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

  

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

 

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

 

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

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

11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον

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

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

 

 

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

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

11 Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In sum, the textual data support the conclusion that 1 Clement 34:3 is a deliberate conflation of Isaiah and Revelation, reflecting both continuity with prophetic tradition and engagement with emerging New Testament apocalyptic theology. (Stephen Boyce, “The Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary, 2021], 65-68)

 

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

 

Episode 103: Brian Hales on the Seer Stone Controversy

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) on Matthew 16:18

  

. . . And when Christ said to Peter “Thou art Peter and upon this rock,” etc., we understand the word, rock, as a reference to Christ in him he [Peter] had confesses his belief. And if the word, rock [petram], is to be understood as a reference to Peter’s role as the foundation stone of the church, according to Jerome the other apostles were also foundation stones of the church. When these things are discussed in the next to the last book of the Apocalypse no one doubts that it refers to the apostles when it speaks of the twelve foundation stones of the city of Jerusalem. And if Christ said to Peter “Feed my sheep,” it is clear that this feeding is by word and example. Similarly according to St. Augustine’s gloss on the same passage, the same command was given to all [when Christ said] “Going into the whole world” in the last chapter of Matthew and Mark. Nothing else is said to Peter which implies any power. Therefore we are correct in saying that all the apostles are equal to Peter in power. (Nicholas of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, Book II, paragraph 115 [trans. ed. Paul E. Sigmund; Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 90)

 

 

Indeed we say that all the apostles are equal in the grace of the apostolate just as in the grace of the priesthood all priests are equal, but we say that Peter was first among the apostles by virtue of a superabundance of grace. Augustine says in his last sermon [on the Gospel of] John, that because of abundant grace Peter was both the first apostle and on account of his primacy among the apostles also represented the church as a symbol of the whole. And the sacred writings describe the primacy with which Peter was endowed with a superabundance of grace by Christ, in the first chapter of John were Christ says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” which is interpreted Peter. Augustine in his seventh sermon comments on this passage as follows: “He made a great change when he changed Simon’s name to Peter. But Peter is now from rock [petra] and the rock is the church. Therefore the name of Peter symbolized the church.” Observe that according to the interpretation of the great and learned Augustine, the change in name was important. When Christ said, “Thou art Peter,” he used the present tense, where he had said earlier—in the future tense—“Thou shalt be called Cephas.” He did not say then, “Thou art named or called Peter” but “Thou art Peter.” From this it is evident that the promise of Christ that Simon would in the future be called Cephas was a promise of a real primacy. Hence when Augustine says that Peter had the primacy among the apostles he can not be interpreted as speaking of the time of his conversion or his recognition of the Messiah, as the name Peter is interpreted (according to Bede, incorrectly) to mean “the one who recognizes” by writers such as Alexander of Hales commenting on John. He adds on the same point that his brother, Andrew, who told him earlier that he had found the Messiah had already preceded him in that recognition, as we read in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Therefore Augustine himself understands the primacy among the others in the church as necessarily referring to the rulership and eminence which Peter received after the college of the apostles had been created when Christ said, “Thou art Peter.” (Nicholas of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, Book II, paragraph 251 [trans. ed. Paul E. Sigmund; Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 194-95)

 

John B. Whitley on the use of לוּחַ in the text of Ezekiel 37:16 of Targum Jonathan

  

The Targum of Jonathan takes a slightly different path toward a similar end. It distributes (and slightly expands) its translation of the Hebrew term עץ among four occurrences of Aramaic לוח (tablet) and six occurrences of שבט, whose meaning here requires further discussion. The translation לוח is used when עץ is the object that Ezekiel physically holds in his hands where שבט is used when עץ is part of the inscription on the sticks/tablets. The translation שבט is significant precisely because of its ambiguity: it can mean both “tribe” and “rod,” and there is good reason to believe that its use here is intended to play on both of these meanings. In connection with the meaning “rod,” שבט seems to encode an additional play on the more precise nuances of “scepter” and “shepherd’s staff,” as has been observed with the use of the Greek ῥάβδος in the LXX above. This aspect of the play enhances the connection between the sign act in vv. 16–19 and the messianic content of vv. 21–28. In connection with the meaning “tribe,” it may be noted that שבט is used to translate ושבטי ישראל (and the tribes of Israel) in v. 19, and in the six instances in which it translates Hebrew עץ it always precedes the name of a traditional tribal designation (Judah, Joseph, Ephraim). Thus, in Tg. Jon., each use of שבט fully comprehends the meaning “scepter / shepherd’s staff / tribe” so that the symbolic unification of the tablets signifies both the restoration of the monarchy and the uniting of the tribes. One difference from the LXX here is that Tg. Jon. attempts to improve the coherence of this passage by modifying the content of the inscriptions on the tablets whereas, in the LXX, it is the description of the physical sticks as ῥάβδοι that gives the act messianic importance.

 

One additional modification in Tg. Jon. is worthy of note and is comparable to the LXX’s attempt to improve this passage. As we have seen above, the MT in v. 19 retains the symbolic imagery of the sticks in its first interpretation of the sign act, and the LXX seeks to make this verse more of a true interpretation by translating two instances of עץ in this verse with φυλή (tribe). The LXX does not, however, see this change through entirely since it also retains mention of the tribes becoming one “stick” (ῥάβδος). The Targum of Jonathan carries this change through more thoroughly by emending “and I will make them one stick” in the MT to “and I will make them one people.”

 

Thus, it appears that the additions that were added by TS^R caused the later translators of the LXX and Tg. Jon. to make v. 19 more of a first interpretation of vv. 16–17, to ponder the meaning of עץ in this passage, and to search for an explanation for how the symbolism in vv. 16–19 relates to the messianic content of vv. 21–28. Both adopted the same basic tactic of expanding the connotations of the stick imagery in a way that relates to both the messianic shepherd and Davidic ruler images later in this passage, although they went about this in different ways. The trajectory of interpretive revision begun in TS^R, therefore, was continued and strengthened in these later versions. (John B. Whitley, “The Literary Expansion of Ezekiel’s ‘Two Sticks’ Sign Act (Ezekiel 37:15-28),” Harvard Theological Review 108, no. 2 [April 2015]: 322-23)

 

 

Jaco Gericke on Genesis 20:13

  

EXPLICIT REFERENCES TO DIVINE CAUSATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

In a sense, the theory of DCP is completely inferential. That is, biblical Hebrew has no direct equivalent for the English word “cause.” The concept of causation, however, can presumably be inferred, first of all from what is understood to be a correct interpretation of functions within Hebrew grammar. Here the verbal system is said to contain forms indicative of causation (e.g. especially in certain types of pi‘el, pu‘al and hip‘il formations). This is why English translations have a few instances where the word “cause” occurs in the rendition. For example, a simple word search in the RSV with “cause” as the only extension and pertaining to divine agency shows only a number of cases. These occur across a variety of sources and shows complex causation in all instances, for example:

 

(i) And when God (Hebrew: “gods”) caused me to wander from my father’s house . . . (Gen 20:13)

 

. . .

