The basic purport of Mal. 1:11 seems to be
this. Proper ritual outside Jerusalem, even outside Israel, can occur. Whether
the author knew about Yahwistic shrines at Elephantine, Leontopolis, Samaria,
in the Transjordan, we cannot be sure. But the point is clear, whether or not
appropriate ritual occurs in Jerusalem, Yahweh’s name will be appropriately venerated
in other venues. (David L. Petersen, Zechariah
9-14 and Malachi [Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1995], )
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Anti-Mormon Warns Against the Use of "Parallelomania"
In
the following, a long-standing anti-Mormon warns his fellow critics of the Book
of Mormon from engaging in “parallelomania,” using Dennis MacDonald’s thesis
that Mark was dependent upon the works of Homer:
Homer
in Mark? Methodological Cautions
In seeking to determine if the Book of Mormon’s use of
biblical materials reveals it to be unhistorical, evangelicals will need to be
careful not to employ a method that would unfairly or fallaciously deny as
historical not only the Book of Mormon but also historical narrative texts in
the Bible, such as the Gospels. For example, evangelicals should avoid using a
method similar to that of Jesus Seminar fellow Dennis MacDonald, who argued
that the Gospel of Mark was a “novel” based primarily on Homer’s Iliad and
Odyssey as its “hypotexts” (MacDonald 2000) and that Acts was also
largely a work of fiction that draws several of its stories from Homer
(MacDonald 2003). Even some academics not inclined to a conservative view of
the Gospels have been sceptical of MacDonald’s method and arguments (e.g.,
Mitchell 2003; Sandnes 2005).
Not surprisingly, at least one LDS apologist has
compared theories about the Book of Mormon’s origins based on parallels with
earlier literature to MacDonald’s highly questionable theory (e.g., McGuire
2007). At the other end of the spectrum, sceptic Robert M. Price, drawing in
part on MacDonald and in part on the theory that the Gospels are midrashic
fictions created out of Old Testament narratives, argued that “we must view the
gospels and Acts as analogous with the Book of Mormon, an inspiring pastiche of
stories derived creatively from previous scriptures by a means of literary
extrapolation” (Price 2004). The same sorts of concerns are applicable to
similar studies of the NT writings, such as Marianne Palmer Bonz’s thesis that
Luke-Acts is based on Vergil’s Aeneid (Bonz 2000) or Michael J. Reimer’s
claim that the “hypotext” of Mark 1:1-4:34 was the Pentateuch (Reimer 2006).
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd
(2007) laid out ten objections to MacDonald’s hypothesis worth considering with
regard to the development of a sound methodology for assessing the use of the
Sermon on the Mount (SM) in the Book of Mormon’s “Sermon at the Temple” (ST).
(All parenthetical citations in the following ten points are to Eddy and Boyd.)
1. According to MacDonald,
both similarities (in the form of allusions or parallels) and differences
(specifically, contrasts) between Homer and Mark support the conclusion that
Mark is based on Homer. This makes MacDonald’s view “virtually unfalsifiable”
(Eddy and Boyd 2007, 340). The problem is not in claiming that some
similarities and differences are relevant, but in explaining the differences in
such a way that any difference whatsoever somehow is counted as evidence
for literary dependence. This sort of methodological mistake must be avoided in
considering the significance of differences between the SM and the ST.
2. “Many of MacDonald’s
suggested parallels seem quite forced” (340). Since no Mormon would deny some
relationship between the SM and the ST, specific parallels between the two
texts cannot be dismissed as forced. However, in seeking to elucidate the
backgrounds to the two texts there may be occasion to cite parallels with other
texts, and here the issue of whether such parallels are genuine or forced
must be addressed.
3. In his zeal to make a
case for Mark’s dependence on Homer, MacDonald tended to slight the more
obvious influences from OT texts (341). Since the Nephites, if they existed,
had access to much of the OT, some allowance must be made for the possibility
of Jesus quoting from or alluding to the OT in any speech he might have made to
them.
4. MacDonald wrongly argued
that the more often a Homeric story or motif showed up in ancient literature,
the more likely a similar story in Mark was dependent on Homer. But if such
stories were commonplace it would seem that no one, including Mark, need have
associated them with Homer (341). Similarly, commonplace notions or words that
happen to be in the Book of Mormon and in some part of the Bible need not be
evidence of a literary relationship.
