Letter 1
From: Robert Boylan (IrishLDS87@gmail.com)
To: Irish Church Missions
Date: 26 July 2008
Subject: Desmond Ferguson’s Continued Scripture-wrenching in The Banner
I am writing in regards to Desmond Ferguson's recent abuse of certain biblical texts to "prove" Sola Scriptura in The Banner, Irish Church Missions' (hereafter, "ICM") publication.
Before I begin, his mis-use of Matthew 4:1-11 and 2 Timothy 3 in the Spring edition of The Banner are not the first instances of him wrenching the Bible out of context to fool his target audience into accepting his "take" on the issues. About three years ago, he authored an incredibly deceptive article entitled, "Witnessing to the Mormons" where he wrenched Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6, 8 out of their historical and cultural context, and engaged in proof-texting of the worst kind by using such texts to "prove" strict monotheism, as well as demonstrating a poor grasp of other topics discussed therein, such as the Book of Mormon and the conflating material and formal sufficiency with one another with reference to the meaning of "the fullness of the gospel." While this e-mail is a bit lengthy (about ten pages), I do hope it will ensure that Ferguson will cease his ignorant arguments so prevalent in his articles published by ICM. I will deal with such texts that reveal that Ferguson does not have a clue about any of the issues he discusses, and his claim in the Spring 2008 edition of The Banner where he claimed that he researches different belief systems is laughable; his study just represents examining only the Evangelical Protestant literature (seemingly, predominately from what is labelled "counter-cult" "literature") on the issues (e.g., "Mormonism"; macro-evolution; Sola Scriptura, etc), not proper research. In addition, I hope that Ferguson, if he responds to this, will not engage in obfuscation as he is known to do, and actually engage with the arguments presented, rather than obsess over personalities and other silly issues.
Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6, 8 and the "Number of God"
In the Autumn 2005 issue of ICM's The Banner, in an article entitled, "Witnessing to the Mormons," Ferguson claimed that Isaiah 43:10, 11 and 44:6, 8 refuted Latter-day Saint theology, often referred to, in scholarly circles, as monolatry (e.g., Michael Heiser [an Evangelical]), or, as D. Charles Pyle once stated it to be (and I agree with him), "relational monotheism," that states that there are (true) gods in the midst of God (cf. Genesis 20:13 [Hebrew]; Psalms 29 (esp. the Hebrew); 82; Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls], etc.). Notwithstanding the popularity of such pericope in literature critical of "Mormonism" and text supportive of the Trinity (e.g., The Forgotten Trinity by James White), and notwithstanding the ironic fact, lost on Ferguson, that taking an absolutist view on these passages results, not in Trinitarian theology, but either Unitarianism or a strand of Modalism, such represents proof-texting of the worst degree. What is more interesting is that, instead of engaging my exegesis of pertinent pericope (e.g,. Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:7-9; the Hebrew of Genesis 20; the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8) and on other issues (such as 2 Timothy 3, as discussed below) two years ago, Ferguson simply obfuscated and ignored all the evidence I presented that refuted his fallacious "arguments," and just obsessed over personalities, revealing that he did not have a clue about the issues at hand. That is revealing of how little he truly knows about (1) "Mormonism" and (2) the Bible.
For Isaiah, the point of his screed against the idols and gods was that of comparing Isaiah's theology with that of both popular Israelite religion (which at the time had groups worshiping Yahweh and Baal alongside an Asherah [KJV: "grove(s)" in the temple in Jerusalem) and that of the Canaanite religion in general.
In Isaiah 43:10-11, we read the following:
*You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe in me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no Saviour.*
Verse 10 is not a statement of monotheism, but a comparison drawn between Baal and Yahweh. Verse 11 is a comment on the Asherah. Verse 10 doesn't make a whole lot of sense if one interprets such a passage in terms of the strict monotheism expounded by errant writers on this topic.
"Before me"? "After me"? When is before God and when is after God? What about the time in between (which, in Orthodox [i.e., Traditional] Christianity is "always")? Is one willing to assert a "before God" or an "after God"? Clearly, simply suggesting that it talks about being created before God is nothing more than suggesting that something was created before God was created (which is incompatible both with Orthodox Christian and Latter-day Saint theology). But "after God" implies an end to God--not that something was created after God was created. Such a view, of course, is not well thought out. The text does not support such an interpretation. Baal assumed his position as chief among the elohim (Hebrew: Gods) after he defeated Yaam ("Sea"). Later, while he was dead, after a confrontation with Mot ("Death"), there was a succession crisis when `Athar attempted to sit in the throne of Baal (which is discussed in Isaiah 14). In this sense, for Baal, there is both a "before" and a possible "after." But for Yahweh, there is no succession. Yahweh did not overthrow another divinity to become the chief among the elohim. Nor can he be displaced from his throne. There is no denial of the host of elohim in this passage, nor is there any denial of the existence of El (Hebrew: "God") there either. Canaanite theology places Baal was king/god of the gods, but El is the God of the Cosmos. Both exist, and the existence of one does not threaten the existence of the other. Likewise, Israel's chief elohim, Yahweh, does not threaten, nor is threatened by the existence of El.
