Note on Psalm 110:3: MT vs. LXX

There is an interesting difference between the Masoretic text of Psa 110:3 and the Septuagint (109:3, LXX).

The KJV OT (which is dependent upon the MT tradition) reads:

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, and in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Brenton's translation of the LXX reads:

With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.

Both “your youth” and “I have begotten you” are spelt using the same consonants, ילדתיך. The difference between these two terms is down to vocalisation, which would have been added by the Masoretes in the medieval period. That the ancient Jews understood the correct vocalisation to be “I have begotten you” is seen in the LXX’s use of the verb, “To beget,” εκγενναω (remember that all translation is interpretation). Why did the Masoretes “fudge,” for lack of a better term, the vocalisation of this passage? Psa 110:1, 4 are the most commonly cited verses in the New Testament to demonstrate Jesus’ being the promised Messiah and the superiority of his priesthood and his once-for-all sacrifice against the priests and sacrifices of the Old Covenant, among other things. “I have begotten you” may have been understood by Christians to be an allusion to a then-future miraculous conception of the Davidic King par excellence, with Jesus being the ultimate fulfilment of this coronation text. In an effort to off-set this as a “proof-text” for the virginal conception, the Masoretes vocalised the term differently than how the LXX translators understood it to be rendered, although it is a rather nonsensical reading.

Acts 7:55-56 and Christ being at the “right-hand” of God

But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56 [KJV])

It is common for Latter-day Saints to cite Acts 7:55-56 as evidence of (1) that the Father and Son are separate persons and (2) that the Father has a “bodily form.” Point number 1 is something Trinitarians and most others will not dispute, though how one defines a “person” will differ (see the debate between Latin/Creedal and Social Trinitarianism, for instance, on this point). Point no. 2, however, is something most within the broad Christian spectrum will disagree with Latter-day Saints. Some may claim that Stephen only saw the “glory” of God (v.55), but only if one isolates this verse from the proceeding verse that speaks of Jesus being at the “right hand” of God (the Father). 

A typical response to LDS usage of this verse as evidence for our theology is that the term, “right hand” can be used in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, they argue, it is being used in a metaphorical sense in this passage. There are a couple of things wrong with this approach, most notably it is the fallacy of undistributed middle—

First premise: Some instances of “right hand” are metaphorical.

Second premise: “Right hand” is used in Acts 7:55-56

Conclusion: Therefore, the use of the term, “right hand” is metaphorical in Acts 7:55-56.

The predicates in both the major and minor premises does not exhaust all the occurrences of this term and would therefore not necessitate such an interpretation in Acts 7:55-56. A more non-dogmatic and accurate conclusion would be that Acts 7:55-56 could have a metaphorical meaning, but such should be said with much caution as the argument for such a meaning is not nearly as simplistic as critics would like it to be.

It is true that the term can be used in a sense of authority (e.g. Biden is Obama’s “right hand man”). However, to claim that this is how it is to be interpreted in Acts 7:55-56 is eisegesis. This passage is describing what Stephen saw in vision; it is not a metaphorical for the relationship Jesus has with Father vis-à-vis authority. Indeed, what is being described is the spatial-relationship between the Father and the Son. Those who critique the LDS understanding have to ignore the literary genre of this pericope. Furthermore, the author of Acts 7:55-56 is alluding to a Messianic text from the Old Testament, Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX). The LXX of this verse reads:

τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου

Psalm of David: The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool (my translation)

Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, and not that he is the “right-hand man” of God (though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure).

In Trinitarian theology, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)

In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 is used, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, equivocatingly, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, and something one also finds in Acts 7:55-56.

LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, provides a good LDS interaction with this pericope and common objections to its use here.

David Clines, "What Remains of the Old Testament?"

In 2002, David J.A. Clines, one of my favourite Old Testament scholars, published an article, “What Remains of the Old Testament? Its Text and Language in a Postmodern Age,” in Studia Theologica 54 (2001): 76-95. It was originally delivered as the Mowinckel lecture given to the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo on September 24, 2001. A pre-publication version can be found here.

For those who are interested in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, this is a must-read. Here is one important quote from the article:

1. The More Manuscripts, the More Variants, We saw earlier a text in the Hebrew Bible in parallel transmission (2 Kings 22 // Psalm 18) that displayed a sizeable number of variants (104) when the two forms were compared with one another. When we went on to compare with those Masoretic Hebrew Bible texts the Hebrew text that Septuagint manuscripts witness to in common we found more variants (9). When we considered an individual Septuagint manuscript, Vaticanus, we found more variants still (9). When we examined a group of manuscripts, the Lucianic recension, we found yet more variants (39). When we brought the Syriac into the frame, we discovered again more variants (9).

When we looked at the one Qumran fragment of 2 Samuel, we found further variants (9). We can hardly doubt that if the Qumran text of 2 Samuel 22 were entire, or if there were more than one Qumran manuscript containing this chapter, there would be more variants still.

