1 Esdras Using Previous Canonical Material

The Book of 1 Esdras (in Catholic circles, it is often 3 Esdras; alt. Esdras A) is a rather interesting volume for many reasons, including how it is problematic to the canon dogmatised at Trent. What is interesting about 1 Esdras for this post is that, with the exception of some original material in 3:1-5:6, it is composed entirely of pre-existing canonical material, so much so that it is questionable whether it should be considered along the lines of “Rewritten Scripture.” Charles L. Souvay, in the entry for "Esdras" in The Catholic Encylopedia, wrote that, with respect to the date of this text, "some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that III Esd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C."

 

One is reminded of the use, directly and indirectly, of previous scripture in the Book of Mormon (e.g., the Isaiah chapters and Nephi's reworking of Isa 29 in 2 Nephi 27). If ancient authors like those of 1 Esdras can do it, there is nothing out of place with the Book of Mormon on this point.

The ιερωμα of 2 Maccabees 12:40: Mere "Good Luck Charms" or Idolatrous Amulets?

In 2 Maccabees 12:40, we learn that "under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear" (NRSV). The term translated as "sacred tokens" is ιερωμα. Some (not all) Catholics claim that these amulets were more good-luck charms than something sacred dedicated to a false god, so the soldiers did not die in idolatry (which is a mortal sin in Catholic theology). However, this (rare) word, when used in Josephus, refers to an amulet or something else dedicated to a God, whether they have ontological existence or not:

 

But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus:--``Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels (ἱέρωμα) of Jupiter, (Enyalius,) or conqueror and came to Shinar of Babylonia.'' (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:119)

 

But then, as to the sacred images (ἱέρωμα), he bade him search for them; and when Laban accepted the offer, Rachel, being informed of it, put those images into that camel's saddle on which she rode, and sat upon it; and said, that her time of the month hindered her rising up: (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:322)

 

The apologetic that the amulets were good luck charms and not idols does not hold up, especially in light of what is said in 2 Maccabees 12:42, where we read that the people

 

. . . turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. (NRSV)

 

In light of this, ἱέρωμα in v. 40 is a reference to an "idol, amulet" (Liddell-Scott)

New Laptop Needed

My laptop has been at death's door for a bit now (had it for 5-6 years, so not too much of a surprise). I have been out of work due to the Corona virus and other things, and won't be back for another month, so decided to (1) set up a facebook fundraiser for the new laptop (click here) for those who wish to donate (2) and for those who wish to donate without f/b getting a percentage of the donations, directly through Paypal (click here).

No one who follows me on facebook or here is under obligation to donate. I am just hoping to get a laptop that will be able to last a number of years and be able to run some of the software I use regularly (Word; Excel; Bibleworks; Logos, etc).

Thanks.

The use of αρχη for Jesus in Colossians 1:18 (cf. Revelation 3:14)

In Rev 3:14, Jesus is said to be the beginning (αρχη) of God’s creation. While some argue that this means that Jesus is the “ruler” or “head” of creation, this is a stretch, and instead, many hold that this refers to Jesus being the beginning of either the Old or New Creation. On this being a reference to the Old creation, see D. Charles Pyle on Revelation 3:14 (cf. Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?); for an interpretation favouring Jesus being the beginning of the New creation, see G.K. Beale on Revelation 3:14.

 

While one disagrees with his Arian Christology (see the article linked above), Rolf Furuli (at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo) offered the following commentary on another text (Col 1:18) that predicates αρχη of Jesus in the New Testament vis-à-vis his relationship to creation. As the book is rare to find (and so are attempts by JW proponents to engage in scholarship), some might find the following of interest:

 

[Colossians 1:18] reads, “he is the beginning [archē], the first-born [prōtotokos] from the dead” (RSV). In addition to the word prōtotokos, which we have already examined, we also find another very important word, namely, archē. In John 1:1 we read “in the beginning [archē] was the Word,” but in Colossians 1:18 we are told that Jesus is the archē. Tracking through both the classical and New Testament Greek usage of this word, we find the lexical meanings are as follows: 1) beginning, 2) origin/source and 3) ruler/authority.

