One-word
names also have certain characteristics. As is well known, animal and plant
names, frequent in Semitic onomastics, are virtually always one-word names.
Also common with one-word names are terms concerning bodily and mental
qualities ascribed to the name bearer. (Herbert Bardwell Huffmon, Amorite
Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study [Baltimore,
Md.: The John Hopkins Press, 1965], 141)
The
Testing of Joseph and Mary in the Protoevangelium
of James as an Adaptation of Numbers 5:11-31
The
Protoevangelium of James, which in PBodmer 5 has the title Birth of
Mary; Apocalypse of James, dates to the latter part of the second century.
In order to confirm the validity of Jesus’ miraculous conception and to defend
against the charge that Mary and Joseph had come together before Jesus’ birth, Proto.
Jac. 15-16 presents the couple as suffering no ill-effects from drinking “the
water of the conviction of the Lord.” Such a means of demonstration has obvious
similarities to both Numbers 5:11-31 and the L[onger]E[nding of Mark].
The
story begins with the scribe Annas’ observation that Mary is pregnant (ωγκωμενη, Prot. Jac. 15.1) and his subsequent reporting
of the scandal to the high priest (15.2). Once the couple is brought to the
temple, first Joseph, and then Mary, is accused of fornication, and each of
them in turn denies the charge (Proto. Jac. 15.2) The priest initially
demands that Joseph “give back the virgin whom you received from the Temple of
the Lord” (Prot. Jac. 16.1a; cf. 8.1-9.2). Perhaps because Joseph then “wept
bitterly,” the priest offers a test to verify whether they are telling the
truth.
ποτιω υμας το υδωρ της ελεγξεως
κυριου, και φανερωσει το αμαρτηματα υμων ων οφθαλμοις υμων.
I will give you the water of the
conviction of the Lord to drink, and it will manifest your sins before your
eyes. (Prot. Jac. 16.1b)
The
test is given first to Joseph and then to Mary:
And
the high priest took [it] and gave [it] to Joseph to drink (ποτιζω) and sent him into the wilderness; and he
came [back] whole (και ηλθεν ολοκληρος).
And he made Mary also drink (ποτιζω),
and sent her into the wilderness; and she [also] came [back] whole (και ηλθεν ολοκληρος). And all the people marveled, because [the
water] had not revealed any sin in them (και εθαυμασεν πας ο λαος οτι αμαρτια ουκ εφανη εν αυτοις). And the high priest said, ‘If the Lord God
has not made manifest your sins, neither do I condemn you.’ And he released
them. And Joseph took Mary and departed to his house, rejoicing and glorifying
the God of Israel. (Prot. Jac. 16.2)
Contrary
to what the scribe Annas, the high priest and others expect before the test,
Joseph and Mary are not harmed by what they drink. As a result, everyone is
persuaded that thye are innocent.
The
trial as depicted in Prot. Jac. 16.2 represents an intriguing adaptation
of Numbers 5:11-31, which stipulates that a woman is to be tested if her
husband is seized by a “spirit of jealous” (רוח-קנאה; πνευμα ζηλωσεως,
Num 5:14, 5:30) and accuses her of infidelity. If the accused has not sinned,
she will not be harmed by the “water of testing (or bitterness) that brings a
curse” (מי המרים המאררים; το υδωρ του ελεγμου του επικαταρωμενου τουτου,
Num 5:18; cf. 5:24). If, however, the woman has been unfaithful, her uterus
will fall out and she will become barren (Num 5:27). Although she would not necessarily
lose her life from such an injury, she would have to endure additional social
ostracism resulting from her subsequent inability to bear children. The passage
also leaves open the possibility that the husband would then have grounds for divorcing
the unfaithful wife, whose fate as an outcast in society would then be sealed.
