Does the Hebrew Bible teach Mortalism?

It is common to hear from some groups and individuals that hold to psychopannychism or thnetopsychism ("soul-sleep" and "soul-death," respectively—often labelled “mortalism”) that the "soul" (Hebrew: נפשׁ; Greek: ψυχη), in the theology of the biblical authors, does not survive death. However, recent scholarship and textual discoveries have called this claim (held by a number of scholars, such as the late Oscar Cullmann) into question. A recent volume by Richard C. Steiner, Disembodied Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription (Society of Biblical Literature, 2015) has shown that, in the worldview of the Hebrew Bible and its environment, the נפשׁ could survive independently of the body.

The SBL offers this book for free as a .pdf download here.

θεοπνευστος and Sola Scriptura

The term translated as "given by inspiration of God" in the KJV of 2 Tim 3:16 is the Greek term θεοπνευστος (alt: "God-breathed" [NIV]). Some Protestant apologists argue that, as the Bible is said to be the only authority said to be θεοπνευστος, it is the final, formally sufficient authority, and Christians have no need for an authoritative Church or additional revelation, such as the Book of Mormon.

However, we can't help see that such apologists are guilty of a number of logical fallacies. Firstly, 2 Tim 3:16 is speaking of the nature of "Scripture" and that it is inspired by God. However, it is simply begging the question to claim that "Scripture" and "the Bible" are one-to-one equivalent with one another; the scope and extent of the canon is not in view in Paul's words to Timothy.

Furthermore, θεοπνευστος appears only once in the Greek New Testament; it is never used in the LXX. Now, if a Protestant wishes to argue that as the "Bible" is said to be θεοπνευστος, and such a term is not said to describe any other authority, what about the time prior to the inscripturation of 2 Timothy 3:16? If the apologist were consistent in their (admittedly, misapplication of) “logic,” no one could state with any assurance that Scripture was inspired of God prior to Paul using the term θεοπνευστος! Such is the absurdities of this "argument." In reality, for something to be inspired of God and an authority, there are different locutions one could use (e.g., "the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" [Matt 10:20]; "in spirit" [Matt 22:43]; "filled with the Holy Ghost" [Acts 4:8]).

Note the words of Paul in 1 Thess 2:13:

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Here, Paul refers to both his inspired writings and oral teachings as being equally authoritative and as being "the word of God." As they say, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . ."

As for comments from the Book of Mormon prophets recognising the inspired nature of their writings, see the following examples: 1 Nephi 6:1-6; 9:2-6; 14:25, 28; 19:2-3; 2 Nephi 5:30-31; Words of Mormon 1:3-9; Alma 37:1-25; 3 Nephi 26:6-12; 28:24-25; 30:1-2; Mormon 5:9; 8:13-16; Ether 4:1-6; 5:1-6; 8:26; 13:13; 15:33; Moroni 9:24; 10:2-5.

Protestant apologists who use this argument are guilty of eisegesis, begging the question, and special pleading, a lethal mix of abuse of Scripture and logic, though such is common in efforts to prop up a man-made doctrine like sola scriptura.

Keith Ward on the Trinity in the Bible

[It would be a mistake to claim that the Synoptic Gospels teach a] doctrine of the Trinity . . . The creative power of God, the unique relation of Jesus to God, and the life-giving power of the Spirit of God are clearly asserted. But a few conclusions an be drawn about their exact relations. There is nothing here which is in principle offensive to anyone who insists on the unity of God and accepts that the risen Jesus is worthy of worship but feels some reserve about speaking in the detail of 'the inner life of God'. (Keith Ward, Christ and the Cosmos: A Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine [Cambridge University Press, 2015], 50-51)

Did Jesus offer a sacrifice for Himself?

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)

In this verse, the verb ευρισκω (to find/obtain) is in the middle voice (ευραμενος). Some have latched onto this and claim that Christ offered a sacrifice for Himself, too. This is the view held by many Christadelphians, both historically and in modern times (to be fair, there are Christadelphians who argue that Christ did not offer a sacrifice for the "sin" of being human). In a rather influential Christadelphian text, we read:

“[Christ] himself required a sin offering; in other words, he sacrificed himself, for himself, that he might save us. Or, in other words, he saved himself in order to save us . . .That Christ needed salvation is seen from Psalm xci. 16. It is also clearly taught in Heb. Ix. 12 . . . “having obtained” is in the middle voice, signifying something done for oneself).” (F.G. Jannaway, Christadelphian Answers [1920], p. 24)

Such sentiments are mirrored on p. 12 of the Christadelphian booklet, Christ’s Death and your Salvation: A Simple Explanation of John 3:16, we read the following:

Jesus as a representative man, who bore in his nature the same flesh-promptings of all other men but conquered them (1 Peter 2:21-24), was in need of redemption from that nature (not from actual sin for he never committed any) as is all mankind. He obtained this by his own offering. This is the clear teaching of Hebrews 13:20. Hebrews 9:12 states that by his offering he “obtained eternal redemption.” The “for us” of the A.V. should be excluded as it is in the R.V. and all other versions.

