It is common for Trinitarian apologists to argue that the Hebrew term translated as “one” in Deut 6:4 (אֶחָד) can mean “compound” or “plural” “one.” This is a rather silly argument to try to read Trinitarianism into the biblical texts; akin to asking “what computer software did Paul use to write Romans?” The Hebrew term אֶחָד is an ordinal numeral, and means exactly what the English term “one” means. There is no hint of “three-in-oneness” or anything of the like.
One linguistic “trick” used to support the concept of a “plurality” within the semantic form of the ordinal is that the phrase “one bunch of grapes” somehow “proves” the ordinal can have a plural sense. However, the ordinal refers to how many bunches in question, not how many grapes—the apologist for the Trinity or other theologies is bleeding the plurality of the noun back into the ordinal (here “grapes” back into one). To think how fallacious this is, it is akin to arguing that the meaning of “one” in the locution, “one zebra” means “black and white.” "One" in any language may be used to qualify a plural or compound noun, but the meaning of "one" remains the same (one singular), linguistic tricks of less-than-informed (or honest) apologists notwithstanding.
Funnily enough, this would require that divinity/deity, as envisaged in Deut 6:4, is plural, something that is very “Mormon.” Funnily enough, Sam Shamoun, a Trinitarian apologist, argues that the "literal translation" of Deut 6:4 is, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh [is] our Gods, Yahweh is a Unity." No informed Trinitarian would ever claim there exists "Gods" as anyone who has studied the doctrine in any depth will tell you. I am tempted to say to Shamoun that he is not far from the kingdom of God as such is very close to Joseph Smith's teachings in the Sermon in the Grove (AKA Discourse on the Plurality of the Gods) . . .
Some Trinitarians appeal to Gen 2:24 as “proof” of their contention:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (אֶחָד) flesh.
There are many problems with appealing to Gen 2:24. Firstly, the “oneness” in view in this passage is not “oneness of being," but oneness of “flesh” (with the unity in view here being Adam and Eve becoming "one kin" [not "one ontological being"][1]). Furthermore, Adam and Eve, even after these words are uttered, were consistently depicted as plural, both in grammar and concord; this is proved in Gen 3:7:
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
The form of the verb “to make” (Heb: עשׂה) is plural, not singular (יַּעֲשׂ֥וּ), and the later LXX translators understood it as plural, too, rendering ποιεω as ἐποίησαν, the third person plural.
The "compound one" argument if a fallacious one that is found wanting at the bar of both exegesis and linguistics. Footnote for the above: [1] "Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinship may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens." (Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon, p. 8)
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
Some claim that, during the intertestamental period, there
was no divine inspiration (Roger Beckwith et al. make this claim, usually in
attempts to “counter” the canonicity of the Apocrypha books canonised at Trent
in 1546; see his 1985 book, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church). However, at best, one could argue that within some quarters
of Judaism, there was a belief in the cessation of the prophetic gift, as it is
rather demonstrable that prophetic gifts were (at least claimed to be) in the
possession of certain individuals and writers. For instance, in the book of
Sirach, we read the following:
I will again pour out
teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. (Sirach 24:33
[NRSV])
If the great Lord is
willing, he will be filled with the spirit of understanding; he will pour forth
words of wisdom of his own and give thanks to the Lord in his prayer. (Sirach
39:6 [NRSV])
As an aside, for a recent book that interacts with
Beckwith's (errant) claims on this and other issues, see Timothy H. Lim, The Formation of
the Jewish Canon (Yale University Press, 2013). Others, such as Lee Martin McDonald, have previously interacted with Beckwith's 1985 tome.
For were it not for the
redemption which he hath made for his people, which was prepared from the
foundation of the world, I say unto you, were it not for this, all mankind must
have perished. (Mosiah 15:19)
A heresy that I have found among some member of the
Church is that the atonement of Christ is contingent, not necessary, in the
plan of salvation. Sadly, it is a damnable heresy that has been with some
members of the Church since the early days. However, whenever the Church has
been confronted with this, such a heresy has been thoroughly refuted, and the true
teachings of the Church are further emphasised.
While serving as a mission
president in the British Isles, Wilford Woodruff (who would later become the
fourth president of the Church) wrote a response to a tract by a member of the
Church who argued that the atonement was not necessary and not even rational.
Woodruff’s response, entitled, “The Rationality of the Atonement,” originally
appearing in in vol. 6, of the Millennial Star, and was later republished in
Matthias Cowley's biography, Wilford Woodruff, Fourth President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: History of His life and Labors as
Recorded in His Daily Journals (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1909) pp.676-688, which can be found online here. For those interested in LDS
theology, this is a must-read.
In his 2001 book, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day
Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible, J.P. Holding argued that the golden
calf in Exo 32 was a pedestal for God, therefore providing evidence that God was viewed
as, in his “normative” state as being without form and invisible. The problem is that
many scholars do not believe that the golden calf in Exo 32, or the related golden
calves in the Northern Kingdom temple at Bethel, were pedestals for Yahweh, but
instead, were a representation or symbol of Yahweh (or, in the case of Behel,
El). Furthermore, Hebrew has a perfectly good term for “pedestal” (כֵּן) which appears in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 40:13; 41:13; Exo
30:18; Isa 33:23; 1 Kgs 7:31); instead, the Hebrew uses the term for “god” in
Exo 32:8 and elsewhere (אֱלֹהִים). For
one of many good studies on this matter, see R. Scott Chalmers, The Struggle
of Yahweh and El for Hosea's Israel (Sheffield: University of Sheffield
Press, 2008) that provides, among other things, a solid refutation of the “pedestal”
reading of the golden calf in Exo 32 (Holding argues that, as this thesis
states God is riding this pedestal, he was, substantially, invisible in the
theology of Moses et al.)
