Stephen R. Miller on the Antiquity of the Book of Daniel by the Time of the Septuagint

  

That the Book of Daniel was quite old by the time of the Septuagint is evidenced by the fact that the translators were completely unaware of the meaning of many terms in Daniel as evidenced by the mistranslations. Kitchen points out that the Septuagint rendering of four Persian loan words in Daniel “are hopelessly inexact—mere guesswork,” which indicates that the terms were so ancient that “their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or at the least, drastically changed) long before he [the translator] set to work.” (Kitchen, Notes, 43) (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 39)

 

Brant Gardner on Romans 11:16-24 and Paul's Knowledge of Olive Culture

  

For some years, the standard interpretation of Paul has been rather unfavorable, such as this passage from the Interpreter’s bible commentary on Romans: “At more than one point his ignorance of husbandry is disclosed: branches from a wild olive tree would not be grafted on a cultivated olive stock (if anything, the reverse would be done), and if they were, the grafted branches would not bear the fruit of the cultivated tree.” (George Arthur Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible, 12 vols. [New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951-57], 9:571) This point is absolutely critical, asserting as it does that Paul misunderstood olive tree husbandry and, hence, that the allegory’s meaning requires accepting Paul’s error in reporting such practices. If that is the case, then the presence of a similar practice in Zenos would not be a reflection of an actual practice and would be more likely to be a copy of Paul’s error.

 

New Testament scholars A. G. Baxter and J. A. Ziesler cite a work by Sir William Ramsey which documents a near-contemporary of Paul named Columella, who discusses grafting wild branches onto an olive tree:

 

Columella writes a good deal about grafting, in De rustica 5.11.1-15 and De arboribus 26-27 (although a good deal of the material in the two works overlaps, even to the point of being straight repetition). He includes a considerable amount also about oleiculture [olive culture], in De rustica from 5.19.16. He certainly thinks he knows what he is talking about, and it is interesting that in 5.9.16, almost in passing, he says that well-established trees that are failing to produce proper crops can be rejuvenated and made more productive if they are ingrafted with shoots from the wild olive. (Quoted in A. G. Baxter and J. A. Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture: Roans 11:17-24,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 [1985]: 26)

 

Baxter and Ziesler conclude: “What Paul describes is therefore a perfectly possible process that would be undertaken to rejuvenate a tree.” (Ibid., 27) They also note a similar practice in Mediterranean countries, including Israel. Wilford M. Hess, professor of botany at Brigham Young University, describes the multiple ways in which grafting is used in oleiculture:

 

Since these domesticated forms readily cross with the wild forms, resulting in a wide range of genetic variation, it is not desirable to grow new trees from seeds. Thus, the standard procedure used to propagate desirable plants was, and still is, planting cuttings. The olive is one of the earliest trees to propagate by this means. Olive growers normally use wild olive grafts only to rejuvenate domesticated or tame trees; tame trees are also grated onto the roots of wild trees to give the plants more vigor. (Wilford M. Hess, “Recent Notes about Olives in Antiquity,” BYU Studies 39, no. 4 [2000]: 117)

 

With this support for the legitimacy of the practice Paul describes, we may also suggest another solution to one of the problems that raised questions about Paul’s allegory in the first place. At least two modern commentators noted that Paul, an urban Jew, would be unlikely to understand the intricacies of oleiculture. (See, for instance, Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Bible, 9:571; Baxter and Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture,” 25)

 

While the valid basis for understanding the allegory is confirming, we must now answer the question of Paul’s presumed ignorance of olive culture in reverse. Just how did an urban dweller know about this rather unusual practice Baxter and Ziesler simply restate Ramsay’s assumption that the importance of olive culture created a de facto knowledge base about caring for the trees. (Baxter and Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture,” 26) Certainly the olive’s importance is well known; but would the importance of olive products equate to a widespread understanding of how to care for the tree, particularly when few ancient or modern writers understand that grafting in wild branches was valid, even though it was clearly attested anciently and even though olive culture has continued into modern times?

 

For these academic writers, defending the validity of Paul’s allegory was sufficient, and the source of his knowledge became a very secondary point. Into this academic discussion, Zenos comes as an answer rather than as a copy. As a work that preceded Paul and that clearly incorporates complex oleicultural practices, Zenos may have been either the ultimate source or a parallel tapping of an oral source for a similar image. Paul would not, then, have created the allegory, but simply repeated an image known from alternate sources—sources that either trace to Zenor or which precede Zenos as part of an oral tradition.

 

A rule of thumb in establishing transmission is that the more complete text is the older. (James A. Brooks, “An Introduction to Textual Criticism,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, edited Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996], 258) In the case of Zenos and Paul, Zenos is clearly more complex. Perhaps some version of Zenos’s allegory survived in Paul’s time but is unavailable to us. Perhaps Paul was reworking other sources that descended from Zenos. In any case, Zenos’s text fits into the well-defined context of olive culture in the pre-Christian Mediterranean world Not only is Zenos’s allegory more complex, but it also authentically represents the oleiculture of its period. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 2:522-24)

 

Francis M. Darter's Critique of the SDA Interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Part 3

  

(10) Mr. Uriah Smith evidently appreciates the high importance and paramount position of the Lord’s Holy Temple in connection with religious worship. I continue to quote him.

