"Mosiah" in the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew

Taken from David J.A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 5: נ-מ (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2011), 192

For more, see:

Mosiah--Book of Mormon Onomasticon

"Alma" in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew

In Refuting Gabriel Hughes' Misinformed Arguments against the Book of Mormon, I discussed the name "Alma" in the Book of Mormon and demonstrated how modern scholarship reveals that it is indeed an ancient Semitic name for men. To add to the discussion, here is the entry for אלמא in David J.A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 1: א (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 294:

Brant Gardner on 1 Nephi 13:24-28 and a Note on Psalm 110:3 in the MT and LXX

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13:24-28)

Commenting on the above pericope, Brant Gardner wrote the following:

History: Verse 28 contains the scriptural basis for the eighth Article of Faith’s reservation that we believe the Bible “as far as sit is translated correctly.” Of course we tend to be most interested in the removal of the “plain and precious things” from our copies of the Bible, but that cannot be the meaning that Nephi understood, as most of what we have as our Bible comes after his time. It is quite probable that this reference to the removal of plain and precious things had only one meaning for Nephi, and it was related to the whole purpose of his writing. Nephi “restores” the understanding of the Atoning Messiah to his people. That restoration was required because of Josiah’s reforms . . . That reform apparently attempted to remove or diminish the doctrine of Yahweh as Atoning Messiah. Margaret Barker has been working on reconstructing the religion of Israel prior to the reform of Josiah. She finds information and clues in the Bible, but more in the pseudepigraphical writings that were not controlled by the Deuteronomistics. As she summarizes her experience, she describes the state of the texts:

There is good reason to believe that other information about the first temple and the older high priesthood were deliberately suppressed. When the final form of Exodus was compiled, Moses was told that no person could make atonement for another. After the sin of the golden calf, he offered himself if the Lord would forgive the people’s sin, but he was told: “Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Ex. 32:33). Why had Moses thought such an atonement possible? Perhaps the older ways were being superseded.

And how has it come about that so many important text are damaged or have alternative versions? The sons of God text in Deuteronomy is vital for reconstructing the older religion of Israel, and yet it exists in two different versions, one without the sons of God. The verse in Psalm 110 which describes how the king became a son of God is damaged. The vital messianic passage in Isaiah exists in two different forms—and there are many more examples. These are not random variations or damage. There is a pattern. (Margaret Barker, “The Great High Priest,” Brigham Young University Forum address, May 2003, 14).

The beginnings of the textual alternations that Barker sees came during Lehi’s lifetime. When the angel discusses the plain and precious things that have been removed, Nephi could have understood that in only one way based upon his own experience. The Atoning Messiah was the “plain and precious” thing that had been removed. Nephi will create his record to repair that damage and return Yahweh the Messiah to his rightful place in scripture. This is the message that permeates the Book of Mormon. In a very literal way, Nephi sets in motion the recovery of the most precious part of the sacred scripture that he understood to have been removed. (Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 1: First Nephi [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 236-37)

 With respect to the "sons of God" variant in Deut 32, such is pretty well known by Latter-day Saints (e.g., The Jewish Study Bible on Deuteronomy 32:7-9), the issue of Psalm 110 may not be. 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 spelled 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.

Are Good Works Always "Filthy/Menstrual Rags"? Not According to John Calvin

Many of our Protestant, especially Calvinist, critics will state that good work are nothing more than filthy rags based on an eisegetical reading of Isa 64:6, even works empowered by God’s grace. For a refutation of this, for e.g., the discussion of this passage at Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness and Review of Can Our Works Save Us? Refuting Sola Fide. Interestingly, in Calvin’s own theology, while good works are not meritorious, when performed within the realm of sanctification and empowered by God’s spirit, they can be acceptable to God and not as filthy rags. As Anglican Peter Toon wrote in his outline of Calvin’s theology of justification and sanctification:

The good works of true believers are acceptable to God through Christ: Calvin utterly rejected good works as the basis for acceptance in God’s heavenly court. This rejection related to good works before and after conversion. He reason is simple—only the mediatorial righteousness of Christ is acceptable to the Father. However, Calvin had to face the fact that both the Old and New Testaments imply that God accepts the good works of his children, even though his imply that God accepts the good works of his children, even though his children are not yet perfected. As one of the greatest commentators in Holy Scripture, he accepted this fact and answered quite simply that the works are acceptable only because they are seen and received by God in the name of Jesus Christ. “Because the godly, encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works are as yet incomplete and redolent of vices of the flesh, he can be propitious neither to the former nor to the latter unless he embraces them in Christ rather than in themselves. In this sense we are to understand those passages which attest that God is kind and merciful to the keepers of righteousness” (3:17:5).

In a further explanation he wrote: “After forgiveness of sins is set forth, the good works that now follow are appraised otherwise than on their own merit. For everything imperfect in them is covered by Christ’s perfection; every blemish or spot is cleansed away by his purity in order not to be brought in question at the divine judgment. Therefore, after the guilt of transgressions that hinder man from bringing forth anything pleasing to God has been blotted out, and after the fault of imperfection which habitually defiles even good works, is buried, the good works done by believers are accounted righteous, or, what is the same thing are reckoned as righteous” (3:17:8).

Here is yet a further difference between Calvin and medieval (and Roman) theology. Calvin will only allow that works are good because of their acceptance by God in the name of Christ. Roman Catholic theology allows that since they proceed from imparted and inherent righteousness they are acceptable to God. (Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification [London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983], 79-80)

Such should be compared with various Reformed confessions, including from chapter XVI, “Of Good Works” from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

Donald W. Wuerl Et al. on Eucharistic Worship and Adoration

As many know, I have been researching a forthcoming volume on sacramental theology, with a focus on baptism and the Eucharist. One issue that will be discussed in the volume will be the development of Eucharistic Adoration (the giving of the highest cultic [latria] devotion to consecrated hosts). One recent work I read on this issue gives us the following information (including an admission it is a “gradual development”):

Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament

Faith in the enduring presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament prompted the gradual development of devotions to Christ in the Eucharist even apart from Mass.