 

In the NT archē occurs 53 times, and 26 of those must have the meaning “beginning,” because they are preceded by a preposition (as “from the beginning”). In 8 instances (Matthew 24:8; Mark 1:1; 13:8; Hebrews 5:12; 6:1; 7:2; 2 Peter 3:4) the word occurs in a genitive construction where the meaning is also, clearly, “beginning.” In 6 instances (John 8;25; Jud 1:6; Hebrews 2:3; 3:14; Revelation 21:6; 22:13. In several of these texts there is a contrast between the “beginning” and the “end”) the meaning “beginning” is also appropriate. In 2 instances (Acts 10;11; 11:5) it has the meaning “corner.” In 11 instances (TEV has the following readings, in parentheses: Luke 12:11 [governors]; 20:20 [authority]; Romans 8:38 [heavenly rulers]; 1 Corinthians 15:24 [spiritual rulers]; Ephesians 1;12 [heavenly rulers]; 3:10 [angelic rulers]; 6:12 [wicked spiritual forces]; Colossians 1:16 [spiritual powers]; 2:15 [spiritual rulers]; Titus 3:1 [rulers]) archē has the meaning “government” or “ruler.” The final uses of this word are in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14, which are both theologically significant texts.

 

From the above it is clear that archē, in more than 75% of its occurrences, meanings “beginning.” Apart from “corner,” which also is a “beginning,” the word is used in some sense connected with “government.” The word archē, with the meaning “source” is nowhere attested in the NT, and 7 of the instances with the meaning “government” are in the plural. Also, the four singular occurrences with this meaning are qualified, either by “every” (1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10) or by a genitive construction (Luke 20:20).

 

The word archē in Colossians 1:18 stands unqualified as a predication of Jesus, and the meaning “government” seems to be out of the question in this verse. In the next clause Jesus is said to be “the first born [prōtotokos] from the dead,” and archē and prōtotokos occasionally occur together, expressing the concept “the first son” (compare Gen 49:3 and Deut 21:17 in the Septuagint). So archē and prōtotokos in verse 18 may express the same thought: Jesus is the first one to experience a resurrection from the dead with continuing life in view.

 

The application of archē to Jesus in Revelation 3:14 is parallel to is use in Colossians 1:15. In Revelation 3:14 archē is qualified by “God’s creation,” and this presents a problem for those who support the trinity doctrine. The sense “government, authority” is hardly fitting here, but if the translator chooses the only other meaning which is found in the NT, namely, “beginning,” then Jesus is described as “the beginning of God’s creation,” and thus a part of creation.

 

To avoid including Jesus in creation, a meaning which is found in the Septuagint and in classical Greek (but not in the NT) is introduced, namely, “origin” or “source.” It is interesting to note that only in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14 is “origin” or “source” for archē in many translations. We cannot call this “bias” because “origin” or “source” is a lexical possibility, but the fact that this rendering is used only in the two above-mentioned passages in many translations shows that theology has exerted a strong influence upon the translators.

 

Getting back to Colossians 1:18, we have found support for rendering archē as “beginning” in other NT examples; even in Revelation 3:14, an important christological passage, the sense of “beginning” is strongly suggested. Additional support is found in the phrase “the firstborn of the dead” in verse 18. The meaning is evidently that he was the first to experience a resurrection (Regarding the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23 Jesus is called the “first fruit” [aparchē]. According to Acts 26:23 he was the “first to rise from the dead,” and Revelation 1:5 uses the same phrase as Colossians 1:18, “firstborn of the dead”). The conclusion of the verse supports both “beginning” and “firstborn of the dead,” because it gives a basis for these expressions, namely, “that he might become the one who is first in all things.” (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], 254-56)

 

John Calvin on Adam having a Genuine Free Will Before the Fall

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion 1:15:8, Calvin attributes to Adam a genuine "free will" before his sin, a free will Calvin states that man no longer possesses after the fall. Further, Calvin maintains that God willed, not merely permitted, Adam's sin. This flies in the face of many Calvinists who argue that to be sovereign, man cannot have a genuine free will:

 

8. Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her τὸ ἑγεμονικὸν. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and Judgment, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself. Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

 

For a lengthy discussion of the many problems of Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Double Standards and Intellectual Laziness