 

“This building” (Solomon’s Temple) “answers in every respect to the definition of the term, and the use for which the sanctuary was designed. (1) It was the earthly dwelling-place of God. ‘Let them make me a sanctuary,’ said He to Moses, ‘that I may dwell among them.’ Ex. 25:8. In this tabernacle, which they erected according to His instructions, He manifested His presence. (2) It was a holy, or sacred place,--‘the holy sanctuary.’ Lev. 16:33; (3) In the Word of God it is over and over again called the sanctuary. Of the one hundred and forty instances in which the word is used in the Old Testament, it refers in almost every case to this building.

 

“The tabernacle was at first constructed in such a manner as to be adapted to the condition of the children of Israel at that time. They were just entering upon their forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, when this building was set up in their midst as the habitation of God, and the center of their religious worship. ***

After entering the promised land, this temporary structure in time gave place to the magnificent temple of Solomon. In this more permanent form it existed, saving only the time it lay in ruins in Daniel’s day, till its final destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70.” “Thoughts on Prophecies of Daniel” p. 167.

 

(11) With this beautiful description in mind, and the fact that certain Temples, as previously referred to, are to be again established on earth before the second coming of the Lord, surely is evidence enough to destroy all private claims, however, sincere, regarding the fulfillment of this 1843 prophecy through this supposed exclusive Heavenly built Temple. Now the Word of the Lord, through Malachi, also tells us of a Latter Day Temple:

 

(1) “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come TO HIS TEMPLE, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

(2) “But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like the fullers’ soap:

(4) “then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” Mal. 3:1, 2, 4.

 

The prophetic Micah also tells us of Latter Day Temples to be built on this earth, some of them in the mountains, in Zion and Jerusalem; in other words in America and Jerusalem. Some of the Latter Day Saints’ Temples are built “in the top of mountains.” I quote:

 

(1) “But in the LAST days it shall come to pass, that the mountain” (the headquarters or highest point) “of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

(2) “And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; And he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” Micah 4:1, 2.

 

The following revelation was given to Joseph Smith:

 

“For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her Stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places or your baptisms for your dead.” D. C. 124:36.

 

Now there appears to be only one way out of this difficulty and that is: let the Word of God have its own course, and acknowledge that His Sanctuary for the Gentiles and the House of Joseph has been restored in A.D. 1843 according to the appointed time, on earth where it belongs.

 

Now then in conclusion, when we consider there were no prophets sent or temples built in Palestine or elsewhere in or near 1843, even to the present time, with the exception of the Latter Day Saints’, and that a temple with its blessings and ordinances was built and restored in America to the Gentiles, thru the Prophet Joseph Smith at the appointed time, the reader is left to draw his own conclusions, concerning the Divine calling of Joseph Smith. But remember this one thing, that the prophecies of God never fail to come true.

 

Furthermore, that His prophets and people will always be persecuted, for He says: “I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. * * * If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” John 15:19, 20.

 

The baseless prejudice waged against Joseph Smith is therefore one of the characteristics that surrounds a true prophet. Behold! the Lord has again established His Holy Temple with men, and He is bidding His children to draw near Him. (Francis M. Darter, “The Time of the End”: Mysteries of Daniel Unveiled [Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Company, 1928], 209-12)

 

Francis M. Darter's Critique of the SDA Interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Part 2

  

(4) If it were known to the two angels, Gabriel and possibly Michael (Dan. 10:12, 21), the two senior angels, that this future Sanctuary was to be restored or constructed in the heavens, then why did they mention the characteristic of cleanliness? The word “cleansed” would be superfluous, to say the least; whereas, if it was to be an earthly Temple, clean ordinances indicate the hand of God.

 

(5) Likewise, why mention a set time when “the host” would cease “to be trodden under foot” in A.D. 1798, and receive a Heavenly blessing in 1843, if the “host” (the living worshippers of God on earth) were to be forced to  continue their going about over the earth (now almost 100 years) without divine revelations or the restoration of His Gospel, Church, Sanctuary, and Priesthood after the time of fulfilment was passed? However, we do agree perfectly with that portion of Uriah Smith’s writings, “Thoughts on Daniel and the Book of Revelations,” which shows that the original organization of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Saints were destroyed and overcome by Rome.

 

(6) Now where are the living Saints coming form at Christ’s coming, if there is to be no true Church restored previous to His second coming? Such reasoning as this is out of the question, for the reason that the language of the prophecy is not fulfilled form any angle.