In the earliest centuries of the Church the chief reason for preserving the Sacred Species was to assist those unable to attend the liturgy, especially the sick and the dying. The Sacrament of the Lord was reverently taken to them so that they too could communicate.

With the passage of time, reverent reflection led the Church to enrich its Eucharistic devotion. Faith that Jesus is truly present in the sacrament led believers to worship Christ dwelling with us permanently in the sacrament. Wherever the sacrament is, there is the Christ who is our Lord and our God; hence He is ever to be worshiped in this mystery (cf. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical, Mysterium Fidei [September 3, 1965] nn. 56-62). Such worship is expressed in many ways: in genuflections, in adoration of the Eucharist, in the many forms of Eucharistic devotion that faith has nourished.

In the thirteenth century, when the charisms of saints like Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas had intensified the Church’s gratitude for the enduring presence of Jesus, the feast of Corpus Christi (“Body of Christ”) was established. The popularity of this feast, with its joyful hymns and public processions, encouraged further developments of Eucharistic devotion.

The Blessed Sacrament is at times removed from the tabernacle in which it is ordinarily kept, and placed upon the altar for adoration. Usually the Host is placed in a monstrance, so that the Sacred Species can be seen by the faithful adoring their present but unseen Lord. These periods of exposition are sometime extended into the Holy Hours. Catholic parishes often celebrate Eucharistic Days, or the Forty Hours Devotion, in which the Sacrament is exposed upon the altar continuously for a full day or longer, to intensify the Eucharistic life of the parish. When such exposition is terminated, the priest raises the Sacred Host before the people in blessing. From this closing act has come the name “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.”

In some dioceses and certain religious communities perpetual adoration is maintained before the continuously exposed Host. But every Catholic Church is a place in which the faithful are invited to worship the present Christ. Visits to the Lord in the tabernacle are still another form of devotion to the Real Presence that the Church warmly commends (cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Eucharisticum Mysterium [May 25, 1967] part III).

Since the latter half of the nineteenth century, Eucharistic Congress have drawn Catholics to international gatherings marked by liturgical functions, conferences, and other events. All these are designed to render our united gratitude and praise or the Father’s great gift to us in this life: His beloved Son present among us under the appearances of bread and wine. (Ronald Lawler, Donald W. Wuerl, and Thomas Comerford Lawler, eds. The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults [Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1976], 437-38)

I have addressed this and other important issues relative to the Catholic Mass elsewhere, including the listing of articles at:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009) 

C. Stephen Evans on the Definition of a "Person"

The following comes from an Evangelical Protestant philosopher (at the time, he was assistant professor of philosophy at Wheaton College). This is important as many Trinitarian apologists tend to dodge the definition of "person" vis-a-vis Trinitarian theology:

What is a person?

What is a person? That question cannot be adequately answered in a few pages. Nevertheless in ordinary life the term is used with at least some measure of understanding, and it is possible to single out some of the concepts that are crucial to the notion of personhood.

Persons are first of all agents. They are beings who make choices and then act on those decisions. Persons are also conscious. Though they sometimes act blindly or unconsciously, they possess a degree of intellectual awareness, including that special type of reflective awareness usually referred to as self-conciousness.

Persons are hardly to be thought of as mere (purely rational) thinking machines, however, for they are not always rational in their behavior. In fact their acts seem to stem more from what they value than from what they know. Persons desire, love, want, wish, dislike, abhor and generally adopt a multitude of caring attitudes towards a complex variety of things.

Persons, moreover, act for certain purposes and goals, and they often defend their acts by citing reasons of various sorts. Persons think of at least some of their decisions and act as free, and they are held to be responsible for those acts. As responsible agents, persons are usually regarded as unique individuals with a measure of autonomy. But this individuality hardly precludes their involvement in larger groups. In fact, to understand a person’s individuality, we usually think of him in terms of the communities of which he is a part, and which certainly are in some sense part of him.

Despite all this complexity, persons are nonetheless thought of a possessing an essential unity and continunity. Not only is a person considered to be unified at any one moment; a person is usually even thought to be in some sense essentially the same person that he was in the past and will be in the future. These key concepts—action, choice, consciousness, values, freedom, reasons, purpose, responsibility, sociality, unity—define for us a conceptual framework or word-picture of man that we shall call the image of the personal.

This personalistic framework permeates our everyday understanding of ourselves and our social relationship. Its importance can hardly be overestimated. Many of our institutions, especially the older, more tradition-bound ones such as marriage and courtship, are tied very closely to the image of the personal and would no doubt change radically or perhaps even perish were that image to cease to be regarded as true. Others, such as education, are even now in ferment as older views of the person come into question, undermining traditional assumptions about how people learn and the nature of learning itself. The concept of a person is also central to our moral traditions; to seriously abandon the personalistic framework would necessitate fundamental changes in the way we treat each other, or at the very least a change in the way we talk about and justify that behavior. (C. Stephen Evans, Preserving the Person: A Look at the Human Sciences [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977], 10-11, italics in original)

Jeff Lindsay, "A Precious Resource with Some Gaps"

Jeff Lindsay's review of the Joseph Smith Papers volume on the Book of Abraham and related manuscripts has just been posted online by the Interpreter Foundation. It is lengthy (over 90 pages), but totally worth the time to read:

A Precious Resource with Some Gaps (PDF)