Samuel W. Beal's Recollection (1938) of Church Leaders Suggsting Marriage with the Indians (April 6, 1855)

Setting: April 6, 1855, and the establishment of the Salmon River Mission by Brigham Young et al.:

 

Perhaps the most stirring bit of advice was given by Heber C. Kimball and Daniel H. Wells, when they urged the young men “to marry native women, that the marriage tie was the strongest tie of friendship that existed.” However, President Young modified this advice to the extent that they should not be in a hurry and should marry young girls if any, “because,” said he, “if brethren were to marry those old vanigadoes they would be off with the first mountaineer that came along.”

 

The suggestion that the missionaries might marry among the natives was something of an anomaly in Mormon Indian policy, and was no doubt prompted because of the isolation of the Lemhi settlement, and its consequent dependence upon the good will of the natives. Seven of the young men made overtures to the dusky maidens, but the parents “refused to let their daughters go, or at least seemed not willing.” As a result only a few such unions were consummated. (Samuel M. Beal, “The Salmon River Mission Founding of Fort Lemhi,” Deseret News, Church Section [January 1, 1938]: 5)

 

The above reminded me of the purported revelation of Joseph Smith from July 17, 1831, recorded by W. W. Phelps on August 12, 1861. On this, see:

 

Issues Concerning the Accuracy of W. W. Phelps's August 12, 1861 Recollection of a July 17, 1831 Revelation Attributed to Joseph Smith

Raymond E. Brown on the Identity of Barabbas

  

The Identity of Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Matt 27:16; Luke 23:19; John 18:40b)

 

All the Gospels agree that the Romans had in custody a prisoner named Barabbas. (The words for “prisoner” and “imprisoned” in Mark 15:6–7 are related to the verb used for Jesus’ being “bound” [deein] in 15:1—vocabulary creating an atmosphere in which “release” [apolyein: 15:6, 9, 11, 14] is very important.) Mark’s periphrastic Greek in 15:7 is somewhat awkward, literally: “But there was the one called/said to be Barabbas with the rioters imprisoned.” Gnilka (Markus 2.301) raises the possibility that if Barabbas means “son of the Father” (see analysis), Mark may mean “the one socalled Barabbas,” with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is truly “the son of the Father.” Pesch (Markus 2.463) has another possibility: The one nominated (for release) was Barabbas. Probably it is best to interpret Mark simply to refer to someone called Barabbas. We are not told whether, having been apprehended, Barabbas had already been tried and even convicted (see the two different legal situations in Matt 5:25 and 14:3).

 

There is not perfect uniformity among the Gospels as to why Barabbas had been apprehended. John simply refers to him as a lēstēs (pp. 686–88 above), one of those violent lawless men, often bandits, whom Josephus describes in Palestine in the century from Herod the Great’s reign to the Jewish Revolt. No other Gospel uses that term for him, although what they describe about him would be consonant with that description. Mark 15:27 and Matt 27:38, 44 will describe Jesus as crucified between two lēstai (plural of lēstēs); and so the evangelists have the same overall outlook on the imprisonment of lēstai at the time of Jesus’ arrest and execution, even if no evangelist explicitly connects Barabbas who was released with the other two who were crucified. Perhaps Mark prepares for the latter when he speaks of other rioters imprisoned with Barabbas (or in the Koine tradition “co-rioters” [systasiastēs]). Both Mark and Luke associate Barabbas’ arrest with a stasis (“insurrection, disturbance, riot”). Mark also uses the term stasiastēs (“rioter”), employed by Josephus (Ant. 14.1.3; #8; War 6.2.8; #157) to describe a range from a troublemaker to a rebel. Luke specifies that the stasis took place in Jerusalem. The text does not demand that we think of a widespread revolution (something not attested in Jesus’ time); a local riot may be all Mark and Luke intend. (See p. 777 above for troubles during feasts.) Mark prefaces stasis with the definite article as if it were a well-known event, but perhaps only to Christians because traditionally for them it constituted part of the context of Jesus’ passion. Both Mark and Luke indicate that killing (phonos, “murder”) had marked the riot; but neither suggests that Roman soldiers were the victims, as some scholars suppose in their attempts to make this a major insurrection.

 

As for Barabbas, although Mark does not specify that he took part in the riot or did any killing, Mark’s purpose in the scene is to contrast the release of a guilty rioter and the crucifixion of one innocent of any such political offense. Luke understood that, for he spells out the involvement of Barabbas in three passages. In 23:19 he introduces Barabbas “who was someone thrown into prison because of a certain riot that had taken place in the city and (because of) killing.” In 23:25 Luke writes that Pilate “released the one who had been thrown into prison for riot and murder.” In Acts 3:14 he bluntly calls Barabbas “a man who was a killer.” Probably independently of Mark, John’s designation of Barabbas as a lēstēs shows that in the tradition Barabbas was no innocent. (Yet John’s choice of the designation may reflect more than violence. In 10:1–2 he contrasted Jesus, the [good] shepherd of the sheep, with all others who were only lēstai. Now “the Jews” prefer a lēstes to Jesus!)

