s book.

 

[Here follows the testimony of the three and the eight witnesses.]

 

I ask, what would the Jew or the Christian not give to have his Bible attested in the above manner?

 

Of course, the impartial skeptic attaches no importance whatsoever to religious testimony or to Spiritualistic testimony or to Theosophic testimony.

 

But here we find a number of men who produce and publish a wonderful book; the publication of which is followed by cruel persecution against Smith, and his friends, and the most astounding social and commercial development of our century. This is not a tale of past ages the records of which have gone through many vicissitudes, and were written we know not when or by whom; but a contemporary development. Men are yet living who were born before Joseph Smith; scores possibly still live who remember him. His work and that of his followers is in full life and vigor in Utah; and the Mormon missionaries are in many lands.

 

I am no friend to Mormonism — except in so far as it is a system of industry and progress. But I submit the Book of Mormon as the best attested Bible in the world, that the Jewish-Christian Bible has no evidence at all in comparison with it. (Joseph Symes, “The Best Attested of All Bibles,” repr. Deseret Weekly 53, no. 6 [July 25, 1896]: 20, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

Strack and Billerbeck on "Blood of the Covenant" Originally Referring to the blood of circumcision

  

Ordinarily “blood of the covenant” דם ברית was understood to refer to the blood of circumcision.

 

Jerusalem Talmud Yebamot 8.9A.5: Whoever has pulled forth the foreskin (and thus made his circumcision unrecognizable), whoever is born circumcised and whoever had himself circumcised before his conversion to Judaism, one must make the blood of the covenant drip from him (by cutting into the site of circumcision). R. Simeon b. Eleazar (ca. 190) taught, “The schools of Shammai and Hillel were not of different opinions about the fact that one must make the blood of the covenant drip from one who is born circumcised, because his foreskin is pressed down. They were of different opinions concerning the proselyte who converts to Judaism already circumcised; for the school of Shammai said that one must make the blood of the covenant drip from him, whereas the school of Hillel said that one did not have to do this.”—Parallel passages include t. Šabb. 15.9 (133); y. Šabb. 19.17A.39; b. Šabb. 135A; b. Yebam. 71A; Gen. Rab. 46 (29B). (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], 1:1140)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 96: Jeff Bradshaw on "Not By Bread Alone: Stories of Saints in Africa"

 

Episode 96: Jeff Bradshaw on "Not By Bread Alone: Stories of Saints in Africa"

Mike Thomas Fails Again on Sola Scriptura

In a recent blog post, Mike Thomas addressed Latter-day Saints and modern translations of the Bible. This is not his first attempt at this; see Latter-day Saints and the Bible. Near the end of his article, Thomas wrote that:

 

The words of Martin Luther in 1521 at the Diet of Worms reflect the authority every Christian should recognise in the Bible. The Reformers’ emphasis on the authority of the Bible, often sealed with their martyrdom, is fundamental to our faith. The challenge of the cults should drive us back to the Word, remind us of it’s full and final authority. Mormons reading their Bibles in modern translations, their own language, give us great opportunities to open the word of God to them.

 

Couple of things:

 

1. Mike has been challenged time and time again to debate me on whether the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. He has refused to do such. Ditto for Tony Brown.

 

2. Mike has been refuted time and time again on his attacks against the Church, such as his comments (which appear in this post) on Latter-day Saint soteriology, not just his pathetic attempts to defend Sola Scriptura. For more, see here.

 

3. Luther’s comments do not speak of the Protestant belief in the “full and final authority” of the Bible. Instead, it shows that the ultimate “rule of faith” for the Protestant is their right to private interpretation. On this, as I wrote previously:

 

Functionally, the Conscience (still affected by the noetic effects of the Fall), not the Bible, is Central to Protestantism

 

Consider the following representative quotations:

 

Martin Luther, Diet of Worms (1521): “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”

 

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:184: What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.

 

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:161: Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.

 

In this light, the Protestant is only ultimately obligated to assent to any given doctrine if and only if he judges it to be “biblical.” In other words, his conscience plays the ultimate normative role. To say that some faculty functions in an ultimate sense is to say that one is bound or obligated to assent to the judgments of that faculty (here, one’s conscience) without any exceptions.

