Martin C. Albl on the use of Micah 5:2 (LXX/Hebrew: 5:1) in Matthew 2:6 (cf. 2 Samuel 5:2)

  

Matthew’s text of Mic 5:1 (5:2 ET) differs strongly from both the MT and the LXX (which essentially follows the MT). Matthew’s reading shortens the text (e.g., by dropping the reference to Ephraim); explicitly denies the plain meaning of the first phrase of the LXX and MT ("you are too small"/"[you are] small" is replaced by "you are by no means the least"); and άρχων (מושׁל) is replaced by ήγούμενος. The quotation's intent is plain: a tendentious insistence on the importance of Bethlehem as the birthplace of the ruler. The addition of a phrase from 2 Sam 5:2 (referring to David's rule over Israel) emphasizes the point that this ruler is to be Davidic.

 

The most likely life-setting for this quotation is within early Christian apologetical attempts to prove that Jesus is the messiah born in Bethlehem. This scenario is explicitly played out in John 7:40-42, where "the crowd" debates whether the messiah could come from Galilee, when scripture indicates that he must come from Bethlehem. While the current form of the Matthew quotation is most likely due to Christian adaptation, it is possible that our text is originally a Jewish messianic composition.

 

The accompanying story (Matt 2:1-12) of the visit of the magi can hardly have been developed out of the Micah/2 Samuel composite quotation-the quotation touches only one detail of the narrative. The quotation, then, was put together independently from the narrative. For Brown, this independence indicates that Matthew himself has added the quotation. This may well be true, but we must ask further: where did Matthew get the quotation? If Matthew was simply seeking a proof-text to illustrate the story of the magi, it makes little sense that he would go to the trouble of altering Mic 5:1 and adding 2 Sam 5:2 for good measure. Lindars rightly sees this as a product of pre-Matthean apologetic activity, but his model of oral tradition cannot explain the complex conflated text: the likeliest possibility is that Matthew drew on a written testimonia source compiled to prove that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

 

The Mic 5:1/2 Sam 5:2 conflation occurs in the later testimonia tradition (Justin 1 Apol. 34.1; Dial. 78.1; Irenaeus Proof 63). The exact correspondence of these quotations with Matthew’s however, shows that Justin and Irenaeus were simply copying Matthew’s text. (Martin C. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot be Broken”: The Form and Function of Early Christian Testimonia Collections [Supplements to Novum Testamentum 156; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 182-84)

 

Open Debate Challenge to Adam O’Flynn

As Adam ("The Christian Warner") is making all the excuses in the book, here is another public challenge to debate.

 

Thesis: “The Book of Abraham is a 19^th-century translation of an Ancient Text”

 

I will affirm; he will deny.

 

It will follow the same structure as my debate against Kelly Powers:

 

Opening: 20 mins each

Rebuttal: 10 mins each

Cross-Ex: x4 questions each: 1 min to ask; 2 mins to respond; 1 min to counter (as I doubt he will be able to stay on topic)

Closing: 5 or 7 mins each (depending on time remaining)

 

Adam: The ball is in your court.  I destroyed you once; I will happily destroy you again. But to sweeten the deal, you can have as many people on your team as possible. You will need all the help in the world.

 

Robert Boylan

ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Now Adam is in a precarious position:

(1) He can accept this debate challenge, but it is one he will lose. I really doubt he has studied issues such as Book of Abraham onomasticon, nor does he have any personal friends or former work colleagues who have PhDs in Egyptology who can review his materials prior to any debate.

(2) He can reject this debate challenge, but this only proves he is a coward.

(3) He can ignore this, but this only shows he knows, in his heart of hearts, he would be eviscerated in a moderated debate. He has already been destroyed by Omner, another Latter-day Saint, so much so that he had to take down the full video.

Be sure to remind Adam of this every time he has a stream//you see him elsewhere online.

Stephen Boyce on Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 3:2 and Luke 24:39

Ignatius to Smyrnaeans 3:2 Λάβετε ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον

 

“Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit..”

 

ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα (Lk. 24:39 NA28)

 

Agreement: Although Ignatius paraphrases the event in his own words he clearly anchors the account in the Gospel of Luke. The narrative framework and key elements demonstrate that Luke’s Gospel is the source being recalled.

 

Disagreement: A striking variation appears at the conclusion of the passage when compared with Luke. Luke employs the standard term πνεῦμα meaning spirit whereas Ignatius reshapes the imagery by using the phrase δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον meaning a ghostly or incorporeal evil spirit.