Some critics like to throw out arguments and either ignore or discuss (lamely) responses thereto. Note one recent example of one long-standing anti-Mormon on the topic of Moroni’s travels from Mesoamerica to modern-day New York:

 

He quotes part of what I said on the matter, offers a defense of the plausibility of Moroni’s journey, and lambasts me for failing to interact with Book of Mormon scholar/apologist John L. Sorenson’s defense . . . Sorry to disappoint those who wanted a book of three thousand pages, but I wanted to produce a book people might actually read. (Source)

 

In an attempt to defend being intellectually deceptive (as I stated, his book is boundary maintenance for ignorant Evangelicals, not informed Latter-day Saints), he tries to excuse himself for not interacting with well-known responses to his comments on the topic. However, when others do this, Bowman calls them out on this. In his review of 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), he calls out Furuli out for not interacting with one of his books (notwithstanding Furuli’s interacting with his Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John [Baker, 1989]):

 

Furuli does not interact or even mention my book Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereafter Bowman, Understanding), which deals more comprehensively with many of the issues raised in his book. This is surprising, since I am (after Countess) the second-most cited author in Furuli’s book. (Source)

 

Perhaps Furuli wanted to write a book that was just over 300 pages people would want to read and not a book with 3,000 pages that no one would ever read ;-)

Imagine if a Latter-day Saint wrote a book critiquing the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and went on a brief tangent discussing justification. If they were to bring up James 2 and were to say "Protestants struggle with this chapter as it proves justification is synergistic, good works (empowered by God's grace) results in an increase in justification, that it is not a mere once-for-all external forensic event, etc" it would be deceptive if they did not at least acknowledge Protestant responses thereto (e.g., the [bogus] claim that the "justification" of Abraham and Rahab are not soteriological and instead, James is speaking of the vindication or demonstration, etc) and then responded, "well, I wanted to write a book people would read!" ask yourself (esp. if you are a Protestant) the following: is that a meaningful response or a dodge? (Update: judging from Bowman's "response" to this, Doubling Down on Diversionary Polemics: Robert Boylan’s Response on Moroni’s Move this has proven to be true; it also, as with typical Bowman fashion, a lame attempt to defend his double standards [btw, if/when I get the chance, I might respond in full to him--one can make a blog post about a point someone brings up, etc--he and other bloggers and writers do this too, I mean, take his focusing on the issue of "Temple of Solomon" in the Book of Mormon for instance . . .  - for those wondering, it took goading from a friend to get him to reply to the original blog post, notwithstanding the hack treatment in his book, and I stand by the reason--boundary maintenance. I know he claims that he wants to be taken seriously by more LDS, so hopefully if this is true, even if I believe him not to be a good-faith actor, he will do a better job in the future. As for me, I only interacted with some of the book due to Corona restrictions]).

Examples of Pre-Exilic Texts Discussing Bodily Suspension

One criticism levelled against the Book of Mormon is that Nephi’s knowledge of crucifixion is an anachronism. However, this is a misguided criticism as crucifixion was known in the time and area of Nephi and his family, so texts such as 1 Nephi 11:33 and 19:10 are not anachronistic.

 

In their masterful book which I highly recommend, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson, 2019), David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel provide translations and a corresponding commentary on many pre-exilic texts from the ANE (e.g., Assyrian; Egyptian) affirming knowledge of people (sometimes posthumously) being suspended as a form of punishment/execution (see 3.2 Bodily Suspension in the Ancient Near East, p. 322f). Here are some quick examples of the texts that are of interest:

 

Code of Hammurabi §21 [col. 9a, lines 14-21]

 

14 šum-ma a-wi-lum 15 bi-tam 16 ip-lu-u š 17 i-nna-pa-ni 18 pí-il- ši-im 19 šu-a-ti 20 i-du-uk-ku- šu-ma 21 i-ha-al-la-lu- šu

 

Translation If a man has broken into a house they shall put him to death and hang him before the breach which he has made. (p. 324)

 

Code of Hammurabi §153 [col. 9b, lines 61-66]

 

61 šum-ma aš- ša-at a-wi-lim 62 a š- šsum zi-ka-ri-im 63 ša-ni-im 64 mu-sà-uš-di-ik 65 SAL šu-a-ti-i-na-ga-ši-ši-im 66 i-ša-ak-ka-nu-ši

 

Translation. If a woman has procured the death of her husband on account of another man they shall impale that woman.

