Sin and Resurrection in Second Maccabees

Occasionally it is suggested that Christianity's concern with the resurrection is an idiosyncratic phenomenon. Although many Jews of the Second Temple period did not believe in the resurrection, some did. Some even argued for it. Here is an example of it:

After a fierce battle, Judas and his army gathered the dead for burial:

εὗρον δὲ ἑκάστου τῶν τεθνηκότων ὑπὸ τοὺς χιτῶνας ἱερώματα τῶν ἀπὸ ιαμνείας εἰδώλων ἀφ' ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀπείργει τοὺς ιουδαίους

They found under the tunics of each of the dead things sacred to the idols of the Iamnites, which are forbidden to the Jews by the Law. (2 Maccabees 12:40)

This, of course was both something of a scandal and an obvious cause for their ill fate in battle.

ποιησάμενός τε κατ' ἀνδρολογίαν εἰς ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς δισχιλίας ἀπέστειλεν εἰς ιεροσόλυμα προσαγαγεῖν περὶ ἁμαρτίας θυσίαν πάνυ καλῶς καὶ ἀστείως πράττων ὑπὲρ ἀναστάσεως διαλογιζόμενος

εἰ μὴ γὰρ τοὺς προπεπτωκότας ἀναστῆναι προσεδόκα περισσὸν καὶ ληρῶδες ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν εὔχεσθαι

εἶτε' ἐμβλέπων τοῖς μετ' εὐσεβείας κοιμωμένοις κάλλιστον ἀποκείμενον χαριστήριον ὁσία καὶ εὐσεβὴς ἡ ἐπίνοια ὅθεν περὶ τῶν τεθνηκότων τὸν ἐξιλασμὸν ἐποιήσατο τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπολυθῆναι

After he made a collection of two thousand drachmas, he set it to Jerusalem to offer an offering for sin doing well and honestly because he considered the resurrection, for if he had not expected that those who had fallen to rise again it would have been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. Also since he saw that those who died piously had great favor laid up--the thought was holy and pious--so he made an atonement to do away with the sins of the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43–45)

There is a clear thought that action in mortality can have some effect on those who have left mortality (and one can trace such ideas in Egypt back at least as far as the Middle Kingdom). The expression in 2 Maccabees where one can pray on behalf of the dead (ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν) is echoed in Paul where he notes that one could be baptized on behalf of the dead (ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, 1 Corinthians 15:29). Both cases reflect the desire of the living to do something on behalf of those who have died that they can no longer do for themselves.

What Mothers Do

Mother's Day was yesterday, and although I was going to post this yesterday, I simply have not had time to get it written.

Ancient literature tends not to mention much about some facets of daily life, like what women do. Occasionally, one finds references to it scattered about in treatments of other things. This is a mother's description of motherhood in the middle of a war narrative:

υἱέ ἐλέησόν με τὴν ἐν γαστρὶ περιενέγκασάν σε μῆνας ἐννέα καὶ θηλάσασάν σε ἔτη τρία καὶ ἐκθρέψασάν σε καὶ ἀγαγοῦσαν εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην

Son, have mercy on me, who bore you in the womb for nine months, and nursed you for three years, and raised you, and brought you to this age (2 Maccabees 7:27)

It appears that motherhood was a lot of work back then too.

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon II

The Unparallels

In a previous post I noted some significant problems with one point of Paul Owen's latest attack on the Book of Mormon. The substance of Owen's argument is actually a series of nine parallels that he claims to find between 2 Esdras/4 Ezra 14 and 1 Nephi 13-14. Although he references his parallels, he does not actually quote them.

Sometimes it might be necessary for space constraints or because the passages are so well known to simply list the references but often failure to do so in a journal article or book is a sign that the parallels are not really that parallel.

I have had research notes on these parallels since mid-December last year but have puzzled with how to present them given the limited formatting possible on the internet. I think I have a solution (which will probably flop with those reading this on a smart phone). My comments will be flush with the left margin. Quotations of Paul Owen will be indented once. Quotations of the King James Version of 2 Esdras will be indented twice. Quotations of the Book of Mormon will be indented three times.

