Trinitarians Appealing to Margaret Barker and Double Standards

Some (mainly Protestant) critics of Latter-day Saint theology often criticises LDS apologists for appealing to the writings of Margaret Barker (e.g., The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God) to support our theology (e.g., Kevin M. Christensen, "Paradigms Regained": A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and its Significance for Mormon Studies). However, rather hypocritically, Protestant apologists will happily reference Barker too, notwithstanding their claims her scholarship is “marginal” and, to quote my thesis supervisor back in university, “is off the wall.”

In a recent anthology of essays written in defense of Trinitarianism, we find the following positive appeals to Barker’s The Great Angel:

Barker has noted that the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 5:6 reads “Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake.” The Septuagint renders this to say, “Do not say before the Lord.” Similarly the Hebrew of Isaiah 63:9 states, “The angel of his presence saved them.” The Septuagint renders this, “Not a messenger nor an angel but he himself saved them” (Barker, The Great Angel, 32). (Michael R. Burgos, Jr., “Proto-Trinitarian Christology” in Michael R. Burgos, ed., Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology [Torrington, Conn.: Church Militant Publications, 2018], 3-19, here, p. 14)

Elsewhere, the same apologist further appeals to Barker thusly:

Barker has similarly argued, “The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels” (Barer, The Great Angel, 3). (Burgos, “Jewish Proto-Trinitarianism” in Ibid., 106-20, here, p. 107)

When Latter-day Saints and others reference and appeal to Barker’s work, such should not be dismissed, but instead, the real questions should be (1) is Barker’s work being accurately presented? and (2) does Barker’s claims hold up to critical scrutiny? It is intellectually disingenuous for Evangelicals and others to simply dismiss LDS appeals to Barker without any critical interactions whatsoever (and I say this as one who finds much of her work hit or miss [for what it is worth, I own and have read all her books. I enjoyed The Great Angel, with some reservations, as well as The Great High Priest, but her recent work on Mary to be poor]).

Helmut Koester on the Historical Unreliability of the Protoevangelium of James

The Protoevangelium (“proto-gospel) of James, a document from the middle of the second century AD, is an early source affirming the sexual and physical virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus (the physical side of Mary’s [perpetual] virginity is what is stressed in Roman Catholic dogmatic theology, something I discuss in detail in chapter 4 of my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology [2017], pp. 83-138). However, the document has (correctly) being rejected as being historically reliable, let alone being a custodian of an authentic apostolic tradition that is not in the biblical texts (in this instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary). Reflecting this overwhelming scholarly consensus, Helmut Koester summarized the scholarly consensus, one held by even believing Roman Catholic scholars:

The topic of the Proto-Gospel of James is not the birth of Jesus, but the birth and virginity of Mary. It was written for the glorification of Mary and is, thus, a surprisingly early witness for the rapid expansion of biographical legends, not only about Jesus—that is already evident in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke—but also about Jesus’ mother and her parents. But while the stories about the birth of Jesus still reveals the eschatological message of the proclamation of a new age with all its political implications, the Proto-Gospel of James exclusively caters to the interests of personal piety and, possibly, to an incipient cult of the mother of Jesus, analogous to the cult of a hero or heroine of the Hellenistic-Roman world.

The author has no real knowledge of the Temple of Jerusalem and its cult, no matter how often reference is made to Jewish ritual and purity rules. There are numerous allusions to, and borrowings from, the Biblical stories of Saran and Hannah as well as from the canonical Gospels’ story of Mary. But rarely does the author copy slavishly. Rather, the author’s piety is wholly shaped by the language of the Bible. In this respect the analogy to the canonical gospel’s infancy narratives is very close. However, the heroine of the story, Anna and her daughter Mary, are not Jewish women but examples of Hellenistic piety. Female sterility, the sorrow of Anna, could be a theme in any culture, Jewish, Greek, or Roman. But pregnancy of the “widow”—as is said of Anna—and virginity, combined with divine conception, here even extended to the “virgin birth,” are presented in this writing as the mystery of the female that demands worship. That Mary remains a virgin even after she has given birth introduces the ascetic ideal of a life-long commitment to virginity. One is encountering a dimension of piety, in the form of a personal legend in the Hellenistic style, that is especially concerned with the role of the female in the process of the revelation’s appearance in the flesh. The miraculous signs of the Synoptic Gospels’ story that signify the arrival of the divine are here replaced by the wondrous virtues of virginity and ascetic dedication. (Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development [London: SCM Press, 1990], 310-11)