In
light of the original focus of this test in the Pentateuch, it is surprising to
find in the Protoevangelium of James Joseph, a male, receiving the “water
of the conviction of the Lord.” This is especially so because Numbers 5 does
not specify what to do with the man who may have committed fornication with the
accused wife. The subsequent testing of Mary in Prot. Jac. 16.2,
although somewhat less extraordinary, also does not correspond to the stipulations
of Nub 5:11-31 in that she is not yet married, and her accuses is not Joseph but
the high priest. Had the author of the Protoevangelium of James intended
to adhere more closely to the instructions of the passage in Numbers, he might
have inserted such a testing of Mary after Joseph was astonished to learn that
his betrothed had become pregnant (cf. Prot. Jac.. 13.1-14.1). At this
earlier point in the narrative, the author instead incorporates part of the Gospel
of Matthew’s first chapter to emphasize that the Lord appeared to Joseph and
revealed the divine origin of Mary’s child (Proto. Jac. 14.2; cf. Matt
1.20-24). Accordingly, Prot. Jac. 15.1-16.2 supplements the testimony of
the Matthean passage and provides additional confirmation of the purity of both
Joseph and Mary. (James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication
of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament – 2. Reihe 112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000], 442-44)
Verse
16
This
verse continues Jesus’ commissioning instructions, which begin in 16:15. The
form and content of 16:16 are distinct from the previous verse and from those
which follow in the commissioning (vv. 17-18). The only words familiar to the
reader of the L[onger]E[nding of Mark] pertain to faith or disbelief (ο ποστευσας
. . . απιστησας), make up the heart of the antithesis and
bear a certain similarity to the terminology and structure of John 3:18ab:
ὁ
πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ
πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται (John 3:18ab)
ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται
(Mark 16:16)
Unlike
its Johannine counterpart (cf. John 3:14-21), Mark 16:16 does not specify the
type of faith that distinguishes between salvation and condemnation.
Nonetheless, the influence of John 3:18ab on v. 16 is possible.
.
. .
•
βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται
Most
of the times Mark mentions baptism are in connection with the person and
eschatological message of John the Baptist (Mark 1:7-8). One verse concerns
ritual purity (7:4), and another passage states that the experience of the
disciples will correspond to a future (and unexplained) baptism of Jesus
(10:38-39). From Mark one never learns that receiving baptism has salvific
implications. Moreover, of the thirteen Markan uses of σωζω, six relate the wellness resulting from
Jesus’ healing (3:4, 5:23, 5:28, 5:34, 6:56, 10:52). Another four concerns the
cost of discipleship (Mark 8:35 [two occurrences], 10:26, 13:13), but of these
only 10:26 demands any specific requirement for salvation except abandoning
worldly riches. Three other occurrences of this verb in Mark (13:20, 15:30-31)
do not detail any specific prerequisites as one finds in the LE. The only NT
passage having implications similar to 16:16 is 1 Peter 3:21 (ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον
νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα), a letter likely to have been written later than the Second
Gospel and independently of the LE.
•
ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται
.
. . Luke 24:11 is a possible source for this relatively infrequent NT verb. The
concerns of Luke 24:11 about believing the women’s testimony and of John 20
about belief in the resurrection are central to the understanding of
belief/unbelief in Mark 16:9-14. Verse 16 probably reflects this author’s own
view about baptism in conjunction with the condemnation the author of the
Fourth Gospel imputes to those who do not believe in God’s Son. (James A.
Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their
Message in the Longer Ending of Mark [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament – 2. Reihe 112; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 101-2)
Another
distinctive characteristic of Mark 16:16 concerns the connection of one’s
baptism with the promise of salvation: ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται.
This expression stands in contrast with the two other analogous texts—mentioning
only belief (ο πιστευων,
John 3:18a) or hearing and belief (οι ακουσαντες και πιστευσαντες, Kerygma Petri 3. B)—but not a rite
of initiation like baptism. . . . an understanding of Mark 16:16 in relation to
16:15, as well as its source, Matt 28:19, also sheds light on the occurrence of
καὶ βαπτισθεὶς in v. 16a. . . . a likey source for this distinctive element in
Mark 16:16a is the mission charge of Matt 28:19: πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα
τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ
ἁγίου πνεύματος. Although the author of the LE shows no interest in the
Matthean trinitarian statement, it is likely that he noticed the mention of
baptism in Matt 28:19 and incorporated this int Mark 16:16a. Moreover, an
important difference between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:16a contributes toward an explanation
of the distinct presentation of mission in Mark 16:15-18 as compared with
Matthew 28. The brief mention of baptism in Mark 16:16a can be viewed as a way of
using part of the Matthean tradition to make a somewhat different point.
