Nephi's Slaying of Laban in light of 11Q19

In the text from Qumran 11Q19 (alt. 11QT^a), we read the following in column LXI:

 

7 . . . If a false witness should stand up against a man to accuse him 8 of wrongdoing, the two men between whom there is /the litigation/ shall stand before me, and before the priests and the levites, and before 9 the judges who will be there on those days; and the judges shall investigate. And if it happens that a witness has given falsely testimony, falsely 10 accusing his brother, then you shall do to him so as he intended to do to his brother; thus shall you eradicate the evil from the your midst. 11 The rest shall hear it and fear and not dare to do a similar bad thing /again/ in your midst. Not 12 shall your eye take pity on him; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, eds. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1283, 1285)

 

As we read in a commentary on this passage:

 

This text, which reproduces the law of testimony in Deut 19:15-21, addresses the case of a malicious witness (עַד חָמָס), who deliberately makes a false declaration against the accused (לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה) before the high court at the sanctuary (לְפָנַי, “before me”). When the lie is uncovered during the investigation of the court, the false witness is to receive the punishment that his testimony was intended to bring upon the accused. (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 39, emphasis added)

 

One is reminded of how Laban (falsely) accused Nephi of being, not a thief, but a robber (1 Nephi 3:13). Why is this significant? In the Ancient Near East, being a thief was not a capital offense, but a robber was (for a fuller discussion, see John W. Welch, Theft and Robbery in the Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Law). Nephi, in slaying Laban at the command of the Spirit, can be viewed as distributing divine justice, as if Laban was found guilty of this false witness in a court of law, he would probably have been executed.

The Targumim Interpreting Genesis 40:19 to be a Reference to Crucifixion

 

Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee. (Gen 40:19)

 

Commenting on this text, we read the following from the Targumim a reference to crucifixion (albeit, posthumous crucifixion):

 

(Tg. Onq.) At the end of three days Pharaoh will remove your head from you, and he will suspend you on the cross, and the birds will eat your flesh from you

 

(Tg. Neof.) Toward the end of three days Pharaoh will lift your head from upon you, and will suspend you on a cross, and the birds will eat your flesh from upon your head.

 

(Tg. Ps.-J.) At the end of tree days Pharaoh will remove by the sword your head from upon your body, and he will suspend you on the three, and the birds will eat your flesh from you.

 

Commenting on how these Aramaic paraphrases understood Hebrew תלה as a reference to crucifixion, Chapman and Schnabel note that:

 

Although Aramaic תלא was available as the equivalent of Hebrew תלה the targumim commonly employed צלב in translating OT passages that mention human suspension. The terminology of צלב (and cognates) is much more exclusively focused on human bodily suspension, including crucifixion, and thus it represents a shift toward more technical terms. This is true throughout targumim on other biblical books as well as here in Genesis . . .this sample from Genesis will serve to illustrate some key trends in the targumic traditions. First, one does observe the shift toward more technical suspension vocabulary with צלב and צליבה. These terms also served as standard Aramaic vocabulary for the kinds of crucifixions that the Romans performed. And thus by using this language, the original readers and hearers of the targumim may have felt some increased resonance between the biblical text and the suspension practices of their day. Second, in two of these targumic texts the meturgeman also clarifies the Hebrew for “lift up your head” here means to “remove your head by the sword.” Thus the suspension is even more clearly post mortem in Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. Note how similar trends were observed above concerning targumic renderings of Deut 21:22-23 (the language becomes more technical concerning bodily suspension, but the rabbinic desire to emphasize post mortem suspension is also evident). (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 696-97)

 

Philo of Alexandria's De specialibus legibus 2.252-254 as a parallel to Matthew 5:33-36

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

 

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. (Matt 5:33-36)

 

Such warnings against false oaths were rather common before the time of Jesus. For instance, in his De specialibus legibus 2.252-254, Philo wrote:

 

