Clyde J. Williams, "Thus We See": Teachings of Mormon

Clyde J. Williams, "Thus We See": Teachings of Mormon (Audio)

The Use of "Wherefore" in 2 Nephi 15:4 (= Isaiah 5:4) and 2 Nephi 7:2 (= Isaiah 50:2)

  

Isa 5:4 (KJV)	2 Nephi 15:4
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?	What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes.

 

 

Isa 50:2 (KJV)	2 Nephi 7:2
Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.	Wherefore when I came, there was no man; when I called, yea, there was none to answer. O house of Israel, is my hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea. I make the rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up and they dieth because of thirst.

 

In these two verses, the Book of Mormon interprets "wherefore" (Heb: מַדּוּעַ), not as an interrogative, but a conjunction. According to David P. Wright,

 

The BoM reading depends on the ambiguity or polysemy of the English “wherefore.” . . . the BoM reading uses “wherefore” as a conjunction which is not possible for Hebrew maddûa^c, which reveals the BoM’s dependence on the English text. (David P. Wright, “Joseph Smith in Isaiah: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 168)

 

While this is possible, it is also possible that an ancient scribe or interpreter would understand it to have the sense of “therefore” or be a rhetorical question.

 

What is interesting is that the LXX of Isa 5:4 interprets the passage as being indicative:

 

‎What more shall I do for my vineyard that I did not do for it? Because I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns. (Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition)

 

The Greek reads:

 

τί ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησα αὐτῷ; διότι ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν, ἐποίησε δὲ ἀκάνθας. (Göttingen)

 

The word διοτι, according to BDAG, is "1. marker of a causal connection between two statements, because" and "2. marker used to introduce an inference, therefore."

 

For a similar usage in the Hebrew is Exo 3:3:

 

And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why (מַדּוּעַ) the bush is not burnt.

 

Examples of מַדּוּעַ being used in the sense of a rhetorical question, consider the following examples:

 

Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada with the other priests and said to them, “Why (מַדּוּעַ) are you not repairing the house? Now therefore do not accept any more money from your donors but hand it over for the repair of the house. (2 Kgs 12:7 [Heb: v. 8])

 

As for me, is my complaint to man? And if it were not so, why (מַדּוּעַ) should not my spirit be troubled? (Job 21:4)

 

John H. Elliott on Various Words, Phrases, and Formulas Used by Early Christians as an Apotropaic Against the Evil Eye

  

The Speaking and Inscribing of
Potent Words, Phrases, and Formulas

 

Uttering certain powerful words, formulaic phrases, the names of God, Jesus, and the angels, liturgical expressions, and incantations were all considered by Christians as effective means for warding off or repelling the Evil Eye. Examples of such expressions also are found in written form on amulets and are presented below.

 

. . .

 

--The naming of children “Abaskantos” (“Unharmed by the Evil Eye”) and the regular speaking of that name also were deemed effective prophylaxis.

 

. . .

 

--The Chi Rho monogram is a symbol formed by the superimposition of the first two Greek letters of the name CHRistos (X + R, chi + rho). As a Christian symbol it was used widely since emperor Constantine (fourth century CE) to identify all things Chrisitan. It recalls the crucifixion of Jesus and his confession to being a king of a kingdom not of this world (John 18:36). IT also served Christians as a popular apotropaic, especially in Syria but also across the Mediterranean world including Gaul and Spain. The monogram was put over doors and windows, at entrances to churches and grave sites, on sarcophagi, on the shields of Constantine’s soldiers (where previously the crescent moon had stood to ward off the Evil Eye) and also on the helmuts of the emperor of his sons. It is on the sarcophagus of arch-bishop Theodore of Ravenna, on the columns of the Antonius and Faustina temple in Rome, and , with a Byzantine cross and Alpha and Omega, on Rome’s Porta Latina. It also appears in conjunction with other Evil Eye apotropaic symbols and inscriptions.