 

Interestingly, Matt does not repeat Mark’s reference to a riot, perhaps reflecting a post-Jewish-Revolt sensitivity that the memory of Jesus should not be associated even indirectly with political disturbance. But Matt does describe Barabbas as “notorious” or “notable” (episēmos). The fact that the name of Barabbas was preserved in the tradition while the names of the crucified lēstai were not could easily have led to the conclusion that he was the most famous of the troublemakers at the time of Jesus’ death and indeed the ringleader. In the rewriting of the Gospel story by Bajsić and Soltero whereby Pilate is primarily interested in executing Barabbas, the fact that Matt calls him “notorious” becomes important evidence.

 

“Barabbas” is a patronymic, i.e., a father’s name used to make a distinction among men who bear the same personal names. For instance among the many men named Jesus in 1st-cent.-ad Palestine (Josephus mentions about a dozen), the one of most interest to us would be distinguished as Jesus of/from Nazareth; and if there were several men named Jesus at Nazareth, he would be further identified as Jesus Bariōsēph (“son of Joseph”: John 1:45; 6:42). Not infrequently only the patronymic is used in a description, e.g., an 8th-cent.-bc Bar-Rekub inscription, and the NT Bartholomew and Bartimaeus. More usual is the combination of a personal name with the patronymic: Simon Barjona (Matt 16:17); Joseph Barnabas (Acts 4:36); John and James, sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19).

 

What was Barabbas’ personal name? Lesser textual witnesses to Matt read in v. 16, in v. 17, or in both, “Jesus Barabbas.” Is the name Jesus the original reading in either Matthean verse? Those who answer no (formerly the majority) point to the tendency of later generations to supply names for those left nameless by the NT (see pp. 804, 969, 1148 below). Moreover, the neat pattern in v. 17, “Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Messiah,” could reflect a copyist’s dramatic touch to heighten the parallelism of the two figures whom Pilate faced. Those who answer yes point out that over against Mark, names are sometimes added or changed in Matt (9:9: “Matthew”; 26:3, 57: “Caiaphas”).

 

Yet if the name Jesus did appear in the original text of Matt, why would later scribes have omitted it so that it is absent from many important mss.? At least in the case of v. 17 haplography has been proposed (Streeter, Metzger): namely, the omission of īn (abbreviation of lēsoun, “Jesus”) following the last syllable of hymin. More common is the suggestion that theological judgment caused deliberate excision. Ca. ad 250, and thus before all preserved Greek copies of Matthew, Origen (In Matt. 27:16–18, #121; GCS 38.255–56) argued defensively, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also called Jesus.” He insisted that it is not proper that the name of Jesus be given to an iniquitous person; and since no sinner is ever given the name Jesus elsewhere in the Scriptures, Origen thought the name might have been added to the Matthean text by heretics. Origen’s authority and attitude make it unlikely that Christian scribes of later centuries would have added “Jesus” to Barabbas’ name in Matthean mss. that lacked it. Indeed they would have been encouraged to delete it as an impiety where it already appeared. Yet probably most scholars now argue for the originality of the “Jesus Barabbas” reading in Matt, and indeed many go beyond the textual issue to assert that this represents historical tradition lacking in Mark.

 

What does “Barabbas” mean? One explanation has it reflect Bar-Rabban (a reading reflected in the “rr” spelling found in some mss.). “Rabban” was an honorific title for an eminent teacher or head of the Sanhedrin, built upon “rabbi.” The medieval Epistle of Sherira Gaon claimed that the first person to bear the title “rabban” was Gamaliel at the end of the 1st cent. ad; more frequently, however, it was applied to Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi a century later. In this same vein some have taken “Barabbas” to mean “son of the [eminent] teacher,” or even simply “teacher” (on the analogy that “son of man” means “man”). A further variant is the suggestion that in the 2d cent. bĕrabbî meant “attached to the rabbi.” In a 10th-cent. uncial ms. of the NT (S) and in about twenty minuscule mss. there appears a marginal comment: “In many ancient copies I have dealt with, I found that Barabbas himself was likewise called Jesus … apparently the paternal name of the robber was ‘Barabbas’ which is interpreted ‘son of a/the teacher.’ ” Overall, the rabban/teacher interpretation of “Barabbas” is not truly probable because of lack of proof that this title was in use in the early 1st cent., because the best attested orthography has one “r,” and also because one would expect a patronymic to contain a personal name and “rabban” is not such a name.

 

A more plausible interpretation relates “Barabbas” to “Bar-Abba” (“son of [a person named] Abba”). “Abba” appears as a personal name with frequency in the Gemara section of the Talmud (ca. ad 200–400). In TalBab Berakoth 18B we find: “ ‘I am looking for Abba.’ They said to him, ‘There are many Abbas here.’ He said, ‘I want Abba bar Abba.’ They said, ‘There are several Abbas bar Abba here.’ He then said to them, ‘I want Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel.’ ” In the same TalBab the only example of “bar Abba” as a personal name applied to a figure of the Tannaitic period before ad 200 is Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (Berakoth 48A, B). Yet “Abba” has now appeared as a name in a pre-70-ad burial at Givʿat ha-Mivtar (E. S. Rosenthal, IEJ 23 [1973], 72–81). Of course, Aramaic ʾabbāʾ means “father,” as NT authors were aware because of the usage associated with Jesus (see Mark 14:36). Accordingly some scholars think “Barabbas” did not contain a proper name but meant “son of the father.” (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], 1:796-800)

 

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)