τοῖς μάρτυρα καλοῦσιν ἐπὶ μὴ ἀληθεῖ θεὸν ὥρισται δίκη θανάτου· προσηκόντως· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος τῶν μετρίων ἀνέξεταί ποτε παρακληθεὶς συνεπιγράψασθαι ψεύδεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχθρὸν ἄπιστον ὑπολαβεῖν ἂν μοι δοκεῖ τὸν εἰς ταῦτα προτρέποντα. ὅθεν ῥητέον· τὸν ὀμνύντα μάτην ἐπ᾽ ἀδίκῳ θεὸς ὁ τὴν φύσιν ἵλεως οὔποτε τῆς αἰτίας ἀπαλλάξει δυσκάθαρτον καὶ μιαρὸν ὄντα, κἂν διαφύγῃ τὰς ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων τιμωρίας. διαδράσεται δ᾽ οὐδέποτε· μυρίοι γὰρ ἔφοροι, ζηλωταὶ νόμων, φύλακες τῶν πατρίων ἀκριβέστατοι, ἐπὶ καταλεύσει τι δρῶσιν ἀμειλίκτως ἔχοντες· εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἐπὶ μὲν ἀτιμίᾳ πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς φονᾶν ἄξιον, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ὀνόματι τῷ καὶ αὐτῆς εὐκλεεστέρῳ σεμνότητος ὑπ᾽ ἀσεβῶν ἀτιμουμένῳ μετριώτερον οἰστέον.  ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως ἐστί τις ἀνόητος, ὡς ἕνεκα τῶν ἐλαττόνων κτείνων τοὺς αἰτίους ἐπὶ τοῖς μείζοσιν ἐᾶν· μεῖζον δ᾽ ἀσέβημα τοῦ πρὸς γονεῖς κακηγορουμένους καὶ ὑβριζομένους τὸ περὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πρόσρησιν θεοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ ψευδορκίας.

 

Henry G. Bohn offered this translation of the Greek:

 

Against those who call God as a witness in favor of assertions which are not true, the punishment of death is ordained in the law [Deuteronomy 19:19]; and very properly, for even a man of moderate respectability will never endure to be cited as a witness, and to have his name registered in support of a lie. But it seems to me that he would look upon any one who proposed such a thing to him as a thoroughly faithless enemy; on which account we must say this, that him, who swears rashly and falsely, calling God to witness an unjust oath, God, although he is merciful by nature, will yet never release, inasmuch as he is thoroughly defiled and infamous from guilt, even though he may escape punishment at the hands of men. And such a man will never entirely escape, for there are innumerable beings looking on, zealots for and keepers of the national laws, of rigid justice, prompt to stone such a criminal, and visiting without pity all such as work wickedness, unless, indeed, we are prepared to say that a man who acts in such a way as to dishonor his father or his mother is worthy of death, but that he who behaves with impiety towards a name more glorious than even the respect due to one's parents, is to be borne with as but a moderate offender. But the lawgiver of our nation is not so foolish as, after putting to death men who are guilty of minor offenses, then to treat those who are guilty of heavier crimes with mildness, since surely it is a greater iniquity than even to speak disparagingly or to insult one's parents, to show a contempt for the sacred name of God by means of perjury.

 

 Commenting on this text, David Chapman and Eckhard Schnabel wrote:

 