Here are Owen's ten points:

Paul Owen sets the following texts as parallel:

1

“1. The background of the theophanic epiphany to Ezra is the destruction of the Bible (the books of the Old Testament) and the necessity of its restoration (2 Esdras 14:21-22; cf. 1 Nephi 13:26, 28).” (Paul Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (?!) 23 [2014]: 92)

“For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:21-22)

“And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . . Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:26–28)

Owen’s argument cannot possibly hold. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that the corruption of the scriptures would occur “after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Ezra lived about five centuries earlier.

Furthermore, in the case of 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras the law has been burned. In the Book of Mormon, “they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.” So in the Book of Mormon the scriptures are still in existence whereas in 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras the scriptures are no longer in existence.

Owen has not read the Book of Mormon very carefully. 

2

  “2. This destruction of scripture has caused God's people to lose their way (2 Esdras 14:22; cf. 1 Nephi 13:27, 29).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:22)

“And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

. . .

And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.” (1 Nephi 13:27, 29)

In 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras Ezra offers to write the scriptures again so that they will exist “that men may find thy path.” According to Nephi, the scriptures still existed but they had been perverted so that “an exceedingly great many do stumble.” The whole question is whether a record of any kind survives. In 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras it has been burned and so does not survive in any form. In Nephi it survives but in a corrupted form.

3

  “3. The restoration of scripture will be accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Esdras 14:22, 40; cf. 1 Nephi 13:37, 39).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:22)

“And I took it, and drank: and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory:” (‎4 Ezra 14:40)

“And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be. . . .

And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.” (1 Nephi 13:37, 39)

There are significant differences between these passages. Ezra asks God to “send the Holy Ghost into me.” In response God tells Ezra to drink a potion and “my spirit strengthened my memory.” Ezra’s own spirit, not the Holy Ghost, strengthened his memory to recite the books as he had memorized them. Nephi, on the other hand, notes that “the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost” will be among those “who shall seek to bring forth my Zion.” Nephi sees that his own record will go among the people and that “other books” would come “forth by the power of the Lamb.” For the Book of Mormon, Jesus (the Lamb) and the Holy Ghost are not the same thing.  

4

“4. The books that are revealed to and dictated by Ezra are first written down on "writing tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24 NRSV; "box trees" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon ( cf. 1 Nephi 13:23; Mosiah 1:3).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;” (‎4 Ezra 14:24)

“And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.” (1 Nephi 13:23)

“And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.” (Mosiah 1:3)

So, because the Book of Mormon mentions “plates of brass” Owen would see these as parallel to the writing tablets mentioned in the NRSV version 4 Ezra/2 Esdras. One can make a good case that plates of brass and writing tablets are two very different things (one being permanent and the other temporary). But in this case, Owen cannot really make that argument. The NRSV did not exist in Joseph Smith’s day and so Joseph Smith (or an associate) has somehow read about “box trees” and somehow transmuted them into brass plates. That is even more miraculous than being handed actual plates of gold and thinking of plates of brass. Owen’s argument does not even make any sense.

5

  “5. Ezra (the recipient of the revelation) is to dictate the contents of these books to chosen scribes (2 Esdras 14:24). So also Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (cf. 2 Nephi 3:17; 27:9-10).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;” (‎4 Ezra 14:24)

“And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.” (2 Nephi 3:17)

“But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto another;

But the words which are sealed he shall not deliver, neither shall he deliver the book. For the book shall be sealed by the power of God, and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book until the own due time of the Lord, that they may come forth; for behold, they reveal all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof.” (2 Nephi 27:9–10)

Owen’s argument here does not work. While Ezra has a number of scribes to write for him, the passages cited from the Book of Mormon never mention scribes. In one of them Moses is provided with a spokesman because he could not speak well. The other has a book being given to a man but no scribe is mentioned. The two book of Mormon passages are connected with known biblical texts (Exodus and Isaiah). They did not develop out of apocryphal literature.

