Saturday, October 26, 2019

Responding to Christina Darlington on Evidence for the JST


In an attempted critique of the Joseph Smith Translation (AKA “Inspired Version”), Christina Darlington wrote:

. . . in the thousands of manuscripts of the Bible that have been uncovered, some dating as far back at the 2nd Century B.C., not a single manuscript supports the changes that Joseph Smith made to the text of his Bible. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 212)

Darlington's comments here and elsewhere in her book are ignorant about the nature and function of the Joseph Smith Translation. The late Robert J. Matthews who revolutionised studies into the JST noted, the JST is many things, not a textual restoration of the Bible. As he notes in his essay "What is the New Translation of the Bible," the changes in the JST represent many things, including:

1. Restoration of original text
2. Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible.
3. Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers.
4. Edits to the KJV to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible.
5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors.

See my post "The nature of the Joseph Smith Translation" where I reproduce Matthew's discussions of these five types of changes (cf. Did Joseph Smith finish his revision of the Bible in 1833? As Darlington seems confused on this point [pp. 208-10]).

Notwithstanding, there are instances where the JST rendition of verses are superior to the KJV, and in some instances, where the JST finds ancient textual support.

James 2:19

Jas 2:19 in the KJV reads:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

The 1867 Inspired Version (published by the then-RLDS Church) reads:

Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble; thou hast made thyself like unto them, not being justified.

As one LDS apologist noted:

This passage, as found in most printed texts, can be translated "You believe that there is one God"? or "You believe that God is one?" However, the underlying tone of the passage is not that of "doing well" by believing that God is one, or that there is one God, but rather it is the lack of value of belief alone. Even the demons also believe and tremble! Mere belief in God will do no better for those who claim faith than it would be for the demons! That is James' real point . . . D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) [CreateSpace, 2018], 160, italics in original)

The JST adds the nuance that is part of the Greek that is missing in the KJV and many other translations. Consider the following from non-LDS sources:

But James insists that correct doctrine by itself is insufficient. With biting sarcasm he praises the objector’s theology: “You do well” (καλῶς ποιεῖς). Unlike the earlier use of this expression in 2:8, where it may have been genuinely positive or at worst mild irony, here he bitterly mocks the hollowness of their faith. “Such belief is indeed necessary, but not enough for salvation.”

To show that correct doctrine is not enough, James appeals to demonic “faith.” Satan and all his evil hordes are monotheists; even they know there is only one God and that his loyalties remain undivided. The demons do something about their belief: they tremble violently when faced with the one true God of the universe. The word “tremble” (φρίσσουσιν) means more than just slight shuddering; it refers to uncontainable, uncontrollable, violent shaking from extreme fear. James asserts that the demons can match the original challenger’s theology point for point, and they are overwhelmed by the truth of these doctrines, but they remain condemned. Thus one cannot have “workless” doctrine, because that leaves one salvifically in the same position as the demons! The comparison, however, should not be pressed to say that the objector is actually demonized. Rather, James uses an extreme example to make his point that the demons are so certain of the existence of the one God that they are horrified, but even that does not bring them to salvation (because their knowledge does not change their behavior?). (Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James [Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament vol. 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 135])

The confession is in accordance with true belief, so James adds a semi-ironic καλῶς ποιεῖς (the author certainly believed this truth with all his heart, following the tradition of Jesus, Mk. 12:29). Such belief is indeed necessary, but not enough for salvation. The demons themselves are quite orthodox, but they tremble in fear of judgment. That all things, including demons, shudder (φρίσσω) before God is clear in Jewish literature (Test. Abr. recension A, 9; Jos. War 5:378; Hermas Man. 4), but the special fear of demons before God is attested at least soon after the NT period and probably existed within it, as magical papyri, which use God’s name against demons, and Christian literature show (Leiden Magical Papyrus J 384, 239–240; Justin Dial. 49.8; Eth. Enoch 13:3; 69:1, 14; Heb. Enoch 14:2; Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.5; cf. Dibelius, 190; BAG, 873–874; Windisch, 18; Peterson, 295–299; Deissmann, 260). More importantly, the NT knows of the monotheism of demons (1:24; 5:7; Acts 16:17; 19:15) and their fear before Christ, whom they recognize (Mk. 1:23, 24; 5:7). The point is that the knowledge of who God is does not save them; in fact, it is this very knowledge which makes them shudder (and that very name which was used by exorcists to drive them out)! A faith which cannot go beyond this level is worse than useless (Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 126)

Joseph of Egypt's Prophecy of Moses and Aaron

2 Nephi 3:17 in the Book of Mormon records a prophecy of Joseph of Egypt not found in the Bible:

And the Lord hath said I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much: for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.