 

There is no manuscript evidence to support this wording in the Lukan text. Rather Ignatius appears to be interpreting and expanding upon the disciples initial reaction within his paraphrase of the scene. This creative reexpression reflects theological explanation rather than textual dependence. (Stephen Boyce, “The Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary, 2021], 176-77)

On the significance of this interpretation of Luke 24:39 for Latter-day Saints, see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Mauro Gagliardi (RC) on Thomas Aquinas's Denial of the Immaculate Conception of Mary

 Commenting on STh., III q.27 a.2:

 

Art. 2: Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

 

By “animation” we mean the infusion of the soul into the body. At the time of St. Thomas, the Church had not yet dogmatically defined Mary’s Immaculate Conception, a definition that would not occur until 1854. Aquinas, nonetheless, mentions the fact that several Churches were already celebrating a feast of Our Lady’s conception in his time, which suggests a sanctification of Mary at conception.

 

The more precise question, however, is: Was Mary sanctified in the body before her soul was infused into it by God? St. Thomas answers no, because sanctification understood as purification from Original Sin is the work of grace, and grace is given to the rational creature. If, however, a body is not yet animated by a rational soul, we are not in the presence of a rational creature. On this we can agree with the stance of St. Thomas.

 

On the contrary, it is impossible to follow him on what he adds: “if the soul of the Blessed Virgin had not been infected by Original Sin, Christ would lose the dignity of being the universal Saviour of all. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin’s need to be saved. For Christ did not in any way contract Original Sin but was holy in His own conception . . . On the contrary, the Blessed Virgin contracted Original Sin but was cleansed of it before she came forth from the womb. (Mauro Gagliardi, The Mystery of Christ our Savior: The Person, Life, and Redemption of Jesus According to St. Thomas Aquinas [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2025], 144)

 

 

The dogma defined by the Church teaches otherwise, namely, that Mary never contracted Original Sin. It remains, nevertheless, that Christ is the Savior also of Mary, as in her the salvation of her Son acted in a preventive way, not by purifying the sin contracted but by preventing Mary from being stained by it. This is one of the very rare cases in which the Angelic Doctor made a serious mistake. He, however, unlike us, had not been instructed in this regard by magisterial dogma. (Ibid., 144 n. 87)

 

Stephen Boyce on the Use of Tobit 12:9 in Polycarp to the Philippians 10:2b

  

10:2b quia eleëmosyna de morte liberat

 

“…alms delivers from death.”

 

quoniam elemosyna a morte liberat (Tobit 12:9 VUL)

 

Agreement: There are multiple factors that support the conclusion that Polycarp was referencing the deuterocanonical book of Tobit. The closeness of the wording makes the possibility of such a connection difficult to dismiss.

 

Disagreement: Although the evidence for dependence on Tobit is strong there are minor spelling differences between the texts. As noted previously this comparison involves translations of the original Greek and such orthographic variation should therefore be expected. It is also possible that Polycarp was citing the passage from memory as he does elsewhere rather than copying it directly from a manuscript. (Stephen Boyce, “The Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary, 2021], 212)

 

Adam-God Draft Notes CR 100 317 April 4, 1860

 [Brigham speaking]

 

. . . no matter whether I am right or wrong or Joseph we must yield our opinion or judgment to the man ordained to lead the church these are not the premises to reason from it is not the retraction or reading Brother Orson put out demands I have been patient I call you to witness although I knew many of them to be false and others I don’t believe it is my business to talk about I have said it to brother Orson you know I can’t comprehend that knowing [ever/here?] while we are in the flesh and comprehend organization of first Deity anything to do with it. My belief is that you and I don’t know anything about it is what I said a great many times to you . . . (“Orson Pratt, 4 April 1860, before Brigham Young and the Twelve, page 6,” Church History Catalog, CR 100 317)

 

 

 

. . . there has been preached in public and also been published in the sermons of Brother Young that Adam is the father of spirits and the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ [of] the spirits of all men upon the earth as well as the Father of body of our Savior I think these principles have been intimated when I read the revelations that were given to Joseph I read directly to the contrary in my estimation according to my views [on the] subject I read in the revelations given to Enoch that he called upon the people to repent and spoke of a record that was given of the first ministration to Adam that the Lord spoke to Adam and told Adam he had an Only Begotten Son which was Jesus Christ who should come in meridian [of] time here were 3 personages one Adam another was the Father and another was the Son all 3 spoken of the person speaking to Adam had a Son Jesus Christ which he said should come in the meridian of time consequently Adam could not be the Father of Jesus Christ unless he had two Fathers that is one point this is why I differ from Brother Young and why these things make the impression upon my mind and the difficulty in bringing my judgment to coincide with Brother Young’s . . . (“Orson Pratt, 4 April 1860, before Brigham Young and the Twelve, page 19,” Church History Catalog, CR 100 317)