 

Besides interpretations of grammar, also lengthier depictions of YHWH as causal agent as well as theological propositions implicating YHWH in the actualisation of certain states of affairs seem to constitute the other side of the textual data from which causation has been inferred. In addition, textual representations of the working of both human and divine characters in tandem are held to warrant the inference of a duality in causation, especially if these two agencies are the only ones that are kept in view, and internally undifferentiated at that. (Jaco Gericke, “Rethinking the ‘Dual Causality Principle’ in Old Testament Research—A Philosophical Perspective,” Old Testament Essays 28, no. 1 [2015]:93, 94, emphasis added; other texts are quoted in Deut 28:27; 2 Kgs 19:7; 21:8; Ezek 36:27; Psa 88:18; 106:46)

 

Peter Stravinskas: "Fewer than a dozen" texts have been Infallibilty Interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church

  

Father Raymond Brown, writing in the Jerome Biblical Commentary (the best single guide available for Scripture study), categorically asserts that “the Church has the power to determine infallibly the meaning of Scripture in matters of faith and morals”; however, he immediately goes on to note that this never involves technicalities like authorship or dating of a book. In point of fact, the Church exercises great restraint in offering authoritative interpretations of individual pericopes (texts); fewer than a dozen such instances can be pointed to in her two-thousand-year history, most of them at the Council of Trent. (Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Church and the Bible [rev ed.; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996], 15, emphasis in bold added)

 

Keil and Delitzsch on the Conditional Nature of the Prophecy in Judges 13:2-7

  

Judg. 13:2–7. Whilst the Israelites were given into the hands of the Philistines on account of their sins, and were also severely oppressed in Gilead on the part of the Ammonites, the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah, a Danite from Zorea, i.e., Sur’a, on the western slope of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. 15:33). Mishpachath Dani (the family of the Danites) is used interchangeably with shebet Dani (the tribe of the Danites: see Judg. 18:2, 11, and 18:1, 30), which may be explained on this ground, that according to Num. 26:42, 43, all the Danites formed but one family, viz., the family of the Shuhamites. The angel of the Lord announced to this woman, who was barren, “Thou wilt conceive and bear a son. And now beware, drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean: for, behold, thou wilt conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head; for a vowed man of God (Nazir) will the boy be from his mother’s womb,” i.e., his whole life long, “to the day of his death,” as the angel expressly affirmed, according to v. 7. The three prohibitions which the angel of the Lord imposed upon the woman were the three things which distinguished the condition of a Nazarite (see at Num. 6:1–8, and the explanation given there of the Nazarite vow). The only other thing mentioned in the Mosaic law is the warning against defilement from contact with the dead, which does not seem to have been enforced in the case of Samson. When the angel added still further, “And he (the Nazarite) will begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,” he no doubt intended to show that his power to effect this deliverance would be closely connected with his condition as a Nazarite. The promised son was to be a Nazarite all his life long, because he was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of his foes. And in order that he might be so, his mother was to share in the renunciations of the Nazarite vow during the time of her pregnancy. Whilst the appearance of the angel of the Lord contained the practical pledge that the Lord still acknowledged His people, though He had given them into the hands of their enemies; the message of the angel contained this lesson and warning for Israel, that it could only obtain deliverance from its foes by seeking after a life of consecration to the Lord, such as the Nazarites pursued, so as to realize the idea of the priestly character to which Israel had been called as the people of Jehovah, by abstinence from the deliciae carnis, and everything that was unclean, as being emanations of sin, and also by a complete self-surrender to the Lord (see Pentateuch, p. 674). (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 2:292-93)

 

Susan Gillingham on Psalm 41:3 and 9 and its Use in the New Testament

  

Verses 3 and 9 (about the betrayal by a close friend, having possible correspondences with 35:14) result in the psalm being read in Jewish tradition as a personal psalm of one suffering in body and soul. Even Rashi sees this is about real, physical sickness. For those who argue the psalm should first be seen in the light of David, verse 9 is seen as a reference to Ahithophel, and verse 10 as alluding to the true cause of David’s distress which was in not being allowed to build the Temple.

 

This personal reading is paralleled in Christian tradition, where instead of reading the psalm through the viewpoint of the distress of David it is read through the sufferings of Christ. The best example is in Jn. 13:18, set in the context of the Last Supper, where John refers to Jesus using 41:9 as a prophecy about the imminent betrayal of Judas (‘But it is to fulfil the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’). The Greek used here is different from the Septuagint—there is a different word for ‘eat’, and ‘bread’ is in the singular—but the specific reference to ‘eating bread’ becomes an appropriate literal reference to Judas receiving bread from Jesus during the following Passover meal, Jesus telling Judas to do what he was going to do, and Judas leaving (Jn. 13:21–30). So, according to John, Jesus uses Ps. 41:9 (which would probably have some resonance with Ahithophel’s betrayal of David) but this is to show that he is no longer the victim of circumstance, as was David, but one who is able to anticipate his own fate.