This prophecy is also found in Genesis 50:29, 34–35 of the JST, adding that the name of the spokesman would be Aaron:

And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king's daughter, and shall be called her son . . . And the Lord sware unto Joseph, that he would preserve his seed for ever, saying, I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod. And he shall have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord. And he shall not speak many words, for I will write unto him my law by the finger of mine own hand. And I will make a spokesman for him, and his name shall be called Aaron.

In his article Joseph's Prophecy of Moses and Aaron, John A. Tvedtnes, in an attempt to support 2 Nephi 3:17, appeals to Targum Neofiti of Gen 40:12 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen 50:24-25. To make these sources more accessible, I will reproduce (1) the Aramaic and (2) a translation of these sources.

Gen 40:12 of Targum Neofiti:

 ואמר ליה יוסף דין פתרוניה תלתי שרביטיה תלתי אבהת עלמא אנון אברהם יצחק ויעקב דמן בני בניהון עתידין למשתעבדא בשעבודא דארעא דמצרים ועתידין למתפרקא על ידי תלתא פרנסין מהמנין משה ואהרן ומרים דמתילין בסגוליא ודי אמרת נסבית ענביה ועצרת יתהון בכסא דפרעה )ושויתכסא בידוי דפרעה היא כסא דפורענתא דפרעה עתיד למשתי בסופא ואת רב מזוגיא לא מובדין אגרין דחלמת חלמא טבא הדין ברם פתרוניה דחלמא לא הוה יוסף אמר ופתר ליה יוסף היך מה דהוה שפר באפוי ואמר ליה יוסף דין פתרוניה תלתא שרביטא תלתא יומין אנון


Source: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Targum Neofiti to the Pentateuch (Hebrew Union College, 2005), Ge 40:12.


And Joseph said to him: “This is its interpretation: The three branches are the three fathers of the world:' namely; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the sons of whose sons are to be enslaved in the slavery of the land of Egypt and are to be delivered by the hands of three faithful leaders: Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, who are to be likened to the clusters of grapes. And as regards what you said: took the grapes" and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup and I placed the cup in the hands of Pharaoh,’ this is the cup of retribution which Pharaoh is to drink in the end. And you, chief cupbearer, (your) reward shall not be lost, because you have dreamed this good dream.” But Joseph did not say the interpretation of the dream. And Joseph interpreted as seemed good in his sight. And Joseph said to him: “This is its interpretationthe three branches are three days.

Source: 
Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1A (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 182.

Gen 50:24-25 of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

ואמר יוסף לאחוי הא אנא מיית וייי מידכר ידכר יתכון ויסק יתכון מן ארעא הדא לארעא דקיים לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב
ואומי יוסף ית בני ישראל למימר לבנהון הא אתון משתעבדין במצרים

Source: Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch (Hebrew Union College, 2005), Ge 50:24–25.

And Joseph said to his Brethren Behold, I die the Lord remembering will remember you and will bring you up from this land, into the land Which He sware to Abraham, to Izhak, and to Jakob. And Joseph adjured the sons of Israel to say to their sons Behold, you will be brought into servitude in Mizraim ; but you shall not presume to go up out of Mizraim until the time that two Deliverers shall come, and say to you, Remembering, remember ye the Lord. And at the time when ye go up ye shall carry up my bones from hence.


It should be clear that the Book of Mormon and JST Gen 50 has strong ancient support.

Two Sets of Tablets at Sinai

On this topic, Matthew B. Brown wrote:

The biblical story of the stone tablets made by Moses at Mt. Sinai indicates that there was no difference between what was written on the first set and the second set (see Exodus 32:15-16, 19; 34:1). But the Joseph Smith Translation of the episode indicates that there was a major difference between the two sets of tablets.

And the Lord said unto Moses, “Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai” (JST Exodus 34:1-2; see also JST Deuteronomy 10:2).