In verse 11, we get his statement: "apart from me, there is no saviour" (New International Version [NIV]). This is translated as "beside me there is no saviour" in the KJV, and "besides me there is no saviour" in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In fact, most translations, including the modern ones, follow the language of the NRSV and the KJV against the NIV. I bring this up as Ferguson uses the NIV, and used such in his atrocious article, and it is popular among Evangelicals outside the KJV-Only movement. The phrase, "besides me" in Isaiah 43-45 is a reference to Asherah--claimed by some as a consort for Yahweh, and claimed by others as a consort for Baal. Asherah was claimed by those who worshipped her as a Saviour--as a deliverer. This is explicitly stated in Jeremiah, when the remaining Jewish aristocracy was fleeing to Egypt following the assassination of Gedaliah. They dragged Jeremiah with them and complained to him in Jeremiah 44:17-19:
*"We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At the time we had plenty of good and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouting out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."*
The women then added:
*"When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cake like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"*
One should compare the above with 2 Kings 22-24, where the Asherah (KJV: "grove(s)") is removed from the temple and the wooden poles depicting her which were on the outside of the First Temple were destroyed by Josiah during the Deuteronomic Reformation. Essentially, Isaiah is claiming that salvation comes from Yahweh alone--not from an Asherah or from Baal.
But there are other interesting things in chapter 43. Yahweh, in verse 3, states that, "For I am Yahweh your elohim." Then, in verse 12, Isaiah explicitly discusses the fact that he is comparing Yahweh to other divinities: "I have revealed and saved and proclaimed--I, and not some foreign gods among you." It should be noted that nowhere does Isaiah ever claim that it is sinful for foreigners to worship other gods. This doesn't appear in the text until the post-exilic portions of Jeremiah (Jeremiah was pieced together by a number of individuals, thus the unusual chronology in the text, among other things) while Deuteronomy 4 seems to suggest that the foreign gods were given to the foreign nations so that they would worship them (cf. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 [the Hebrew verb here is "to inherit," nahal, which differentiates in this passage Yahweh from Elohim, the former who inherited/received, as a patrimony from the latter, Israel]). The notion here is clearly that Yahweh is superior to these foreign gods--independent of the question of whether or not they are real divinities.
This brings us to Isaiah 44. The primary alleged monotheistic proof-text of Isaiah 44 is that of verses 6 and 8:
*This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God . . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock [this is the underlying Hebrew word used]; I know not one.*
It should be noted that the NIV misses the chance of some consistency. In verse 6, the "apart from me" is the same as "besides me" of verse 8. This section of Isaiah is essentially a polemic against Asherah worship. I note that some time later, around 622 B.C.E., during Josiah's reform, the Asherah is removed from the temple in Jerusalem. This is described in 2 Kings 23:
*The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron Valley and took the ashes to Bethel. He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places of the towns of Judah and on those around Jerusalem—those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the constellations and to all the starry hosts. He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.*
This description relates to what follows verse 8 in Isaiah 44. Here is some more of that chapter:
*The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?*
Did you notice the similarity to Psalm 82:5 here?--
Psalm 82: They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;
Isaiah 44: They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
In any case, we have in Isaiah 44 a description of how the carpenter takes the tree, and creates an image from it. The remainder of the tree is burned as ash (it was a public burning and scattering of the ashes in the Josian destruction of the Asherah in 622 B.C.E.). Here is a description of the people mistakenly worshipping a tree. And then later the specific imagery of the forests and the trees worshipping Yahweh. A polemic against Asherah worship - the castigation of the worship of the tree.
These same issues apply to Isaiah 45. But that chapter starts off with a peculiarity. In the very first verse we read:
*This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armour, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut*
Here, Cyrus is called the anointed one of Yahweh - his salvific agent, his messiah. Go figure.