 

Commentary. . . .here, the woman has been impaled aloft. (pp. 325-26)

 

Papyrus B.M. 10053 3.3-5

 

Translation. 3 Now after some days we went to the door of the gateway of stone of Elephantine and brought away the 40 ½ . . . and we put them in our . . .s 4 the attendant Nekhtamenwēse took 7 deben of copper, the foreigner Ptahkhau took 3 deben of copper and the young priest Paherer ½ a deben of copper. There remained to us 30 deben of copper. 5 He took an oath by the Ruler, if all that I say is not true may I be placed on the stake.

 

Commentary. The trial represented on this text is dated to “Year 9” (in line 2.1) which Peet argues refers to the 9^th year of whm mswt from the era of Ramesses XI (beginning of the eleventh century B.C.). PEET also reasons that it concerns trials for those caught stripping precious decorations from the Ramesseum of Ramesses II. Unfortunately, the fragmentary text preceding the lines quoted above does not provide the name of the individual being examined. The lines above also contain some fragmentation (represented in the ellipses). Note how, at the conclusion of his testimony, this man vouched for the trustworthiness of his account by taking “an oath by the Ruler,” that invokes the punishment of being “placed on the stake” (i.e., impaled) should his statement be proven false. (p. 338)

 

Papyrus B.M. 10052 13.10-14

 

Translation. 10 Examination. There was brought the servant Pekeneny son of Wennefer of the temple of Amün. He was given 11 the oath by the Ruler not to speak falsehood. They said to him, What have you to say concerning the affair of the Tombs? He said, As Amün lives and as the Ruler lives if it be found that I had to do with the men 13 or hat they gave me a kite of silver of a kite of gold let me be mutilated and placed on the stake. He was examined with the stick. Said (end, sic).

 

Commentary. We return to the examinations of individuals associated with Bukhaaf and his fellow thieves. Ukhaaf had listed Pekeneny among those who had received a portion of “Bukhaaf’s share of precious metal” in the form of two deben of silver (2.17-18), though Bukhaaf did not name him as one of his fellow thieves who entered the tomb. A kite is a tenth of a deben receive a twentieth of the portion Bukhaaf alleges. In this text, the form of the “oath by the Ruler” that is recorded as administered initially is simply “not to speak falsehood” (13.11). Pekeneny is represented as voluntarily invoking an oath later in the examination in the same of Amün and of the Ruler to the effect that he is willing to be “mutilated and placed on the stake” should his testimony be proven false. (13.13) (pp. 342-43)

 

For further evidence, consider the following:

In Lam 5:12, authored by Jeremiah, a contemporary of Lehi et al., we read the following:

Princes are hanged up by their hand: the faces of elders were not honoured.

In this verse, we read of princes being “hanged up by their hand” which is part-and-parcel of what crucifixion entails. Furthermore, this is strengthened by an examination of the LXX which uses the verb κρεμαννυμι. This is the same verb Luke uses of the malefactor in Luke 23:39:

And one of the malefactors which were hanged (κρεμαννυμι) railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

Richard Carrier in his book, On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield, 2014), p. 61, provides further evidence that the concept of crucifixion was known by pre-exilic Israelites:

[T]he Bible described one method of execution as to ‘hang in the sun’ (in the Septuagint, literally, exeliazo = ex heliou, ‘out in the sun,’ or apenanti tou heliou, ‘against the sun’), which implies the intent was for the hanged to die from exposure (Numbers 25:4 and 2 Samuel 21:6, 9, 13). That is essentially a form of crucifixion, however it was effected. Likewise, when Joshua hung on trees the king of Ai and the kings of Amorites (Joshua 8:29 and 10:26-27), and when the Law of Moses calls for the executed to be hanged on trees or planks (xulon in the Greek) even when already dead (Deuteronomy 21:22-23), or when Haman and his sons are hung on a giant pole (xulon again in Greek translations of Esther 5:14; 7:9-10; and 8:7), these are all forms of crucifixion.