The ancient Jews preserved traditions that closely correspond to the knowledge provided by Joseph Smith. In the Zohar, for instance, we read that the first set of tablets “emanated from the tree of life” while the second set “came from the side of the tree of good and evil.” And according to Jewish kabbalistic lore, the first set of tablets “were the light and doctrine of the Messiah, the outpouring of universal deliverance, the source of eternal life on earth” while the second set “represented the indirect or ‘fragmented’ manifestation of this light” (Leo Schaya, The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah [London: George Allen and Unwin, 1971], 15-16). (Matthew B. Brown, All Things Restored: Evidence and Witnesses of the Restoration [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications Inc., 2000, 2006], 166)

For more, see:

John A. Tvedtnes, The Higher and Lesser Laws

1 Corinthians 4:4

1 Cor 4:4 in the KJV reads:

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

The JST renders this verse differently:

For though I know nothing against myself; yet I am not hereby justified; but he who judgeth me is the Lord.

The word "against" instead of "by" is used by a number of modern scholarly translations (e.g., NRSV; NASB; Lexham; ESV) as do many commentators (e.g., R.C.H. Lenski). As the Expositor's Greek Testament notes:

The negative clauses, οὐδὲν γὰρ … ἀλλʼ οὐκ, together explain, parenthetically, Paul’s meaning in 1Co 4:3: “For I am conscious of nothing against myself” (in my conduct as Christ’s minister to you: cf. 10, 18; 2Co 1:12-17)—nothing that calls for judicial inquiry on your part or misgiving on my own—“but not on this ground (οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ) have I been justified”.

For an interesting presentation on First Corinthians and the JST, see Kevin L. Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation of 1 Corinthians: Toward an Eclectic Approach"

The Writing on the Wall

This is an interesting one. Dan 5:25-28 in the KJV reads:

And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

There is a slight change in the JST:

And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing; MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. UPHARSIN; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

In the KJV, the terms “MENE,” “TEKEL,” and “PERES” (the latter not appearing in the original list in v. 25) but in the JST, as v. 28 interprets UPHARSIN instead of PERES, the JST has an interpretation of all the terms that appear in v. 25.

The reason for the difference is that PERES is the singular form while UPHARSIN is the plural (the 'u' representing the conjunction 'w,' but many scholarly translations keep the 'U' and render it UPHARSIN [e.g., 1985 JPS Tanakh; NASB]).

Interestingly, the New English Bible, a modern scholarly translation, strongly mirrors the JST:

And these are the words of the writing which was inscribed: Mene mene tekel u-pharsin. Here is the interpretation: mene: God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; tekel: you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting; upharsin: and your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.


John 20:17: “Hold” or “Touch” me not?

John 20:17 in the KJV reads:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The JST changes "touch" to "hold," suggesting that Mary Magdalene was touching/clinging to Jesus at that moment:

Jesus saith unto her, Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Modern translations of this verse capture the nuance one finds in the JST. Consider the following:

"Do not hold on to me" (NRSV)

"Stop clinging to Me" (NASB)

"Stop holding onto me" (Complete Jewish Bible)

"Do not cling to me" (NEB)

"Do not cling to me" (ESV)

"Stop holding on to me" (NAB)

"Don't hold on to me" (International Standard Version)

"Do not cling to me" (David Bentley Hart)

In Greek, Jesus' words to Mary are μη μου απτου. Commenting on the grammar of this command not to touch/cling (απτου being the second person imperative present middle singular of απτω), one Greek grammarian wrote:

απτου impv. Απτομαι τινος grasp; touch sth; durative, hold on to, μη μου απτου stop clinging to me! (Max Zerick, A Grammatical Analysis of the New Testament [trans. Mary Grosvenor; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981, 1984], 345)

It is clear that JST John 20:17 has firm support.

JST Gen 14:35: Melchizedek and "the sons of God"


JST Gen 14:25-40 is a large addition to Genesis ch. 14 containing material about the person of Melchizedek. In v. 35, there is mention of "the sons of God" in reference to Melchizedek ("And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire). In the Melchizedek Scroll (11Q13 [alt. 11QMelch]) from Qumran, we read the following in Column II line 14:

To his aid (shall come) all « the gods of [justice»; and h]e is the one w[ho …] all the sons of God, and … […](The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, eds. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1209)

Here is the Hebrew (note the use of בני אל beni el "sons of God/El" in bold):

14 ובעזרו כול אלי [הצדק
וה]ואה א[שר …]כול בני אל והפ[…]


Conclusion

It should be clear that Darlington has not done any research into the JST; furthermore, while the JST should not naively be understood as a pure textual restoration (see above), it does have a number of changes to the KJV that find support in light of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic grammar, modern scholarly translations, and other sources.