The comments on the penalty for breaking the third commandment, i.e., for committing perjury, are parallel to pec. 2.27-28 (No. 27). This text, while not commenting on a specific Old Testament text, alludes to Exod 20:7 (Deut 5:11) and Lev 19:12; 24:16. Philo understands these texts to prohibit uttering the Tetragrammaton, which explains his reluctance to sweeping oaths in general in which God’s name may be carelessly uttered. He regards perjury as a very serious crime: it represents a subversion of the laws (νομων) and of the ancestral customs (των παρτιων [εθων]), i.e., it threatens Israel’s constitution of the people of God. The death penalty is to be carried out by the witnesses to this cries; if the offender is spared, he (she) cannot escape God, who will treat perjurers forever as impure and thus unworthy of his presence and blessing. Philo asserts that there will be countless Jews willingly and ready to take decisive action against perjurers: Jews eager to detect and remove violators of the law of God, zealous in their commitment to the law, and consistent in guarding the ancestral customs and thus the constitution of the Jewish commonwealth. Such pious Jews are pitiless (αμειλικτως) against all who violate this basic law. While Philo may have exaggerated the possibility of lynch justice exacted by Jews on Jewish violators of the commandments of Torah whose violation warranted death, his statement suggests that he regarded the scenario that Jews zealous for the law would take action against transgressors as a real )or at least desirable) possibility in Roman Alexandria. (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 50)

 

Donald W. Hemingway on Infant Baptism in Central America

Donald W. Hemingway, in his book, Christianity in America Before Columbus? (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, 1988), attempted to present evidence of knowledge of Christianity in the Americas before Columbus. While, as with many works, it engages in parallelomania, it did have some good material here and there. One such topic relates to knowledge of something akin to infant baptism in Central America among the natives when the Spaniards arrived. On why this is relevant to the Book of Mormon, see The Dispute about Infant Baptism among the Nephites: Evidence of 19th century origins for the Book of Mormon?. Note the following quotes provided by Hemingway:

 

The lords, leading men, nobles, and rich merchants, when a son or daughter was born to them, paid much heed to the sign, the day, and the hour in which he was born. And of this they forthwith set out to inform the judicial astrologers, and to ask as to the good fortune or ill of the child who was born. And if the sign in which he was born was propitious, they had him baptized at once; and if it was adverse they sought the most favourable house of that sign [in which] to baptize him. When they baptized him, they banqueted the kinsmen and friends, so that they would be present at the baptism, and then they gave food and drink to all the guests, and also to the children of the whole suburb. They baptized him at sunrise in the house of his father. The mid-wife baptized him, uttering many prayers and performing much ceremony over the child. This [same] feat they also observe today in the baptism of their children, as to feasting, eating, and drinking. (Sahagun, Book 2, p. 39) (pp. 52-53)

 

And when the midwife had arranged the baby, when he had cut his naval cord, then she bathed the baby. [As] she continued washing him, she proceeded to address him. She said to him, if male: ‘Approach thy mother the goddess Chalchiuhtli icue . . . May she receive thee! May she wash thee, may she cleanse thee! May she remove, may she transfer the filthiness which thou hast taken from thy mother, from thy father! May she cleanse thy heart; may she make it fine, good! May she give thee find, good conduct! (Sahagun, Book 6, p. 175) (p. 53)

 

Then she poured water on the crown of his head. He said to him: ‘My youngest son, my youth, take receive the water of the lord of the earth, our sustenance, our refreshment, which is that which cleanseth one, that which batheth one . . . May it remove, may it destroy the manner of things thou wert given with which thou wert arrayed in the beginning the bad, the evil’ . . . Thereupon she bathed him all over; she massaged him. She proceeded to speak to him: ‘Wherever thou art, as thou art a baby cast down to earth: go, move! Now the baby liveth again; she is born again; now be becometh clean, he becometh pure again.’ (Sahagun, Book 6, p. 202) (p. 55)

 

They [the Spaniards] witnessed another ceremony, that of the Aztec baptism; in which, after a solemn invocation, the head and lips of the infant were touched with water, and a name was given to it; while the goodness Cioacoatl, who presided over childbirth, was implored, . . . ‘that the sin, which was given to us before the beginning of the world, might not visit the child, but that cleansed by these waters, it might live and be born anew!’ (Prescott, Mexico, p. 696) (p. 55)

 

When the sun had risen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms, called for a little earthen vessel of water . . . She placed herself with her fact towards the west, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies . . . After this she sprinkled water on the head of the infant, saying, ‘O my child! take and receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and is given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash and to purify.’ (Prescott, Mexico, p. 696, note 26) (pp. 55-56)

 

When these things were ended, they gave the child the name of some one of his ancestors, in the hope that he might shed a new lustre over it. The name was given by the same midwife, or priestess, who baptized him. (Prescott, Mexico, pp. 696, 697, note 26) (p. 58)

 

The full bibliographical information for the sources above are:

 

Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, A History of Ancient Mexico, volume 1: 1547-1577 (trans. Fanny R. Bandelier; The Rio Grande Press, Inc.)