Another scholar who takes exception with this reading would
include John Day (author of Yahweh and the God and Goddesses of Canaan
[a must-read]). In a recent essay in a volume he edited, he wrote the following
on the golden calves in Exodus 32 and 1 Kgs 12:
[I]t would appear
that Jeroboam’s aims were to stop the northern tribes from going up to
Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12.28), the golden calves would naturally have been understood
as symbols of Yahweh. Interestingly, the only known Hebrew personal name
contain the word ‘gl, “calf,” namely ‘glwy, “Yahweh is a calf” or
“calf of Yahweh,” attested in Samaria osracton 41 not long before the time of
Hosea coheres with this.
John Day, “Hosea and the Baal Cult,” in Prophecy and
Prophets in Ancient Israel, ed. John Day (London: T&T Clark, 2012),
pp.202-224, here p. 216.
While he was an LDS apologist, Kevin Graham had a good article refuting Holding on this issue, too; one can find a copy of the essay here.
The frequent clam that
Paul was unacquainted with the tradition of the virgin birth cannot be
maintained categorically. Through its use of γεμομενονGal 4:4 seems to imply
that Paul purposely avoided the use of τικτωor γενναω. This would seem to
imply that Paul was acquainted with this tradition at the latest some 15-18
years (if not earlier!) after Jesus’ death.
Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and
Interpretation (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 222 n. 506.
There are many biblical texts that, when exegeted carefully, refute a lot of the
false theologies within much of so-called “Orthodox” or “mainstream”
Christianity. As I have shown in a few previous posts, the various theologies
of Sola Fide (there are different formulations of this doctrine, both
historically and in modern times, thus the plural theologies) runs
counter to many biblical texts, when carefully examined in their historical/cultural/grammatical
context (one example is this post).
In my daily Scripture reading, I came across this
passage which records the words of David:
For I have kept the
ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his
judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I
was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.
Therefore, the Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness;
according to my cleanness in his eye sight. With the merciful thou wilt shew
thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright. (2
Sam 22:22-26)
This is the polar opposite of much of historical and
modern Protestantism—not a hint of alien imputed righteousness; not a hint of
the total depravity of man; not a hint of our works being menstrual rags in the
eyes of God (on the misuse of Isa 64:6, see my post here). Instead, David, due
to his keeping the statutes and commandments of God, Yahweh will reward him, not
based on an alien imputed righteousness which is the only ground of one’s
salvation, per Reformed commentators, but due to David’s own righteousness (צְדָקָה; LXX: δικαιοσύνη).
In light of all the cries that Evangelical
Protestantism, the theology espoused by most theistic critics of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is “biblical Christianity,” that on core
doctrines (e.g., Christology; anthropology; baptism; in this instance,
soteriology) they teach a “false gospel” (cf. Gal 1:6-9)—one would find the
irony funny if it did not have eternal consequences, which is captured in the .gif I encountered recently (many more names could be added, alas [Desmond Ferguson; Bobby Gilpin; Mike and Ann Thomas, etc]):
It has long been recognised that the passion narrative
of Luke in particular shares many features in common with late Jewish and early
Christian accounts of martyrdom.[72] From this has been adduced for the
originality of vv.43-44. The image of the cup over which Christ prays (v.42)
was already common in martyrological literature.[73] But there are parallels,
too, for the materials of vv.43-44: the appearance of the strengthening angel
(Dt 32:43 [LXX]; Dan 3:49, 92 ,95 [LXX]; 10:18-19)[74] and the struggle of Christ
in prayer.[75] And Hartmut Achermann has even introduced a parallel for the
themes of sweat and blood in Jesus’ agony from the martyrdom of Eleazaros in 4
Maccabees 6:6, 11; 7:8. He claims that the use of these themes along with that
of the strengthening angel, reveals the intention of the author of these verses
to depict the prayer-struggle of Jesus in the passion possesses this martyrological
character, vv.43-44 are thereby shown to be essential to the Gethsemane account
as revealing its role in the rest of the narrative and hence original with Luke.[76]
We may conclude our discussion of the Lukan authorship of these verses, then,
by stating simply that, while the textual evidence leaves the issue unresolved,
and even seems more negative than positive, the confluence of other indications
suggests a positive decision.
Notes for the Above
[72] See, for example, Martin Dibelius, From
Tradition to Gospel, tr. B.L. Woolf from 2nd rev. ed. (London,
1934), pp.199-203.[73] Georg Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und
der Christuskult fruchristlicher Zeiti (Gottingen, 1938),p. 85;
Martin Dibelius, “Gethsemane,” C[atholic Biblical] Quarterly, 12 (1935), 260; idem,
Botschaft und]G[eschichte], I, 265[74] G. Bertram, op cit., p.47 and n.6; H.W.