 

It is possible that this psalm is also alluded to in the account of Judas’ betrayal in Mk. 14:17–21. The fact that this is taking place ‘as it is written of him’ (Mk. 14:21) and that the reference is to eating and betrayal (verse 18) might suggest that Ps. 41:9 also shaped the account: Jesus, like the psalmist, is the ‘righteous sufferer’. Furthermore, in Acts 1:16 Peter’s first sermon refers to scripture being fulfilled, ‘which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas’: it is more than likely, given the reference to ‘David’ and hence to the psalms, that Ps. 41:9 is the ‘prophecy’ referred to here. (Susan Gillingham, Psalms through the Centuries, 3 vols., [Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Sussex, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell, 2018], 2:248-49)

 

Mary Jane Woodger on the "Zion"

Context: Discussion of D&C 57:

  

Zion does not always refer to a geographical location. The location of the center place of Zion, however, is a specific location. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 112)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 53:6

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:1

כלנו כצאן תעינו. ר"ל כצאן מבלי רועה, לפיכך אמר כצאן בפתח הכ"ף לידיעה כי אותו הצאן הוא תועה שאין לו רועה: (source)

 

"All we like sheep have gone astray." That is to say, like sheep without a shepherd. Therefore he says kaṣṣō'n ("like the sheep"), with the kaf vocalized with pataḥ, indicating definiteness, because it refers to that particular flock—the flock that wanders because it has no shepherd.

 

Radak on Isaiah 53:6:2

הפגיע. העון הוא הפוגע בהם והאל הוא המפגיע ששולח להם הרע, פירוש עון עונש העון, כמו כי לא שלם עון האמרי עד הנה:

 

"Has laid [it] upon" (הפגיע). The iniquity is what strikes them, while God is the one who causes it to strike—that is, who sends the calamity upon them. Here, "iniquity" (עון) means the punishment for iniquity, as in, "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16).

 

Discussion of Sarah/Sariah on the b-hebrew mailing list (September 1, 2000)

 When asked about the name “Sarah”:

 

[Brown, Driver, and Briggs] deduce that Sarah is from the root srr, to rule, so that srh is she ruled. So princess, noble lady. Whereas Israel is from the root srh, to contend. In any case, Israel has to be a verbal sentence, as it begins with y, unless you can find a root that is ysr. BDB says Israel is either El contends, prevails, or puts it in the jussive, let El contend, prevail. That isn't how names go imo, I don't know any names in the jussive. As for Sarah, I would guess that the theopho[r]ic is missing, as every name in the ane had a theophoric. It is probably sariah, YHWH, or Yah, rules. (Liz Fried, email to the b-hebrew mailing list, September 1, 2000)

 

Has Egyptology Disproven the Book of Abraham? A Yale Egyptologist Responds

 

Has Egyptology Disproven the Book of Abraham? A Yale Egyptologist Responds

Review of Friberg/ Carroll‬: "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"

 

Review of Friberg/ Carroll‬: "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"

John Pacheco (RC) on Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Doctrines that Can be "Deduced from Scripture"

  

As the Confession makes plain, there are two ways of learning about the truth in Scripture. The Scripture will either reveal the truth explicitly or it will do so implicitly. While we can understand how a proponent of Sola Scriptura will claim that all things fundamental to salvation are clear because of explicit teachings in Scripture, it is very odd that they would do so when the teachings are not explicit. As the Confession admits, there are truths in Scripture which are implicit, which, by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture.

 

Yet, this begs many questions:

 

1) How much deduction is allowed?

2) Does not more deduction make the conclusion less clear?

3) What if someone disagrees with the conclusion which is derived from logic of the accepted explicit truths?

4) Who decides if the deduction is to be accepted or rejected?

5) Can we use an implicit truth as a premise in an argument which forms another implicit truth?

 

. . .  as far as the Westminster Confession goes, the system of Sola Scriptura (and its principle plank of perspicuity) is greatly compromised by introducing the principle of deduction. By permitting an exegete to deduce doctrines, the Confession has put no boundary on how much deduction is acceptable. In fact, as more deduction is proposed on a question, a truth becomes less and less perspicuous, even though, objectively speaking, the proponent of the question may be correct in his conclusion. (John Pacheco, “The Noose of the Westminster Confession hangs Sola Scriptura,” Catholic Apologetics International, August 10, 2002, copy of article in my possession)

 

Discussion with a Disingenuous Baptist (Adam O'Flynn aka "The Christian Warner")

Update: Adam keeps trying to get the video taken down. So here are the Zoom details so you can download it:

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/7nHap6qpk3cP_TzDGl0t2Yri8PT4TBVfHl4QaVak9bMElayg7fGfK2hUfN0qLHXX.T680M5GqWnNx1naG 

Passcode: 4r@?FP!+

Please download and upload onto your own youtube and other channels. You have my express permission to do such.

Emma Smith: Untold Stories That Will Change How You See Joseph Smith

 

Emma Smith: Untold Stories That Will Change How You See Joseph Smith

Absolute Mad Lads - Mary

 I am a fan of "Count Dankula," and he has just posted a video on Mary. While I disagree with the high Mariology in the video (he is Eastern Orthodox), I found this to be a fun episode (and I do enjoy the topic of Mariology, too):

Absolute Mad Lads - Mary

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. et al.: Gideon was Not Wrong to Request a Miracle in Judges 6:36-40

  

6:36–40  Was Gideon Right to Test God?

 

Was Gideon wrong in asking God for reassurance by means of a wet or dry fleece? Had not God made his will clear to Gideon already at the time of his call (Judg 6:14–16)? While it is understandable that Gideon was apprehensive over his impending conflict with Midian, given the disparity in the number of weapons and men and the morale of the soldiers, he was still wrong in doubting God. Or, at least, that is what some contend.

 

Did Gideon use a proper type of test? Supposing a test is permissible, isn’t it wrong to ask God to accommodate our weakness, to assure us through physical signs or miracles of a word he has already spoken?

 

One further objection focuses on the fact that Gideon did not keep his word. Gideon promised that he would know God was going to use him to deliver Israel if God made the fleece wet and left the ground dry. Though God complied, Gideon insisted on running the same experiment in reverse fashion before he would believe. So what can we say, not only for Gideon but also for modern believers who wish to use similar tactics in order to validate the will of the Lord for them?

 

Some who object to Gideon’s method for discerning God’s will feel that he was not really desiring to know the will of God. Instead, they say, Gideon was angling to have that will changed!

 

This does not appear to be the case, based on what we are told in the text itself. Such an assertion tends to psychologize Gideon. How can we penetrate into his heart and mind and say what it was that Gideon was feeling or hoping?

 

Clearly, Gideon struggled. But he wanted God to provide his overwhelmed mind with more evidence for the words “as [God had] said” (Judg 6:37). He was responding to God’s call (Judg 6:14–16). Thus he was hesitant, but not unbelieving.