 

(7) furthermore, the prophetic period of 1335 years in Dan. 12:12 also terminated in A.D. 1843 and the vision calls for a blessing to be restored to the living at that time. Now these two facts are also acknowledged by Mr. Uriah Smith in the same volume pages 315-16. Furthermore, if the A.D. 1843 Sanctuary of Daniel 8th was to be restored in the heavens and the work be for the dead only, then what becomes of the A.D. 1843 special blessing that was promised in Daniel 12:5-12 to the living? The mere fact that certain ones have gradually gained a fair knowledge of Daniel’s prophecies is no special benefit, unless they can connect their fulfillment with specific earthly events.

 

(8) Uriah Smith cuts off all retreat when he acknowledges that the blessing promised in Daniel 12:12 pertains to no other than those living at that time. I quote: “The only thing promised at the end of the 1335 days is a blessing unto those who wait and come to that time; that is, those who are then living.” P. 315.

 

(9) He also acknowledges that this same blessing is referred to, and symbolized in other scriptures (Rev. 12:6-7) namely “under the symbol of an angel flying through mid-heaven with a special announcement of the everlasting Gospel to the inhabitants of the earth. Surely the Bible gives prominence to this movement.” (p. 316)

 

Now then, I have previously explained in Chapters III, V and VI, how the Angel Moroni brought forth the plates of the Book of Mormon in the very beginning of this 1843 Restoration period. Showing that it was the Everlasting Gospel. It should therefore be clear to the reader that through the Latter Day Saints have been fulfilled the prophecies in every detail and they are the only ones who can offer a tangible explanation of the prophecies terminating in 1843. (Francis M. Darter, “The Time of the End”: Mysteries of Daniel Unveiled [Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Company, 1928], 207-9)

 

New from the B. H. Roberts Foundation: The Mountain Meadows Massacre

 The Mountain Meadows Massacre Q&A (Primary Sources)

Francis M. Darter's Critique of the SDA Interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Part 1

  

THE WRITER’S REPLY

 

Justice to the reader of these lines demands that I first mention the fact that only a portion of the Adventists accept Uriah Smith’s idea that this sanctuary was set up in the heavens in 1844. (See p. 622 above book.)

 

Friends: I personally consider the above extracts of testimony to be of great value with one exception, which in reality, spoils the whole. (1) We agree on the time (A.D. 1843-44) for the complete fulfillment of this prophecy covering the restoration of Temple work; (2) This work to be done in a “Holy Sanctuary”; (3) The work in the Sanctuary to include a vicarious work for the dead; (4) Also for the living; (5) The reality of Priesthood, Jesus Christ being a great High Priest; (6) The broad plan of salvation that work is now going on for the dead. (Peter informs us that Christ began this work for the dead during the three days His body was in the comb. I Cor 15:29; I Peter 3:18-20; 4:4-6.) (7) The near approach of the coming of Christ and His glorious Millennial Reign to take up a salvation work for the living.

 

But here is where we divide. (1) Uriah Smith places the restoration of this Sanctuary in the heavens, while the Prophet Joseph Smith and 750,000 Latter Day Saints place its fulfilment on this earth. Uriah Smith makes no claim to having received a revelation declaring such a strange fulfillment of this prophecy. Whereas, Joseph Smith records various revelations and visions, jointly seen by MANY OF HIS BRETHREN pertaining to the heavenly beings who descended and restored the actual keys, knowledge, and authority to establish this Temple work on earth.

 

(2) The building of certain Temples has been foretold by prophecy; which has been fulfilled by their actual construction on earth; so why should this certain one be constructed in the heavens? The one referred to in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, as previously quoted, is to be restored among the Jews before the coming of Christ in the land that God gave unto Jacob.

 

Now then, if the fulness of the Gospel is to b restored unto the Gentiles first in the Latter Days, as previously shown, then the setting up of a Sanctuary of Temple among them MUST PRECEDE the one to be restored unto the Jews. Mal. 3:1-7.

 

(3) If this Temple work is to be confined in the heavens for the dead only until the second coming of the Lord, then I would like to show the reason for the second coming of Elijah as promised to precede the second coming of the Lord, wherein, he is to “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers.” Mal. 4:5, 6. Now to us this means: he was to come in person and establish this temple work in the Sanctuaries for the living and the dead. This mission and prophecy was fulfilled on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple. The Lord, through Malachi, tells us:

 

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.” (4:5. I quote the writings of Joseph Smith citing the above fulfillment:

 

13. “After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us, for Elijah the prophet, who was taken up to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said—14. Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken by the mouth of Malachi, testifying that he (Elijah) should be sent before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come; 15. To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse. 16. Therefore the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands, and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.” D. C. 110:13-16.

 

The spirit of Elijah has since this date covered the world. If you question it, go into your libraries, there you will find thousands of men and women searching out their family genealogy. They are not satisfied with the record of their great grand parents, but they go back hundreds of years. Others, blessed with greater financial support, are spending fortunes in publishing volumes of genealogy data. In the Latter Day Saints’ Temples over twelve million ordinances have been ceremonized to date.

 

Now, what is the sequence of all this work? It resolves that when the eyes of the world are fully opened up and they realize that Joseph Smtih was a Prophet of God, they will then be in a position to do temple work for their people.