5. Similarities between two
texts do not of themselves prove literary relationship, a fallacy Samuel
Sandmel famously called parallelomania (341). Again, any argument for a
literary relationship between the ST and some other text must be made on the
basis of more than mere similarities.
6. Even if Mark did imitate
Homer, it does not follow that Mark was writing fiction; he may have seen
certain parallels in Jesus’ life with Homeric stories “and allowed the
parallels to shape the telling of the Jesus story” (342). This caution is
inapplicable to the supposed original Book of Mormon, since its author
allegedly would not have had any knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew. However,
might the relationship between the SM and the ST be explained in a similar
manner as the result of Joseph Smith’s shaping his “translation” of the Book of
Mormon? This question needs to be considered when assessing the significance of
similarities between the two sermons.
7. MacDonald “admits that there may be historical
elements in Mark” but offered no way of distinguishing those historical
elements from the supposed Homeric fictional elements in Mark (342). This
criticism of MacDonald’s method would be relevant to the Book of Mormon only if
there were some evidence of historical elements in its narrative.
8. “MacDonald has not
adequately explained why Mark would want to create a theological fiction
patterned after Homer” (342). Eddy and Boyd’s observation is relevant to this
study in that part of any complete theory of a modern origin of the Book of
Mormon needs to include some explanation of its purpose.
9. No one until recently
understood Mark as fiction, let alone fiction patterned after Homer. “One
wonders how everyone got it wrong for so long” (342), especially since
MacDonald’s theory assumes that Mark’s readers would have picked up on the
Homeric parallels (343). This kind of concern, frankly, is not relevant to this
study, since critics of the Book of Mormon have always viewed the ST as
basically cribbed from the SM in Matthew.
10. “MacDonald’s theory
requires that we accept that Mark was a rather savvy, sophisticated literary
critic who lived in the world of irony and textual finesse,” a view of Mark
that fits the contemporary postmodern cultural milieu better than it does
Mark’s own ancient Christian community (343). This criticism of MacDonald’s
theory is instructive for the present study as a warning against developing a
theory of the Book of Mormon’s origin that would require Joseph Smith, whose
formal schooling was minimal, to have been a sophisticated scholar or literary
genius.
In review, most of Eddy and Boyd’s criticisms of
MacDonald’s method are suggestive of legitimate cautions to be observed in
comparing the ST to the SM. The point is not that such comparisons are
irrelevant to establishing a literary relationship but that the argument for
such a relationship must avoid various methodological fallacies. (Robert M. Bowman Jr., “The Sermon at the Temple in the Book of
Mormon: A Critical Examination of its Authenticity through a Comparison with
the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew” [PhD Dissertation; South
African Theological Seminary, 2014], 122-25)
Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon (I will admit, this is one of my favourite articles on the Book of Mormon--it shows that the Old Testament Nephi used contained the earlier A-source material of 1 Sam 16-18 but not the later, post-exilic B-source, arguing strongly in favour of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon).
Another Example of Why Sola Scriptura is a "Dividing Line" and So Important to the LDS/Protestant Debate
I am the
Latter-day Saint apologist who has written, as far as I can ascertain, the most
on Sola Scriptura, including the following exhaustive (book-length) refutation using
the Bible and the historical-grammatical method of exegesis on the relevant texts (e.g., 1 Cor 4:6; 2 Tim 3:16-17, etc):
I will note
here that it has been over 3 years since I wrote this article and it still has
yet to be touched meaningfully by a Protestant apologist.