To read an attempt to defend the Protoevangelium of James being more historically reliable than the scholarly consensus holds, see Appendix 5: The Protoevangelium of James (pp. 246-60) in the book by Eastern Orthodox scholar and priest Laurent Cleenewerck, Aiparthenos | Ever-Virgin? Understanding the Orthodox Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (one of the best modern works to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary form an “Epiphanian” perspective [one that holds that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children from a prior marriage of Joseph, something that the Protoevangelium of James presents]).

Helmut Koester on John 19:30 and the meaning of τετελεσται ("it is completed")

In my essay Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30, I refuted the common Protestant interpretation of the verse and the meaning of τετελεσται.

In his book, Ancient Christian Gospels, New Testament scholar Helmut Koester argued that τετελεσαι in John 19:30 refers to the fulfilment of Scripture in light of the use of τετελεσται elsewhere in v. 28 which I have now added to my essay:

John 19:28 retains, at the same time, the reference to the fulfillment of Scripture (Jesus . . . , that the Scripture be completed, said, “I thirst,” cf.: when Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is completed,” John 19:30. (Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development [London: SCM Press, 1990], 230)

In a footnote for the above, Koester wrote:

In the extant text of John, this remark has a much more pregnant significance: Jesus has completed all the works he was sent to do (cf. Bultmann, Gospel of John, 675). But the tradition or source of the Gospel of John probably expressed by this phrase is that the fulfillment of the scripture had been accomplished. (Ibid., 230 n. 1)

Books I ordered for Christmas

I think it is well known that I am a major bibliophile, so naturally, I ordered a number of books for Christmas. I have read some of these already, but most are still in transit, and I am really looking forward to them. Some are new; some are old, but I am sure those who follow this blog might find some of the following to be interesting and worth pursuing themselves:

LDS:

Royal Skousen, The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon (Parts 3 and 4, Volume III, Book of Mormon Critical Text Project)

Thomas Wayment, The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints

Eric Huntsman, Becoming the Beloved Disciple: Coming to Christ Through the Gospel of John

Sidney B. Sperry, The Voice of Israel's Prophets: A Latter-day Saint Interpretation of the Major and Minor Prophets of the Old Testament

Non-LDS:

Brent Nongbri, God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts

Donald A. Hagner, How New is the New Testament? First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity

Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology, ed. Michael R. Burgos

Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development

Jeffrey R. Dickson, The Humility and Glory of the Lamb

John Paul Heil, Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship

John Bligh, Ordination to the Priesthood

William L. Rowe, The Cosmological Argument

Creation "ex nihilo": Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges, eds. Gary A. Anderson and Markus Bockmuehl

Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy: A Study in the Common Liturgy of the Lutheran Church in America

Jeromy Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude

Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. II Samuel

Jacob M. Myers, II Chronicles

Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright, Joshua

Michael Massing, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind

Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine

As always, if one wishes to support the writing and research of this blog (including a forthcoming book I hope to write, beginning in 2019, on baptism and the Eucharist [though it will probably end up as a full volume on soteriology, incorporating justification and other issues, too]), you can make a donation via Paypal and/or Gofundme.

I hope all my readers will have a wonderful Christmas tomorrow!