The question, though, ultimately is whether or not Isaiah's point of view is similar to that of Psalm 82. Psalm 82 does not deny the existence of other elohim (as noted by scholars such as Robert Alter; Frank Moore Cross jnr.; Margaret Barker; Mark S. Smith; Jeffrey Tigay, etc), nor does it claim that they are not divinities. It simply imputes to them impotence--they cannot save, they are incapable of granting salvation. If this is the case (which is seems to be), then Isaiah is not the great voice of monotheism as many errantly portray the text to be, but, instead, a voice of the supremacy of Yahweh as the only divinity who is capable of doing these things--and only for Israel. Sadly, because of his ignorance of the Bible and biblical scholarship, Ferguson's treatment of such passages reflect a poor grasp of the Bible.
I have placed a list of books and articles for suggested reading on this issue that will give one a more-than-decent grasp of the pertinent issues in question at the end of this e-mail.
Matthew 4:1-11 and Sola Scriptura
Ferguson has recently claimed in a recent article (Spring 2008 edition of The Banner) that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Matthew 4:1-11 are "proofs" of Sola Scriptura. Again, this is based on proof-texting of the worst kind. What is rather revealing is that I refuted Ferguson's mis-application of the 2 Timothy 3 pericope in my rebuttal to "Witnessing to the Mormons." I see nothing wrong with one giving preference to one side of the story, but it seems to me that once an argument has been adequately refuted, even if one continues to accept the argument, it behooves the author to acknowledge the opposing view and, if possible, respond thereto, rather than suggest that his is the final word. This is the intellectually fair thing to do; alas, it is absent in Desmond Ferguson's writings, giving the (false) impression to readers of ICM's publications that those who oppose Sola Scriptura (e.g., Latter-day Saints; Roman Catholics; etc) have no response to such "proof-texts."
I am sure that Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, such as Robert Godfrey, are of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that such "proves" Sola Scriptura (Ferguson's only offered justification for concluding Sola Scriptura is that Jesus cited Scripture, so I am guessing that he might have a better justification for concluding the Protestant canon is God's sole authority beyond such blatant circular reasoning and question-begging). The problem with such a formulation if that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal. Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matthew 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psalm 91:11? Of course not.
One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.
We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.
Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Psalm 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Unfortunately, the eisegesis of the Bible does not stop there. Ferguson, again in the Spring edition of ICM's The Banner, follows the typical line repeated by Protestant theologians that draw attention to Paul's use of the Greek noun, artios ("fit") and the participle exartismenos ("fully equipped") in verse 17 (Ferguson makes an appeal to the NIV translation, and not the Greek, but the argument is basically the same as those forwarded by proponents of Sola Scriptura and the alleged *formal* sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon). However, the definitions of "complete" and "perfect" and other like-terms speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.
Observing Paul's play on words further helps us to understand the use of artios and exartismenos in 2 Timothy 3:17. The adjective artios and the perfect passive particple exartismenos derive from the same verb artidzo. The prefix ex puts a perfective force on exartismenos, which denote the meaning of "altogether" or "fully." In a somewhat repetitive way, Paul describes the kind of man he envisions (a fit or capable man), and then explains the result of that capability (he is now fully equipped for every good work).
One of the most important points about 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for the present discussion on Sola Scriptura is that neither the adjective artios nor the participle exartismenos is describing "Scripture"; rather, they are both describing the "man of God." However, some proponents of Sola Scriptura, realising such, insist that only the "man of God" is perfectly equipped if Scripture is the perfect equipper. Notwithstanding, such is based, yet again, on eisegesis.
Firstly, no one can prove that the only or even primary meaning of artios or artidzo is "perfect" or "sufficient." There are many other words Paul could have used to denote the concept of perfection or absolute sufficiency which he obviously did not use in the context of 2 Timothy 3. Moreover, the specific meanings of these words are conditioned, or are relative to, the context in which they are contained. Secondly, while in verse 17 Paul uses the adjective artios and the participle exartismenos to describe the "man of God," he uses a much weaker word, ophelimos ("profitable"), in verse 16 to describe Scripture. Ophelimos means "helpful, beneficial, useful, advantageous." It is not a word that connotes solitary sufficiency and certainly nothing close to the absolute or formal sufficiency that Protestants must assign to Scripture to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, there is an implied insufficiency or limitation in ophelimos.