Surkau, op. cit., pp.93f.[75] M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel,
pp.201ff.; idem. CQ 12 (1935), 264; idem, BG, I, 269f; A.
Schlatter, Lukas, p.433; Grundmann, Lukas, p.412; H. Flender, op
cit., p. 54[76] Hartmut Ascherman, “Zum Agoniegebet Jesu, Luk.
22:43-44,” Theologia Viatorum, 5 (1953-54), 143-49. According to him,
the conclusion of the Son of Moses (Dt 32:35-43), and especially the LXX
addition to v.43 (kai enischysatosan auto pantes angeloi theou) finds
its Sitz im Leben in the situation of martyrdom, as it shown by its
invlusion in a collection of consolation texts for martyrs at the end of 4
Maccabees and its use elsewhere (e.g., 2 Macc 7:6; 4 Macc 18:10ff.) (p.146).
See also Surkau, op cit., p.94 n. 61; and Harold Smith, “Acts xx. 8 and
Luke xxii. 43,” E[xpository]T[imes], 16 (1904-05), 478.[77] This has been the general drift of critical
opinion until recently. See C.S.C. Williams, Alternations to the Text of the
Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp.6-8; and above p.92, n. 50,
and p.94, n.59. For the relevance of theology and theological history to the
solution of the text-critical question here, see the remarks of Ernest C.
Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament
(Leiden, 1969), p. 151.
Source: J. Warren Holleran, The Synoptic
Gethsemane: A Critical Study (Rome: Universita Gregoriana Editrice, 1973),
97-98
Name one Latter-day Saint commentator on the Book of
Mormon and/or the New Testament who has argued that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem, not the
nearby suburb of Bethlehem, based on the text of Alma 7:10 (please provide the name and source).
Won’t be too hard if (1) Alma 7:10 places Jesus’ birth in the city of Jerusalem
and (2) the claim that Latter-day Saints have such a low view of the Bible that
we will happily jettison the teaching of Luke 2 over Alma 7:10.
The fact that Elias is given precedence is explained
in the best way by far if it is a matter of the office of the eschatological
prophet. For the Old Testament is already familiar with the idea of a return of
Elias (Mal. 3:23f.), while the conception of an eschatological prophet like
Moses is already developed, but a carrying away and personal return of Moses
was reckoned with only gradually and in assimilation to the expectation of
Elias. The view of a return together of Elias and Moses has precipitated itself
more clearly in the Jewish Vorlage of Rev. 11:3ff.
Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology
(trans. Harold Knight and George Ogg; London: Lutterworth press, 1969), 342 n.
16.
Sourceflix (PKA Living Hope Ministries) released a “documentary” in 2010 on the question of whether Joseph Smith were a prophet of God and the validity of unique LDS Scriptures. One can watch the “documentary” online on various venues, including the following:
A few years ago, I helped with the research for a rebuttal to this production which was written by my friend, Stephen Smoot (who runs a pretty good blog here) entitled, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible and Joseph Smith.” I would recommend this as the "go-to" source whenever one encounters claims by Evangelicals that Joseph Smith failed the biblical test of being a prophet.
I link to both these works as I think it is pretty self-evident to any individual with even a modicum of critical-thinking skills that the production by Joel Kramer et al., lacks an iota of scholarship and biblical-exegetical prowess, while trying to defend the impossible, viz. their Fundamentalist Protestantism and their understanding of the Bible (ther understanding of sola scriptura, etc). I do think it is rather revealing that many Evangelical critics of the LDS Church endorse and sell this “documentary,” which shows a lot about their so-called research skills and fidelity to the truth (cf. Rev 21:8).
I will note that Joel Kramer's ministry sent me a link to this documentary when it came out, and requested that, after I viewed it, to forward any thoughts, comments, etc., I had on it to them. I am reproducing my email to them (sent directly to Joel Kramer himself on 6 April 2010) below, unedited--I will note that they never responded, and, just as they have not (and will not, at least meaningfully) responded to the review by Stephen Smoot, as they are incapable of any meaningful scholarly and exegetical discussions of the issues they raise:
The following are notes I made while watching the DVD; it is of the first ~38 minutes (much more could be written). I would be more than happy to expand upon the points I am forwarding, or other issues discussed after the 38 minute mark; however, the following should serve as a sampling of the many problems within this presentation:
Eisegesis of Deut 18--two-fold, not one test (call of the prophet is the first); Tigay et al.; also, Samson et al.; Richard L. Pratt, a Calvinist (ergo, accepts exhaustive foreknowledge and infallible decree) rejects such an interpretation of one false prophecy = false prophet interpretation. See “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” URL:https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/https:%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Eric_pratt%5ETH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.html/at/Historical%20Contingencies%20and%20Biblical%20Predictions
In Judges 13, the angel appears to Samson’s mother, no contingencies are offered, and all the promises failed (using the approach of the video, it is a false prophecy and the angel of the Lord was a false prophet; ditto for other examples of prophecies that never were fulfilled in the Old and New Testament).
No discussion on the nature of God’s foreknowledge--contingent? Exhaustive? Simple? Middle Knowledge?
Introduction to the BOM cited--should be noted that it is not canonical (minor point, but something that cropped up in DNA vs. the Book of Mormon).