 

--The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and omega, appear in Rev 1:8; 21:6, and 22:18 as the letters by which God and Christ identify themselves in the book of Revelation. These letters were inscribed on parchments and papyri, on buildings (in Syria above the house portals), amulets, jewelry boxes, medallions and on bells, in the company of other anti-Evil Eye words and symbols (Meisen 1950:162).

 

--Other letters of the Greek alphabet were also used to form potent abbreviations: CH M G (= “CHrist-Michael-Gabriel,” or “Mary bore Christ” [Christon Maria Genna]). These were used for exorcistic purposes and also as protection against the Evil Eye.

 

. . .

 

--Figures of Christian crosses were inscribed on amulets, buildings, churches, sarcophagi, and tombs. Christians in Egypt removed from buildings the images of the deity Serapis (pagan protector against the Evil Eye) and replaced them with the cross of Christ.

 

. . .

 

--The names of angels (e.g., Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, also Uriel Archaf) were thought to have apotropaic power. They too were inscribed on amulets, lamina, put at thresholds and above the entrance to churches and grave sites, along with other words and symbols.

 

--Holy persons likewise were ascribed power as protective patrons against the Evil Eye. Under this heading Meisen’s illustrative list includes Solomon, Daniel in the lion’s den, the Three Young Men in the fiery furnace, the Magi at Jesus’s birth, the four Evangelists, St. Sisinnios, St. Theodore, St. John and St. Veit. Their names appear on amulets and apotropaics, often in combination with other prophylactics against the Evil Eye. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:107, 108-10)

 

John H. Elliott on the Fish (ISHTHYS) Symbol Being Used as an Apotropaic By Early Christians

  

Christians, like their neighbors, considered the fish to have apotropaic power. The individual letters of the Greek word for “fish,” ICHTHYS, also formed an acronym representing the Greek Words Iēsous Christos, THeou Yios Sôtêr (“Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”). The term ICHTHYS thus was considered an employed by Christians as a powerful apotropaic. Where found as an inscription, the acronym generally identifies distinctly Christian apotropaic and amulets. An amulet in the Berlin Bode Museum (previously the Kaiser Friedrich Museum) shows two fish under a cross. A phallus amulet shaped like a fish at one end and having its own end, a mano fica is a composite amulet, which shows even more clearly the Christian association of fish, phallus, and mano fica as related conventional designs for warding off the Evil Eye. The Christus Rex (“Christ the King”) monogram on phylacteries also was ascribed apotropaic power and marked the phylacteries as Christian. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:103)

 

John H. Elliott on the Development of the Evil Eye and Its Assocation with Demons or the Devil in the Post-Christian Period

  

It is not until the post-biblical period that Christians explicitly link the Evil Eye with an external demonic force, namely the chief of demons, the devil, or Satan. . . . The Evil Eye spoken of in the New Testament writings is a strictly human phenomenon and is regarded as part and parcel of everyday human experience and conduct. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2016], 3:113)

 

(1) In contrast to Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman sources, the biblical authors make no mention of an Evil Eye demon, a baskanos daimôn, alias the “demon of envy” (phthoneros daimôn). This Evil Eye demon was associated with Hades and, often in funerary inscriptions and tomb epitaphs, said to be responsible for the deaths of those remembered in the epitaphs. In the Bible, the Evil Eye is never presented as a demon attacking humans from without. It is rather always depicted, lamented, and warned against as a human defect arising within the human heart and communicated by an ocular glance. Only in the post-biblical period was the Evil Eye associated by the Christian communities with Satan/the Devil.

 

. . .