For a listing of previous articles refuting Darlington’s book, Misguided by Mormonism, see:

Refuting Christina Darlington's Claim the Bible has Been Preserved with 99.5% Accuracy


In her book, Misguided by Mormonism, Christina Darlington frequently repeats (without any substantiation) the claim that the manuscript and papyri discoveries support a 99.5% preservation figure for the Bible. As one example of this bald assertion, under the header of “Evidence of Biblical Preservation,” we read:

 . . .5,000+ original Greek manuscripts, some dated within 100 years of the original writings, all agree with 99.5% accuracy. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 132)

Darlington is simply repeating a claim that has been repeated since the 1960s by Norman Geisler and “pop apologists” like Josh McDowell.

With respect to the Old Testament, let us kill two birds with the one stone; Darlington's misguided claim and another related one that one encounters frequently--the claim that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text, when compared to the Isaiah text one finds at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) have no textual differences, being one example of the purported near-perfect (whether 99.5% or 99.9%--both figures are bandied about). However, such claims are without any basis in reality.

Michael S. Heiser, an Evangelical scholar, presents these differences in a paper entitled:


One should read it and even save it for future reference, as this claim, while popular, is false, and those who repeat it are either mistaken or simply lying.

There are many theologically-driven changes in the Old Testament that are contained in the KJV and other translations. Take Deut 32:7-9. The following is the NRSV translation of the text:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."

In The Jewish Study Bible, we read the following note to this pericope:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7. (Bernard M. Levinson, "Deuteronomy" in The Jewish Study Bible, eds. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 419, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

For other instances of theologically-motivated corruptions to the Old Testament texts, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.: Fortress Press, 2011).

With respect to the New Testament, the earlier one goes back, the wider the textual divergences between biblical texts. For instance, Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, commenting on the Gospel of John portrayed in two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and p75) reveal 85% agreement, leaving 15% disagreement. This is a far cry from the 99.5% figure from Darlington! Further, Comfort and Barrett also reveal that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p13 and p46 displays 80% agreement and 20% disagreement (see The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, eds. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett [2d ed.: Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing, 2002], 504, 83).

On the topic of theologically-driven corruptions to the New Testament, see, for e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).


Again, we see that Darlington is not a scholar, but instead, is a disingenuous individual who falsely presents herself as informed on topics she is utterly clueless about.

For a listing of previous articles refuting Darlington’s book, Misguided by Mormonism, see:

Is it true the Book of Mormon Contains No Doctrine that is Already in the Bible?


In her poorly researched volume, Protestant apologist Christina Darlington wrote that:

There is not a single doctrine revealed in the Book of Mormon that is not already mentioned in the Bible. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 206, emphasis in original removed)

This is simply false. Firstly, in the Book of Mormon addresses explicitly a practice that has divided Protestantism and other faiths for centuries but one that is not addressed at all by the Bible—infant baptism:

For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children. And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle. For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach-- repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ. For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works. (Moroni 8:5-23; cf. my blog post The Dispute about Infant Baptism among the Nephites: Evidence of 19th century origins for the Book of Mormon?)

Another doctrine that is taught in the Book of Mormon that is not explicated in the Bible would be the ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (see Alma 13), though I will note that there is overwhelming implicit biblical evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood, not the Protestant concept of the “Priesthood of All Believers.” Interested persons should read my book:



In making such a claim, Darlington shows she has never actually read the Book of Mormon; instead, she is only getting (often eisegeted and wrenched out of context) quotations therefrom; her constant misunderstanding of the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23 and "after all we can do" is another example (see James Stutz's article “After All We Can Do” as a reference to the Law of Moses)

For a listing of previous articles refuting Darlington’s book, Misguided by Mormonism, see:

Matt Slick on the meaning of τετελεσται ("it is finished") in John 19:30

Recently, Matt Slick had a discussion of John 19:30 and the meaning of τετελεσται ("it is finished"). Here is the link to the particular section:

Matt Slick Live, 10/18/19 (cf. Tony Mianao's article, “It is Finished!” Jesus does not need your help on Slick's CARM Website)

I will let the readers of this blog post to listen to his discussion and compare and contrast such with the following:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Be sure to also see:

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

(Note: The question was the result of someone reading some books by Scott Hahn on the Eucharist. This should not be seen as a defence of Hahn's theology of [1] the "fourth cup" interpretation of τετελεσται and [2] the dogmas about the Mass--see Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009) for a listing of articles addressing such issues)