Every time we find a manuscript, we find variants. Let us consider the situation

with the text of Isaiah. Our textbooks tell us that 1QIsaa has many variants compared with the Masoretic text, but no one tells us how many. In an early article, Millar Burrows listed (by my count) 536 variants, excluding ‘a great many other variants’ whatever they were, and excluding corrections made to the original manuscript of 1QIsaa by the original scribe or an early corrector. If that is the correct number of variant, it would mean that in this single manuscript alone, there is a difference from the Masoretic text in at least one out of every 31 words.21 But that is too small a number; if we look at the variants that Otto Eissfeldt collected for the seventh edition of Biblia Hebraica (the 1951 edition of what is usually called the third edition of Biblia Hebraica, BH3), we find (again by my count) that the figure is more like 1698 variants, i.e. one in every 9.77 words.

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 7: John 5:39

In John 5:39 (KJV), rehearsing the words of Jesus to his Jewish opponents, we read:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Most modern translations read a bit differently; instead of the imperative “search,” one finds “You search.” The reason for this is not due to a textual variant in the manuscripts, but an ambiguity in the Greek term used, εραυνατε. This can be plausibly understood as either the imperative form of the verb, εραυνανω, as well as the second-person indicative active thereof as they are spelled the same.

Most modern translations (e.g. the NRSV) are correct in taking it as the indicative, since the phrase is immediately followed by a relative clause which gives the very reason the Jews search Scripture (i.e. because in them they think they have found eternal life); furthermore, since Jesus' next state is an affirmation that they testify of him, showing that his opponents failed to extract the essential truth and reasoning that Jesus is the promised Messiah and Son of God, their searching of the Old Testament notwithstanding. Such a clause (the Greek οτι clause) makes more sense if the term is indicative than imperative.

Notwithstanding, even allowing it to be imperative as some Protestant apologists wish for it to be (in an attempt to defend sola scriptura), the same accusation would hold against the Jews (viz. their failure to reason from Scripture the true identity of the Messiah). Thus, regardless of whether it is imperative or indicative, the message is the same--Christ's opponents, thinking they have received eternal life due to their study of Scripture do not, in reality, have eternal life because they have failed to extract from Scripture that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah who grants or denies eternal life to people. However, there is nothing in this text that even hints at the concept of sola scriptura.

David Bokovoy on the Book of Abraham Facsimiles and the Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources

In 2005, Kevin Barney's essay, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" (a must-read) was published in the book, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant. Shortly after the publication of this volume, David E. Bokovoy (now Dr. Bokovoy [PhD, Hebrew Bible—Brandeis]) commented on Kevin’s essay in an LDS discussion forum, and provided further evidence in favour of Kevin’s thesis. I saved the initial post, and am reproducing it here. It is rather a propos, as the Book of Abraham has been receiving a lot of attention in recent articles and books:

In the most recent addition to the Studies in the Book of Abraham series entitled Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant, Kevin Barney has contributed what in my mind amounts to an extraordinary contribution to our understanding of the Joseph Smith facsimiles.

In the article, Kevin suggests that “the facsimiles may not have been drawn by Abraham’s hand but may have been Egyptian vignettes that were adopted or adapted by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the Book of Abraham” (108).

In his study, Kevin provides this hypothetical Egyptian-Jewish redactor with the original name J-red. According to Kevin, J-Red adopted or adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustration for the Book of Abraham. In so doing, J-Red reinterpreted the Egyptian symbols in accordance with Semitic traditions.

In my mind, part of the strength of Kevin’s theory includes the fact that ancient Israelite and later Jewish authors demonstrate a strong propensity towards adopting and adapting foreign traditions into their own religious writings.

While Kevin’s article naturally focuses upon the Jewish cultural and religious adaptation of Egyptian materials, including such works as the Instruction of Amenemope, the Bible contains a myriad of examples of Israelite authors adopting and adapting Mesopotamian and Canaanite traditions as well.

Even a cursory survey of this biblical trend towards assimilating while revamping “pagan” religious traditions would involve literally hundreds of examples. In my mind, however, one classic illustration of biblical adaptation includes God’s struggle with Leviathan. For a historical consideration of this legend from Near Eastern, to biblical, to finally rabbinic traditions, I would highly recommend Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Regarding this example of biblical adaptation, C. Uehlinger notes that “some assimilation of Egyptian religious traditions and the Leviathan concept could have occurred in Southern Palestine and Northern Egypt already during the Hyksos period” C. Uehlinger, “Leviathan,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 513.

However, even the prophet Isaiah draws upon this “pagan” theme stating in Ugaritic that Baal “smote Litan the wriggling serpent, finished off the writhing serpent” through his prediction that the Lord will eventually punish Leviathan “in that day.” Isaiah’s adaptation of the Baal cycle, therefore, ultimately provides a nice analogy for Kevin’s theory regarding the Book of Abraham.

Similarly, the conflict between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Son of Man depicted in the book of Daniel parallels the Baal Cycle in which the younger god Baal empowered by the older god El defeats Yam (The Sea); see J.J. Collins, “Stirring up the Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7,” The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings; A.S. van der Woude, ed. (Levuven 1993): 121-126.