Instead of “go and baptize” (Matt 28:19), the LE’s author states that “the one
who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Matthew mentions baptism from the
perspective of the start of the mission while the author of the LE
considers the effects of evangelization and the response of the believer
in baptism. Such a difference as compared with Matthew could also reflect the
influence of Acts 2:38, which, like Mark 16:16, emphasizes the importance of
baptism for those who respond to Peter’s Pentecost speech: μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,]
καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν
ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
One
inference following from the different portrayals of baptism in Matt 28:19 and
Mark 16:15 is that vv. 15-18 points to a chronological progression in
how the mission is presented in the LE. At first, Mark 16:15 (πορευθεντες . . . κηρυξατε τκλ.) reflects much the same
emphasis as Matt 28:19a (πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε κτλ.) with the charge to begin the
mission. Whereas Matt 28:19b (βαπτιζοντες αυτους κτλ.) continues in the same vein,
Mark 16:16a jumps ahead in time to the status of those who do (and not not) respond
to the missionary preaching: those who believe will also be baptized and enjoy
assurance of eternal salvation. This source- and redaction-critical analysis
accounts for both the distinctive allusion to baptism in Mark 16:16a and the
relatively inconspicuous shift in emphasis from the past mission (v. 15), to
the status of those converted (v. 16), and then toward the present mission, which
is to be accompanied by miraculous signs (vv. 17-18).
To
summarize, in Mark 16:16 one finds a definition of faith analogous to John 3:18ab
which has been augmented by the allusion to baptism in Matt 28:19b and perhaps
also Acts 2:38. As compared with the similar sayings of John 3:18ab and Kerygma
Petri 3. B, the brevity of this verse may be explained as follows: the
context provided by Mark 16:15 allows for a more compact expression in 16:16.
Likewise, the shift in emphasis from mentioning baptism at the beginning of the
mission (28:19b) to alluding to the effects of evangelization (Mark 16:16a)
accounts for the present of καὶ βαπτισθεὶς in the LE. (Ibid., 197-99)
August 8 marks the 8th (!) anniversary of this blog. Also, as many know, I started podcasting earlier this year (past issues can be found here). I decided to set up a facebook fundraiser (for research material as well as investing in material for the podcast):
Scriptural Mormonism Blog & Podcast
What
must I do to join Christ in his offered covenant of grace?
While
sin is commonly described as a kind of death, being saved by grace is also described
as a king of death. Paul, in particular, talks this way. In Romans 6, he even
describes redemption as a crucifixion. According to Paul we must be “planted
together in the likeness of [Christ’s] death” so that “we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin” (Romans 6:5-7).
To
be saved by grace, my pride must be crucified with Christ on the cross of my
own nothingness.
For
this to work, however, there must be a specific kind of death. In fact,
a specific part of the sinner must die. What happens, Paul says, is that we “become
dead” to the law by the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4). What happens is that “we
are delivered from the law wherein we were held, being dead to the law, that we
should serve in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter” (Joseph
Smith Translation, Romans 7:6).
What
must we do in order to be saved? We must die. We must become dead to the
law. Or, as Paul clarifies in Romans 7:6, we must die to a particular, sinful
way of handling the law. Once we are “dead to the law,” we can “serve in
newness of spirit” and escape “the oldness of the letter.” Rather than being
captive to the letter of the law, we can yoke ourselves in Christ to the spirit
of the law. We can discover, at long last, the true purpose of God’s law.
When
Nephi explains in 2 Nephi 25:23 what it means to be saved by grace “after all
we can do,” he explains it in exactly these same terms. Nephi and Paul are
working from the same root template: being saved by grace means dying to the
law and being made alive in Christ. (Adam S. Miller, Original Grace: An
Experiment in Restoration Thinking [Provo, Utah: BYU Maxwell Institute;
Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 73-74, italics in original)
After quoting 2 Nephi 25:23-27,
Miller continues:
To
be saved by grace, we must adopt a new way of handling God’s law. And Nephi,
like Paul, describes this conversion in terms of dying to the law and being “made
alive in Christ because of our faith” (2 Nephi 25:25).