To
understand why Sola Scriptura is so central, consider the following from one
long-standing anti-Mormon who argues it is not improper to reject the Book of
Mormon in light of an Evangelical’s a
priori assumption of sola scriptura:
The matter of the expanded LDS canon of
scripture goes to the heart of the theological challenge posed by the Book of
Mormon. If its claim to be inspired scripture is true, then not only is the
canon open but that canon in its expanded form reveals Joseph Smith to be a
prophet of God—and by implication the LDS Church to be the true church. As with
the matter of the inerrancy of Scripture, it is possible and reasonable to
reject the LDS claim of extrabiblical scripture theologically on the basis of
its incompatibility with the orthodox canon of Scripture, which traditionally
and properly understands the canon to be closed (see C. Hill 2009;
Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles 2009, 3-31). (Robert M. Bowman Jr., "The
Sermon at the Temple in the Book of Mormon: A Critical Examination of its
Authenticity through a Comparison with the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of
Matthew" [PhD Dissertation; South African Theological Seminary, 2014], 95)
It is possible and legitimate to critique the
Book of Mormon on purely theological grounds in order to show its
incompatibility with evangelical theology. In particular, evangelicals rightly
insist that only the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the
written word of God (see above, §3.2.2). Thus the Bible, as true Scripture, is
properly regarded as the authoritative norm by which the doctrines and claims
of any other writings should be judged. Such a dogmatic critique has value for
the purpose of showing evangelical Christians that they should not accept the
Book of Mormon as the word of God. (Ibid., 104)
Adam Clarke and "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22
Commenting
on Matt 5:22, Adam Clarke (1762-1832) wrote the following. Note that he argued
that “without a cause” was probably not original to the Sermon on the Mount
(cf. 3 Nephi 12:22 which omits “without
a cause”), showing that some contemporaries of Joseph Smith knew about the
problematic nature of the clause:
Whosoever is
angry with his brother without a cause - ὁ οργιζομενος - εικη, who is vainly
incensed. "This translation is literal; and the very objectionable phrase,
without a cause, is left out, εικη being more properly translated by that
above." What our Lord seems here to prohibit, is not merely that miserable
facility which some have of being angry at every trifle, continually taking
offense against their best friends; but that anger which leads a man to commit
outrages against another, thereby subjecting himself to that punishment which
was to be inflicted on those who break the peace. Εικη, vainly, or, as in the
common translation, without a cause, is wanting in the famous Vatican MS. and
two others, the Ethiopic, latter Arabic, Saxon, Vulgate, two copies of the old
Itala, J. Martyr, Ptolomeus, Origen, Tertullian, and by all the ancient copies
quoted by St. Jerome. It was probably a marginal gloss originally, which in
process of time crept into the text. (source)
Later
manuscript discoveries, such as P67, which also omit “without a clause” would
later further strengthen this argument.
Monday, April 27, 2020
Josiah Trenham (Eastern Orthodox) on Some of the Problems with the Reformed View of Soteriology
Take, for instance, the Reformed Protestant
doctrine of atonement as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all
those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full
satisfaction of his Father's justice in their behalf" (Westminster Confession
of Faith, VIII.5). Here we see the usual Protestant reductionism applied to the
Cross of our Savior. The traditional Christian teaching expressed in the New
Testament and in the writings of the Fathers on the subject of the atonement of
our Savior is that the Cross saved us in three essential ways: on the Cross
Jesus conquered death; on the Cross Jesus triumphed over the principalities and
powers of this evil age; on the Cross Jesus made atonement for human sins by
His blood. Because the Protestants were working out of a soteriological framework
of a courtroom and declarative justification, they read the teaching about the
cross through these lenses and as a result articulated a reductionistic theology
of the atonement, which ignored the traditional emphases on the conquering of
death and the triumph over the demons. Everything for Protestantism becomes
satisfaction of God's justice, and by making one image the whole, even that
image became distorted in Protestant articulation.
Besides the reductionism found in Protestant
notions of salvation as forgiveness and the atonement, the greatest
reductionism is found in the immense neglect of emphasis upon the heart of the
New Testament teaching on salvation as union with Jesus Christ, or what orthodox
theology calls theosis or deification. The theology of the Church bears witness
to the fact that the mystery of salvation is accomplished not just on the
Cross, but from the very moment of Incarnation when the Only-begotten and
Co-Eternal Son united Himself forever with humanity in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, His Most Pure Mother. Salvation as union and communion between God and
Man drips from every page of the New Testament and in the writings of Holy
Fathers. This is why the phrase “in Christ” is St. Paul’s fundamental image of
salvation and Christian life.