 

What about the matter of asking for signs? When we do so, are we acting like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who always wanted a sign? And how specific is the will of God in our ordinary life? Granted, in revelation God often gave specific, detailed instructions for particular actions. But is Judges 6 an invitation for all believers to demand similar specificity? Must the will of God be a dot with a fixed point and nothing else?

 

Gideon’s boldness can be seen both in his asking for a sign and in his specifying what that sign should be. The sign, though simple, involved a miracle. He would place the fleece on the leveled ground where the people threshed their grain (probably in the entrance to the city gate). If the dew was on the fleece alone while all the ground was dry, then he would know that God really would use him to deliver Israel from the hand of the Midianites.

 

The next night, using rather deferential language, he asked that the sign be reversed, with the fleece being dry and the ground soaked with the dew of the night. In both instances Gideon’s request was granted, confirming what God had promised—that his strength comes to peak performance and full throttle in our weakness (2 Cor 12:9).

 

Thus Gideon’s faith was supported. The phantom fears that had haunted his countrymen about the Midianites no longer afflicted him. Before setting out to overthrow the Midianites, he had approached God in prayer, and there he had found his courage renewed and fortified. His importunity was not wrong. And actually he provides a model for us: when we are beset by internal struggles and when challenges seem too great for us to handle, we must go to God in prayer.

 

Nevertheless, this passage does not give encouragement to those who assume they can expect God to attend each of his instructions with whatever signs we may request! God could just as well have refused Gideon’s request. The fact that he didn’t does not set a precedent to which any and all believers may appeal in their moment of distress. God may be pleased to repeat such an act of mercy, but he is not bound to satisfy our desire for visual, physical miracles to confirm his will. Whether he does so rests in his hand alone. (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996], 192-93)

 

Thomas Rees (Unitarian) on Baptism for the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29

  

Paul’s Argument

 

Some of the Corinthian Christians denied the resurrection of the dead, and Paul advances three arguments to convince them that the dead will be raised: (1) “If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised,” but Christ is raised (1 Cor 15:13, 20). (2) If the dead are not raised, why are men being baptized for the dead (ib 15:29)? (3) Why should the apostle himself wage his spiritual warfare (ib 15:30)? The first argument rests upon the central fact of Christianity, and the other two are appeals to the consistency of the Corinthians, and of Paul himself. Whatever “baptism for the dead” meant, it was, in Paul’s opinion, as real, valid and legitimate a premise from which to conclude that the dead would rise as his own sufferings. The natural meaning of the words is obvious. Men in Corinth, and possibly elsewhere, were being continually baptized on behalf of others who were at the time dead, with a view to benefiting them in the resurrection, but if there be no resurrection, what shall they thus accomplish, and why do they do it? “The only legitimate reference is to a practice … of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism” (Alford in loc).

. . .  

The Difficulty

 

But why is all this ingenuity expended to evade the natural meaning? Because (1) such a custom would be a superstition involving the principle of opus operatum; and (2) Paul could not share or even tolerate a contemporary idea which is now regarded as superstition. To reply (with Alford) that Paul does not approve the custom will not serve the purpose, for he would scarcely base so great an argument, even as an argumentum ad hominem, on a practice which he regarded as wholly false and superstitious. The retort of those who denied the resurrection would be too obvious. But why should it be necessary to suppose that Paul rose above all the limitations of his age? The idea that symbolic acts had a vicarious significance had sunk deeply into the Jewish mind, and it would not be surprising if it took more than twenty years for the leaven of the gospel to work all the Jew out of Paul. At least it serves the apostle’s credit ill to make his argument meaningless or absurd in order to save him from sharing at all in the inadequate conceptions of his age. He made for himself no claim of infallibility. (Thomas Rees, “Baptism for the Dead,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr et al., 5 vols. [Chicago: The Howard Severance Company, 1915], 1:399, emphasis added)

 

Hyrum Andrus (1952) on Micah 4 (cf. Isaiah 2:2-5)

 When offering the various definitions of “Zion” in Latter-day Saint thought:

 

4. To the location of the “mountain of the house of the Lord,” Micah gave the name of Zion, as he predicted its establishment in the “top of the mountains” in the latter days as a place distinct from Jerusalem. There had formerly been a Zion and a Jerusalem in the land of Palestine, but “the prophet Micah, ‘full of power by the spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might’ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and its associated Zion, the former to ‘become heaps,’ and the latter to be ‘plowed as a field’; and then announced a new condition that is to exist in the last days, when another ‘mountain of the house of the Lord’ is to be established, and this is called Zion.” In many Latter-day Saint sermons in the belief has been expressed that this prophecy is in process of fulfillment at the present day by the activities of the Church in the mountainous regions of the West. This definition is in close alliance at present with that given under the former heading, differing only by stipulating a definite location of the Church at a given time. (Hyrum Leslie Andrus, “World Government as Envisioned in the Latter Day Saint ‘City of Zion’” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1952], 8-9)

 

 

According to Mormon interpretation, Micah, the ancient Israelite prophet, spoke of the latter-day Zion as being synonymous with “the house of the Lord . . . in the top of the mountains” (i.e., while Zion is located in Western America). Following its erection a subsequent era of peace wherein men would “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks” was to follow. Paralleling these peaceful conditions, Micah states, “the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Joseph Smith spoke of these two points government by noting: “Now there are two cities . . . a New Jerusalem to be established on this continent, and also Jerusalem shall be rebuilt on the eastern contingent.” (Hyrum Leslie Andrus, “World Government as Envisioned in the Latter Day Saint ‘City of Zion’” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1952], 95)

 

 

Brian Hales, "Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon Editor"

 

Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon Editor

Madison N. Pierce on the Use of Psalm 102 (LXX: 101) in Hebrews 1:10-12

  

At first glance, this is a particularly interesting selection by the author of Hebrews. In most other instances, he has selected a text where God the Father was already the speaker and identified other unspecified participants (e.g., the addressees); here, however, the author has selected a psalm that appears to be without any dialogue. Instead, it is just a Psalmist’s cry to the Father. But this is not the case in Greek traditions. Throughout Greek Psalm 101 (MT 102), the speaker describes his affliction and plight as a temporary, mortal being, while praising God for his permanence. Verse 24 of the MT contains the consonants ענה , which can designate one of two verbal roots. The MT seems to favor one option (I: “to oppress or humiliate),” while the Greek favors another (II: “to answer”), represented by ἀπεκρίθη. The latter introduces a dialogue between the speaker and God:

 

He [God] answered him by means of his strength [ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ἐν ὁδῷ ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ], . . . “You are from the beginning, Lord . . .” (101:24b–26a)

 

Greek traditions not only introduce the curious “answer,” but also another potential participant. Who is the one who receives the answer (the “him”)? Throughout this psalm, the speaker has referred to himself in the first person, and God in the second, as well as the third. But in verse 24, we have two third-person references. Who is the other participant? Perhaps the author of Hebrews was also intrigued by this question. Nevertheless, he seems to either overlook 101:24b–25, where the one answering laments his own temporal existence, or reason that the answer does not begin until verse 26.