To show the intent of Paul's description of Scripture as profitable, a simply analogy from Scripture will help illustrate the point. In Ephesians 6:10, Paul instructs Christians to "Put on the full armour of God so that you can stand against the devil's schemes." Included in the full armour is "the belt of truth," the "breastplate of righteousness," the "feet fitted with readiness," the "shield of faith," the "helmet of salvation," and the "sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-18). We notice here that Paul includes many aspects of the Christian walk in making one prepared to fight evil (the same evil Paul instructs Timothy to fight in 2 Timothy 2-4), such as truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word of God. We also notice that Paul considers the "word of God" but one of many components of the "full armour" of God. The "full armour" of Ephesians 6:11 is analogous to being "fully equipped" in 2 Timothy 3:17. Finally, Paul adds prayer to the list of items to ward off the devil as he says, "Pay also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19). We see from this analogy that Paul intends his message to reveal all the things necessary to teach and defend the gospel and lead a good and wholesome Christian life, not to give a lesson on "sufficiency" for the sake of argument, one cannot presume that a sufficiently equipped man has been made that way only by Scripture. Certainly Scripture (being defined here as the 66 books of the Protestant canon) plays a large part in the equipping, but Paul does not tout it as the only source to help in this process, nor a source that will automatically do so.
Also, one should note the immediate context of this passage. In 2 Timothy 2:21 we see that there are means other than the 66 books of the biblical canon to accomplish the goal of making a fit and fully equipped man of God. Paul uses the phrase, "every good work" six other times in his epistles. As in the context of 2 Timothy 2-3, these verses shed much light on how we are to understand Paul's meaning in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (e.g., in 2 Corinthians 9:8, Paul says that God is able to make all grace abound toward the Corinthian saints in order that they may always abound in every good work).
Another aspect of the relationship between Scripture and the elements which make Timothy a "fit" man of God is Paul's wording in 2 Timothy 3:15 that he "knows" the holy Scriptures which are able to make Timothy wise to salvation. The word "know" denotes a present intellectual apprehension of Scripture, and as such, it, itself, is not saving wisdom but only a means to saving wisdom. Timothy must turn to his intellectual knowledge of salvation into a spiritual embracing of salvation. The process of attaining salvation is implied in Paul's use of the present tense verbs "know" and "are able." From passages such as 1 Timothy 4:15-16 and 6:11-12, Timothy must combine his faith and obedience to what he knows of Scripture in order to secure his salvation. We see that Timothy's salvation is not an absolute certainty. Scripture is trustworthy (i.e., inspired revelation) and thus, it is "profitable" for what leads to salvation, but it itself does not produce of guarantee salvation.
There are other considerations, of course, but I will only mention this for brevity--even according to advocates of Sola Scriptura (e.g., William Webster; David King; James R. White), Jesus and the New Testament writers themselves did not practice such, as the canon of Scripture was still being written, and had to rely on apostolic tradition until the finalisation of the biblical texts. As such period of non-practice of Sola Scriptura was contemporary with Paul and Timothy, Timothy could not have procured such a meaning from that passage, even if Sola Scriptura was exegetically sound (which I contend it clearly is *not*). Throw in other considerations, such as how Ephesians 4 speaks more highly of the nature of the offices such as apostles, without any mention of Scripture, and the approach of Desmond Ferguson is clearly based on both eisegesis and taking an absolutist view on isolated passages of scripture.
The above two topics pertain to only a few of the pericope and issues that Desmond Ferguson has engaged in misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of the biblical texts; Sola Scriptura; Latter-day Saint scripture and theology; biblical theology; exegesis, and so forth. One other brief example is his non sequitur claim that macro-evolution happens by chance in another past issue of The Banner. Macro-evolution does not happen by chance; nothing about it is random. Evolutionary mutations were brought about via exposure to the environment and the need to adapt or die. These mutations were introduced not by random chance, as some might think, but by a gradual, albeit obvious, need to adapt to new environments or die. Ferguson's analogy of the two bedrooms that he used in his article on evolution is nothing short of a straw-man logical fallacy that is blown out of the water by this very fact, and represents either ignorance of the topic of macro-evolution (and therefore, he should refrain from commenting on such) or gross misrepresentation (which reveals even more deception on his behalf). As lousy as he is when it comes to the field of the Bible and theology, Richard Dawkins' has blown such an "argument" out of the water in The Blind Watchmaker and, to a much lesser degree, The God Delusion. Only the gullible will be fooled by such poor argumentation (sadly, they are the target audience of Ferguson's articles).
I hope that, at the very least, Desmond Ferguson will actually cease writing such ignorant articles that are designed only to fool those with little, if any grasp of the issues (sadly, they seem to be the target audience of his articles, without question). If not, such represents nothing but deception on his behalf. Hopefully, if Desmond Ferguson does respond to this e-mail, I do hope that he will not engage in obfuscation and obsessing over personalities as he did two years ago. It was revealing of his dearth of knowledge of the pertinent issues then, and it will still be the case this time around, too.