 

The Authority of the Church in the New Testament: Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem

 

The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) shows that the New Testament Church did not view Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith; instead, the authority of the Church was, alongside then-oral revelation and written revelation, equal authorities. The doctrinal decision in this Council privileged the authority of the Church. Furthermore, it is important to focus on this event as it demonstrates the distinction of different types of preaching (insider vs. outsider) as discussed above. Finally, it shows the fallaciousness of the naïve Protestant understanding and use of the so-called “Berean test.”

 

Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called. Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.

 

This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

 

In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 (LXX) in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision during the Council of Jerusalem. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes:

 

On that day I will raise up the tent of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild its things that have fallen, and I will raise up its things that have been destroyed, and I will rebuild it just as the days of the age, so that the remnant of the people, and all the nations upon whom my name was invoked upon them, will search for me,” says the Lord who is making these things. (Amos 9:11-12 | Lexham English Septuagint)

 

Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.

 

Furthermore, the text of Amos 9:11-12 is problematic. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום  Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” יירשׁו  was also misunderstood as “to seek ידרשׁו  It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).

 

An honest Protestant should ask themselves the following questions:

 

·       Could a member of the believing community object to James’ interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 using the “Berean test” and object to the Council’s decisions?

·       Could one appeal, as Luther et al., taught believers had a right to, to the internal forum of conscience, and disagree with the Council’s decree?

·       If “no,” why not?

·       Protestants functionally know the difference between outsider and insider tests of faith. Once people accepted the Gospel, they were bound to the normative authority of the apostles and the Church.

 

The Biblical authors were not "proto-Protestants" on the issue of the privileged position of the conscience (a la Luther et al); they also accepted other proximate rules of faith, not just "Scripture."

Furthermore, Mike lies through his teeth, in an attempt to piety-signal, when he wrote the following:

 

Luther stood firm before princes, popes, and emperors. For most of us it is not a stretch to know the Scripture and stand firm on its authority. By precept and example, we have opportunities to show how much a Mormon can trust the Book of books. It’s what made me a Christian.

 

In an interview with the late Doug Harris in 2008, Mike Thomas said the following about his wife's "conversion experience" to Evangelical Protestantism, which led to his embrace of such a theology:

She came along that evening [to a friend's Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an incredible experience." (8:23 mark)

In reality, Ann suffers from emotional (and probably psychological) issues, had an emotional breakdown, and violá, embraces satanic nonsense (i.e., Protestantism). I hope Mike keeps sharp objects away from her. But once they embraced Protestantism, they also embraced the clout that comes with the "counter-cult" movement. I mean, it sure beats a regular 9-to-5. It also shows that the Protestant "testimony," as seen in various creeds and other works, is "feelings, not more than feelings." But sure, let's rewrite history and engage in piety signalling.

For previous refutations of Mike Thomas and Tony Brown, see:

Listing of articles refuting Mike Thomas and Tony Brown of Reachout Trust

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., on Matthew 7:23 (cf. Matthew 25:12)

 

23. The confession of the false prophets turns out to be nothing but air; and their words are blown away by the curt response of the one they have called ‘Lord’.

 

καὶ τότε ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς. This redactional line serves to introduce a phrase taken from Ps 6:9. Lk 13:27, which must be closer to Q (see Jeremias, Lukasevangelium, p. 233; Gundry, Commentary, p. 132), reads, ‘And he will say, “I tell you, I do not know (οἶδα) where you come from” ’. Matthew prefers a word stronger than ἐρῶ (so Luke), and he chooses ὁμολογέω because of its solemnity, public character, and legal sense (which connotes irreversibility); its use in the judgement scene of Mt 10:32 may also have been a factor (cf. Rev 3:5). The use of the third person αὐτοῖς (‘I will confess to them’) serves to differentiate the false prophets from Matthew’s readers. Matthew is, after all, not concerned with correcting the false prophets but with giving the true sheep a warning. As for the use of the second person just four words later (‘I never knew you’), this creates a contrast with the threefold σῷ of the false prophets in 7:22. Note also that Matthew has changed the tense: ‘I do not know’ (perfect with present sense) has become ‘I never knew you’. The change was probably made so that 7:23a would cover the protracted period of ministry presupposed by 7:22.