 

 

 

 

 . . . there this principle saying it so fully established and established in six or 8 sermons of Brother Young and immediately found the doctrine disapprobated I corrected them . . . (“Orson Pratt, 4 April 1860, before Brigham Young and the Twelve, page 22,” Church History Catalog, CR 100 317)

 

 

 

. . . if I prefer a charge against you you have as many to prefer against me and there is only one thing I might regard and I did at time though you may take it believe it or not as I did plurality who was preaching the doctrine of Adam being our Father to my personal positive knowledge that was Joseph’s doctrine and what he believed you perhaps never heard him say it but I have and so did Brother Kimball and Willard Richards that that was his belief and what he knew and he said that every one of us that kept the celestial law would be Adams too that was Joseph’s doctrine and as for Adam’s being made like an adobe it is the height of nonsense and I tell you where I had a revelation as much as any man ever lived on this earth it was when we was in Luke Johnson’s room when the power came upon us so that it raised the neighborhood they felt it all over the neighborhood like the earth quake and there I told the story that you and I if faithful we be Adam and before it we get a resurrected body then we was capable of commencing the work in spirit and it takes a natural body to beget a natural body you recollect that revelation [to night/but not?] [true?] Woodruff George A and you recollect it raised the whole neighborhood the shake of power of God that came on the neighborhood when a man gets his celestial glory and is crowned with crowns of glory immortality and eternal lives he has not yet the power to beget a body but he begets spirits but those are born in the eternities of the Gods and when he has the privilege by his Dictator you may have the privilege of forming a world he goes there and puts every seed and animal upon it places every creature there is in the earth under the earth throughout the earth and upon the earth that flies in the heavens swims in the water is placed by that Creator and he is called in the endowment Michael . . . (“Orson Pratt, 4 April 1860, before Brigham Young and the Twelve, pages 26-28,” Church History Catalog, CR 100 317)

 

According to a friend:

 

Due to Brigham's reference of Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards hearing the doctrine from Joseph Smith personally, I wonder if what happened here was that Joseph said something to them about progressing onto future worlds as Adams, in connection with the principles of the Endowment ceremony. And furthermore, it seems plausible that he made private remarks to them about the Ancient of Days in 1842, when he began teaching his Anointed Quorum about the Endowment ceremony. Willard Richards' report of the May 4, 1842 Endowment ceremony seems to suggest such teachings as having taken place (see DHC 5:1-2).

 

 

Stephen Boyce on the Relationship Between Didache 8:2 and Matthew 6:9-13

  

Did. 8:2b οὕτω προσεύχεσθε· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον, καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς οφειλέταις ἡμῶν, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ· ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

 

“…thus pray ye: Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth; give us our daily bread; and forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.”

 

9 Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου

10 ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς

11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον

12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν

13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. (Matt. 6:9-13 NA28)

 

 

9 Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου.

10 Ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου. Γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

11 Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον.

12 Καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν.

13 Καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. (Matt. 6:9-13 BYZ)

 

Agreement: The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that this is a direct citation of Matthew 6:9 through 13. Every element of the prayer as it appears in the Didache can be accounted for within the extant Greek manuscript tradition. It is also evident that the longer doxological ending of the prayer found in the Byzantine tradition aligns more closely with the Didache than the shorter form preserved in the critical editions.

 

Disagreement: The introductory formula to the prayer differs slightly in wording between Matthew and the Didache. The Didache omits the pronoun ὑμεῖς which may be implied from context as well as the conjunction οὖν meaning then. Additionally Matthew employs the dative noun οὐρανοῖς in the plural whereas the Didache consistently uses the singular οὐρανῷ. This is noteworthy since the singular form of heaven is relatively uncommon in this context. However Matthew himself uses the singular later in verse 10 which corresponds with the Didache at that point. The Didache simply maintains the singular form throughout the prayer.

 

The Didache also omits the term βασιλεία meaning kingdom at the conclusion of the prayer. While it preserves the longer ending that otherwise aligns more closely with the Byzantine tradition it nevertheless lacks the kingdom clause. This omission recurs elsewhere in the text including three times in chapter nine and in partial citations in chapter ten verses four and five. Finally the Didache does not include the closing word Ἀμήν at the end of the prayer. (Stephen Boyce, “The Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary, 2021], 147-49)