*Section on Nephi*
Should be noted that chapter headings are not canonical (even McConkie stated that such was the case, as recounted by Mark McConkie in his memoirs of his father).
Corruption of theBible--Ps 29; 89; Deut 32; later insertions to the New Testament; also, there is no question of later insertions to the NT (longer Marcan ending; etc)
Proto-Orthodox scribes and Christological corruptions to theBible
Robinson--text of 1 Nephi 13 refers to lost texts never being canonised (see How wide the Divide).
“Bible Alone”--no biblical evidence (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not support such; Paul did not practice Sola Scriptura; Jesus did not; Apostles did not; Timothy did not and in light of this, 2 Tim cannot be interpreted to mean SS is true--even Webster and King in the 3 vol Holy Scripture [2001] can‘t get around that]; Paul uses ophelimos; not autakreia or hikanos; therefore, Scriptures are not formally sufficient; just "profitable"--qualitatively lesser word)
Greek linguist--
1. There is strong evidence against a naturalistic explanation of 1 Nephi--Nahom and Bountiful; pre-exilic religion (Peterson’s Nephi and his Asherah article) and the like.
2. Manuscript evidence--there was only one record made by Nephi. As with the Book of Mormon plates en toto, it was a unique text that was not copied (it was passed down, serving as a form of religious authority and monarchical authority, as seen with Benjamin and Alma).
Using such evidence against the Book of Mormon would necessitate one having to reject the historicity of many figures in history.
For someone who is meant to be an expert, such are silly arguments.
Josephwas not the only “guarantor” of the Book of Mormon; what about the 3 and 8 Witnesses? Anderson in “Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses” (1981) and his recent material refuting Vogel and Palmer, among others, should be consulted.
Many important things are not discussed about the NT and its textual criticism. For instance, in terms of papyri evidence (the earliest we have), in terms of the Gospel of John, B and P 75 reveals 80% agreement and 20% disagreement.
It is nothing short of deception that such textual variants are NEVER discussed. This is part and parcel of the modus operandi of Living Hope Ministries (Source Flix).
The text of 1 Nephi 13 seems to be talking only about the New Testament, not the Old Testament (per vv. 25-26).
In terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Price is wrong, as the DSS reveal that there are texts missing from our current texts of theBible. A good discussion is found in “The meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” authored by Flint and Vander am (T&T Clarke). Also, again, no discussion of many important textual variants that reveal later (theologically-driven) textual corruptions, such as Deut 32; Ps 29 and 89. Immanuel Tov, in the book, “Textual Criticism of the HebrewBible” (rev ed. Fortress Press, 2001) discusses such in great detail, as do similar works.
What is really misleading here, though, is this claim that theBible doesn't reflect changes or a need for change. And this simply isn't the case. In fact, while I might be willing to agree with the notion that it is remarkably preserved, it is not exactly a problem-free area. For instance: There are several large passages in the Old Testament that are quoted (from the Old Testament). Here is a basic list
2 Sam 22 = Ps 18
Ezra 2:1-67 = Neh 7:6-68
2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 = Isa. 36-39
2 Kgs 24:18-25:30 = Jer 52
Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-3
Ps 14 = Ps 53
Ps 40:14-18 = Ps 70
It's pretty easy to compare these passages (particularly in the "original" Hebrew). Take the first one--Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22. There are 104 differences between these two texts. 49 of these differences are words that added to one or the other. 3 involve a different word order. 52 cases involve some other change (including using a synonym). Since the hymn has 397 words (Ps 18) or 382 words (2 Sam 22), this means that we are uncertain of about 1 word in 4. This carries out over all of the texts that I listed above. But this is just comparing the Hebrew to the Hebrew. Since we have multiple versions of both of these texts from ancient times, we probably ought to consider them as well, right? So from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Syriac texts, and the Septuagint (the Greek text), we add another 73 variants which can be plausibly argued as representing a different Hebrew original source. Which brings the number of suspect words to 1 in 2. In his study of this issue, David Clines of the University of Sheffield wrote the following:
The More Manuscripts, the More Variants, We saw earlier a text in the HebrewBiblein parallel transmission (2 Kings 22 // Psalm 18) that displayed a sizeable number of variants (104) when the two forms were compared with one another. When we went on to compare with those Masoretic HebrewBibletexts the Hebrew text that Septuagint manuscripts witness to in common we found more variants (9). When we considered an individual Septuagint manuscript, Vaticanus, we found more variants still (9). When we examined a group of manuscripts, the Lucianic recension, we found yet more variants (39). When we brought the Syriac into the frame, we discovered again more variants (9). When we looked at the one Qumran fragment of 2 Samuel, we found further variants (9). We can hardly doubt that if the Qumran text of 2 Samuel 22 were entire, or if there were more than one Qumran manuscript containing this chapter, there would be more variants still. Every time we find a manuscript, we find variants. Let us consider the situation with the text of Isaiah. Our textbooks tell us that 1QIsaa has many variants compared with the Masoretic text, but no one tells us how many. In an early article, Millar Burrows listed (by my count) 536 variants, excluding 'a great many other variants', whatever they were, and excluding corrections made to the original manuscript of 1QIsaa by the original scribe or an early corrector. If that is the correct number of variant, it would mean that in this single manuscript alone, there is a difference from the Masoretic text in at least one out of every 31 words. But that is too small a number; if we look at the variants that Otto Eissfeldt collected for the seventh edition of Biblia Hebraica (the 1951 edition of what is usually called the third edition of Biblia Hebraica, BH3), we find (again by my count) that the figure is more like 1698 variants, i.e. one in every 9.77 words. It seems highly probable that the more manuscripts we find, the more variants we will identify. Perhaps we will not find any more manuscripts, but we can be certain that many more existed than those we have now. (From David J. A. Clines, "What Remains of the HebrewBible? Its Text and Language in a Postmodern Age." Studia Theologica 54 (2001):76-95. Online:http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/WhatRemains.pdf)
[me again]
Also, let us not forget how the Book of Mormon’s use of the Old Testament receives striking vindication in light of Old Testament textual criticism. For instance, Nephi uses (whether directly; through allusion; and other like inter-textual methods, the A-source, but never the later B-source, of the David Goliath story in 1 Sam 16-17 in 1 Nephi 3-4). For a treatment of this, see Benjamin McGuire’s essay, “Nephi and Goliath,” published in 2009 in the Journal of Book of Mormon and Restoration Scriptures. For a non-LDS tretament of the issue of the David-Goliath story and its redaction, see Tov’s essay in Jeffrey Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism.