Discovering
“the deadness of the law” doesn’t leave the law unfulfilled. In fact, as Nephi
has it, it’s only by “knowing the deadness of the law” that we “may look
forward unto that life which is in Christ and know for what end the law was
given” (2 Nephi 25:27). And this, of course, is the crucial point. For what end
was the law given? What is the purpose of the law? “The law is fulfilled in Christ,”
and we join Christ in fulfilling the law only by dying to that law and being
made alive in partnership with him (2 Nephi 25:27; emphasis added).
Obedience
is still required. Obedience is still the key to fulfilling the law. But
obedience to what? Obedience to Christ and the purpose of the law. Obedience to
the logic of justice and grace.
If dying to that old way of using God’s law is, then, Nephi’s own explanation for
how we are saved by grace, why does he add in 2 Nephi 25:23 that we are saved
by grace “after all we can do”? What does this additional phrase mean? In
particular, what did “after all we can do” mean when the Book of Mormon was
first translated into English? (Ibid., 75-76)
Miller then notes that “after all
we can do” was a very specific idiom, consistently used for describing
circumstances that obtain in spite of everything that may be done to overcome,
prevent or avoid them. On this, see this blog post.
The
divine name Elohim according to the Rabbis shows the middath Din,
the attribute of judgment, whereas the Divine Name YHWH, the middath
Rahamim, the attribute of mercy. The earliest example of this stated as a
rule of Sifre, 27: “Every place where YHWH is said this (means) the
attribute of mercy; every place where Elohim is said, this implies the
attribute of justice.” In Midrash on Psalms, Ps. 56, 3 on Ps. 56:11 this rule
is ascribed to R. Nehorai whom A. Marmorstein, [The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of
God, London, Oxford University Press, 1927-1937] I, p. 47 identifies with
R. Meir. However Philo Judaeus had held just the opposite. Theos = Elohim
the good, the God of love and benevolence; Kurios = Adonai for YHWH
and expresses God’s Lordship, as Ruler and Judge. Cf. Marmorstein, p. 43,
following Dähne, Geachichtliche Darstellung der jud. Alex. Religions:
Philosophie, Halle, 1834, p. 231f. Mek. 37a cited by Marmorstein, ibid.,
I, p. 45, says: “God (El) the God (Elohim) of my father, He
treated me with the middath rahamim the attribute or measure of mercy.”
Whence do we know that El denotes the attribute of mercy? From Ps. 22:1,
“My God (Eli), My God (Eli), why have You forsaken me?”; Num.
12:13, “Hear God (El) and He has given us light.” It would appear that
at the time the Fourth Gospel was written YHWH represents the attribute
of judgment, and Elohim love and benevolence. This being so, and if
Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is LORD ( = YHWH), this is very important and
would explain the claim made in Jn. 5:22: “Neither does the Father (cf. v. 18,
i.e. Theos) judge any man, but He has given all judgment to the Son.” It
has often been observed that Jesus in the Fourth Gospel does not do his healing
miracles out of pity (as in the Synoptics). On the other hand, Theos ( =
El) in the Fourth Gospel so loved the world (Jn. 3:16) that He gave His
only begotten Son, etc. It is also surely very important that Ps. 22:1 is cited
in Mek. 37a as a proof that the attribute of mercy is intended when the name El
occurs. It is presumably possible that because the Fourth Gospel identifies
with Jesus with Yahweh as Judge, that by the mid-second century that 2 Middoth
ascribed to YHWH and Elohim respectively were reversed. In this
connexion it may be significant that R. Abika did not allow R. Ishmael’s
interpretation (Mek. 79a, T. B. Sanh. 66a, Soferim 4:5) of Elohim in Ex.