 

‘I never knew you’ (cf. 25:12, also in a judgement scene) is not to be taken literally. How could the judge of the earth do right if he knew nothing of those who stood before him? And how could God lack knowledge of any individual? ‘I never knew you’ is a formula of renunciation and means, ‘I never recognized you as one of my own’ (cf. Amos 3:2; Jn 10:14; 1 Cor 8:3; 2 Tim 2:12, 19). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 1:717, emphasis added)

 

R. C. H. Lenski on Matthew 25:12 (cf. Matthew 7:23)

  

12) Here the reality begins. Jesus speaks as the great Bridegroom, “Amen, I say to you,” verity and authority, see 5:18. He has again pictured his Parousia. It will take place as here described. Many carelessly let the day of grace pass by until it is too late. In ὑμῖν and ὑμᾶς the parabolic language is still retained. But while these pronouns refer to the foolish virgins they are now quite transparent because Jesus introduces himself into the parable. “I do not know you,” like, “I never knew you” in 7:23, completely disowns. Here the verb is οἶδα, in 7:23 it was ἔγνω, but the sense is the same, but the former says more; not only, “I have no relation to you,” but, “You have no relation to me.” C.-K. 388. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 970, emphasis in bold added)

 

The Earliest Known Use of the Word "Evangelist" Outside of the Bible

In his article, “Word Studies from the New Testament,” Ensign (January 1995), John W. Welch wrote that:

 

. . . the earliest known use of the word euangelistes (“you-ON-gell-is-TAYS”) outside the Bible is of considerable interest to Latter-day Saints. It was found in a Greek inscription on the island of Rhodes; it appears to be a burial inscription of a high priest who functioned in a temple of Apollo. Most scholars who have studied this fragmentary text have concluded that this priest was called a euangelistes because he was “the deliverer of oracular sayings” to individuals who typically came seeking prophetic information from Apollo about their personal lives.

 

In note 4, he references the following:

 

Albrecht Dietrich, “Euangelistes,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900): 336–37; see also Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967), 2:736–37.

 

Not knowing German, I ran the Dietrich article through a machine translation. I have TDNT on Logos, so am sharing with those who are interested in this claim by Welch:

 

Albrecht Dietrich, “Euangelistes,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900): 336–38

 

Fragliche Spuren des Urchristentums auf den griechischen Inseln hat oben S. 87 ff. H. Achelis behandelt. Er nennt die auf S. 88 abgedruckte Inschrift aus Rhodos in Hiller v. Gärtringens (Inschriften der griechischen Inseln I 1, No. 675) selbst die interessanteste und wichtigste dieser Gruppe. Ich vermute, dass man bei ihr die Spur des Christentums für am sichersten ausgewiesen halten und eilend gewichtige Schlüsse ziehen wird. Deshalb sei mir, so wenig ich die oben angeregten Fragen überzeugend zu beantworten mich anheischig mache, eine kurze Warnung gestattet.

 

Dass der christliche εὐαγγελιστής im Beginn seiner Grabschrift Δάφνας καὶ θεοῦ ἀρχιερεύς genannt werde, ist strikt unmöglich. Nicht dass er es gewesen wäre, ist unmöglich, sondern dass man es dem Christen auf den Grabstein geschrieben haben sollte. Deshalb hilft die Erinnerung an den früheren Kybelepriester Montanus gar nichts. Achelis fühlt ja selbst, dass der Vorwurf der Gegner des Montanus in unserem Falle nichts erklären kann. Hier ist jedes Parlamentieren ausgeschlossen.

 

Leider scheint die dritte Zeile der Inschrift unrettbar verstümmelt zu sein. Dagegen ist in der sechsten Zeile jenes ὉΡΟΣ εὐαγγελιστής nicht etwa ὁ ἱερός εὐαγγελιστής oder dergleichen zu lesen, sondern ὁ ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής.