6

  “6. Only some of what is revealed to Ezra and written down is to be made public; the rest is reserved for the wise (2 Esdras 14:26, 45-46; cf. 1 Nephi 14:26, 28).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou shew secretly to the wise: to morrow this hour shalt thou begin to write.” (‎4 Ezra 14:26).

“In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.

And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:

But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:” (‎4 Ezra 14:44-46)

“And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . .

Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:26–28)

Ezra writes two hundred four books of which one hundred thirty-four can be published and seventy of which must be kept secret. Ezra is to hold back almost a third and the Book of Mormon says that two-thirds was kept back. The ratios are backwards. But the passage that Owen cites as parallel does not argue that. Nephi sees that the great and abominable church has taken away parts of the gospel. Is Owen trying to argue that God is the great and abominable church?

7

  “7. In order for God's people to have all the wisdom they need, they must have access both to the public and the esoteric texts dictated by Ezra: "For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge" (2 Esdras 14:47; cf. 1 Nephi 13:40-41).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” (‎4 Ezra 14:47)

“And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.” (1 Nephi 13:40–41)

The antecedent to “them” in the Ezra passage is “the seventy last” scrolls that Ezra may only deliver to the wise. The “last records” that the Book of Mormon refers to are those that God will bring forth in the latter days. While the scrolls that Ezra keeps are only delivered to the wise, the “last records” of the Book of Mormon are given “to all kindreds, tongues, and people.” There could not be a more stark contrast. Owen has misread 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras because God’s people (or at least the common people) have no need to “have access both to the public and the esoteric texts dictated by Ezra.”

8 

“8. The scribes who wrote on the tablets "wrote what was dictated, using characters that they did not know" (2 Esdras 14:42 NRSV; "they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon (cf. 1 Nephi 1:2; Mosiah 1:2; Mormon 9:32).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread.” (‎4 Ezra 14:42)

“Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.” (1 Nephi 1:2)

“And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.” (Mosiah 1:2)

“And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.” (Mormon 9:32)

Once again, Owen’s argument depends more upon the anachronistic NRSV than the KJV. The Book of Mormon passages that Owen cites fail to parallel the desired text in 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras in the KJV. (Was Joseph Smith a time traveler?) The Book of Mormon passages all deal with the language of the text, which is not discussed in the 4 Ezra / 2 Esdras passage as Joseph Smith (or one of his associates) would have known it. One crucial difference is that while Ezra’s scribes might not have known the characters they were using, the Book of Mormon scribes had all learned them the hard way.  

9

“9. There is a repeated emphasis on the mouth of Ezra (2 Esdras 14:38,39, 41; cf. 1 Nephi 13:23,24, 38; 14:23).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92)

“And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, he reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire.” (‎4 Ezra 14:38-39)

This is a silly argument. Owen teaches (or used to teach) Hebrew. He should recognize this Hebrew idiom (which is also used in other ancient languages).  

10

“10. What was previously revealed to Moses is now freshly disclosed to Ezra (2 Esdras 14:5-6, 21-22; cf. 1 Nephi 14:24-26, 29).” (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 93)

“And told him many wondrous things, and shewed him the secrets of the times, and the end; and commanded him, saying, These words shalt thou declare, and these shalt thou hide.” (‎4 Ezra 14:5-6)

“For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.” (‎4 Ezra 14:21-22)

“And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see. But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.” (1 Nephi 14:24–25)

“And I bear record that I saw the things which my father saw, and the angel of the Lord did make them known unto me.” (1 Nephi 14:29)

Owen does not tell his reader that the antecedent to “him” in 4 Ezra 14:5 is Moses (back in 4 Ezra 14:3). The Book of Mormon refers not to Moses but to John. Nephi refers to an angel, but Ezra never does.

Owen argument works only if one assumes his conclusion, which makes it a circular argument.