 

(2) The Evil Eye, furthermore, is never attributed to God, but only to humans. Israelites and Christians never attributed an Evil Eye or envy to Yahweh, in contrast to the Greeks who ascribed both to the gods. The God of Israel rather is portrayed as rescuing his favorites from the baneful effect of the Evil Eye in typically unexpected or unpredictable ways, as the stories of Joseph and David make evident. (Ibid., 279)

 

 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp—The Evil Eye and the Devil

 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 160-170 CE) is an account of the recent death of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. The details of his death, which occurred c. 155-157 CE under the Roman proconsulship of Statius Quadratus (21:1), are contained in a letter from the church of the city of Smyrna to the church of Philomelium (Prescript). Toward the end of the description of his execution and the events leading to it (chs. 3-18), the letter emphasizes the role that the Devil played in the treatment of Polycarp’s charred corpse. Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1 reads:

 

The envious (antizêlos), Evil-Eyeing (baskanos) and evil (ponêros) One [i.e. the Devil, cf. 2:4], who resists the family of the righteous ([i.e. the Christian community], however, when he saw the greatness of his [Polycarp’s] martyrdom, and his life-long blameless career, and that he [Polycarp] was crowned with the crown of immortality and had carried off the unutterable prize, he [the Devil] saw it that not even his [Polycarp’s] poor body should be carried away by us, though many desired to do this and to have a share in his holy flesh.

 

The Devil is not explicitly mentioned but is clearly implied by the epithets and the context as the transcendent agent directing the action here. An earlier passage of the letter describing the modes of torture and death used against the Christians concludes, “For the Devil used many wiles against them” (2:4). This same though of the Devil manipulating human agents appears in 17:2: “Therefore he [the Devil] put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to petition the governor not to give his [Polycarp’s] body” [to the Christians]. “The envious, Evil-Eyeing, and evil one,” the letter states, is the Devil working his malice through human hands.

 

This is the first direct Christian association of the Evil Eye with the Devil, Satan, the prince of demons. It is the beginning of a tradition that continues in Christian circles down to the present. IN this tradition, the Evil Eye, as well as envy (“through the Devil’s envy death entered the world,” Wis 2:24) are attributed to the Devil, Sata, who then infects humans and enlists them as his agents of the Evil Eye and envy. This association of the Evil Eye with the Devil has been labeled a “paradigm shift” that constitutes a distinctive Christian perspective on the subject. While a significant development, it must be pointed out, however, that this association of the Evil Eye and the Devil in particular begins not with Jesus or the writings of the New Testament, but only in the post-biblical period. Throughout the Bible, the Evil Eye is described as a human characteristic and not as a demonic external power, as it is presented in various Greek and Roman sources. This “shift” is later than the biblical writings and the nascent Jesus movement. In actuality, it represents a turning or return in the post-biblical period to the conceptuality of the pagan world and the attribution of the Evil Eye to an Evil Eye demon (baskanos daimôn).

 

This coupling of the Evil Eye and the Devil, once established in the Chrisitan communities, had a lasting influence on future generations. It set the stage for an association of the Evil Eye with heretics as well as with witches (Hexen and Hexenaguen—withces and witches’ eyes)—both classified as enemies of God and the church. Consequently in the Middle Ages, casting an Evil Eye became equated with bewitching (verhexen) as an action of the Devil and his minions operating through witches (Hexen) as human agents, accompanied by the gradual disappearance of the Greek and Latin terms baskainein and fascinare. Witchhunts included searches for possessors and wielders of an Evil Eye, now deemed a telltale and malignant feature of witches. Whereas the Greeks thought of the Evil-Eyeing envy of the gods and imagined Evil-Eyeing demons, the Christian church, demonizing the phenomenon of the Evil Eye, saw humans as under the sway of an envious Evil Eyeing Devil and as pawns of Satanic Evil eyeing malice. In this regard there was no separation of a pagan popular religiosity, on the one hand, and on the other, an enlightened Christian theology tolerant toward the relics of pagan culture. (John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 4:52-54)

 

 

Address to the Greeks

 

A further text of this early post-biblical period, the Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio ad gentiles), attributed to Justin Martyr, refers to its conclusion (ch. 38) to the Sibyl’s prediction of the coming of

 

our savior Jesus Christ who . . . restored to us the knowledge of the religious of our forefathers, which those who lived after them abandoned through the teaching of the Evil-Eyeing demon (didaskalia baskanou daimonos) and turned to the worship of those who were not gods. (Address to the Greeks 38; PG 6.307-308B)

 

Here the Greek designation for the Evil-Eyeing demon (baskanos daimôn) is used in reference to the Devil of Israelite and Christian parlance, as in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1.