Robert Boylan
Some Basic Suggested Reading on the "number" of God in the Hebrew Bible
Barker, Margaret. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2005.
Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Craigie, Peter C. Ugarit and the Old Testament: The Story of a Remarkable Discovery and Its Impact on Old Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983.
Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.
Heiser, Michael. "The Divine Council Website." Online: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/
McGuire, Benjamin. "Reconsidering Psalms 82:6: Judges or Gods? A Proposal." Online: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsidering_Psalms_82_6.html
Patai, Raphael. The Hebrew Goddess.3d ed.; Detroit, Mich.: Wayne University Press, 1990.
Religious Texts From Ugarit. 2d ed.; Trans. N. Wyatt; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
___________, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.
Tigay, Jeffrey. Deuteronomy: JPS Commentary. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
Letter 2
From: Robert Boylan
To: Irish Church Missions
Date: 07 December 2008
Subject: Desmond Ferguson’s Continued Scripture-wrenching in The Banner
Desmond,
I e-mailed Irish Church Missions (hereafter ICM) a few months ago, providing a detailed exegesis of Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; Matthew 4:1-11 and 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and all that transpired was you phoning my Branch President, who is also a friend of mine (who, BTW, was very impressed with my piece that you kindly sent him; though I really doubt that was the reaction from him you were hoping to elicit . . .) Considering that you raised the Isaiah pericopes as a "slam-dunk" against "Mormon" theology three years ago in your "Witnessing to the Mormons" piece, as well as made an appeal to Sola Scriptura therein, perhaps, as a self-proclaimed "expert" on the LDS Church (you seem to have duped some groups into thinking this, per http://www.castleknock.dublin.anglican.org/pnews/archives/pn_2004_03.html#mu), perhaps you could actually answer my exegesis? And in light of your appeal to Matthew 4 and 2 Timothy 3 in favour of the Protestant view of the formal sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon in recent articles of The Banner, you should be expected to defend what you wrote from critique of those who, such as myself, think that Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition without proper biblical and Patristic support, and represents an anachronism if one were to conclude such is the teaching of the Bible. Of course, considering how you failed to answer the previous arguments against your "criticisms" and the like a few years ago, I am not holding my breath. Indeed, in our prior e-mail exchange over two years ago, I discussed the following issues, among others, that you blatantly ignored--
How certain critics of Latter-day Saint theology use the "they" pronoun argument against the LDS appeal to 1 Cor 15:29, notwithstanding the grammar using a Greek passive particple, hoi baptizimenoi ("the [ones] being baptised"), and, in Koine Greek grammar, such can only refer to the *Christian* practice of baptism, unless Paul otherwise stated such (which he did not).
How the actions of Joseph Smith in making changes to his revelations (cf. the 1833 A Book of Commandments with the Kirtland Revelation Book and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants [the KRB was the printer's manuscript of the 1835 D&C]), as seen through Jeremiah 36:28-32; Isaiah's re-working of 2 Kings 18:13-20:23 in Isaiah 26-39; Jeremiah's re-working of 2 Kings 24-25 in Jeremiah 52 and the two different renditions of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Other examples can be discussed, such as those discussed by Clines of Sheffield University Press in his 2001 paper, "What Remains of the Bible?" which I have attached to this e-mail, as it is a must-read for textual criticism of the Old Testament. though I doubt that you will like most of his conclusions, considering your Inerranist, Fundamentalist (capital "F") view of the nature of the Bible and inspiration . . .<g> [note: the URL for the Clines paper can be found at http://www.sheff.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurres/WhatRemains.pdf]
The errant use of Alma 7:10 by critics of the Book of Mormon, as well as the ethnocentric and non sequitur claim that Alma 11 discusses anachronistic coinage, as well as Dean Hellan's claim of the syntax of Helaman 9:6 and the inane "adieu" argument--all discussed in the letter I sent you, and, as with the e-mails I have sent you, ignored completely.
The discoveries of Nahom (NHM) and Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula (see the work of S. Kent Brown and Warren and Michaela Aston, for instance, on this issue, though I doubt you are actually aware of such due to your shoddy "research" "methodology")
An exegesis of texts such as Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema'); the Hebrew of Genesis 20:13; the Koine Greek of 1 Corinthians 8; and other texts on the topic of the "number" of God in the Bible.
The eisegesis critics of the Book of Mormon engage in when they claim that the Book of Mormon cannot possibly contain the "fullness of the Gospel" per JS-H 1; D&C 27, etc., when it does not contain all Latter-day Saint doctrines.