 

William H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico and History of the Conquest of Peru (New York: The Modern Library)

Rolf Furuli on Old Testament YHWH texts being Used of Jesus and Others in a Representational/Agentival Sense

 

As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an “ontological” identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious. In Hosea 11:1 the reference in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint is Israel. But in Matthew 2:15 the words are applied to Jesus. Will anybody suggest that Jesus is ontologically identical to Israel? In Jeremiah 31:15, Rachel, representing the ten-tribe kingdom, is portrayed as weeping over her sons, yet Matthew 2:17, 18 applies the words to the murder of the small children in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and those who wept over them.

 

Then there is the identification of John the baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that “Elijah had already come.” Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, “He himself is Elijah who is destined to come.” There can hardly be a more direct way to express ontological identity than the say that John the baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor the reincarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which were comparable to those of Elijah.

 

We could also quote the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5, 6 referring to the Chaldeans, which was fulfilled not many years after the prophecy was given. However, Paul quotes this prophecy in Acts 13:40, 41, indicating that it would get a second fulfillment through a people playing the same role as the Chaldeans, but who were not identical with them. Given the background of the unique position of Jesus and how prophecies may be applied without any ontological identity, let us look at some prophecies that originally referred to YHWH but which are applied to Jesus in the NT.

 

The most interesting prophecy in our context is Psalm 68. The one referred to in this Psalm is YHWH, a fact which is already stressed in verse 1. The Psalm tells how God went forth before his people (verse 7), women were telling the good news of victory (verse 11), the Almighty One scattered the kings (verse 14), YHWH had come from Sinai into the holy place (verse 17), and how he had ascended on high, had carried away captives and had taken gifts in/among men (verse 18). We are also told how the enemies had seen God’s processions into the holy place (verse 24), how the singers went in front, then maidens with tambourines (verse 25), and how the congregated throngs blessed God (verse 26).

 

How did YHWH do all these things? Not by being personally present on earth, but through a proxy, namely, the king sitting on his throne (1 Chr 29:23), in this case probably David. David conquered his enemies, took captives and then led them in a triumphal procession up to the holy place. But because David acted as the representative of YHWH, it could be said that YHWH did all of this.

 

The Psalm is quoted in Ephesians 4:8-10 and Paul applies the words about YHWH in the Psalm to Jesus. Does this mean that there is an ontological identity between Jesus and YHWH? Not at all! In both cases two individuals are affected. In the past, David actually performed the acts but YHWH was given the honor. In the first century CE Jesus actually performed the work but YHWH is again given the honor. If Ephesians 4:8-10 is taken to mean there is an ontological identity between Jesus and YHWH, the consequence is that there should be an ontological identity between David and YHWH, also. This quote from Psalm 68 only tells us that Jesus acted as YHWH’s representative. This fact is stated frequently in the NT (Joh 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50; Heb 1:1-3; 3:1).