 

Man weiss, dass ein Gott und ein Heros Εὐάγγελος von Griechen mannigfach verehrt wurde. Man mag die Belege bei Usener in den Götternamen S. 268 ff. nachlesen. An die Angabe des Hesychios Εὐάγγελος · ὁ Ἐρμής, den angelus bonus der Vibiakatakombe, den Heros Εὐάγγελος in Ephesos und den Monat Εὐάγγελιoς in Smyrna möchte ich erinnern, besonders aber an den Εὐάγγελος, der als Stammvater des Priestergeschlechts der Εὐαγγελίδαι am Branchidenheiligtum bei Milet galt, der wie ein Göttersohn aufwuchs und „Verkündiger der Orakelsprüche“ wurde: ποιεῖται

 

δε αὐτὸν ὁ Βράχος καὶ ἄγγελον τῶν μαντευμάτων Εὐάγγελον ὀνομασας (Konon fab. No. 44). Ich füge hinzu, dass in einem inschriftlichen Inventar des Heraions zu Samos (Carl Curtius, Inschriften und Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, Lübecker Progr. 1877, Z. 21 u. Z. 37, U. Köhler, Athenische Mitteilungen VII 370) zu lesen steht κρήδευμα ἐπτά· τούτων ἐν ἣ Εὐαγγελίς ἔχει und κηθῶνες δύο ἔνδυτα τῆς Εὐαγγελίδος. Ich glaube nicht, dass es sich, wie Maass, Indogerm. Forschungen I 162, meint, um eine Statue der Εὐάγγελις handelt, wie eine solche des Hermes dort stand, sondern dass es der Amtsname der Orakelpriesterin war, der jene Inventarstücke zukamen.

 

Glaubt man noch, dass das Wort εὐαγγελιστής „das Christentum“ der Inschrift beweisen könne? Jene Zeugnisse stammen alle aus Kleinasien und den vorgelagerten Inseln und ich will beifügen, dass die Belege für den parallelen Ἀγαθὸς ἐὐάγγελος und Ἀγαθὸν ἐὐάγγελος ebenfalls alle nach Karien, Smyrna, jedenfalls Kleinasien weisen (die Belege bei Usener a. a. O.).

 

Dass ein Oberpriester „der Daphne und des Gottes“ als Εὐαγγελιστής heroisiert wird, hat nichts Unwahrscheinliches mehr. Von Daphne wird erzählt, dass sie in Delphi Orakel verfasst habe, aus denen auch Homer geschöpft haben solle; sie sei die Tochter des Teiresias gewesen und auch Sibylle benannt worden (Diodor IV 66). Man weiss, dass die Tochter des Teiresias sonst Manto heisst, die das berühmte Apollonorakel von Klaros gestiftet haben sollte, ja, die geradezu zur typischen vorderasiatischen Sibylle geworden ist. Ich weiss nicht, warum Achelis von dem Oberpriester in Daphne spricht und vom Heiligtum des Apollo in Daphne vor den Thoren von Antiocheia. Unseres Oberpriesters Cult war der der Daphne und des Gottes, der in diesem Falle natürlich Apollon war. Wir können von diesem doch wohl rhodischen Heiligtum — in Rhodos wurde Apollon viel verehrt, auch ein Ἀπόλλων Πύθιος (s. I. Gr. Ins. Nr. 25, 67 und den Index) — nichts sagen, so viel ich weiss, als dass, dass es vermutlich ein apollinisches Orakelheiligtum war, in dem neben Apollon Daphne eine noch viel grössere Rolle spielte als Manto im analogen Orakelcult von Klaros. Unser ἀρχιερεύς wird der „Verkündiger der Orakelsprüche“ gewesen sein.

 

Dass er unter besonderem Namen heroisiert wird, ist nichts merkwürdiges. Ich will nicht auf den Aristomachos zurückgreifen, den man in Marathon als ἥρως ἰατρός verehrte, oder den Sophokles, der zum ἥρως Δεῖτωρ wurde; die Beispiele aus späterer Zeit, die etwa, um ein Beispiel zu nennen, Xenophon, der Arzt des Kaisers Claudius, auf Kos als ἥρως εὐεργέτης verehrt wurde, sind deutlich genug, um den ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής verständlich zu machen.

 

Wenn der Orakelpriester eines Cultes, der analog demjenigen war, den das Priestergeschlecht der Εὐαγγελίδαι verwaltete, heroisiert wird als ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής, wenn er nur mittels einer andern Weiterbildung des in jenen Gegenden Kleinasiens heimischen Gottes- und Heroennamens Εὐάγγελος benannt wird, will man dann wirklich die Grabschrift eines urchristlichen Evangelisten zu besitzen glauben, „bis etwa ein heidnischer Evangelist nachgewiesen ist“? Aber warten wir, was sie dort aus der Erde graben werden, wo das Christentum zuerst griechisch redete. Auch die neue „heidnische“ Inschrift stammt aus Kleinasien, in der es vom Geburtstag des σωτήρ Augustus heisst ἦρξεν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τῶν δι' αὑτὸν εὐαγγελίων.