 

In the Spirit world, we are told, that the spirits can accept the Gospel and its ordinances, but the ordinances must be actually performed by the living on their behalf. Space prevents my citing thousands of cases, which would require volumes to cover the miracles, wherein this work has been miraculously made known to the living among the Latter Day Saints, and the securing of the life records of the dead made possible.

 

For various other Temple blessings, anointings, and sealings, the reader is referred to church publications covering these subjects. We now return to our analysis of Mr. Uriah Smith’s interpretation of this 1843 Temple restoration. (Francis M. Darter, “The Time of the End”: Mysteries of Daniel Unveiled [Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Company, 1928], 204-7)

 

Francis M. Darter: Overview of the SDA Interpretation of Daniel 8:14

 Note: This is the first of a multi-post series. It is taken from the work of Francis M. Darter. While I disagree with Darter on many issues (he would be a leading advocate of Fundamentalism), this is the only sustained interaction with, and critique, of the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment and related prophecy from Dan 8:14.

 

THE ADVENTIST OPINION

 

There is a division in Christendom known as “Adventists.” They are God-fearing people and they have many able students in theology and history who have for many years taken a great interest in these certain prophecies. They arrive at the same date for their fulfillment; namely, A.D. 1843-44. These people formerly believed that these certain prophecies referred to the end of the world, and they gathered in 1843, looking for the coming of the Christ at that time. The term “the time of the end” was their stumbling stone. Their writers admit their error, and some of them now acknowledge that they refer to the restoration of the Sanctuary, and that it was set up in A.D. 1844 in the Heavens. The Lord being a High-priest began a vicarious work on that date in that Heavenly built Sanctuary for the dead and that He will come to the living just as soon as He completes this work for the dead.

 

I quote in brief from “Thoughts on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Book of Revelation,” by one of their leading writers, Uriah Smith:

 

“Setting aside for a moment the arguments by which they are shown to have ended in 1844, and letting them date from any point where the least shadow of reason can be imagined for placing them, for from which the wildest dreamer could date them, it is still true that the utmost limit to which they could extend had gone by” (p. 208).

 

“We have seen (and this is what brings the solemnities of the Judgment to our door) that the long prophetic period which was to mark the commencement of this final work in the heavenly sanctuary, has met its termination in our own generation. In 1844 the days ended. And since that time the final work for man’s salvation has been going forward” (p. 209).

 

“How long it will take to examine the cases of all the dead, how son the work will reach the cases of the living, no man can know. And as above remarked, since the year 1844, this solemn work has been going forward” (p. 210).

 

“The opening of this heavenly temple or the commencement of the service in its second apartment, marks the commencement of the sounding of the seventh angel.” (Rev. 11:15, 19) *** “It gives a definite idea of the position and work of our great High Priest, AND BRINGS OUT THE PLAN OF SALVATION in its distinctive and beautiful features. It reins us up, as no other subject does, to the realities of the judgment, and shows the preparation we need to be able to stand in the coming day” (p. 211).

 

“The 2300 days, as has been already shown, terminated in 1844, and brought us to the cleansing of the Sanctuary” (p. 316).

 

“The mistake made by Adventists in 1844 was not in the time, has been shown by the argument on the seventy weeks and twenty-three hundred days in Daniel 9; that it was in the nature of the event to occur at the end of those days, has been sown in the argument on the sanctuary in Daniel 8.” “Thoughts on the Book of Revelation” p. 598. (Francis M. Darter, “The Time of the End”: Mysteries of Daniel Unveiled [Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Company, 1928], 202-4)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 49: Terryl L. Givens on Early Christian Theology, the Great Apostasy, and Restoration

 

Episode 49: Terryl L. Givens on Early Christian Theology, the Great Apostasy, and Restoration

James H. Martineau's Vision of a Deceased Son in 1915

Writing in 1918, James H. Martineau recalled a vision he had of a then-deceased son from 1915:

 

In 1915, one evening I suddenly awoke at 3 a.m. and as I lay reading in bed I felt a strange sensation + plainly saw abut an inch of thumb + fore finger which turned out the light + I said “wait is all this?” A voice answered “I am your son John Wm Don’t you remember your little Johnny who died so long ago” [He died in 1863 at the age of 5 years.] He said “I came to visit you first, because I died first. Della was come next, because shed died next to me.” He told me much that would happen, much of which I have forgotten, which I should of written. But he said as I well remember that mother should live to be eighty-three + should die in peace without any pin, which she did, + that I should live twenty years longer + should die in smoke, but without pain. I said, “Will I burn?” He said “No, you’’ll die just as if asleep.” Then he said, “I must go now” + I again saw his thumb + finger ^seize+^ turn on the switch of the lamp re-lighting it. (James H. Martineau, Journal, c. 1918, in Useful to the Church and Kingdom: The Journals of James H. Martineau, Pioneer and Patriarch, 1850-1918, ed. Noel A. Carmack and Charles M. Hatch, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2023], 2:1262-63)