 

In other words, the author, seeing that he is to expect some answer, may then look forward to the portion that can be read with God (or in this case more specifically the exalted Christ) in mind. If this is the strategy utilized by the author, then it is not the most straightforward interpretation in Hebrews 1, but even if this insight is not the best explanation, then this still does not minimize the result of the text’s application to Christ in Hebrews.

 

In Hebrews, the addressee of Greek Psalm 101, the Son, is called “Lord” (κύριε), a title attributed to Christ elsewhere in Hebrews also (2:3; 7:14; 12:14; 13:20). Thus between this citation and the prior (Ps 44:7–8), the author has presented Jesus as both God and Lord. Although some quibble with the meaning of these titles being applied to Jesus – arguing they hold little more significance for him than they did for the previous royal recipient, for instance – the rest of this citation does little to undermine his authority. In it, the author continues to contrast the evanescence of the angels and the eternality of the Son by presenting first the Son’s role in creation (1:10), and then his stability from the time when the world is “rolled up” and “destroyed” until eternity (1:11–12). Like the angels, particularly in contrast to the Son, the earth is temporary (in its current “shakable” state; cf. 12:25–29), but Jesus is always the same (cf. Heb 13:8).

 

Even so, the Son’s presence at or role in creation presented by the author, for some, does not allow for the necessary “distinction between his eternal and his temporal existence.” As Caird argues, when Christ is exalted to his “cosmic role,” he is raised above the angels; he is praised for his role in creation simply because “he is the man in whom the divine Wisdom has been appointed to dwell, so as to make him the bearer of the whole purpose of creation.” He was not present at creation, but is “figuratively deemed so” (emphasis original). Now near the end of the catena, it seems even clearer that the author has presented the Son as a personal, embodied entity. He is a Son to the Father (1:5–6), and he is a companion to humans (1:9). Further, he is in conversation. The Father speaks to him (1:5–13; 5:5), and he speaks back (2:12–13; 10:5–7). No single citation (or speech) or title proves this definitively, but the evidence taken as a whole suggests it. (Madison N. Pierce, Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture [Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 178; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 57-59)

 

 

Excepts from Joseph P. Farrell's Summary of Maximus the Confessor's (d. 662) Theology

  

(1)

 

Proper theological method subsumes theological questions and doctrines under two correlative headings of Christology and Triadology, for all properly theological doctrines would appear to have christological and triadological implications. Any proposition, method, or other statement which does not start directly and consciously from this context does not go under the name of Christian theology.

 

All theology must therefore be thoroughly grounded in the distinction of person and nature. Each of these categories must be given equal weight and emphasis with the other. Consequently, there are two basic ways in which this distinction may be lost. On the one hand, person may be subordinated to nature in order of concepts to such an extent that it becomes absorbed in it as a special kind of attribute of nature. Within the context of the discussion on predestination and free will, the apokatastasis implies just such a confusion, for the human nature of Christ was seen to determine every human person's eternal bliss in spite of, and apart from, the individual's gnomic reception of the grace conferred by Christ. On the other hand, nature may be subordinated and confused with person, and to some extent, defined as the aggregate of persons. The doctrine of the limited atonement is perhaps an example of this process, for the human nature of Christ is defined in terms of its efficaciousness for a predetermined number of individual elect: Christ loses no one that the Father has given Him, but raises them up at the last day.

 

. . .

 

(4)

 

In Christ’s human nature which is consubstantial with all men, God humanly wills, decrees, and perfectly fulfills the salvation of all men, for no human being is untouched by His Incarnation, and nothing is detracted from His sovereignty as God is individual persons choose not to accept salvation.

 

Nothing is lost to His sovereignty as God Incarnate precisely because nothing is lost to the perfection of His human nature; it retains its full integrity as human nature despite the fact that individual persons reject Him. Hence, the expression current in some evangelical circles, “once saved always saved”,  bears a certain truth, if seen in this context, namely, that all human nature, once assumed by Christ in its totality, eternally abides in and with God by virtue of the Word’s hypostatic union with it.

 

(5)

 

Christ, being truly consubstantial with all men, truly died for all men, and this His atoning Passion, Death, and Resurrection are in no way limited.

 

In turn, the doctrine of the limited atonement may be reversed to show its hidden and heretical implications: If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. There would consequently be some men who, not being affected by the consubstantiality of Christ's human nature, would not be consubstantial with Him. Therefore, they would not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam, they would have no need of Christ. This is a denial of the inheritance of ancestral sin, and is therefore Pelagianism. The way out of this impasse is the distinction between person and nature, and between the mode of the employment of the will and the natural will itself.

 

Furthermore, if Christ's human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a number of elected individuals, then it would appear that Christ's humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills, since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union only in object of will between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism.

 

It would also appear that, on this view, the human nature of the elected individuals gives nothing to election, and Christ's human nature certainly does not, as it affects only the elected individuals. Human nature therefore either has no will, which is a kind of "anthropological" Apollinarianism, or it is merely ineffectual in salvation ("soteriological" Apollinarianism). Christ's human decision of salvation at Gethsemane is therefore illusory, and this is Docetism. (Joseph P. Farrell, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor [South Canon, Pa.: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1989], 222, 224-25, emphasis in bold added)

 

What Most Readers Miss About the Sword of Laban

 

What Most Readers Miss About the Sword of Laban

Lawrence Feingold on the Urim and Thummim and Its Relationship to the Casting of Lots in Acts 1

 Commenting on the vestments of the High Priest outlined in Exo 28:

 

The most mysterious part of the vestments were two objects, the Urim and the Thummim, which went on Aaron’s breastpiece and were used as sacred lots to discern the will of God. The judges or kings who led the people could thus consult God’s will in difficult matters. In Numbers 27:21, God commands that Joshua be invested with some of Moses’ authority to lead the children of Israel after him: “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in.”