However, this shows a gross ignorance of Koine Greek grammar as well as the meaning of this verse--the author's purpose is to emphasise that Christ alone obtained redemption for His people. For instance, consider the following:

We can never hope to express exactly the Greek middle voice by an English translation . . . While the active voice emphasises the action, the middle stresses the agent. It, in some way, relates the action more intimately to the subject. Just how the action is thus related is not indicated by the middle voice, but must be detected from the context or the character of the verbal idea. (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 57).

 This verb occurs in the Greek middle voice, which here intensifies the role of the subject, Christ, in accomplishing the action: "he alone secured"; "he and no other secured."  (NET Commentary) 

INDIRECT MIDDLE. In the flourishing period of the language this was by far the most frequent use, but it finally faded before the active and the intensive (reflexive) pronoun or the passive. In 1 Cor. 15:28, u`potagh,setai, the passive may bear the middle force (Findlay, Expos. Gr. T., in loco). But in general the indirect middle is abundant and free in the N. T. In the modern Greek Thumb gives no instances of the indirect middle. The precise shade of the resultant meaning varies very greatly. The subject is represented as doing something for, to or by himself. Often the mere pronoun is sufficient translation. Each word and its context must determine the result. Thus in Heb. 9:12, aivwni,an lu,trwsin eu`ra,menoj, Jesus is represented as having found eternal redemption by himself. He found the way. In Mt. 16:22, proslabo,menoj auvto,n, 'Peter takes Jesus to himself.' In Mk. 9:8, peribleya,menoi, 'the disciples themselves suddenly looking round.' (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of the Historical Research, p. 809)

The Gospel of John and Baptismal Regeneration

In this post, I defended the Latter-day Saint belief that, when Jesus spoke of being born of "water and the Spirit," the water was a reference to baptism. I just came across this informative comment by C.H. Dodd in his book on the Gospel of John, which sheds further light on the phrase "water and the Spirit" being a reference to water baptism and confirmation, notwithstanding these terms not being stated explicitly:

The evangelist appears to have deliberately exercised reserve about the Christian sacraments in writing for a pubic which included pagans whom he wished to influence towards the Christian faith. So he would not say plainly that initiation into the higher order of life is by way of baptism accompanied by the gift of the Spirit. Indeed, he may well have felt that to put it in that way would risk misleading such readers as he had in view. But he could bring in the idea of Baptism allusively. He was already had much to say about John the Baptist. In particular, he has recorded that John was sent to baptise εν υδατι (i.26, 31, 33—the threefold repetition of εν υδατι is impressive) and that he declared Jesus to be ο βαπτιζων εν πενυματι αγιω on the ground that he had himself seen the Spirit descending and remaining on Him (i.33). Thus the association of ideas, υδωρ-πνευμα, is established, although so far it is an association of contrast. Now in iii.22, after the discourse which contains the saying about birth from water and Spirit, we are told that Jesus was baptizing, and that the fact was reported to John the Baptist, who was simultaneously engaged in baptizing at another place (iii.26). The implication is that the two are regarded as competing practitioners of the same ritual, viz., baptism in water. But the reader is not to forget that Jesus is ο βαπτιζων εν πνευματι αγιω. The implication is that the water-baptism administered by Jesus (and therefore also the water0baptism of the church, though this is not brought to the surface) is also baptism εν πνευματι. This is quite intelligible in the context of Johannine thought. The opening of the eyes of the blind by Jesus (partly through an act of ‘washing’, i.e., baptism) is also spiritual enlightenment (ix. 5-7) and we are to learn that the ‘living water’ which proceeds from Christ is the Spirit (vii. 38-39). (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge University Press, 1958], 309-10).

Further Proof Sola Scriptura is a Dividing Line

On this blog, I have discussed the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura quite a bit, interacting with the key texts apologists have forwarded in favour of this doctrine. It is an important dividing line between Latter-day Saints and Protestants as it informs, in part, the rejection, often a priori, of Latter-day Saint claims by Protestants. Of course, let me state that disproving sola scriptura is not evidence in favour of Latter-day Saint claims (such would simply be question-begging if one were to claim such), but the fact that Protestant apologists ultimately have to rely on eisegesis and/or just accept uncritically the doctrine speaks volumes of its truthfulness (or lack thereof).

This has been exemplified in a recent exchange I am engaged in with a fundamentalist Baptist; in response to my comment that part of his rejection of the Book of Mormon was his a priori (and uncritical) acceptance of the formal sufficiency of the Bible, he wrote, "The doctrine of Sola-Scriptura is not even relevant to this issue" only then to claim (without any substantiation) " Christ and the Bible were sufficient before Joseph Smith and they continue to be sufficient now so follow HIM!." Translation: I don't have to provide evidence for Sola Scriptura! Accept my ipse dixit!!!!!

C.H. Dodd, Origen, and Raymond Brown on John 4:24

Commenting on John 4:24, New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

Note: Origen in this passage understood it unwise to appeal to John 4:24 "at face value" to support God not being embodied, notwithstanding his use of such a verse in On First Principles to support God not having a body. Origen is not a witness for divine embodiment, but only a witness that early Christians, including those who would use John 4:24 as evidence that the Father does not have a body, would not go "beyond what is written" about this text (Origen is, sadly, very complex, in comparison to other early Christian authors).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)