The "Elements of the Cosmos" in Colossians 2:8 and Paul's Demonology

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits (KJV: rudiments of the world; Greek: στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου), and not after Christ. (Col 2:8, NRSV)

Col 2:8 is a strong witness to Paul’s belief in the ontological existence of supernatural evil. Catholic priest and scholar, Dennis Hamm, SJ, wrote the following:

Scholarly research has found plenty of evidence that stoicheia was used in ancient times to describe cosmic entities like the sun, moon, stars, planets, and the four elements as managed by spirits, angels, and demons. A ready example appears in the book of Wisdom, where Solomon is portrayed as boasting about his special God-given knowledge of the elements of creation.

For he gave me sound knowledge of what exists, that I might know the structure of the universe and the force of its elements [stoicheia]. The beginning and the end of the midpoint of times, the changes in the sun’s course and the variations of the seasons. Wis 7:17-18; see 19:18

Then in Wis 13:2 pagans are described as foolish for worshipping these things as gods.

Either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.

Translated literally, Paul’s phrase stoicheia tou kosmou is “elements of the cosmos.” Given that Paul writes of these elements as something to which the baptized Colossians “have died” (2:20), it is clear that he has in mind something more than the material components of the universe. The Christian does not die to earth, air, fire, and water, or sun, moon, and stars. The stoicheia here, then, are personal forces that human beings can be enslaved to or freed from. Indeed, in writing to the Galatians, Paul can speak of pre-Christians as “enslaved to the stoicheia tou kosmou” (Gal 4:3). This relational language has prompted contemporary translators to add a word to clarify “elements” in Col 2:8-10—for instance, “elemental powers of the world” (NABRE), “the ruling spirits of this world” (Good News), “the elemental spirits of the universe” (NRSV).

One scholar summarizes his research on teaching about “the elements” and Paul’s response to it this way.

For Paul the stoicheia were an integral part of the present evil age. They function as masters and overlords of unredeemed humanity working through various means—including the Jewish law and pagan religions—to hold their subjects in bondage. The rules and regulations imposed by these “powers” ostensibly through sacred and venerable religious tradition, are therefore entirely unnecessary and actually represent a reversion to a form of slavery to the “powers” themselves. A reaffirmation of the community’s freedom from this demonic tyranny is expressed by the author who stresses the complete identification of believers with Christ. The identification includes death to the former lords, the stoicheia tou kosmou who would still seek to impose their control. (Arnold, Colossian Syncretism, 194)

This seems to reflect Paul’s intended meaning of the stoicheia tou kosmou in Colossians. (Dennis Hamm, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon [Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013], 196-97)

For more on Paul’s satanology/demonology, as well as that of other biblical authors, see the relevant articles at:

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Donald Hagner on Baptismal Regeneration in 1 Peter 3

A new means of salvation marks the new era: “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (3:18). A reference to “the days of Noah” and the eight persons who “were saved through water” turns the thoughts of our author to baptism. “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (3:20-22). Baptism in the name of Christ means participation in the atoning work of Christ, and hence the enjoyment of eternal salvation. (Donald A. Hagner, How New is the New Testament? First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], 153, emphasis added)

 Further Reading:

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Donald A. Hagner on the Relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude (ομοιτης [BDAG: state of being similar to something likeness, similarity, agreement] of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. (Heb 7:15)

Commenting on the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus, Protestant New Testament scholar Donald Hagner (correctly) notes that Hebrews does not teach that Melchizedek is a “Christophany” (Old Testament appearance of the pre-incarnate Jesus) but is a type of Jesus:

As a king and priest, Melchizedek is a type of Christ, not a preincarnate manifestation of Christ. The description of Melchizedek as being “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days or end of life,” refers most probably to the fact that his origins are unknown (7:3; cf. 7:6), as are the dates of his life and death. Note well: he resembles the Son of God (cf. 7:15); it does not say that he is the Son of God. Our author stresses the greatness of Melchizedek (7:4), who blessed Abraham and received a tithe from him. Even Levi, “in the loins of his ancestor” Abraham, could be said to have paid a tithe to the great Melchizedek (7:10). (Donald A. Hagner, How New is the New Testament? First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], 141, italics in original)