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)

 

Stephen Boyce on the Use of Apocalyptic Texts in 1 Clement 34:3

  

1 Clement 34:3 Ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς (Rev. 22:12; Isa. 40:10) αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa. 62:11) ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ (Rev. 22:12) κατὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (Isa. 40:10; Rev. 22:12)

 

"Behold, the Lord comes, and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.”

 

Ἰδού, ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἔσται αὐτοῦ (Rev. 22:12 NA28)

 

ἰδοὺ κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται καὶ ὁ βραχίων μετὰ κυριείας ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ (Isa. 40:10 LXX)

 

ἰδοὺ γὰρ κύριος ἐποίησεν ἀκουστὸν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιων ἰδού σοι ὁ σωτὴρ παραγίνεται ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθὸν καὶ τὸ ἔργον πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa. 62:11 LXX)

 

Agreement: The wording of 1 Clement 34:3 resists attribution to any single biblical source, and the textual comparisons make clear that Clement is intentionally weaving together multiple scriptural traditions. The phraseology draws simultaneously from Isaiah 40:10, Isaiah 62:11, and Revelation 22:12 in a manner that cannot be explained by coincidence or by dependence on only one of these texts.

 

From Revelation 22:12, Clement shares the distinctive eschatological formulation of the Lord’s coming with recompense, particularly the clauses concerning reward (ὁ μισθός) and the rendering to each person according to works (ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ… κατὰ τὸ ἔργον). These elements are especially striking because the syntactical construction and eschatological framing align more closely with Revelation than with Isaiah alone.

 

At the same time, Clement preserves Isaianic language that Revelation itself adapts. The expression “before his face” (πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ) reflects Isaiah 62:11 rather than Revelation’s μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, while the broader conceptual framework of divine recompense coming visibly and authoritatively belongs to Isaiah 40:10. Clement’s wording therefore reflects not merely Isaiah independently, nor Revelation independently, but a convergence of both streams.

 

This is significant because Revelation 22:12 itself represents an adaption of Isaianic eschatological language. Clement’s citation appears to stand at the intersection of these traditions, suggesting either familiarity with Revelation’s formulation or access to a shared eschatological tradition already shaped by Revelation’s language. The alignment of multiple distinctive phrases across these texts makes accidental overlap implausible.

 

Equally important is Clement’s eschatological posture. He clearly presents the Lord’s coming and judgment as future events rather than realities already fulfilled. This observation directly challenges Preterist reconstructions that locate the composition and fulfillment of Revelation prior to 70 AD. If 1 Clement is rightly dated to the late first century, as is widely held, and if Clement is drawing upon Revelation-like language while still anticipating future fulfillment, then Revelation must either be contemporaneous with Clement or earlier but not understood as fulfilled.

 

Finally, the historical context strengthens this conclusion. Rome’s central position within the Christian network and its established lines of communication with the churches of Asia Minor make it entirely plausible that an early form of Revelation could have reached Clement within a short period after its circulation. Clement’s composite citation thus provides indirect but meaningful evidence for the early reception and authoritative use of Revelation in the Roman church.

 

In sum, the textual data support the conclusion that 1 Clement 34:3 is a deliberate conflation of Isaiah and Revelation, reflecting both continuity with prophetic tradition and engagement with emerging New Testament apocalyptic theology. (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], 65-68)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 103: Brian Hales on the Seer Stone Controversy

 

Episode 103: Brian Hales on the Seer Stone Controversy