Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Omission of Acts 8:37 in modern translations

In addressing the proper mode of baptism being that of immersion over that of baptising by sprinkling, as well as the baptism of infants, one Latter-day Saint author wrote the following about the eunuch in Acts 8:

Once he understands their significance, and the fact that they speak of Jesus Christ, he requests baptism:

“And they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ‘And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.’” (Acts 8:36-38)

The pertinent question is “what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Verse 37 provides the answer: “If thou believeth with all thine hearth, thou mayest.” Belief then, is required, which requires the ability to believe, and to choose. Neither are things a newborn infant provide.

It is interesting that, in support of their modified belief, some “modern” retranslations of the Bible leave out verse 37. This is convenient if you are trying to support infant baptism, but the argument does not support this approach. (R. Lane Wright, Most Glorious of All: The Restoration and Revelation of Baptism for the Dead [Nauvoo, Illin.: The Nauvoo Press, 2015], 106)

It is true that many modern translations lack verse 37. However, the author’s conspiracy theorising notwithstanding, it has nothing to do with a preference for non-immersionist and/or infant baptism—the best Greek manuscripts simply lack verse 37, such as p45; p74; Aleph; A; B; C; Ψ. As one New Testament textual critic wrote:

If this verse was an original part of Luke’s text, there is no good reason for explaining why it would have been omitted in so many ancient manuscripts and versions. Rather, this verse is a classic example of scribal gap-filling, in that it supplied the apparent gap left by the unanswered question of the previous verse (“The eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’”). The interpolation puts an answer on Philip’s lips that is derived from ancient Christian baptismal practices. Before being baptized, the new believer had to make a confession of his or her faith in Jesus as the Son of God. A similar addition also worked its way into the text of John 9:38-39 . . . it is difficult to know when this interpolation first entered the text, but it could have been as early as the second century, since Irenaeus (Haer. 3.12.8) quoted part of it. The earliest extant Greek manuscript to include it is E, of the sixth century. Erasmus included the verse in his edition of the Greek New Testament because—even though it was not present in many of the manuscripts he knew—he considered it to have been omitted by the carelessness of scribes. He based its inclusion on a marginal reading in codex 4. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translation [Carol Stream, Illin.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 2009], 363-64)

As one Lutheran commentator wrote:

The textual evidence for this verse (see A. V.) is too slight to admit it into the text. It states what may well have transpired. The objection is textual only, and remarks such as that the words sound like some pedantic preacher asking his convert for a final, formal confession are unwarranted. A confession of Jesus as the Christ was always a prerequisite for baptism. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 346)


Instead of the omission of Acts 8:37 being part of an attempt by modern translations to support a certain mode of baptism, instead, it is reflective simply of not being part of the earliest, most reliable Greek texts of the Acts of the Apostles. Latter-day Saints such as Wright should be more careful before making such misinformed, sloppy comments before checking the relevant scholarly literature.

Kerry Muhlestein, Joseph Smith and Egyptian Artifacts

LDS Egyptologist, Kerry Muhlestein, has a great article that was publised in BYU Studies 55:3 on the Book of Abraham:

Joseph Smith and Egyptian Artifacts: A Model for Evaluating the Prophetic Nature of the Prophet's Ideas about the Ancient World

One can download a pdf of the article at this link.

No doubt, there will be some meltdown by liberal Latter-day Saints and ex-LDS like his recently published article on the Book of Abraham from the Interpreter Journal did only a few days ago (interestingly, they never bothered to post on the article itself, preferring their little echo chamber . . . ;-)

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Are LDS Temples Condemned by Acts 7:48; 17:24?

Someone recently posed this question in an LDS forum I belong to:

Our critics sure dislike us buliding temples..they sure use the verse about how God does not dwell in temples made out man's hands..any thoughts? How to address this issue.
The following is my response:

 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, (Acts 7:48)

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (Acts 17:24)

The first is based on Isa 66:1-2 where the people were still under the Old Covenant, and all would agree, LDS and non-LDS alike, that the people of God engaged in temple worship and practices.

Furthermore, in Isa 66:3-4, we read:

He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

What these verse refer to is that God doesn't dwell in the temple because that temple is no longer a house of prayer—it has become a place of idolatry. The temple authorities may claim to worship God, but in reality (argues Stephen) they are worshipping the works of their hands.

In reality, the texts are against idolatrous structures, but God-appointed structures. This can be seen in the meaning of the adjective χειροποίητος. Thayer defines the term thusly:

5702 χειροποίητος
χειροποίητος, χειροποίητον (χείρ and ποιέω), made by the hand i. e. the skill of man (see ἀχειροποίητος): of temples, Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24 ; Heb. 9:11,24; of circumcision, Eph. 2:11. (In the Septuagint of idols; of other things, occasionally in Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus.)*

This is similar to how Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the New Testament, defines the term:

4654 χειροποίητος [pg 687]
χειροποίητος,
“made by hands,” in the LXX applied only to idols, bat in the NT used of material temples (Ac 748, 1724): cf. Orac. Sib. xiv. 62 ναῶν ἱδρύματα χειροποιήτων. In the travel-letter, P Lond 8544 (i/ii A.D.) (=111. p. 205, Selections, p. 70), the writer remarks that many go by ship ἵνα τὰς χε[ι]ροπ[οι]ή[τους τέ]χνας ἱστορήσωσι, “in order that they may visit works of art made by hands,” on the banks of the Nile.