 

Some Comments on Mariology in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia

  

By reason of the Annunciation and Incarnation, the Holy Spirit is also considered the Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since it is by him that she conceived her Child. (“Spouses of the Blessed Virgin,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Peter M. J. Stravinskas [rev ed.; Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998], 935)

 

While there is no direct biblical evidence for the Assumption, the Church has long held, on the basis of theological reasoning and Tradition, the implicit belief in Our Lord’s taking His mother to Himself from the moment of her passage from this since, since she is declared “full of grace” or “highly favored daughter” of God the Father (Lk 1:28). The Archangel Gabriel further articulates Mary’s relationship to the Trinity in this fashion: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). It might be argued, then, as St. Francis de Sales suggest, that the Assumption is necessitated by the desire of the Trinity to behold for eternity Mary, who enjoys a unique relationship with each Person of the Trinity as daughter, mother and bride. (“Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Peter M. J. Stravinskas [rev ed.; Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998], 110)

 

From the fifth century on, legend told o four Lady’s death surrounded by the Apostles, when her soul was taken into heaven, only to be followed by their keeping vigil at the grave and witnessing the Assumption of her body as well. The fanciful aspects of these legends notwithstanding, they bear witness to the truth of early belief by the faithful in Our Lady’s being taken to heaven, soul and body. (“Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” in ibid., 346)

 

Stephen R. Miller on the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel

  

Hebrew of Daniel. Driver claimed that the Hebrew of Daniel suggests a second-century date. (Driver, Literature, 504-8; also Jeffrey, “Book of Daniel,” 349) He contended that the Hebrew of the book is not as polished as preexilic or even early postexilic biblical material. (Driver, Literature, 505)

 

Concerning spelling, place names, and the like, the Hebrew of the book would have been modernized throughout the centuries as was the Aramaic, although there is nothing in the language that would preclude authorship by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. (cf. Young, Introduction, 371) The Hebrew portion contains words, phrases, and grammar common throughout the Hebrew Bible.

 

Moreover, the Hebrew of Daniel resembles that of Ezekiel, Haggai, Ezra, and Chronicles more than that of the later Qumran scrolls. (cf. Harrison, Introduction, 1125) In one study Archer exampled sample Hebrew texts from Qumran (1QS and 1QM) and determined on the basis of the language that Daniel’s Hebrew came from an earlier period. (G. L. Archer, Jr., “Daniel,” EBC [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 23-24) Thus to insist that the Book of Daniel is late on the basis of the Hebrew is not in accordance with the available data. (For a further discussion of Hebrew and the date of the Book of Daniel, see R. D. Wilson, “Evidence in Hebrew Diction for the Dates of Documents,” PTR 25 [1927]: 353-88) (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 31-32)

 

Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia on the Deposit of Faith and the Nature of the Development of Doctrine

  

Deposit of Faith The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to the Church to be preserved and proclaimed. In this sense, the term is very nearly coextensive with “objective revelation,” in that it embraces the whole of Christ’s teaching and embodied in Revelation and Tradition. But the metaphor of “deposit” highlights particular features of the apostolic teaching features of the apostolic teaching. It suggests that this teaching is like an inexhaustible treasure, one that consistently rewards reflection and study with new insights and deeper penetration into the mystery of the divine economy of salvation. Although our understanding of this teaching can develop, it can never be augmented in its substance. Thus, the teaching is a divine trust, something not to be tampered with, altered, or, as it were, “devalued.” This feature of the apostolic teaching has also been expressed in the traditional conviction that Revelation, properly so-called, was complete with the death of the last Apostle. The treasure of saving truth—in itself nothing other than Christ Himself—contains the definitive revelation of God’s inner life and His intentions in our regard. There can be no more complete revelation than that imparted by the very Word of God, the Son Who is the perfect image of the Father and Who sends the illuminating Spirit into the Church. The position of the Church with respect to the Deposit of Faith is thus something similar to that of a trustee: charged to preserve a living tradition with fidelity, she must nonetheless proclaim it in new historical circumstances in such a way that its efficacy and richness are undiminished. Although the term “Deposit of Faith” entered official Catholic teaching only with the Council of Trent, its substance is well-attested in the Scriptures and the Fathers. (“Deposit of Faith,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Peter M. J. Stravinskas [rev ed.; Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998], 320-21)

 

Development of Doctrine The notion that the Church’s understanding of divinely revealed truths grows and evolves throughout the centuries. The substance of the Truth always remains the same; however, the grasp of the Truth—due to the gradual unfolding of the divine mysteries—changes. Nothing has been added to our subtracted from the Deposit of Faith since the death of the last Apostle. However, the mysteries revealed by Christ to His Apostles are clearer now than they were in the first centuries, through the penetration of these truths by the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. It is God’s desire that the faithful assent and understand the truth as best they are able. At times, a mystery which seemed implicit in the Scriptures was made explicit by a papal definition (e.g., the Immaculate Conception). According to John A. Hardon, S. J., the progressive realization and understanding of the Chruch’s doctrines is due to “the prayerful reflection of the faithful, notably of the Church’s saints and mystics; the study and research by scholars and theologians; the practical experience of living the Faith among the faithful; and the collective wisdom and teaching of the Church’s hierarchy under the Bishop of Rome” (Modern Catholic Dictionary, p. 155). (“Development of Doctrine,” in ibid., 324)