 

We see King David in 1 Samuel 23 consulting the Lord through the high priest Abiathar’s ephod, which contained the Urim and Thummim. When David was seeking refuge from Saul in the city of Keilah, he consulted the ephod of Abiathar as to whether Saul would besiege the city of Keilah. On receiving a positive answer, he asked whether the men of Keilah would then hand him over to Saul. Once again the answer was positive, and David fled immediately from that city.

 

The Urim and Thummim were still being used to discern God’s will in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65 recount an episode in which the Urim and Thummim were consulted regarding certain men who claimed to be of priestly descent but whose names were not found in the genealogies: “The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food [reserved for priests], until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.”

 

In Acts 1, Peter used lots in a similar way to determine God’s will for a successor to Judas. This strikes modern ears as very strange, but it should be connected with the tradition of the Urim and Thummim. Peter has become high priest of the New Covenant, and so he not unnaturally took up a prerogative of the Aaronic high priest.

 

After Pentecost, however, lots were never used again to determine the will of God. Prayer and the gift of counsel, one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, fully poured out on Pentecost, take the place of the casting of lots. The Urim and Thummim can thus be seen as types of the gift of counsel which is given to all the confirmed faithful in the Church through the Holy Spirit. It remains in all who are in a state of grace, and fully blossoms in the lives of the saints. (Lawrence Feingold, “Typology of the Old Testament Priesthood,” [2013], pp. 6-7)

 

Baptism and the Imagery of Being "Clothed Upon" in the Tripartite Tractate

Source for the following: Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020)

 

Background:

 

The Tripartite Tractate is the fifth text in Nag Hammadi codex I. Since no title appears in the manuscript, the Tripartite Tractate has received its editorial title on the basis of its division into three parts by scribal decoration. Spanning eighty-seven manuscript pages, the Tripartite Tractate offers a comprehensive account of salvation history, beginning with the ineffable God and the population of the heavenly realm of fullness with eternities, and culminating in humanity’s final return to the Father. While the anonymous Tripartite Tractate was once thought to be the work of Heracleon, scholars now reject this attribution on the basis of theological differences between the work and Heracleon’s surviving writings. (p. 165)

 

English translation (from Coptic):

 

The baptism that we previously discussed is called “garment of those who do not strip themselves of it,” because those who will clothe themselves in it and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also called “the strength of the truth that does not have destruction.” Without wavering and movement it grasps those who have received the <restoration> even as they grasp him. Iy is called “silence” on account of the tranquility and imperturbability. IT is also called “bridal chamber” on account of the agreement and the lack of division of those who know that they have known him. It is also called] “the light that never sets and has no flame,” since it does not illuminate, but those who have worn it are made of light. They are those whom he wore. (p. 245)

 

Lawrence Feingold on the Threefold Priestly Hierarchy in light of Numbers 16 and the Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

  

St. Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians, sees this episode of rebellion as a type of schism in the New Covenant. As Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against the priestly authority of Aaron, his sons, and the Levites, so the New Covenant is not exempt for schism and rebellion against those who hold the priesthood of the New Testament. And as God rebuked Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, so He will not hold guiltless those who upset the right order of supernatural governance in the Church through the most grave sin of schism. Speaking of the miraculous blossoming of Aaron’s rod, St. Clement writes:

 

Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Of course he knew. But in order that disorder might not arise in Israel, he did it anyway. . . . Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. . . . For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. (Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 43-44, in Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 103-105)

 

In this well-known text, St. Clement, towards the end of the first century, clearly affirmed the principle of apostolic succession, and its great importance in the life of the Church. (Lawrence Feingold, “Typology of the Old Testament Priesthood,” [2013], p. 6)

 

Discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead in “Excerpts of Theodotus”

 Source for the following: Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020)

Background:

 

In his Excerpts of Theodotus Clement of Alexandria records a series of extracts from a variety of Valentinian sources. Despite the title of the work, not all of the extracts come from Theodotus, a Valentinian teacher who is known only from Clement’s extracts. He is named only five times in the entire text. In other instances Clement may be citing Theodotus, but he does not do so by name. Another challenge the text poses to interpreters is that unlike the Gospel of Philip, which, if it is a collection of extracts, does not seem to include additions by the person responsible for compiling the extracts, Clement has added his own comments to many of the extracts, and his additions are not always easily distinguishable from the texts he excerpts from his Valentinian sources.

 

While questions remain about the precise nature of the sources Clement uses, scholars often divide the Excerpts into four groups: (A) 1–28, (B) 29–43:1, (C) 43.2–65, and (D) 66–86. Group C has affinities with Irenaeus, AH 1.4.5–7.1 and may draw upon the source used by Irenaeus.

 

The Excerpts survive in two late manuscripts, one directly copied from the other. The earliest of the two is Laur. V 3, which dates to the eleventh century c.e. Clement likely produced the collection, however, in the latter part of the second century c.e. The following Greek text comes from my own transcription of Laur. V 3, in consultation with Sagnard’s edition. (p. 57)

 

Greek Texts:

 

22 Καὶ ὅταν εἴπῃ ὁ Ἀπόστολος, «Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν, οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν;» ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γάρ, φησίν, οἱ Ἄγγελοι ἐβαπτίσαντο, ὧν ἐσμεν μέρη.

 

Νεκροὶ δὲ ἡμεῖς οἱ νεκρωθέντες τῇ συστάσει ταύτῃ, ζῶντες δὲ καὶ ἄρρενες οἱ μὴ μεταλαβόντες τῆς συστάσεως ταύτης.

 

«Εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτιζόμεθα;» Ἐγειρόμεθα οὖν ἡμεῖς ἰσάγγελοι τοῖς ἄρρεσιν ἀποκατασταθέντες, τοῖς μέλεσι τὰ μέλη, εἰς ἕνωσιν.