Stephen J. Patterson on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism in Galatians 3:26-28



For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-28 NRSV)

Commenting on Gal 3:26-28 and how water baptism is the instrumental means by which we are both “clothed” with Christ and made “one” with fellow believers, Stephen Patterson (at the time of writing, George H. Atkinson Professor of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University) wrote:

Galatians 3:27 is about baptism. This is not a particularly attention-grabbing detail, for most people assume that early followers of Jesus were baptized. Why shouldn’t Paul mention it. But students of Galatians usually note that this particular reference to baptism seems to come from out of the blue. The letter does not otherwise discuss or even mention baptism. The matter that separates Paul from his opponents in Galatia is the question of circumcision, not baptism. Must Gentiles be circumcised? What does baptism have to do with this? Nothing. We nowhere learn that Paul’s antagonists in Galatia have another view of baptism that he felt he must correct or dispute. Nor does Paul here or anywhere else argue that baptism could replace circumcision, as a few scholars have assumed must have been the case. The argument in Galatians simply is not about baptism. So why bring it up? Paul brings up baptism in 3:27 because Galatians 3:26-28 formed the heart of a baptismal creed. The great scholar of Galatians, Hans Dieter Betz, avers that Paul probably took these verses from an early Christian baptismal liturgy (Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 184). In the argument about whether Gentiles ought to be circumcised, Paul apparently wanted his readers to remember these particular words from a baptismal liturgy with which they may have been familiar: “there is no longer Jew or Greek.” The other clauses—“no longer slave or free” and “no longer male and female”—simply came along for the ride. (Stephen J. Patterson, The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle Against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 17-18)

Elsewhere, commenting on v. 27 (“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”) and how it is Paul’s addition to a creedal statement, again, showing that water baptism is the instrumental means of bringing about the promised results (salvific union with Christ; being "one" with one's fellow believers, etc), Patterson wrote:

First, verse 27 is a kind of explanation. It reveals that the creed has to do with baptism—it is through baptism that these distinctions are exposed as false. Now, let us suppose that the creed does have to do with baptism—that it was used, say, in a baptismal ceremony. When they were actually using the creed in that context, would anyone have needed to explain that it had to do with baptism? They were baptizing—while saying the creed. Most people could have caught on. But when it is plucked out of its original setting and used in a letter, then an explanation is needed. None of the other, more formulaic clauses refer to baptism, so Paul tells them: it is in baptism that all are united as one, that all are seen as children (“sons”) of God.

Second, the explanatory nature of the verse is also indicated by its syntax; it begins with the word “for”—gar in Greek. Greeks used the word gar to attach an explanatory sentence or clause. Notice that verse 26 beings with the same word, “for,” or gar. That is because Paul is using the creed in its entirety to say why Gentile Christ followers can be included by virtue of their faith. That makes our second gar in verse 27 stand out all the more. That is just one too many gars—an explanation of an explanation. It works, but it is just a little awkward—enough to signal that Paul is adding explanations to the original creed.

A third reason for seeing verse 27 as an addition to the cred is its very different register. The first line, verse 26, says, “You are all children of God . . .” Notice the tense: present. Notice also to who the line is spoken: “you . . .all” (you, plural). It is as though the speaker is addressing a group of initiates about to be baptized. That is indeed how it was probably used. But verse 27 is different. It speaks not of “all,” everyone, but “as many of you as were baptized,” as though others are present who were not baptized. Furthermore, it does not use the present tense, but the Greek aorist, or simple past tense. This line, then, speaks to a group of people, some of whom (but not all) had been baptized sometime in the past. In other words, it does not presuppose the original setting of the creed, a baptismal ceremony, but the setting of the letter itself. In this sentence, Paul interrupts the creed to address the Galatians, some of whom would have been baptized sometime in the past.