22:28 (Heb. 27) as judges and insisted on it being translated as God; cf. Marmorstein,
ibid., I, p. 14. This however may not be so much due to his being
unwilling to associate the attribute of judgment with Elohim as because
of his keen support of anthropomorphism. However R. Akib’as interpretation may
be hinted at in Jn. 10:34, 35. Justin, Dial., ch. 124, interprets Elohim
Ps. 82:6 as gods, but understanding it as pointing to what all men are
potentially (as Adam was) “gods” and have power to become sons of the Highest (
= El Elyon). But if they reject acknowledging Christ as God, they die like
Adam. (John Bowman, The Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba,
Esther and the Gospel of John [Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 8;
Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 1975], 362-63 n. 152)
As Bowman referenced Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124, here is the text:
And
when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God,
I anticipated their questioning, and said, "Listen, sirs, how the Holy
Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and
how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to
all men. The words are spoken by David, and are, according to your version of
them, thus: ‘God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the
gods. How long do ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?
Judge for the orphan and the poor, and do justice to the humble and needy.
Deliver the needy, and save the poor out of the hand of the wicked. They know
not, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations
of the earth shall be shaken. I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the
Most High. But ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God!
judge the earth, for Thou shalt inherit all nations.' But in the version of the
Seventy it is written, ‘Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the
princes,' in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and
Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the
serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my
discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the
Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering
and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving
of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out
death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you
wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming
"gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall
be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at
length that Christ is called God. (ANF 1:261-62)
[On
John 11:35] Cf. God’s weeping in Rabbinic Haggadic Midrash. R. Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus depicts God as sitting roaring like a lion in His pain over the destruction
of the Temple, because He has lost His habitation (T. B. Ber. 3a). T. B. Hag.
5b says God is weeping because the pride or glory of the Kingdom of Heaven is
crushed. Biblical basis for Yahweh’s weeping could be found in Jer. 13:17.
Marmorstein, [The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, London, Oxford University
Press, 1927-1937] II. p. 70 states . . . the Rabbis do not mind speaking of God
as being in trouble or pain, thinking of His as sharing His peoples’ distress
and exile. Esth. 6:1, “on that night the king could not sleep”, is in M. Esth.
R. X:1 referred to God whose throne was shaken, for He saw Israel in such
distress. The question is asked how can God sleep in view of Ps. 121:4. Ah, but
it can happen “when Israel is in distress, and other nations are at ease”; that
is why (Ps. 44:24) says: “Awake, why do You sleep My LORD (Adonai)?”
Marmorstein’s comment, ibid., II, p. 70f. is very important: “The
intimate connexion that is supposed to have existed between God and Israel and
which lived in the minds of the Jewish teachers, induced them to preach the
strange anthropopathic doctrine that God weeps or mourns.” Marmorstein (ibid.)
rightly connects this with the teaching of R. Joshua b. Hananiah (Mek. of R.
Simon b. Yohai, p. 1f.) that because of God’s boundless love and gracious protection
towards His people Israel, His Shekinah went down with them to
Egypt, crossed the sea with them, and brought them through the wilderness to
His sanctuary. R. Abika (cf. Mek. P. 17a) further developed this doctrine. The
Exodus was not just the freeing of Hebrew slaves from bondage, but the release
of God Himself. Scriptural basis for this is found in Ps. 91:15, 16. God was in
servitude and bondage during the whole time that His children were enslaved. As
Marmorstein (ibid.) states: “This teaching was further extended by
adding that not only in Egypt, but wherever His people were exiled and
persecuted the Shekinah, the Divine Presence, or God Himself, is
with them.” This was an answer to the doubts of many a Jew after the Temple
fell as to whether YHWH had deserted His people. It sought to emphasize
“that God is and will remain” as Marmorstein, ibid., II, p. 72 puts it “for
ever in the community of Israel”. Sifre Num. 84—the Shekinah
suffers when Israel is distressed. There is little doubt that the writer of the
Fourth Gospel was aware of such developments in Jewish apologetic and answering
them by showing that his Jesus could satisfy all their needs and was with His
own always in their joys and sorrows did they but know it. (John Bowman, The
Fourth Gospel and the Jews: A Study in R. Akiba, Esther and the Gospel of John [Pittsburgh
Theological Monograph Series 8; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 1975], 366-67
n. 191)