 

The Church is “apostolic”—the Church presents are true, unchangeable doctrine of Jesus, as taught in the apostolic era and handed down through the Apostles’ successors, the bishops. (“Marks of the Church,” in ibid., 651)

 

Stephen R. Miller on the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel

  

Aramaic of Daniel. An unusual feature of the Book of Daniel is that part of it is written in Hebrew, and part (a little over half) is in Aramaic. Driver argued that the Aramaic of Daniel “is a Western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken near Palestine,” (Driver, Literature, 502-4) and inferred that the book must have been written in Palestine. This idea has now been totally discredited by recent discoveries of fifth-century Aramaic texts that demonstrate that both Daniel and Ezra were “written in a form of Imperial Aramaic (Reichsaramaisch), an official or literary dialect which had currency in all parts of the Near East.” (Aracher, Survey, 397) Even though the type of Aramaic used in the book does not indicate a late date, Rowley argued that certain features of Daniel’s Aramaic supported a time of composition not earlier than the fourth century B.C. (Rowley, Aramaic, 16, 153-56) Yet reevaluation of the data in light of newer materials have not sustained Rowley’s conclusion. Moreover, the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra exhibit striking parallels with early examples of the language found in such documents as the Elephantine Papyri, also written in Imperial Aramaic and dated to the fifth century B.C. As a matter of fact, Kraeling, who published many of the Elephantine Papyri, maintains: “There is no very great difference between the language of the [fifth century B.C. Elephantine] papyri and the so-called Biblical Aramaic.” (Kraeling, Aramaic Papyri, 4) E. Yamauchi adds, “Discoveries, such as Adon’s letter in Aramaic (sixth cent. B.C.), have confirmed the fact that the Aramaic of Ezra and of Daniel is basically the same as the Aramaic of the sixth-fifth centuries as we know it from contemporary evidence.” (Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon, 91)

 

On the other hand, the Aramaic of the book does not confirm to later samples of the language. Archer compared the Aramaic of Daniel to that of the Genesis Apocryphon, a first century B.C. copy from Qumran of a document originally composed probably in the third century B.C. and concluded on the basis of the language that the Apocryphon must have been written considerably later than Daniel, Ezra, and the Elephantine Papyri. (G. L. Archer, Jr., “The Aramaic of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’ Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,” New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne [Waco: Word, 1970], 160-69; cf. Archer, Survey, 400-401) According to Kutscher, “it can be stated with confidence that the language of the Scroll [the Genesis Apocryphon] is of a later type than Biblical Aramaic.” (E. Y. Kutscher, “Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon,” JBL 76 [1957]: 289) Thus, the Aramaic portions of Daniel must have been written at an early date. Hasel concluded: “On the basis of presently available evidence, the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to Official Aramaic and can have been written as early as the later part of the sixth century B.C.; linguistic evidence is clearly against a date in the second century B.C.” (Hasel, “The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language,” 255) (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 30-31)

 

Jack H. West on the Post-1830 Fulfillment of 1 Nephi 13:30; Ether 1:42-43; 2:8, 10, 12

 

 

Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren. (1 Nephi 13:30)

 

And when thou hast done this thou shalt go at the head of them down into the valley which is northward. And there will I meet thee, and I will go before thee into a land which is choice above all the lands of the earth. And there will I bless thee and thy seed, and raise up unto me of thy seed, and of the seed of thy brother, and they who shall go with thee, a great nation. And there shall be none greater than the nation which I will raise up unto me of thy seed, upon all the face of the earth. And thus I will do unto thee because this long time ye have cried unto me. (Ether 1:42-43)

 

And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. . . . For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. . . . Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2:8, 10, 12)

 

Commenting on the above passages and their potential post-1830 fulfillment,  Jack H. West wrote the following:

 

THE FIFTH CHARGE OF THE PROSECUTION WAS THAT IF THE BOOK WERE TRUE IT WOULD NOT MAKE SO MANY RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS.

 

Our answer·: Many statements that sounded ridiculous in 1830 have since been proven completely true. We testify to the world that every statement still remaining in this book which has not yet come to pass is prophecy, and that it will come to pass just as surely as dozens upon dozens of prophecies have already come to pass since 1830.

 

We have to go along with the prosecution just a little bit though on this charge. lmagine a book coming off the. press in 1830, and making a fantastic statement that in the latter-days the greatest nation upon the face of the earth would be buiIt upon this continent. A youngster on the street today wouId not think that was a fantastic or ridiculous statement, would he? He would say, "Why anyone knows, even in the fifth grade, that that statement is true." But in 1830, they were still calling the United States "that great and foolish American experiment." Europe didn't even give us the status of a nation. There was not a vestige of evidence in 1830 that there would be a nation on this continent greater than any nation upon the face of the earth in-- -"a land choice above all other lands." We find the evidence of this statement not only in l Nephi 13:30, but also in the record of the people of Jared in Ether, 1:42-43, and 2:8, 10, 12.