Protestants do not understand the patristic
emphasis so beautifully expressed by St. Athanasius the Great, “God became man,
so that man might become God.” Or the patristic dictum: “All that God is by
nature man can become by grace.” For the traditional Christian this is no quest
to become the fourth person of the Holy Trinity. It is not an expectation to
cease being a creature or negate the Creator-creature distinction. This is a
quest to be united by grace to the living God in a mystical transformation
expressed by the Holy Transfiguration of our Savior on Mt. Tabor where, due to
the union of divinity and humanity, hypostatically bound in the One Person of
Jesus Christ, the uncreated divine light shone in and through human flesh. In
St. John’s words, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared
as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him,
because we shall see Him as He is” (1 Jn. 3:2). This coming transfiguration of
believers, this glorious resurrection and divinization of human nature in the
unspeakable bliss of union with God, this shining as the stars in the Kingdom
of His Father as our Savior puts it in his parabolic teachings, if the future
of believers. It is hardly just forgiveness.
The tragic reductionism of Protestant
concepts of salvation has produced a very serious neglect of theosis, and has
led to the serious error of objectifying fallen human life and its limitations
and projecting it into the future. It has kept Protestants from understanding
the potential of human transformation in this life . . . The tradition of the
Orthodox Church points out that life in the Spirit, deified life, transcends
the fallen boundaries that define our current existence. Such life was
manifested in the Prophets of old who transcended fallen human limitations as
types of redeemed men. The Holy Prophet Moses the God-Seer had his countenance
transfigured in uncreated light by communion with God (Exo. 34:29). The Prophet
Elisha was able to hear and see what the King of Aram in Syria was strategizing
in his war rooms, which were many miles away (2 Kings 6:12). (Josiah Trenham, Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the
Protestant Reformers and their Teachings [3d ed.; Columbia, Miss.: Newrome
Press, 2018], 178, 180-81)
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
Josiah Trenham on the Eastern Orthodox Rejection of Eucharistic Processions and Adorations
Canon 6 of
the Thirteenth Session of Trent (October 11, 1551) stated:
If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of
the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with
the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither
to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne
about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of
holy church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and
that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
While
Eastern Orthodoxy affirms that there is a transformation of the bread and wine
into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, and that the Eucharist is a
propitiatory sacrifice (see here
and here),
they reject processions, Eucharistic adorations, and the like. As one Eastern
Orthodox priest wrote about this canon:
Here Orthodox Christians, who have kept the
faith unaltered of the ancient church, find themselves anathematized. While
confessing with all certitude that the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist is truly
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, we additionally confess that the Eucharist
was given to us by Jesus Christ to be consumed, not to be paraded with outside of
the divine service as in Latin Corpus Christi processions nor to be placed in a
monstrance and adored by the faithful in “holy hours.” This is, in fact, a
Latin abuse of the Eucharist itself. Our Lord’s words are “Take, eat,” not “Take,
parade” or “Take, adore.” (Josiah Trenham, Rock
and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and their Teachings
[3d ed.; Columbia, Miss.: Newrome Press, 2018], 128)
Sunday, April 26, 2020
Amos 9, "the booth of David" and a refutation of the claim "Temple of Solomon" is an Anachronism in the Book of Mormon
In 2016, Rob
Bowman posted the following article:
In this
article, Bowman argued that 2 Nephi 5:16's use of "temple of Solomon"
to designate the temple in Jerusalem was an anachronism, as no Israelite,
contemporary with Nephi, would have called a temple "temple of <patron/builder
of the temple>" and instead "Temple of YHWH."
He was
soundly refuted by myself and especially my friend Christopher Davis, so much
that Bowman conceded it was not an anachronism
(with us agreeing that the construct state is not strong evidence for the Book
of Mormon).
However, in
recent days, Bowman, in a discussion with a friend on an Evangelical/LDS debate
forum on facebook, has been denying he has been soundly refuted on this point.
For this reason, I am posting a link to the definitive beat-down of Bowman and
his nonsense:
For a scholarly article on the booth of David in Amos 9 being the temple in Jerusalem, see:
John Anthony Dunne, “David’s Tent as Temple in Amos 9:11-15: Understanding the Epilogue of Amos & Considering Implications for the Unity of the Book,” Westminster Theological Journal 73.2 (Fall 2011): 363-374
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)