 

English Translation:

 

Questionable traces of early Christianity on the Greek islands have been treated above (pp. 87 ff.) by H. Achelis. He calls the inscription printed on p. 88 from Rhodes in Hiller v. Gärtringens (Inschriften der griechischen Inseln I 1, No. 675) itself the most interesting and most important of this group. I suspect that with this inscription one will consider the trace of Christianity as most securely demonstrated and will hastily draw weighty conclusions. Therefore, although I am not so forward as to pretend convincingly to answer the questions raised above, allow me a brief warning.

 

That the Christian εὐαγγελιστής at the beginning of his epitaph should be called Δάφνας καὶ θεοῦ ἀρχιερεύς is strictly impossible. It is not impossible that he was such a person, but it is impossible that one should have inscribed that on the Christian's tombstone. Hence the recollection of the earlier Cybele-priest Montanus helps nothing. Achelis himself feels that the charge of Montanus' opponents explains nothing in our case. Here any bargaining is out of the question.

 

Unfortunately the third line of the inscription seems irretrievably mutilated. By contrast, in the sixth line that ὉΡΟΣ εὐαγγελιστής is not to be read as ὁ ἱερός εὐαγγελιστής or something of the sort, but as ὁ ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής.

 

One knows that a god and a hero Εὐάγγελος were worshipped by the Greeks in many ways. One may consult the evidences in Usener's Die Götternamen, p. 268 ff. I would recall Hesychius' note Εὐάγγελος · ὁ Ἐρμής, the angelus bonus of the Vibia catacomb, the Heros Εὐάγγελος in Ephesus and the month Εὐάγγελιoς in Smyrna, and especially the Εὐάγγελος who was regarded as the ancestor of the priestly family of the Εὐαγγελίδαι at the Branchidae sanctuary near Miletus, who grew up like a son of the gods and became the "proclaimer of the oracle-sayings": ποιεῖται

 

δε αὐτὸν ὁ Βράχος καὶ ἄγγελον τῶν μαντευμάτων Εὐάγγελον ὀνομασας (Konon fab. No. 44). I add that in an epigraphic inventory of the Heraion at Samos (Carl Curtius, Inschriften und Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, Lübecker Progr. 1877, Z. 21 u. Z. 37; U. Köhler, Athenische Mitteilungen VII 370) one reads κρήδευμα ἐπτά· τούτων ἐν ἣ Εὐαγγελίς ἔχει and κηθῶνες δύο ἔνδυτα τῆς Εὐαγγελίδος. I do not believe, as Maass (Indogerm. Forschungen I 162) supposes, that this is a statue of the Εὐάγγελις, like a statue of Hermes which stood there, but that it was the official title of the oracle-priestess to whom those inventory-items belonged.

 

Does one still believe that the word εὐαγγελιστής could prove "Christianity" in the inscription? Those testimonies all come from Asia Minor and the offshore islands, and I will add that the attestations for the parallel Ἀγαθὸς εὐάγγελος and Ἀγαθὸν εὐάγγελος likewise all point to Caria, Smyrna, in any case Asia Minor (the evidence is in Usener, loc. cit.).

 

That a high priest "of Daphne and of the god" is heroized as Εὐαγγελιστής is no longer improbable. It is told of Daphne that she composed oracles at Delphi, from which even Homer is said to have drawn; she was said to be the daughter of Teiresias and was also called a Sibyl (Diodorus IV 66). One knows that the daughter of Teiresias is elsewhere called Manto, who is said to have founded the famous Apollonian oracle of Klaros, indeed who has become almost the typical Near-Eastern Sibyl. I do not know why Achelis speaks of the high priest at Daphne and of the sanctuary of Apollo at Daphne before the gates of Antioch. Our high priest's cult was that of Daphne and of the god, who in this case of course was Apollo. We cannot say much about this probably Rhodian sanctuary — on Rhodes Apollo was much worshipped, also an Ἀπόλλων Πύθιος (see I. Gr. Ins. Nos. 25, 67 and the index) — as far as I know, except that it was presumably an Apollonian oracle-sanctuary in which Daphne, alongside Apollo, played an even larger role than Manto did in the analogous oracle-cult of Klaros. Our ἀρχιερεύς will have been the "proclaimer of the oracle-sayings."