 

Let us go back about 124 years and get a quick picture. Chicago was known as little Ft. Dearborn, way out on the western frontier, with sixty-five inhabitants, most of them military men who slept with their guns within their reach for fear the savage Indians would scalp them in their sleep. We had only three miles of steam railway. We were so poor as a nation that the president and his cabinet had to borrow on their personal finances to pay the cost of government in the year of 1830. In that year, many of our people went hungry because we did not raise enough food to feed them in this land that was supposed to be a choice land above all other lands.

 

Now let us get the comparison today in this land of the United States, with only 1/ 20th of the landed area of the world and only 1/ 16th of the population of the world. Even after World War 1, we were producing 1 / 3 of all of the coal, doing 1/ 3 of all the manufacturing of the earth, producing 1/ 2 of all the steel of the earth, 2/ 3 of the cotton, and 4/ 5 of the corn. We had ·1 I 4 of aII the wealth of the earth, did l / 3 of all the banking, had 1/ 2 of all the rai I roads of the earth, and did 1/ 2 of all the printing in the earth. Chicago was not way out on the "western frontier" but in the eastern part of our nation. Its sixty-five inhabitants had grown to over three million. We had over 350,000 miles of steam railways instead of three. The closest nation to us was over 200 billion dollars behind us in national wealth. We have recently just finished “hitching our belts'" to feed a good part of the world with our surplus. Yet it was sixty-eight long years after this prophecy was made in the Book of Mormon before we even stepped into fourth place among the nations of the earth- -after the war with Spain; then in 1904, into second place after the Russo-Japanese agreement; and it was nearly one hundred years after the prophecy was made, after World War 1 ended in 1917, before we stepped into first place as a nation of the earth. The statement in the Book of Mormon that "the greatest nation" of the earth would be built on this land choice above all other lands sounded fantastic in 1830. Today we know it is absolutely true. (Jack H. West, Trial of the Stick of Joseph [1954], 41-42)

 

With respect to 1 Nephi 13:30-31, while it was fulfilled by what we now call the United States of America, this passage does not support the Heartland Model for Book of Mormon geography; in fact, it refutes it rather soundly. On this, see:

 

Joe V. Andersen and Ted Dee Stoddard, "The Prophecies and Promises of 1 Nephi 13:30-31 That Invalidate the Heartland Theory for New World Book of Mormon Geography" (2016)

Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia on the difficulty with Molinism

  

The difficulty with Molinism is that it does not explain the origin of the conditionally free action which God foreknows. It is difficult to contend that God does not coerce human free action if this conditional action does not derive from Him, and if it does not derive from God, one must ask how God knows it. (“Molinism,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Peter M. J. Stravinskas [rev ed.; Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998], 680)

 

Jonathan D. Trigg, Baptism in the theology of Martin Luther simper ES in Motu Et Initio (1991)

In spite of some ignorant claims of James White (see below) Martin Luther (1483-1546) always held to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. I just recently found a PhD dissertation on Luther's theology of baptism published by the University of Durham:

 

Jonathan D. Trigg, Baptism in the theology of Martin Luther simper ES in Motu Et Initio (1991)

 

The book, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, was based on this doctoral dissertation, although it costs an arm and a leg, so I have not read it (though if anyone wants to gift me a copy, I will not complain . . . )

 

As an aside, a great video refuting James White on Luther's theology of baptism, particularly baptismal regeneration, can be seen in the following video with Christian Wagner (RC) and Jack Lin (Lutheran):

 

A Lutheran and I Take Down James White on Baptismal Regeneration

Must-watch from Jacob Hansen: "Can we go on like this?"

 

Can we go on like this?

Stephen R. Miller on Persian Loan Words in the Book of Daniel

  

Persian Loan Words. Driver argues that the number of Persian words in the book indicates a late date. (Driver, Literature, 501; S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, CBSC [Cambridge University Press, 1922], lvi-lviii) Yet, according to the book, Daniel wrote after the Persian conquest of Babylon and even served in the new administration. He would naturally have utilized the new language when appropriate. In fact, about half of the (approximately twenty) Persian expressions found in the book are in the class of governmental terminology, names of officials and so forth, (cf. H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel [1949; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969], 23; Montgomery, Daniel, 21) just the kinds of words one would expect to find updated to avoid confusion for persons living under the new regime.