 

This situation may be viewed as a pattern or precedence for any other situation were words or actions are applied to YHWH in the OT, and the same words and actions are applied to Jesus in the NT. This need mean nothing more than a functional unity; it does not necessarily involve ontological unity. Additional evidence supporting this reasoning is found in Genesis 18:13, where it is said that YHWH visited Abraham as a visible person and spoke to him, Evidently it was the angel of YHWH and not YHWH himself who personally acted. We are told that that YHWH was present at Sinai, gave the law to Moses and spoke with a loud voice to the people. But Paul says in Galatians 3:19 that it was God’s angel who actually did all of this. (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 195-97)

 

 

(Pseudo?) Lucian Affirming the Use of a Crossbeam in Crucifixion in Iudicium vocalium 12

The Greek text of (pseudo?) Lucian (second century A.D.) Iudicium vocalium 12 reads:

 

οὕτω μὲν οὖν ὅσον ἐς φωνὴν ἀνθρώπους ἀδικεῖ:  ἔργῳ,δὲ πῶς; κλάουσιν ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὴν αὑτῶν τύχην ὀδύρονται καὶ Κάδμῳ καταρῶνται πολλάκις, ὅτι τὸ Ταῦ ἐς τὸ τῶν στοιχείων γένος παρήγαγε: τῷ γάρ τούτου σώματί φασι τοὺς τυράννους ἀκολουθήσαντας καὶ μιμησαμένους αὐτοῦ τὸ πλάσμα ἔπειτα σχήματι τοιούτῳ ξύλα τεκτήναντας ἀνθρώπους ἀνασκολοπίζειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτά: ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου καὶ τῷ τεχνήματι τῷ πονηρῷ τὴν πονηρὰν ἐπωνυμίαν συνελθεῖν. τούτων οὖν ἁπάντων ἕνεκα πόσων θανάτων τὸ Ταῦ ἄξιον εἶναι νομίζετε; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἶμαι δικαίως τοῦτο μόνον ἐς τὴν τοῦ Ταῦ τιμωρίαν ὑπολείπεσθαι, τὸ τῷ σχήματι τῷ αὑτοῦ τὴν δίκην ὑποσχεῖν.

 

Chapman and Schnabel offers the following translation

 

Therefore, thus much by [his] voice he [Tau] injures men, but how about by [his] work? Men weep and mourn their fortune, and frequently utter imprecations against Cadmus because he placed the Tau in the offspring of the letters. For, it is said that tyrants, having followed Tau’s body and having imitated his form, then having devised wooden beams in such a from, crucify men on them; and from him [Tau] and by his evil handiwork the evil consider the Tau to be worthy of many deaths? For I think it right to leave him behind alone unto the vengeance of the Tau, to undergo the judgment which accords to his own form, [which certainly was fabricated to be a cross from this one, but was named by men.] (David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2019], 311)

 

As Chapman and Schnabel notes, “Lucian . . . intentionally mimicked crucifixion practice when he applied cross terminology to the myth of Prometheus. Lucian indicated that the god’s arms would be spread out that he would barely be able to stand on tiptoe on a narrow ledge”: (p. 310). Furthermore, they provide this commentary:

 

In this mock court battle, the alphabetic letter Sigma prosecutes the letter Tau before a jury consisting of the Vowels. Tau has been supplanting Sigma in a host of Greek words, and Sigma asks that Tau be condemned for his actions. Modern grammarians of late Hellenistic Greek do indeed attest to the tendency of Greek speakers and authors to write tau in place of sigma in many Greek words during this (and later) periods. The vital material comes at the end of the dialogue, where the Sigma (since Tau has supplanted other letters), have also injured humankind physically by serving as the form of the cross employed in crucifixion (note ανασκολοπιζειν). By way of punishment, Sigma calls Tau to be crucified on a Tau-shaped cross. Certainly this short ironic discourse implies that its author believed it common practice to attach a crossbar to an upright pole in order to crucify those condemned by a court of law. (Ibid., 311)

 

 

Rolf Furuli on 1 Corinthians 15:29

Rolf Furuli, at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, notwithstanding his book being a defence of the New World Translation, and, being a Jehovah’s Witness, rejecting (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) a conscious intermediate state (two foundational doctrines for posthumous salvation) admitted that the “traditional” rendering is the best, which supports the LDS view:

 

There can be no question that the most natural rendering of baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn would be “being baptized for the dead” or “being baptized in behalf of the dead.” In almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen. (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 289)