Just on the issue of 1 Nephi 13:24-28, I am reproducing the following commentary from Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vol; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books), 1:236-7 (I have renumbered the footnotes):
History: Verse 28 contains the scriptural basis of the eight Article of Faith's reservation that we should believe theBible"as far as it is translated correctly." Of course, we tend to be more interested in the record of the "plain and precious things" from our copies of theBible,[1] but that cannot be the meaning that Nephi understood, as most of what we have as ourBiblecomes after his time. It is quite probable that this reference to the removal of plain and precious things had only one meaning for Nephi, and it was related to the whole purpose of his writing. Nephi "restores" the understanding of the Atoning Messiah to his people. That restoration was required because of Josiah's reforms discussing in 1 Nephi, Part 1: Context, Chapter 1, "The Historical Setting of 1 Nephi." Scholars tie Josiah to the Deuteronomic reform, which resulted in the contents of the received Old Testament. That reform apparently attempted to remove or diminish the doctrine of Yahweh as Atoning Messiah. Margaret Barker has been working on information and clues in theBible, but more to the pseudepigraphical writings that were not controlled by the Deuteronomists. As she summarises her experience, she desribes the state of the texts:
There is good reason to beleive that other information about the first temple and the older high priesthood was deliberately suppressed. When the final form of Exodus was compiled, Moses was told that no person could make atonement for another. After the sin of the golden calf, he offered himself if the Lord would forgive the people's sin, but he was told: "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Ex. 32:33). Why had Moses thought such an atonement possible? Perhaps the older ways were being superseded.
And how has it come about that so many important texts are damaged or have alternative versions? The sons of God texts in Deuteronomy is vital for reconstructing the older religion of Israel, and yet it exists in two different versions, one without the sons of God. The verse in Psalm 110 which describes how the king became a son of God is damaged. The vital messianic passage in Isaiah exists in two different forms--and there are many more examples. These are not random variations or damge. There is a pattern.[2]
The beginngs of the textual alterations that Barker sees came during Lehi's lifetime. When the angel discusses the plain and precious things that have been removed, Nephi could have understood that in only one way based upon his own experience. The Atoning Messiah was the "plain and precious" thing that had been removed. Nephi will create his record to repair the damage and return Yahweh the Messiah to his rightful place in scriprue. This is the mssage that permeates the Book of Mormon. In a very literal way, Nephi sets in motion the recovery of the most precious part of the sacred scripture that he understood to have been removed.
[1] Robert L. Millet, "Plan and precious things, loss of and restoration of," in Booko f Mormon Reference Companion, general editor Daniel L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 636-39 treats the phrase as a reference to the actual removal of passages. He provides and excellent overview of textual transmission and corruption issues. Millet's interpretation represents the traditional reading of this verse. [2] Margaret Barker, "The Great High Priest," Brigham Young University Forum address, May 2003, 14.
[me again]
*Old Testament prophets section*
Ignores the development of Messianic thought in the Old Testament.
Engages in eisegesis of biblical texts.
Ignores the NT use of the Old Testament, as discussed by Dunn et al. (e.g., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) and how, from a modern exegetical perspective, such use of the OT would never stand up. Hosea 11:1 is a prime example (the context it not about Jesus or a Messianic figure but the children of Israel; Matthew, in typical 1st c. CE Jewish style, re-works and re-interprets that and other-like texts).
*Micah*
Most interpreters of Micah 5:2 (v. 1 in the Hebrew) understand the passage to be directed, not to a location, but a people (a tribe). Of course, this is never discussed . . .
Alma 7:10
This section ignores the articles by Robert F.Smith (then non-LDS) and John Tvedtnes’ study on the use of eretz and ir (land and city) in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. See their treatment in Reexploring the Book of Mormon (1992) and Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon (1999).