As another example of Canaanite influence upon late biblical texts, Simon Parker has argued that the depiction of El’s residence at Ugarit “at the springs of the Rivers among the streams of the Deeps” is “exploited in Ezekiel’s account of the presumptuousness of the king of Tyre, who, Ezekiel says, has claimed, ‘I am God (El), I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas’ (Ezek 28:2).” Simon B. Parker, “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63:4 (2000): 231.

Indeed, as André Caquot has suggested, imagery associated with early Canaanite mythology may even appear directly reflected within the New Testament:

No one contests today the fact that knowledge of Ugarit is indispensable for exegetes of the Old Testament.  But those of the New Testament should not neglect it either for it attests to details that were long retained by popular memory.  The seven-headed best of the Apocalypse of John (12:3) does not come from the visions of Daniel, and Psalm 74 does not mention the number of Leviathan’s multiple heads.  On the other hand, the Ugaritic ancestor of this dragon, reportedly defeated by Baal, is certainly the beast with seven heads.  We have perhaps not considered sufficiently the fact that in Matthew 6:30-52, Mark 14:13-33 and John 6:1-20, the story of the multiplication of the loaves is immediately followed by the scene describing Jesus walking on the waters as if deliberately recalling two events in the cycle of Baal wherein Baal gives men their nourishment and vanquishes the sea; André Caquot, “At the Origins of the Bible,” Near Eastern Archeology 63:4 (2000): 227.

As these examples illustrate, if Kevin’s theory concerning J-Red is correct, then the development of the Book of Abraham via a Jewish adaptation of foreign symbols is perhaps even more similar to the development of the Bible than any of us had previously before assumed (personally, I would even take Kevin’s theory one step further in suggesting that the first person references in the Book of Abraham fit the general pseudeopigraphic trend witnessed in such biblical books as Deuteronomy and therefore, the Book of Abraham many not have been written by Abraham at all).

Kevin’s theory regarding a Semitic adaptation of Egyptian traditions explains why the Book of Abraham features so many ideological links with ancient Semitic texts—many of which were unknown to 19th century audiences.

While in addition to the examples provided by Kevin in his ground-breaking study, we could point to a number of supplementary examples of Semitic ideology reflected in the Book of Abraham, one of my favorites includes the BOA’s depiction of the divine council.

Semitic texts from the ancient Near East that feature stories of the divine council of gods typically begin with a crisis in which the head God calls together the gods of the council to resolve the dilemma. During the council, a series of proposals are offered. Finally, a “savior” steps forward, offering his services to the council. This savior then receives a commission to perform his redemptive role (this summary is based upon the pattern identified by Simon Parker, “Council,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Karel van der Toorn, et al. eds. Leiden: Brill, 1999: 206).

This common Semitic pattern is witnessed, for example, in the Mesopotamian story of divine kingship known as Enuma Elish. In the Babylonian myth, the head god of the pantheon calls together the gods in a council to resolve the dilemma created by the goddess Tiamat. Following a series of proposals, Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, receives a commission as savior.

In the myth, Marduk agrees to perform the role of savior on the condition that his Father, Ea, the head god of the council, will grant Marduk all power and glory. The same pattern appears in the Assyrian myth Anzu, however, in this rendition, the god Ninurta agrees to serve as council savior while allowing his father to retain his position.

These myths, unknown to 19th century audiences at the time of Joseph Smith, feature important parallels with the view of the divine council provided in the Book of Abraham.

Finally, Kevin’ theory also works well with research that I have performed on the connection between Semitic presentation scenes depicted on Mesopotamian cylinder seals and facsimile 3.

As a Jewish-Egyptian redactor, J-Red may have simply converted the Egyptian drama featured in facsimile 3 from a scene that originally fit an earlier Semitic context.

Thanks Kevin for a truly important study.

Best LDS Volumes on the Great Apostasy and Restoration

This is a listing of what I consider to be the best works from a Latter-day Saint perspective offering both biblical and historical evidences for the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy and Restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Noel B. Reynolds, ed. Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy

Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (2d ed.)

Scott R. Peterson, Do the Mormons have a Leg to Stand on? A Critical Look at LDS Doctrines in Light of the Bible and the Teachings of the Early Christian Church

Idem. Where have all the Prophets Gone? Revelation and Rebellion in the Old Testament and the Christian World

Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young, ed. Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy

Resources on Alma 7:10

In my previous post, I discussed Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Jesus. In this post, I will provide a listing of some of the best articles on this issue:

Jeff Lindsay, Bethlehem vs. the Land of Jerusalem: Is Alma 7:10 a Blunder?

John A. Tvedtnes, Alma 7:10. Jesus Born in Jerusalem or Bethlehem?

Idem. Cities and Lands in the Book of Mormon

Daniel C. Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin, On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ

James Stutz's Response to Rocky Hulse's attempt to critique the above article by Peterson et al.

In 2011, I had an e-mail exchange with the late Doug Harris on Alma 7:10. To see how critics are unable to respond to LDS apologetics and scholarship on this issue, you should enjoy reading this exchange.

Isaiah 66:7-8, Alma 7:10, and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ

Challenge to Anti-Mormons regarding Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Jesus

I. Howard Marshall on the "city of David"