Owen realizes that his argument on point four is a little weak:

It should be noted, however, that even if these two features on the list of parallels are removed entirely from consideration, the remaining eight points still constitute a striking cluster of shared characteristics that tend to support a literary dependence on the text of 2 Esdras on the part of the author of 1 Nephi (whoever he was). (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 96.)

In reality though, none of his parallels are very strong or support a literary dependence of 1 Nephi on 2 Esdras / 4 Ezra.

Something in the editorial process clearly failed here. A good editor or peer reviewer should have been able to tell the difference between scholarship and sleight-of-hand.

On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon I

Paul Owen is a fairly nice guy. I know him. He is, nonetheless, an anti-Mormon. He has written books explicitly attacking Mormonism in general and the Book of Mormon in particular. His latest article also attacks the Book of Mormon. He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a "fictional (though ancient) narrative" (Paul Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13-14," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (?!) 23 [2014]: 100):

What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 99)

Since the Book of Mormon claims to have come from the New World, Owens is arguing that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.

Owen thinks that Joseph Smith took the narrative of the Book of Mormon (or at least 1 Nephi 13-14) from the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras. Owen does not explain that the 2 Esdras he discusses is not the 2 Esdras of the Septuagint but is the book that is also known as 4 Ezra. The earliest known version of it is not in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but in Latin.

Owen skirts the issue of whether his proposal that it is authentically ancient and still modern fiction is logically coherent, but setting that concern aside for the moment, let us look at one particular point of his argument.

Owen thinks that Joseph Smith took the idea of brass plates from 2 Esdras/4 Ezra:

The books that are revealed to and dictated by Ezra are first written down on "writing tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24 NRSV; "box trees" KJV). So also the Book of Mormon ( cf. 1 Nephi 13:23; Mosiah 1:3).

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 92.)

Owen argues that "those curious references to Jews writing on "tablets" (2 Esdras 14:24) in obscure characters (2 Esdras 14:42)" are the origin of the idea of the Book of Mormon being written in strange characters on plates of gold or brass (Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 95). Therefore,

Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge.

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 94.)

Consequently, Owen maintains

that the gold plates that were shown to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni [were] not necessarily historical artifacts from the history of the America

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 97.)

Owen thinks that his speculations 

would allow the Book of Mormon to be taken as simultaneously modern and fictional, on the one hand, and miraculous and inclusive of authentic ancient material on the other. It would thus bring the manner of the production of the Book of Mormon more in line with the restoration of other ancient texts (e.g., the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, Doctrine and Covenants 7).

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture," 98.)

So Owens makes the sweeping claim that like the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, and part of the Doctrine and Covenants are fictional as well.

There are a couple of small problems with Owen's thesis. I will deal only with the problems with 2 Esdras/4 Ezra being the origin of the idea of the plates.

1
Owen gets the notion of "writing tablets" from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was first published in 1989. The King James Version of the passage, which would have been available to Joseph Smith reads:

But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly; (2 Esdras/4 Ezra 14:24, KJV).

Owen does not actually cite the passage because his reader would have found his argument confused by the actual evidence.

So Owen appears to be arguing that Joseph Smith got his basic scenario for the Book of Mormon by reading a translation that was published 155 years after he died like Owen did. This argument is anachronistic.

2
Owen attempts to obfuscate the issue by opining:

there can be no doubt that Joseph Smith's access to 2 Esdras provides a simple, straightforward explanation of the textual evidence-with the exception of one point. The references in the text of 2 Esdras to Jews writing on "tablets" in "obscure characters" are unclear in the King James translation available to Joseph Smith. While a bit mysterious, this could potentially be explained in several ways: (1) Smith (or someone in his circle) could have intuitively surmised (based on the context) the underlying meaning of the King James renderings "box trees" (2 Esdras 14:24) and "which they knew not" (14:42) in a way that happens to correspond to modern English translations. (2) Smith (or someone in his circle) could have had access to annotations on the Apocrypha through various sources (libraries, local ministers, bookstores) that clarified the meaning. (3) These particular parallels between 1 Nephi 13-14 and 2 Esdras 14 could be coincidental, parallels of which Smith and his associates actually had no awareness prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

(Owen, "Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture,"96.)