It is just not the argument of “proximity,” though such has to be considered, not dismissed glibly as Kramer did; Bethelehm, according to ancient texts (discussed in articles by Robert FSmith; John Tvedtnes; Dan Peterson et al., and many others) show that it was considered part of the “land of Jerusalem” in ancient texts (Amarna among others).
Alma was taking to people who would have been ignorant of the geography of the Old World; a suburb of Jerusalem would not have been knowledge passed down, but the capital city, one whose rule would have expanded to nearby suburbs (cf. Tvedtnes’ article) would have been passed down by their fathers.
Is Bolen aware of the Amarna literature and other texts, such as Pseudo-Jeremiah from the DSS, that uses “land of Jerusalem” which incorporated Bethlehem? This is a failing on his behalf (as well as the video); not the Book of Mormon.
*Isaiah*
Again, see above about the NT use of the OT.
Scholars believe that the Messianic figure was Hezekiah. Isa 52:13ff cannot be divorced from Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 18-20 and Hezekiah's illness (cf. Barker's essay on the original setting of the Fourth Sevant hymn, "Hezekiah's Boil").
No interaction with arguments critical of the long-standing “Christianised” approach to Isaiah and other OT figures. Again, gives the impression that “all is well” within the Evangelical Protestant camp; this is FAR from the case.
Eusebius comes a few centuries *after* Jesus, so such is hardly compelling evidence (though I am not claiming Jesus was not part of the House of David; NT Wright has used such evidence, for instance, in a guest lecture back in 2005 in Maynooth when I was a student there).
*David*
Wrenching texts out of context, not giving them the historical context and the like, is nothing short of eisegesis (which plagues the presentation). For e.g., the text speaking of the author (not a future Messianic figure, per the *context*) being pierced--where in the passage is crucifixion mention? Self-sacrifice and such being a propitiatory sacrifice to appease God, etc? I accept Jesus as being a propitiatory sacrifice, but such ignores how NT authors used the OT (something which has been long discussed by scholars from all perspectives). It is deceptive that such is not once discussed (of course, such would not be as with past “”””documentaries””””” by LHM to give the impression that the Evangelical camp have nothing to defend and the LDS side have nothing to support them).
On Josephus--there is questions about the authenticity of the passage in Flavius Josephus discussing Jesus (see Jesus outside the NT and Josephus and the NT, among other volumes and articles). And, yet again, nothing from LHM on this issue.
*Daniel*
Most scholars place Daniel at 165 BCE--no defence of an exilic, not post-exilic providence. One cannot help but think that a double-standard is part and parcel of LHM's "documentaries" (cf. DNAvs. the Book of Mormon and TheBiblevs. the Book of Mormon).
Ignores most scholarly commentators on the eschatologlical prophecies of Daniel as well as the debate about the meaning ofkeret in Daniel 9.
The issue
of baptism is one I have studied in some detail over the years, and I remain
convinced that the Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice of baptism is
reflective of “biblical Christianity,” to throw out a term. I have posted a few
times on various texts used in favour and against baptismal regeneration in the
past, including this note on Acts 2:38, which also touched upon 1 Pet 3:21. The
following comes from my personal favourite work on baptism (so I highly
recommend this, for those interested) by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the
Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first five centuries
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 190-91:
I would construe the pronoun ὃ, referring to water,
with “antitype,” understood as a noun, and refer both to baptism. To give a
more literal rendering than the above, “[W]ater, which antitype [the antitype
of which], is baptism, now saves also you,” or “[W]ater, which in its antitype,
baptism, now saves also you.” The former makes clearer that baptism saves, the
latter puts more emphasis on the water in baptism as saving, but both
renderings convey the idea that grammatically baptism, not the water of the
flood, “saves you.”
In a previous post, I provided an exegesis countering the claim that 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches the formal sufficiency of the Bible, per the Protestant doctrine of
sola scriptura. One of my arguments is that the term translated in v.16 as “useful” or “profitable”
is a weak word, and had Paul wished to convey the sense of formal sufficiency of "Scripture," he had a number of other, more potent, terms to use (as they say, “the Greeks
had a word for everything”).
In the
3-volume Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), the following
definition of the term (ωφελιμος) is offered, which highlights how weak the term is in comparison to the
force many Protestant apologists read into it (taken from 3:511-12)
ωφελιμοςophelimos useful, advantageous.
This noun occurs 4 times in the NT, all in parenetic
contexts in the Pastorals. According to 1 Tim 4:8 (bis) “bodily training is useful
only for some things, while godliness is of value in every way” (πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος . . .προςπανταωφελιμος) . . .The context suggests
that the idea of “training, physical fitness” is to be appropriated for the
realm of piety, alluding to the ascetic goals of the adversaries in vv. 1ff . .
. 2 Tim 3:16: πασαγραφη . . . καιωφελιμοςπροςδιδασκαλιαν . . .”useful/profitable
for teaching . . .” Titus 3:8: “good deeds” (καλαεργα) are expected of Church
members, since they are καλακαιςφελιματοιςανθρωποις, “good and profitable for people.”
Firstly,
Happy Xmas to all my readers (yep, all two of you), and all the best for 2015.