There were other issues apart from these that you ignored, instead opting to obsess over personalities and dance around the issues. Was your non-response to my last e-mail in July a result of the fact that I explicitly asked for you NOT to engage in such, per chance? Unlike your "Witnessing to the Mormons" article and the like, you are not engaging with LDS missionaries who, being "typical" 19-21 year olds, are not there to debate issues such as monotheism and exegesis, but to teach, and are, therefore, not familiar with, say, scholarly works on the background of Deutero-Isaiah, making them easy targets for your nonsense, but with someone who knows the issues real well, and the relevant areas, such as biblical scholarship and exegesis.
I hope that some proper, intellectual response will be forthcoming, and not one consisting of obfuscation and deafening silence when it comes to the relevant issues. Again, if you will respond to my exegesis, please engage with the facts, not personalities, as I previously requested in the e-mail I sent ICM in late-July
Robert Boylan
P.S. In your article three years ago, you made the charge that LDS leaders have been instrumental in the evolution of "Mormon" belief, and that such is incredibly fickle (my wording; not yours) that it changes, and so forth. I recently shared the following with an e-mail list that I belong to on the topic of the "the Son of [God]" change to post-1837 editions of the Book of Mormon that touch upon the claim that the Book of Mormon (and, as a result, Joseph Smith [critics ignore they commit the Intentionalist Fallacy here, but that is a different subject . . .]) taught Modalism or a strand thereof, but, through solely naturalistic means, "Mormon" theology evolved into tritheism or the like; such theories often represents methodological naturalism (e.g., "Book of Mormon Christology" by Charles from 1993). I hope the following adds food for thought, and, unlike my e-mails over two years ago, you actually bother to *read* what I have written. I am sending this to Liam Doherty, my Branch President in Tralee, so I am saving you the trouble of calling him in a pitiful attempt to stop me from revealing your false claims :-) And no doubt, as you seem to just pilfer from "counter-cult" material, you think that such a change is problematic for the Book of Mormon, notwithstanding the poor grasp of the Book of Mormon and the theology thereof (as well as Latter-day Saint theology) such represents, as seen through the work of the like of the late Walter Ralston Martin, Sandra and Jerald Tanner, and John Ankerberg and John Weldon, among others.
Here is the post I made to the e-list; I would appreciate any relevant comments on the following, as well as a proper response to my exegesis I provided against your ignorant claims.
The "the Son of [God]" Change in the Book of Mormon
When Joseph Smith prepared the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon in Kirtland, Ohio, he made a number of changes to the Book of Mormon. Some of them were fairly innocuous, others have been attacked as "evidence" against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God. As one who is well-read in textual criticism of the Bible (textual criticism is the science of determining the earliest reading of the biblical texts), it is very difficult for me to become bothered or excited by such charges made by critics. However, I wish to focus on one such change, as many claim it reflects a shift in the theology of both the Book of Mormon (post-1837) and Joseph Smith.
A number of critics of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner (Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?); Melodie Charles ("Book of Mormon Christology" in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology) and Dan Vogel ("The Earliest Mormon Concept of God" in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture), among others, claim that Joseph Smith's theology was originally Trinitarian or Modalism or Sabellianism, but changed such later in his prophetic career. Let me define these terms briefly--
Trinitarian--Three separate persons who share the same "being" or "essence." This cannot be the theology Joseph Smith originally espoused, as Jesus is referred to, not just as a person(age), but as a *being* in the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:3). Granted, Jesus and the Father, and the Holy Spirit, are said to be "one." However, *how* they are one is never spelt out, let alone Joseph Smith trying, in his fictional piece, to resolve the "homoousious" (same substance) vs. "homoiusious" (similar substance) debate in his "pious fraud," the Book of Mormon.
Modalism--One person who takes on three manifestations or "modes" of expression.
Sabellianism--Like Modalism. However, Sabellianism states that God took on the "mode" of the Father in the eternal past until the incarnation and could not "shift" modes then; the Son for thirty-three years, and then, for the rest of eternity, the Holy Spirit. Unlike Modalism, God is "stuck," so to speak, in the one mode. Unlike Modalism, there is no "shifting" modes or manifestations of the one person. This, too, is precluded by the theology of the Book of Mormon, such as Ether 3, where the pre-mortal Jesus appears to the Brother of Jared.