 

Actually, the Persian expressions in the book would seem to be rather strong evidence for an early time of composition. Kitchen points out that “the Persian words in Daniel as specifically, Old Persian words.” (K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic Daniel,” Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel [London: Tyndale, 1970], 43) Old Persian gave way to Middle Persian ca. 300 B.C., so these terms must have come from an era before Persia fell to the Greeks since the Middle Persian period began at that time and there are no Middle Persian expressions in the book. (Ibid.) According to the majority of critical scholars, the Old Greek (Septuagint) translation was made only thirty years (ca. 130 B.C.) after the time Daniel allegedly was written (164 B.C.). Kitchen points out that renderings of four Persian loan words in the Greek version of Daniel “are hopelessly inexact—mere guesswork,” which suggests that the terms were so ancient that “their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or, at the least, drastically changed) long before he [the translator] set to work.” (Kitchen, Notes, 43) Thus Kitchen concludes that “the fact suggest an origin for the Persian words in the Aramaic of Daniel before ca. 300 B.C.” (Ibid., 77) (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 28)

 

The Tanners and Dan Vogel vs. the Spalding Theory for Book of Mormon Origins

The Tanner's 1977 book, Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? is not available for free online. Also, Dan Vogel, back in 2007, interacted with proponents of the various Spalding theories of Book of Mormon origins on a thread entitled

DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

While Dan cannot exegete scripture (ancient or modern) to save his life, he does a great job at refuting the common evidences Dale Broadhurst et al., provide to support the Spalding theory.

I make this post to show that the Spalding theory can be easily refuted by simply referencing works from critics (Vogel) and anti-Mormons (Tanners), although there have been other excellent refutations by Latter-day Saints, such as my friend Matt Roper.

Sigurd Grindheim on Hebrews 5:4

  

5:4 Having elaborated on the first characteristic of the high priest, that he is one of the people, the author now turns to the second: he is appointed (cf. v. 1). The term that is translated “honor” (timē) is commonly used for public office (LSJ), and it is not necessarily objectionable to assume such honor for oneself (cf. Luke 19:12). With respect to the high-priestly office, however, an appointment by God is necessary, as in the case of Aaron (Exod 28:1).

 

The audience may have had occasion not reflect on the contrast between the biblical qualifications for the high priest and the high priests in Jerusalem. In 174 BCE, Jaso bribed the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes to appoint him to the high priesthood (2 Macc 4:7-10). Subsequent high priests also relied on foreign political rulers in order to ascend to the office. The author, however, does not hint any criticism of the high priests that served in the Second Temple. His concern is not with the corruption of the office but with how Jesus’s high priesthood relates to the scriptural portrait of the earthly high priest. To him, the physical temple structure in Jerusalem and the ministry performed there were irrelevant. On the assumption of a late date for the letter, the reason may be that the temple had already been destroyed. The irrelevance of the temple may also have something to do with the author’s understanding of his own and his audience’s sense of identity. While they maintained relations with the Jewish community, they did not understand themselves as a part of the community whose worship had centered around the Jerusalem temple. (Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 279)

 

 

Evidence that the Book of Daniel Exhibits Knowledge of the 6th century

  

. . . the author of Daniel exhibited a more extensive knowledge of sixth-century events than would seem possible for a second-century writer. R. H. Pfeiffer (who argued that the work contains errors) acknowledged that Daniel reports some amazing historical details: “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [Heb 4:27]), as the excavations have proved . . . and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel and in Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 (chap. 5).” (Pfeiffer, Introduction, 758-59) . . . Regarding the historical setting, it is commonly claimed by those who accept the late date that the Book of Daniel was composed (in final form at least) exclusively to address the problem of the Maccabean revolt, and all agree that the prophecy speaks of Antiochus IV and his persecutions of the Jewish people. Yet, as A. Ferch points out concerning Dan 11, one would expect more precise allusions to the Maccabean crisis than actually occur, especially since this material supposedly was written a matter of months after the events transpired. (A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,’” AUSS 21 [1983]: 134-36) Ferch also comments, “Even if the author was a member of the Hasidim or was a pacifist, it is unlikely that he would not warm up more to the successes of his countrymen and that he would leave unnamed such heroes as Matthias and Judas Maccabeus.” (Ibid., 136) An examination of the book also reveals that many of the supposed references to the Maccabean crisis (including those thought to be present in all of the narratives in chaps. 1-6) are unconvincing.

 

Another argument against the Maccabean view is that the pagan governments in the historical accounts in Daniel do not exhibit a hostile attitude toward the Jews, contrary to conditions under Antiochus IV. Even Montgomery asserts: “It must be positively denied, as earlier conservative comm., and now Mein., Holscher, have rightly insisted, that Neb, and Darius are types of the infamous Antiochus, or at the trials of the confessors in the bk. represent the Macc. martyrdoms.” (Montgomery, Daniel, 89) Neither was Daniel an antagonist of Nebuchadnezzar but even seems to have admired him. In almost every instance, Daniel was a friend of the monarch, and the king exhibited great respect and even affection for him. Such a scenario certainly does not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when the godly Jews were being persecuted and murdered by that pagan despot. These Jews did not admire Antiochus but despised his evil ways. Even if the stories were written earlier than the second century B.C., and adapted by a Maccabean author, it seems logical to expect that he would have changed elements of the stories to fit his present situation. (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 26, 27)