I have been reading an interesting volume which I got for myself for the
holidays, which I recommend: Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the
Pentateuch (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014). On pp. 237-38, we have
the following quote which adds light to why Moses is referred to as “god” (אלהים) in Exo
7:1:
[The Priestly source] is not so explicit regarding the
means by which YHWH brought the people out of Egypt. YHWH and his glory do not
appear in P until Sinai, so there was no visible manifestation to lead the
people physically out of Egypt and to Sinai. P explicitly establishes Moses’
and Aaron’s roles as divine mediators in Exod 7:1-5 . . . In effect, Moses
takes the role of YHWH and Aaron of Moses, which involves Moses speaking
commands to Aaron who carries them out. The source of the actions, their true
agent, remains YHWH, as the passage makes clear by the summarising the entire
process as YHWH stretching his hand out over Egypt and removing the Israelites.
In the way, Moses and Aaron act out which is otherwise obscured from human
observation, YHWH attacking Egypt and rescuing his people. Divine action here
is both mediated by human proxies and represented typologically by human action.
Some
critics have latched onto this verse as evidence against Latter-day Saint
theology, as they argue, it is strictly monotheistic. However, this is a gross
misreading of the passage.
The Hebrew
translated as "before me" is the Hebrew phrase, על פני, which literally means “before my face.” In the Ancient Near
East, the images of the gods of conquered people were placed into debir (back/western
part) of the sanctuary/temple of the conquering people and faced the image of
the chief God of the pantheon of the victors. What this verse is condemning is
the forging, and placement of cultic images in the debir as well as
forging a cultic image of Yahweh. That this is the case is seen from the
proceeding verses:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, or serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me. (Exo 20:4-5)
Furthermore,
the majority of Old Testament scholars see in Exo 20:3 an implicit recognition
of the real/ontological existence of other gods. According to Michael Coogan,
this commandment does not express monotheism, but rather presumes the existence
of other deities--as in a marriage, one of the primary analogies for the
covenant, Israel is to be a faithful wife to her husband (Yahweh), or, as in a
treaty, a vassal to his suzerain. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for
having worshipped other gods in violation of this, and related commandments
(e.g., the Shema [Deut 6:4]), the metaphors of marital and political fidelity
are often invoked, sometimes rather graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12;
Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10), as well as the depiction of Yahweh as a jealous husband
(e.g., Exo 34:14), and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with
foreign powers, provokes his rage.[1]
There is
nothing in this verse that opposes Latter-day Saint theology when (1) one reads
the underlining Hebrew; (2) examined in its historical and cultural context and
(3) when read in the context of the proceeding commandments.
Note for
the above:
[1] Michael
Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the
Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 176, 116.
Appendix: Further Scholarly Commentary
Jan Assmann
Tellingly, God does not say that there is no other gods besides him. On the contrary, such gods exist, but Israel is forbidden from having anything to do with them. In the words of Benno Jacob, “the gods are not denounced as ‘idols,’ nor are other nations dissuaded from following them. All that matters here is the relationship between YHWH and Israel, and YHWH takes Israel into his heart: “you are mine! No-one else’s! I betroth myself to you forever! It is the image of a marriage that lies behind this expression [i.e., “no other gods,” J.A.]. Whatever the circumstances may be, the wife belongs to one man alone. For her, everyone else is an ‘îš ‘aḥēr. This is not to say that there are no other men out there, only that they do not exist for her” (Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, 555).
In the first commandments we have before us the central tenet of biblical monotheism. It is not a statement of the “monotheism of truth,” which denies the existence of other gods. Instead, it explicitly attests to the “monotheism of loyalty.” When referring to this form of an exclusive commitment to God, some scholars therefore prefer to speak of “monolatry” rather than “monotheism.” By this they mean the exclusive (or “monogamous,” to stick with Jacob’s metaphor) worship of a single god that simultaneously acknowledges the existence of other gods. The problem with this terminology, however, is that it obscures the fact that we are dealing here with a completely unique conception in the history of religion. Monolatry may crop up here and there, and Israel’s exclusive worship of YHWH may indeed have arisen from original monolatry. But there is an absolutely crucial additional factor in play here: the covenant theological foundation. What is called for here is loyalty. The “other gods” do not simply go unheeded when the Israelites turn in reverence to face their one and only lord; rather, they are expressly prohibited ad their worship is anathematized as a breach of the covenant. A covenant is made here between one god among many and one nation among many, and this covenant is based on an act of salvation that connects the people freed from Egypt, and this people alone, with the god who freed them, and this god alone. (Jan Assmann, The Invention of Religion: Faith and covenant in the Book of Exodus [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018], 216-17)
John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton
The availability of the ANE literature brought an increased recognition that the commandment dictated only monolatry or henotheism rather than what we now call monotheism—relating as it did to the question of whom the people worshipped rather than to whether other gods existed. Earlier interpreters had made this same point, but the ANE material tended to push interpretation more firmly in this direction. This interpretation continued to frame the issue as prioritization even through it is more restricted to the issue of worship practices.
The focus on priorities found support as far back as the Septuagint, which translated the Hebrew עַל־פָּנָיַ (‘al pənȇ, “before me”) by the Greek preposition plēn (“except”). But if Hebrew means to say “except,” there are several ways to do it (e.g., ‘ak or raq). Likewise, if Hebrew means to express priority, it would have used wording such as that found in Deuteronomy 4:35 or Isaiah 45:21. Twentieth-century theologians recognized the problem. Gerhard von Rad, for example, suggested that the Hebrew ought to be translated “in defence of me” since that at least had the support of synchronic usage.