 

That he is heroized under a special name is not surprising. I will not go back to Aristomachos, whom one worshipped at Marathon as ἥρως ἰατρός, or to Sophokles, who became ἥρως Δεῖτωρ; the later examples, which — to give one example — Xenophon, the physician of the emperor Claudius, was worshipped on Cos as ἥρως εὐεργέτης, are clear enough to make ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής intelligible.

 

If the oracle-priest of a cult, which was analogous to that administered by the priestly family of the Εὐαγγελίδαι, is heroized as ἥρως εὐαγγελιστής, if he is called by a further development of the god- and hero-name Εὐάγγελος native to those districts of Asia Minor, should one then really believe that one possesses the epitaph of an early-Christian evangelist, "until perhaps a pagan evangelist is proved"? But let us wait and see what they will dig up out of the ground where Christianity first spoke Greek. The new "pagan" inscription also comes from Asia Minor, in which it reads of the birthday of the σωτήρ Augustus: ἦρξεν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τῶν δι' αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίων.

 

The following is from Gerhard Friedrich, “Εὐαγγελίζομαι, Εὐαγγέλιον, Προευαγγελίζομαι, Εὐαγγελιστής,” TDNT 2:736-37:

 

εὐαγγελιστής.

 

Except in ecclesiastical literature this is a rare word. In a non-Christian sense it is attested only on a poorly preserved inscr, from Rhodes, IG, XII, 1,675, 6, where it means “one who proclaims oracular sayings.”

 

It occurs only 3 times in the NT: at Ac. 21:8 of Philip (cf. 8:4f., 12, 35, 40); at Eph. 4:11 of evangelists along with apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers; and at 2 Tm. 4:5 of Timothy (cf. 1 Th. 3:2; Phil. 2:22). The number of evangelists must have been greater than one might suppose from the number of occurrences in the NT (Phil. 4:3; 2 C. 8:18; Col. 1:7; 4:12). The NT evangelist is not one who declares oracles as among the Greeks. He is the מְבַשֵּׂד, the one who proclaims the glad tidings, the εὐαγγέλιον (R. 10:15 → 719). εὐαγγελιστής originally denotes a function rather than an office, and there can have been little difference between an apostle and an evangelist, all the apostles being evangelists (→ 733). On the other hand, not all evangelists were apostles, for direct calling by the risen Lord was an essential aspect of the apostolate. In all three NT passages the evangelists are subordinate to the apostles. Philip is a supervisor of alms (Ac. 6), not an apostle. In his missionary work in Samaria he preaches and baptises, but the baptised receive the Spirit only through the prayer of the apostles Peter and John (Ac. 8:14 f.). In Eph. 4:11 the evangelists are mentioned only after the apostles. Timothy is called a σύνεργος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in Th. 3:2, but he is a pupil of the apostles rather than an apostle (→ 733). The evangelists continue the work of the apostles. They are not just missionaries, for, as εὐαγγέλιον is congregational as well as missionary preaching (→ 734), so the leader of the community can also be called εὐαγγελιστής (2 Tm. 4:5). His task is κηρὐύσσειν τὸν λόγον (2 Tm. 4:2).

 

In the early Church the evangelists were regarded as successors of the apostles. Eus. Hist. Eccl., V, 10, 2: ἦσαν εἰς ἔτι τότε πλείους εὐαγγελισταὶ τοῦ λόγου, ἔνθεον ζῆλον ἀποστολικοῦ μιμήματος συνεισφέρειν ἐπʼ αὐξήσει καὶ οἰκοδομῇ τοῦ θείου λόγου προμηθούμενοι. They lay θεμελίους τῆς πίστεως and the → ποιμένες appointed by them continue the work in the respective congregations, Eus. Hist. Eccl., III, 37, 2 f. In accordance with the development of εὐαγγέλιον (→ 735), εὐαγγελιστής has also the sense of “author of a Gospel,” Hipp. De Antichristo, 56; Tertullian Adversus Praxean, 21, 23. The two senses are found alongside one another.