What is the main evidence for such a charge? The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon identified Jesus as "the Eternal Father" at 1 Nephi 11:21 and 13:40, with the modern printing of those two verses now calling him *the son of* the Eternal Father. Likewise, 1 Nephi 11:32 calls him "the Everlasting God" in the 1830 ed., but "the Son of the Everlasting Father" in post-1837 editions. Further, Mary is called "the mother of God" in 1 Nephi 11:18, but, post-1837, "the Mother of the Son of God."
Did Joseph Smith shift his theology, as evidenced by the Book of Mormon? This post will examine the claims of critics of LDS theology and the Book of Mormon.
Point #1: The textual production of the Book of Mormon: A Prelude to Exegesis
It is now almost universally accepted by Book of Mormon researchers, whether those who accept its historicity (e.g., Royal Skousen; Matthew Roper; John Tvedtnes; Daniel C. Peterson) and do not (e.g., The Tanners; Wesley Walters; Brent Metcalfe; Dan Vogel), that, after the loss of the 116 pages (which contained the Book of Lehi and, probably, the first two chapters of the Book of Mosiah), the rest of Mosiah was produced until Moroni, with 1 Nephi to the Words of Mormon being produced *last*. This is a very important consideration, for Mosiah to Moroni to the message sent to the list by accident] continually refer to Jesus as "the Son of God." I will address the "Father" passages in Mosiah 3 and 15 below. However, this alone blows holes into the argument forwarded by critics, as 1 Nephi reflects the *later* theology (assuming a naturalistic origin for the Book of Mormon [I accept its historicity, lest there be doubts about that . . .]) of the Book of Mormon, not the earliest.
Point #2: The Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon for 1 Nephi 11:18
In the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, an insert make appears between the indexicals, "the Mother of" and "God," reading *the Son of*. This alone blows the claim that such changes reflect a post-1837 shift in the theology of the Book of Mormon, for the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon was prepared *before* March 1830, when the volume was first printed! I have scanned the relevant page of the typographical facsimile of the Printer's Manuscript that shows this change. The URL is as follows:
http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr358/IrishLDS87/PB240001.jpg
The reference for such is as follows--
The Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon (2 vol.; ed. Royal Skousen; Provo, UT.: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001), 1:83.
Point #3: Jesus is differentiated from the Father in 1 Nephi 11-14
This is significant. Critics wish to take an absolutist view on those four verses cited above alone, and then formulate a theology (or at least their perception of such) of Joseph Smith, and hold such against the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint theology. However, this is poor methodology, and dare I say, stupidity. Jesus is differentiated from the Father dozens of times throughout 1 Nephi. In 1 Nephi 11, for instance, Jesus is called "the Son of God" in 1 Nephi 11:24. In 1 Nephi 11:21, one of the verses where "the Son of" is inserted (before the title *Eternal Father*), Jesus was called "The Lamb of God" in that very verse. The use of a construct state serves to differentiate the person of "the Lamb" (I.e., Jesus Christ) from "God" (the Father). There are other passages, but the proximity to 1 Nephi 11:18, 24 is important for exegetical considerations.
Point #4: Jesus is called "Father" in a Figurative Sense in the Book of Mormon
For instance, Jesus is called, figuratively, "Father" in some Book of Mormon passages. In Mosiah 3:8, Jesus is the "Father" in that He is the creator of all things; not that he is the same person as God the Father.
Point #5: Does Mosiah 15 and Ether 3 teach Modalism?
Critics claim that the person of Jesus Christ and the Father is presented in the one person in Mosiah 15:1-4 and Ether 3:14.
Mosiah 15:1-4
Mosiah 15 has never seemed very modalistic to me. Part of the whole point of modalism is that while God can take on different "modes", God is never more than one of these modes at the same time.
For Mosiah 15, it becomes an interesting exercise is to substitute the terms "immortal God" for "father" and "mortal man" for "Son"--yielding this:
1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of immortal god, being immortal god and mortal man
3 Immortal God, because he was conceived by the power of God; and mortal man, because of the flesh; thus becoming immortal god and mortal man
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the mortal man to immortal god, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the mortal man being swallowed up in the will of the immortal god.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the mortal man power to make intercession for the children of men
What the Mosiah text does not do is make a clear case for Modalism. The theology involved far exceeds the simple question of being Father and Son at the same time. This is not about "modes" or "offices" of the Godhead, but rather the dual-nature of Messiah.
This statement in the Book of Mormon has always reminded me of the statement of faith at Chalcedon:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
In other words, the Mosiah text seems concerned with trying to demonstrate the dual nature of Jesus Christ - and isn't referring to that being that we distinguish as God the Father.