A more defensible interpretation was suggested by Werner Schmidt in light of even deeper probing of the practices and beliefs that were current in the ANE. He proposes that when the first commandment prohibits other gods in the presence of Yahweh, it is ruling out the concept that he operates within a pantheon or a divine assembly or with a consort. J. Bottéro describes this system as similar to a king at the head of the state with his family and functionaries around him operating in a structured hierarchy.
This background suggests the interpretation that the Israelites were not to imagine any other gods in the presence of Yahweh: “You shall have no other gods in my presence.” This is supported by the fact that when the preposition combination that occurs in the Hebrew text takes a personal object, the meaning עַל־פָּנָיַ (‘al pənȇ) is consistently spatial: with personal subject of preposition. The following examples express location:
·Genesis 11:28: Haran died ‘al pənȇ his father Terah
·Genesis 23:3: Abraham arose from ‘al pənȇ his dead wife and spoke
·Genesis 32:33 (Eng. 32:21): And the present passed ‘al pənȇ him
·Genesis 50:1: And Joseph fell ‘al pənȇ his father and he wept for him
·Exodus 33:19 (34:6): I will cause all my goodness to pass ‘al pənȇ you
·Leviticus 10:3: I will be honored ‘al pənȇ all the people
·Numbers 3:4: [Nadab and Abihu] made an offering of unauthorized fire ‘al pənȇ him
·1 Kings 9:7: I will case [Israel] from ‘al pənȇ the land
·2 Kings 13:14: Jehoash went down and wept ‘al pənȇ him
·Job 4:15: A spirit passed ‘al pənȇ me
·Job 21:31: who denounces his conduct ‘al pənȇ him
·Psalm 9:20: let the nations be judged ‘al pənȇ you
·Ezekiel 32:10: when I brandish my sword ‘al pənȇ them
With an understanding of the practices of the ANE, this spatial sense gains much greater credibility. The gods in the ANE operated in a pantheon, and decisions were made in the divine assembly. In addition, the principal deities typically had consorts. The lifestyle and operations system for deity, then, constituted a community experience. The destinies of the gods were decreed in assembly as were the destinies of kings, cities, temples, and people. The business of the gods was carried out in the presence of other gods. This system is well summarized as a hierarchy of authoritative deities and active deities.
On the other hand, Yahweh is occasionally depicted as having a divine council (most notably in 1 Kings 22:19-22 and Job 1-2), and the text makes no attempt to disabuse its readers of that conception.
Consequently, the “presence” of Yahweh where the other gods are not to be, most likely refers to his terrestrial presence (in the temple and ruling over his territory), not his royal audience chamber in the divine realm. In Ezekiel 8, Yahweh objects to the practice of placing images and altars of other deities in his temple, a practice of the Baal cult in which King Manasseh also participates in 2 Kings 21:1-7. Furthermore, in accordance with suzerain treaties, no other god (read: ruler) was to be recognized in Yahweh’s territory. The significance of this is that the pantheon/divine assembly concept carried with it the idea of distribution of power among many divine beings. The first commandment becomes a simple statement that Yahweh’s power—at least within the boundaries of Israel—is absolute. He is not one of many who share in the distribution of divine authority. It is understandable that Israel would struggle with this concept. First of all, it removes Yahweh from the community of the gods. In the ancient world people found their identity in their place in their community. They assumed the gods did the same. To separate Yahweh from such a community identity would have been a confusing concept. Autonomy and independence were not valued in ancient society, and to ascribe these qualities t their God would have seem impious.
Furthermore, Israelites would wonder whether just one God having jurisdiction and authority in every area made any sense. Even kings, who ruled from a seat of solitary authority, distributed that authority down through the bureaucracy. Consider life on a college campus. Would it make any sense for the president to be personally involved in every decision? Instead of going to the resident assistant in the dormitory to resolve roommate problems, or to the registrar for class problems, or to the teacher for homework problems, imagine that you were supposed to take all your problems directly to the president. We would wonder why he would care about out little issues or whether she would have time or resources to manage everything herself. We would assume that operating without a bureaucratic management structure would result in chaos. Yet this is effectively what Israel was being told to do.
Israel was to be distinct from the nations around them. That is the very point of the prohibition. Although it does not say explicitly that no other gods exist, it does remove them from the presence of Yahweh. If Yahweh does not share power, authority, or jurisdiction with them, they are nog gods in any meaningful sense of the word. (John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2019], 234-38, emphasis added)
Andreas Wagner
In the Decalogue, for example, it says: Exod. 20.3/Deut. 5.7 You shall have no other gods before me. This phrase intends that God alone should be revered. It does not deny the existence of other gods and is thus not monotheistic. (Andreas Wagner, God's Body: The Anthropomorphic God in the Old Testament [trans. Marion Salzmann; London: T&T Clark, 2019], 143)
J.R. Dummelow
Before me] RM ‘beside me.’ Monotheism is implied rather than expressly enunciated here. It was only gradually that Israel rose to the truth that there is but one God. Israel was led to this truth along the way of practice. (J.R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible [London: Macmillan and Co., 1909], 67)
