Martin C. Albl on Matthew 2:23

  

The source of this quotation in the Jewish scriptures is not at all clear, and thus the quotation has been the occasion for extensive scholarly speculation. It is possible that the citation intends no one scriptural passage, but rather refers to a group of related passages. Three explanations for the term Ναζωραιος should be considered: (1) that the name derives from Nazareth; (2) that the name recalls a Nazirite (נזיר), a person consecrated to God by a vow (see Num 6:1-21; Judg 13:5-7 [Sampson]; 1 Sam 1:11 [Samuel]); and (3) that the name recalls the messianic "branch" (נצר) (see Isa 11:1). The second proposal is less likely than the others, as these scriptural passages seem to have been little used by early Christians. Given the messianic interest of the citations formulas, the best conclusion is that the quotation results from an effort to show that Jesus was the messiah by relating נצר to Nazareth, the known hometown of Jesus.

 

Matthew’s citation, then, refers primarily to a messianically understood Isa 11:1, but may also refer to related passages.

 

Again it is unlikely that Matthew is responsible for this citation. His clumsy application of the quotation—in the context, the grammatical subject of “He shall be called a Nazarene” should be Joseph!— suggests that he is taking over a source. If Matthew had chosen a proof-text himself, one would expect that he would have clearly cited the authoritative scripture from which it came. These considerations lead to the conclusion that Matthew has drawn on a collection of messianic proof-texts that had been applied to Jesus, a collection that he considered to be authoritative scripture. (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], 184-85)

 

Robert F. Smith on the 'Amida (Standing-Prayer) and the Zoramite Prayer in Alma 31

  

ˁAmida

 

The Zoramite Prayer at Alma 31:15-18; is the virtual counterpart to the important Jewish ˁAmida, "Standing-prayer"= Shemone-ˁEsre, "Eighteen" (which is similar to the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus 51:121,35, and which can be part of the “Portion of the King” at covenant renewal time — Talmud Babli Sota 7:8 [41a], Mosiah 2:7, Deut 17:14-20, II Chron 34:29-31), which contains praise, petition, and thanksgiving sections, as here (the third benediction can be expanded with a Qeduša for congregational use), and is said standing. Though the ˁAmida can be abbreviated and is normally said individually, it always uses “us, we,” and is therefore communal; when recited aloud by a reader, the congregation responds “Amen.” The ˁAmida relates directly to the form, function, and meaning of the rameumptom in Alma 31:13,21,23. As with the Muslim ˁumdan “standing” prayer at Mecca, Hajj-pilgrims stand on the Plain of Arafat with arms raised praying for repentance. Upraised hands, originally “a salute to God in his heavenly temple,” were also raised to God’s earthly sanctuary (Psalms 28:2, 134:2). (Robert F. Smith, The Metanarrative of the Book of Mormon & Associated Features [The Ethnological Foundations of the Book of Mormon 1; Provo, Utah: Deep Forest Green Books, 2026], 36)

 

Keith C. Warner on Debates Concerning Latter-day Saint Baptism among Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands During the 1920s and 1930s

  

The Baptism Controversy

 

Baptism also became an issue in newspaper debates. An article in the Nieuw Rotterdamsche Courant on February 1, 1922, described baptism by immersion and concluded that “this way of baptizing undoubtedly had a virtue that was lacking in the easier way of putting a drop of water on the forehead of the candidate.” (De Ster, XXVII [March 15, 1922])

 

In 1932, the Dutch Reformed Church weekly, the Heraut, published an article debating whether or not Mormon baptism should be recognized by the church as Christian. The writer reached a negative conclusion. A later article in the Hervormd Weekblad der Calvinistishe Kerk considered whether a Mormon could be accepted into the Dutch Reformed Church without rebaptism, concluding that if the Mormon Church were considered Christian and that the baptism were performed in the name of the Trinity, then the baptism would be valid. The author concluded that Mormon baptisms appeared to be Christian, but he dared not say that it was a Christian church. (Quarterly Report, January 31, 1932, p. 3; Quarterly Report, November 16, 1935, p. 18)

 

After 1935, favorable articles concerning baptism for the dead, the welfare plan, missionary work, genealogy, and the Church’s building program appeared periodically in newspapers and various magazines. (Keith C. Warner, History of the Netherlands Mission: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Dirk Kotter Publishing, 2026], 27-28)

 

 

Refuting Bradley Campbell's "My Top 7 Go-To Verses for Talking to Mormons"

 

Refuting Bradley Campbell's "My Top 7 Go-To Verses for Talking to Mormons"

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