Finally, the statement that one is baptized “into Christ” has a very distinctive Pauline ring to it. When Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus, he very often uses the phrase “in Christ” to describe them, as in “there is no judgment for those who are in Christ” (Rom 8:1). Scholars sometimes refer to this as Paul’s “participation” theology, a phrase coined by E.P. Sanders (see esp. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 453-63]). Paul thought of the followers of Christ as somehow participating in Christ’s continuing existence. One way Paul imagined it was to see the community of believers as the new body of Christ, inhabited by Christ’s spirit. To be baptized “into Christ” meant being baptized into his “body.” Consider how Paul expresses the concept in 1 Corinthians:

For just as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so it is also with Christ. For in one spirit we all were baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of the one spirit . . . But you all are the body of Christ and each of you is a part of it.
1 Cor 12:12-13, 27

Another way he thought about it was to imagine that the life of Christ and the life of the believer had somehow merged and become one. Consider:

For the love of Christ possesses us, for we have decided on this: that one man has died for all; therefore, all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for the one who died for them and was raised . . .So, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature.
2 Cor 5:14-15, 17a

In this passage, Paul alludes to another interpretation of baptism, which he discusses more fully in Romans 6. There he says, “Don’t you know that as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom 6:3). Notice how the first part of this statement is almost exactly the same as Galatians 3:27. This is just how Paul typically talks about being a follower of Jesus—and how he talks about baptism. The Christ followers exist in Christ. Therefore, when they are baptized, they are baptized into Christ. That is a pretty firm Pauline fingerprint and all of this adds up to a fairly clear picture: verse 27 was not part of the original creed. Paul added it to make the creed work better in the context of the letter. (Ibid., 24-26)


Further Reading on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism






Alexander Fraser (1802) on Revelation 12 and the Church in the Wilderness


Some Latter-day Saints (e.g., Terryl Givens) have argued that Joseph’s understanding of the apostasy, restoration, and language of the Church coming out of the wilderness (D&C 5:14; cf. Rev 12) was influenced, at least in part, by Alexander Fraser’s 1802 book, A Key to the Prophecies of the Old and New Testaments. Here are some excerpts from the book when it addresses Rev 12 that LDS reader should find interesting:

Of the Woman Hid in the Wilderness

A third view of Christ’s faithful followers is given us in Rev. xii.6. and 14. “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”—“And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place; where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.”

The woman represents the Church of Christ, considered as a community or collective body; as the seed of the woman represents the individual members of that community. Her flight to the wilderness is an allusion to the departure of Israel out of Egypt. When they were delivered from the oppression of Pharaoh, called the great dragon, they were led into the wilderness, of which God says, “I have carried thee as on eagles wings, to myself.” So the church, after her deliverance from the persecutions of the Pagan Raman empire, called the red dragon, set out for the wilderness, that is, as the visible church declined from the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, the true church of Christ gradually retired from the view of men, till at length, when the visible church had avowedly submitted to the government of Antichrist, the true church of Christ, considered as a community, wholly disappeared. She remains in that state 1260 days, and these are the same in which the witnesses prophecy, and the beast reigns . . . The Christian church was formed not only a pure but a spiritual society, set free from those types and shadows which veiled the truth in the Jewish church, expressly told, “That God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Yet notwithstanding these advantages, the spirit of religion began to decline, from an idolatrous veneration for the outward ordinances, which were only the vehicles of it. In process of time, there were multiplied by ceremonies of human invention, till at length they formed that mass of impieties, puerilities, and absurdities which constitutes the Popish worship; a mass which may be fitly compared to an overgrown body, dressed out with ornaments of human invention, without one spark of the vital spirit. Seeing then how prone mankind have been in every age to mistake the body for the spirit of religion, withdrawing the body or the ordinances of religion for a season, must appear to mean worthy of divine wisdom to counteract the disorder. Another advantage refuting from the state of the church in the wilderness is, that “she is safe from the face of the serpent.” The grand adversary represented by the serpent, first directed his fury against the progress of the gospel, left Christianity should be spread in the world, and exerted for this end the force of the civil and military government, by his deputies the Pagan Roman Emperors . . . The church at this period shall be united in the use of the government and ordinances, in doctrine and disciple, so as to constitute one body. In proof of this assertion, observe, such union actually subsisted betwixt the several parts of the primitive church, through extensively diffused over the earth. In consequence of this union, the church is represented by the metaphor of a woman, Rev. xii. 1. During the reign of Antichrist, this woman is “hid in the wilderness;” that is, the church as a community is invisible in the world. But the period of her state in the wilderness, being limited to 1260 years, this implies, that at the close of that period she shall again be visible as a community, consequently united in the use of the same government and ordinances. (Alexander Fraser, A Key to the Prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, Which are Not Yet Accomplished: Containing, I. Rules For their Arrangement. II. Observations On their Dates. III. A General View of the Events Foretold in Them [Philadelphia: D. Hogan, 1802], 156-57, 159-60, 423-24)



Blog Archive