 

A Christian inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Saleria, Rome, one of the largest and oldest of the catacombs, illustrates this association of the Evil Eye and the Devil. It names the Devil baskanos pikros (“spiteful fascinator/Evil-Eyer”). The catacomb was used for Christian burials from the mid-second to fourth centuries CE. (Ibid., 55)

 

Michael S. Heiser on Paul's Reference to the Idols/Gods of Deuteronomy 32:17 and Their Ontological Existence

  

Paul’s Reference to Deuteronomy 32:17

 

In 1 Cor 10:21–22, Paul is having a discussion about sacrificing to idols and eating the meat sacrificed to idols. He warns the believers there in Corinth in these two verses to avoid all of this, to avoid this meat. Why? Because you have to be careful, because if you partake of it, you enter into fellowship with demons.

 

Now, Paul believed demons were real. He’s quoting Deut 32:17 and assigning reality to the shedim, to the other elohim from these other nations that the Israelites fell into idolatry with.

So, let’s put all that together. We have a person under inspiration, the apostle Paul, quoting this passage in Deut 32, affirming that the elohim here were real; they’re real beings. Paul refers to them as demons. These beings were allotted to the other nations. These elohim allotted to the other nations are called the host of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars in Deut 4.

 

So Deuteronomy, all through the whole book (chapter 4 all the way to 32), assumes the existence, the reality, of these other gods. But it’s in that same chapter, Deut 4, where all of this starts, where this thread starts, where we have this phrase that “there is none beside me.”

 

Yahweh’s Incomparability Negates Contradiction

 

Now, if such statements like that were to telegraph the idea that these entities don’t really exist, then either Deut 32 is wrong or Paul is wrong, or both. We don’t have that problem though if we just say, “Look, statements like ‘there is none besides me’ just mean that Yahweh is incomparable. These other elohim exist; they are inferior. They are not like Yahweh. He is species unique.” There is no problem theologically if we take the verse—and not just this verse, but the whole statement found in other verses and similar statements found in many places in the Old Testament—if we just take them as statements of incomparability, we don’t have a theological contradiction. (Michael S. Heiser, Sons and Daughters of God: The Believer’s Identity, Calling, and Destiny, [Logos Mobile Education; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2019], Logos Bible Software Edition)

 

 

Paul on Deuteronomy 32:17

 

The apostle Paul quotes Deut 32:17, which calls these real spirit beings “demons.” He quotes that passage in 1 Cor 10:21–22, when he warns the Corinthians not to eat meat sacrificed to idols because they would be in fellowship with demons. “Outside the temple context,” Paul says in 1 Cor 8, “it’s okay, but when it’s connected to a temple complex, you do this, you are in fellowship with demons.” Paul took these beings, the gods of these nations, who are called shedim, translated “demons” in the OT—he took them as real entities.

 

This is part of the OT rationale for how to view reality, how to view the world. Israel was alone against the nations in part because all those nations had other gods. Initially it was because they were punished with them, because of what happened at Babel, but eventually those beings seduced the Israelites into moving away from the true God, worshiping them, and that really frames the entirety of the rest of the OT.

 

This is why there is such spiritual conflict. This is why we have apostasy. This is ultimately why we have the exile. There was a spiritual warfare going on in the OT, and it all starts with Deut 32:8–9. It is the introduction to what scholars call “cosmic geography.” Israel is Yahweh’s domain. All the other nations are under dominion of other real spiritual entities. (Michael S. Heiser, B161 Problems in the Bible Interpretation: Difficult Passages I [Logos Mobile Edition; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Byron Merrill, Moroni: The Man and the Message (Parts 1 and 2)

Byron Merrill, Moroni: The Man and the Message (Parts 1 and 2) (Audio)