 

«Οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι» δέ, φασίν, «ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῶν νεκρῶν,» οἱ Ἄγγελοί εἰσιν οἱ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν βαπτιζόμενοι, ἵνα ἔχοντες καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ Ὄνομα μὴ ἐπισχεθῶμεν κωλυθέντες εἰς τὸ Πλήρωμα παρελθεῖν τῷ Ὅρῳ καὶ τῷ Σταυρῷ.

 

Διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ χειροθεσίᾳ λέγουσιν ἐπὶ τέλους, «εἰς λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν,» τουτέστιν ἣν καὶ Ἄγγελοι ἔχουσιν, ἵν’ ᾖ βεβαπτισμένος ὁ τὴν λύτρωσιν κομισάμενος τῷ αὐτοῦ Ὀνόματι ᾧ καὶ ὁ Ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ προβεβάπτισται.

 

Ἐβαπτίσαντο δὲ ἐν ἀρχῇ οἱ Ἄγγελοι, ἐν λυτρώσει τοῦ Ὀνόματος τοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐν τῇ περιστερᾷ κατελθόντος καὶ λυτρωσαμένου αὐτόν.

 

Ἐδέησεν δὲ λυτρώσεως καὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα μὴ κατασχεθῇ τῇ Ἐννοίᾳ ᾗ ἐνετέθη τοῦ ὑστερήματος, προ`σ´ερχόμενος διὰ τῆς Σοφίας, ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος. (pp. 72, 74)

 

English:

 

22 And when the Apostle said, “Otherwise what will they do, those baptized on behalf of the dead?” For on our behalf, he says, the angels, of whom we are parts, were baptized.

 

But we are dead who are made dead by this structure, but males are alive who did not take part in this structure.

 

“If the dead are not raised, why are we baptized?” Therefore we are raised equal to angels, having been returned to the males in oneness, the members with the members. “Those baptized on our behalf, the dead,” they say, are the angels who are baptized on our behalf, so that when we also have the name, we might not be restrained, prevented by the limit and the cross from entering into the fullness.

 

Wherefore when laying on hands they say at the end, “For the angelic redemption,” that is, what the angels have, so that the one receiving the redemption might be baptized in his name, in which his angels had also been baptized.

 

The angels were baptized in the beginning, in the redemption of the name that descended upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him.

 

Redemption was necessary even for Jesus, so that he might not be detained by the mind of the deficiency in which he was placed while approaching through Wisdom, as Theodotus says. (pp. 73, 75)

 

John M. Rist on Sola Scriptura and the Theological Debates Among the Various Reformers

 

 

Despite their agreement on sola Scriptura, almost from the start the Reformers found it as hard (or harder, since each was in effect his own pope) to agree among themselves on the exegetically correct readings of the Bible as had the bad old logic-choppers of the schools. Luther himself became an (ultimately ineffectual) enforcer of theological ‘orthodoxy’ when in 1528 he realized the seriousness of the problem. The more radical wing of the Reform movement, led by Karlstadt, the ‘Zwickau Prophets’, Thomas Münzer and others, had produced not only religious chaos but, in the form of the Peasants’ Revolt (1524–5), the likelihood that the Lutherans would lose the princely support on which they relied for personal as well as theological survival. Because those who so obviously misinterpreted Scripture could only be diabolically inspired, Luther concluded that the devil – already hugely more present in his writings than in those of Augustine – was in this instance too working from within to overthrow the kingdom of the godly.

 

Still more ‘diabolical’, however, were John of Leyden and the other Anabaptist leaders of the commune established in Munster in 1534–5. Apart from their abolition of commerce and private property, their establishment of communal meals and eventually of polygamy, more important theologically was their denial of infant baptism: precisely the move which had prompted Augustine’s first attack on the ‘Pelagian’ Caelestius in Carthage in 411. For to deny infant baptism, as Augustine saw it, was to deny our vita communis in Adam, and with it the guilt and effects of Adam’s original sin. As we shall see, original sin was fading fast among those whose work pointed to secularism during the seventeenth century; it is important to recognize a similar trend – signalling what is to come – among religious fanatics a hundred years earlier.

 

It had become obvious to Luther that not only such ‘Ockhamist’ followers of the ‘modern way’ as Gabriel Biel should be indicted as Pelagian (at least in their accounts of the power – however limited – of the human will to merit salvation ex puris naturalibus) but that the whole medieval tradition had become tainted, not least those ‘intellectualists’ about human action like Aquinas against whose claimed errors extreme voluntarism had been largely developed. According to Luther – a nominalist in dialectic, anti-nominalist in theology – extreme voluntarism, while wholly appropriate in accounts of the hidden God, had spawned blasphemous accounts of man’s fallen nature and moral capacities. (John M. Rist, Augustine Deformed: Love, Sin and Freedom in the Western Moral Tradition [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014], 178-80)

 

 

By the time of his comments on the Leipzig disputations (1519) Luther was clear in his own mind that not only Biel (and the moderni) but also the Scotists and Thomists were infected by Pelagianism. Only Gregory of Rimini was free of it. The rest held that man can follow the dictates of right reason to which the will can naturally conform (WA 2, 384ff.). On Luther’s ignorance of Aquinas’ work see Janz (1983: 32) and (with very substantial bibliography) McSorley (1969: 139–43). Janz identifies the source of much of Luther’s confusion in the ex-Thomist Karlstadt’s misrepresentations, in his 151 (Augustinian) Theses, both of Aquinas himself and of his own former ‘master’ Capreolus. These theses were published in 1517, only four months before Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology. Janz cites as evidence for Karlstadt’s willingness to lie about his opponents a passage of Against the Heavenly Prophets (WA 18, 190) where Luther is even prepared to defend the pope against Karlstadt’s ‘lies’ (Janz 1983: 120–2). Unfortunately, he seems never to have asked himself whether Karlstadt might also have lied about Aquinas and Capreolus. (Ibid., 179-80 n. 8)

 

"The cup of prayer" containing both "wine and water" in The Gospel of Philip

Source for the following: Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020)

 

Background:

 

The Gospel of Philip is the third tractate in Nag Hammadi codex II. While the title of the work is ancient, it is misleading, since the work is not a gospel nor does Philip feature prominently in it. Philip’s name may have become part of the work’s title simply because he is the only disciple mentioned in the text, though the three Marys also make appearances, Jesus’s mother, his aunt, and Mary Magdalene, and the latter enjoys a much closer relationship with Jesus than Philip does.