Ether 3:14
I had written previously in a review of Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (available at http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/reasoning.html - the relevant text comes from my review of Rhodes' arguments against the Book of Mormon)
As for Ether 3:14, Jesus' spirit is presented as anthropomorphic (Ether 3:16). Modalists, however, hold God as an indivisible, omnipresent, immaterial spirit essence without body parts or passions . . .That the Book of Mormon treats the Father and Son as separate personages can be seen in verses such as 2 Nephi 31:11-12, 14-15; 3 Nephi 9:15; 17:4, 15; and 26:15. Furthermore, Moses 4:1-2 (from 1830) and D&C 76:20-24 (from 1832) reveal that the early revelations of the Prophet, only a short time after the publication of the Book of Mormon, treat the Father and Son as separate persons.
Point #6: Mary as "Mother of God"
In Latter-day Saint theology, Jesus is God, notwithstanding the inanity of anti-Mormon "counter-cultists" who claim that we reject his important teaching. As she gave birth to Jesus, Mary can indeed be called, "The Mother of God." Notwithstanding, within Roman Catholicism, such a title for Mary is associated with her being theotokos ("God-carrier") and other things associated with the high Mariology of Catholicism, and the baggage such terms, in modern times, carries.
I quite like Walter Martin's discussion of this in The Kingdom of the Cults, "The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God . . . Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his considerate editors changes 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 32; 13:40)." I say I like this quote, not because Martin was any good (he was a poor researcher and only fellow "counter-cultists" take him seriously), and notwithstanding his attempt at mind-reading, I do agree that Joseph changed the verse, not because the 1830 edition was influenced by Catholic (or, as Martin claims, "Romanistic" [a derogatory term, BTW]) theology, but because some would read such into the text erroroneously (like, say, Martin . . .[See point #2 for more on this]). For a good discussion on "Mary" and the development of Mariology, see Peter Schafer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah, pp. 147-216.
Point #7: The Book of Mormon and the pre-Josian theology of the Israelites
According to some Book of Mormon scholars, the theology of the Book of Mormon, with Yahweh as "Father" fit's early Israelite theology. Prior to the Deuteronomic Reformation in 622 B.C.E., El was the God of the cosmos, and the Father of "The Sons of El," or beni Elohim or beni elim. However, Yahweh, being the chief Son of God, was God of gods, and "Father" to the human race, so Nephi referring to Yahweh as "Everlasting Father" and Mary as the "Mother of God" fits early Israelite theology, with the horizontal and vertical relationships between the pantheon in heaven.
Instead of spend dozens of pages discussing such, LDS scholar, Brant Gardner presented a paper on this at the 2003 FAIR conference, accessible on-line at--
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html
A revised edition of this paper appeared in his 6-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon (which I *highly* recommend for serious students of the Book of Mormon), Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2007), 1:214-22. In light of the Sitz im Leben of the Book of Mormon, I tend to agree with Gardner--
From the perspective of Nephite theology, the 1837 change in the text might have helped the Latter-day Saints with their understanding of God, but it did violence to an essential part of the Nephite understanding of God (Second Witness, 1:216)
I highly recommend reading the essay from the FAIR Website, as it will shed light on the theology of the Book of Mormon, as it does not reflect modern "Mormon" theology (an anachronistic approach to the volume), but "Nephite" theology.
Conclusion
The claim that the "the Son of [God]" changes to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon reflects a shift in Joseph Smith's "original" theology, though popular in works critical of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, are fallacious, and often ignore the evidence (1) against the claim from the theology of the text itself and (2) the growing body of evidences supporting the historicity of the volume itself. For recent discussions of such, see Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (2002) and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited (1997), published by FARMS, and By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, published in 2002 by Oxford
Unfortunately (though not surprisingly) there has been no response from Desmond Ferguson to the above e-mails. The man knows nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Bible, etc., and should not be trusted on any topic.
Please Note the Following--Desmond Ferguson called up my local Church leader and sent him the initial e-mail I sent ICM on the topic of Ferguson’s lies about “Mormonism,” the authority of the Bible and other issues in an effort to get me to stop. Sadly for him, my Branch President, who knows me well, rather enjoyed reading my (scholarly) response to Ferguson’s nonsense. Nice try, Desmond, but answering my criticisms as opposed to going behind my back in a (lame) effort to make me look like a bad guy reveals desperation on your behalf. Of course, he and ICM do not have any legitimate counter-claims to my criticisms of their bogus and rather deceptive claims.
Note on the Greek term, “Ophilemos”--It should be noted that two Koine Greek words could have been used by Paul if he held to the view of the formal sufficiency of the Scriptures--autokreia or hikanos) but he did not. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical as it is unhistorical.