Notice how, in Heb 9:11, 24 which are referenced by Thayer, Jesus Himself dwells in a heavenly tabernacle as the Great High Priest(!)

The NET note to Acts 7:48 is spot-on when it notes the following:

The phrase made by human hands is negative in the NT: Mar 14:58; Act 17:24; Eph 2:11; Heb 9:11, Heb 9:24. It suggests "man-made" or "impermanent." The rebuke is like parts of the Hebrew scripture where the rebuke is not of the temple, but for making too much of it (1Ki 8:27; Isa 57:15; 1Ch 6:8; Jer 7:1-34).

The critics are on another exegetical fishing trip where they forgot the fishing poles . . .


An Old Testament event that is said to refute LDS theology is the dedication of the Temple by Solomon, where we read:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house I have built! (1 Kgs 8:27 ESV [cf. 2 Chron 6:18])

Firstly, in the Christology of Evangelical Protestants, Jesus remains embodied; such is part-and-parcel of the Christology of Chalcedon in AD 451, so his rather (pathetic) comments on LDS Christology would also come back to bite him vis-à-vis his Trinitarian Christology. Furthermore, the word “contain” in Hebrew does not refer to the temple not having space to contain God (the sense that God’s size is so immense it cannot contain him [how to make sense of that in light of divine simplicity and “spirit” being immaterial in “mainstream” theology is a wonder to behold . . . ]) but to the power of Yahweh—the Hebrew term is כול and carries the meaning of “restrain”; an analogy would be how a paper bag cannot “contain” a grenade and its power once the pin is pulled.

A friend cogently noted the following:

Along the same line that Robert has already commented, there is the verse from Psalm 127:1, "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." When the temple, even the great Temple of Solomon becomes a place of idolatry, or a place that glorifies man or a king, it no more is a place "built by the Lord", but becomes a place made with "human hands". The illustrative language is meant to delineate between what God builds through righteousness and the work of His obedient children, and the futile structures that the natural man builds to honor his own ego.


Further Reading:

FairMormon, Mormonism and temples/Made with hands


Idem. Mormonism and temples/Made with hands/Stephen's witness

Abraham and Idrimi

Back in 2013, the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture published an article by LDS Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, entitled "Abraham and Idrimi." This is an important article, not the least it is that it greatly supports the verisimilitude of the Book of Abraham. As the Abtract states:

Idrimi of Alalakh lived in Syria about a century after Abraham and left an autobiographical inscription that is the only such item uncovered archaeologically from Middle Bronze Age Syro-Palestine. The inscription of Idrimi and the Book of Abraham share a number of parallel features and motifs. Some of the parallels are a result of similar experiences in their lives and some are a result of coming from a similar culture and time.


Enjoy!

The Unity of Isaiah: The Evidence from Jeremiah

Writing in defense of the unity of the book of Isaiah, one commentator cogently noted the following:

There are reflections upon Isaiah 40-66 in later prophecies, a fact that conclusively demonstrates that these chapters cannot come from the time of the exile . . . Let the reader make the following comparisons:

Jeremiah
13:18-26
With
Isaiah
47:1-3

48:18
“

47:1

31:12
“

58:11

31:13
“

61:3

31:22
“

43:19

31:34
“

54:13

31:36
“

54:10

5:25
“

59:2

13:16
“

59:9-11

50:8 and 51:45
“

48:20

17:1
“

64:8

18:6
“

65:6

2:25
“

57:10

In particular, it should be noted that Jeremiah uses earlier prophecies possibly more than any other of the writing prophets. To avoid the force of the argument critics are compelled to deny these sections to Jeremiah. (Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, volume 3: Chapters 40-66 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972], 547-48)


Friday, September 23, 2016

See the Angel! A Prime Example of Anti-Mormon Gullibility

David Bartosiewicz has just proven his gullibility. In a recent public facebook status, he wrote (and yes, he is being serious):

I met a beautiful Christian couple in Mexico who shared with me photos of Angels appearing at Believer's Church by Pastor Randy Hollis. I was so amazed over the photo that I put a small video out to show everyone. All I can say is WOW! Look at the size of them. (source)

Here is the video David is talking about:


 (there is no angel[s] whatsoever; someone should approach Dave and tell him that they have a bridge in Brooklyn they will sell to him on the cheap and can throw in a tower in Paris for half-price).

Reminds me of the following from The Simpsons:




While not all critics of the LDS Church are this gullible, it does speak volumes about David. Perhaps it is not completely intentional that he lacks intellectual integrity.

Kerry Muhlestein, Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri

Interpreter just posted Kerry Muhlestein's new essay on the Book of Abraham; it is a must-read for those interested in this ever-controversial topic:

Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations (html; pdf)

Blog Archive