 

The Gospel of Philip is a collection of short passages belonging to various genres, including aphorisms, dialogues, sermons, and epistles, that have been brought together in an anthology. Often connecting these passages, however, are key words that recur throughout the text. These serve to link seemingly disparate passages together. These connecting words lend the Gospel of Philip as a whole an air of coherence, and many scholars interpret the work as though it was composed as a coherent work, inviting eager students to study the text and uncover the mystical connections between seemingly related teachings.

 

Others, however, consider the text to be an eclectic miscellany, a composite text created by someone who was taking notes or copying extracts from a variety of Valentinian works. Those who hold this view find a parallel in the Excerpts of Theodotus, a series of extracts made by Clement of Alexandria from a variety of Valentinian sources. An important difference between the Excerpts of Theodotus and the Gospel of Philip is, however, that Clement includes among the Valentinian excerpts comments of his own. No similar comments appear in the Gospel of

Philip.

 

Whatever the intent of the author or compiler of the Gospel of Philip, the text contains valuable information about Valentinian biblical interpretation and ritual practice. The focus on ritual is particularly striking in the Gospel of Philip, where as many as five rituals are discussed: baptism, chrism, the Lord’s Supper, redemption, and the bridal chamber. (p. 255)

 

English translation (from Coptic):

 

The cup of prayer contains wine and water, because it is established as a type of the blood for which thanks is given. It is filled with the Holy Spirit, and it is the possession of the wholly perfect human. When we drink this, we will receive for ourselves the perfect human. The living water is a body. It is necessary for us to put on the living human. For this reason when he comes and goes down into the water, he undresses himself so that he might put on that one (the living human). (p. 285)

 

Update on Health//Gofundme to Support Expenses for Next 3-6 Months

Crossposting from youtube:

Just a final reminder before I head off for today's treatment and final reminder for a while (at least for a few months anyway; hope to have good news by end of September or end of December):

My treatment for my health issues (those who know me personally know what it is, it is liver-related) started last week, and will be every Tuesday and Thursday for 3 or 6 months.

As a result, I will be more or less out of work (bookkeeping/accountancy/translation) for 3-6 months (plus recovery time), so if you can share the gofundme and paypal links in the announcement on discord, twitter/x, youtube, blogs, etc., please do so (and if you have an "in" with a large YT channel like  ⁨@WARDRADIO⁩   ⁨@ChristianHomesteader⁩  or  ⁨@thestickofjoseph⁩  such as Luke at  ⁨@DoctrineAndGovernance⁩  and  ⁨@yeahkwaku⁩  and also  ⁨@thoughtfulfaith2020⁩   ⁨@CwicShow⁩   ⁨@LetsTalk-HaydenCarroll⁩   ⁨@Mormonismexplained⁩   ⁨@TheInterpreterFoundation⁩  please do so and maybe they will "plug" it somehow, too, via their YT posts, tiktok, or whatnot). And if my IRL/online friends such as

 ⁨@RESTORED_TRUTH⁩   ⁨@missionarydiscussions1286⁩   ⁨@latterdayscooby⁩   ⁨@covenantorigins⁩  want to do the same, please feel free to, too.

Gofundme: https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-expenses-liverrelated-and-other-issues

Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/

Thanks!

Nissim Amzallag on the Consistency of the Old Testament in its theology and not being strictly monotheistic During the Persian and Hellenistic Periods

Against the thesis that there is a radical shift from a form of monolatry to strict monotheism in the Persian and Hellenistic periods:

 

If the development of monotheism is the axis of such an evolutionary process, we may expect the last biblical writings to express a “mature” form of this theology, in which the divine beings other than YHWH are entirely excluded. This premise is unverified, however. In the Book of Zechariah, the prophet explicitly refers not to YHWH, but to a divine emissary speaking through him (hamalak̄ hadob̄ er̄ bî ). (Zech 1:9, 1:14, 1:19, 2:3, 4:1, 4:4–5, 5:5, 5:10, 6:4–5.) This involvement is accompanied in Zechariah by details about the divine council surrounding YHWH. (Zech 1:11–13, 3:1.) Such a feature present in the earliest evolutionary stages (in which monotheism was supposedly still not differentiated from polytheism) is unexpected in a postexilic opus such as the Book of Zechariah. And this book is not the only late composition displaying this anomaly. The divine council is mentioned in the Book of Job (Job 1:6–12). Proverbs, another late opus, includes explicit references to a female divine being, an Asherah-like goddess personifying Wisdom and present beside YHWH at the early time of creation (Prov 8:22–31). Malachi, the last prophetic book, includes an oracle far from any “mature” form of monotheism: “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the lord (haʾ̄ ad̄ on̑ ) whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; And the messenger of the covenant (ûmal ʾak̄ habe˘rît) in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says YHWH Sebaoth” (Mal 3:1). (The English Standard Version of Bible translation is used in this study, with minor modifications.) This verse does not only introduce the figure of the divine emissary of YHWH, it even claims that this secondary divine being is worshipped by the Israelites, and it even considers the Jerusalem temple as his dominion. Finally, Daniel, one of the latest books, is also the source where divine beings others than YHWH have the highest importance in the Bible.

 

The multiplicity of divine beings, a so-called primitive character, extends to postbiblical compositions. An examination of literary sources from the beginning of the first millennium AD reveals a plethora of divine beings, most of them identified by a name (a condition for their worship), in the Hekhalot literature, the Book of Enoch, and other apocalyptic writings. Peter Hayman concludes that “monotheism” is a “misused word” in Jewish studies. (Hayman 1991: 15.) Nevertheless, this Jewish literature should not be interpreted as a “regression” to a polytheistic faith. Rather, Larry Hurtado notices, in the early Jewish literature, “a remarkable ability to combine a genuine concern for God’s uniqueness together with an interest in other figures or transcendent attributes described in the most exalted terms, ‘principal agent’ figures likened to God in some cases.” (Hurtado 1998: 3) Consequently, no evolutionary trend toward monotheism may be traced throughout a millennium of worship of YHWH by the Israelites. (Nissim Amzallag, Yahweh and the Origins of Ancient Israel: Insights from the Archaeological Record [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023], 8-9, italics in original)