Of course, Owen's argument has major historical problems:

a
Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described him as

a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.

( Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations (Lamoni, IA: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1912, reprinted Independence, Missouri: Herald, 1969), 92 = Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1901), 82.)

Joseph Smith had not read the Bible and was not inclined to read much anyway.

b
Joseph Smith's close associates, like David Whitmer, agreed with Lucy Mack Smith claiming that when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon:

Smith was ignorant of the Bible.

(M. J. Hubble interview of David Whitmer, 13 November 1886, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin, 1991), 211.)

c
Multiple accounts of the First Vision indicate that Joseph Smith found James 1:5 simply by flipping through the Bible at random. In an 1843 interview, Joseph Smith said that:

There was a reformation among the different religious denominations in the neighborhood where I lived, and I became serious, and was desirous to know what Church to join. While thinking of this matter, I opened the Testament promiscuously on these words, in James, 'Ask of the Lord who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.' I just determined I'd ask him.

("The Praries, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, &c." The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 [September 15, 1843]: 3, reprinted in Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 1:444.)

Alexander Niebaur records Joseph Smith as telling him:

Joseph tolt us the first call he had a Revival meeting his mother & Br & Sist got Religion, he wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & sho shout like the Rest but could feel nothing, opened his Bible f the first Passage that struck him was if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberallity & upbraidat not went into the Wood to pray

(Alexander Neibaur Journal, 24 May 1844, in Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:641.)

d
Joseph Smith's own Bible was not purchased until 8 October 1829 when the Book of Mormon was being printed.

e
Joseph Smith seems to have first systematically read the Bible when he was doing his own translation. When he got to the apocrypha (such as 2 Esdras/4 Ezra) he received D&C 91 and consequently seems to have skipped the apocrypha altogether. He thus seems never to have read any of the apocrypha in his life.

So Joseph Smith never read the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon, did not even own one, and was ignorant of it. He seems never to have read the apocrypha in his life. The idea that he got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading an apocryphal book seems far-fetched.

3
If Joseph Smith were to get the idea for the plates by reading an apocryphal book, then why 2 Esdras/4 Ezra and not 1 Maccabees? After all, Jews writing on brass plates is explicitly mentioned there:

τοῦτο τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἧς ἀντέγραψαν ἐπὶ δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

This is the copy of the letter which they copied on brass plates (1 Maccabees 8:22).

ἔγραψαν πρὸς αὐτὸν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

And they wrote to him brass plates (1 Maccabees 14:18)

καὶ κατέγραψαν ἐν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς καὶ ἔθεντο ἐν στήλαις ἐν ὄρει σιων

And they wrote down in brass plates and placed them on stele on Mount Zion (1 Maccabees 14:26)

τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην εἶπον θέσθαι ἐν δέλτοις χαλκαῖς

And they said to put this writing on brass plates (1 Maccabees 14:48)

These passages would not necessarily have helped Joseph Smith because this is how they were translated in the King James Version:

And this is the copy of the epistle which the senate wrote back again in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that there they might have by them a memorial of peace and confederacy: (1 Maccabees 8:22 KJV)

They wrote unto him in tables of brass, to renew the friendship and league which they had made with Judas and Jonathan his brethren: (1 Maccabees 14:18 KJV)

So then they wrote it in tables of brass, which they set upon pillars in mount Sion: and this is the copy of the writing; The eighteenth day of the month Elul, in the hundred threescore and twelfth year, being the third year of Simon the high priest, (1 Maccabees 14:27 KJV)

So they commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set up within the compass of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place; (1 Maccabees 14:48 KJV)

While none of these passages match the language of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith probably never saw them in his life, they are much closer than imagining that Joseph Smith somehow got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading about box trees.

Summation

Paul Owen's argument posits that Joseph Smith got the idea for the Book of Mormon by reading a book which historical sources deny that he read, in a translation published over a century and a half after he died.

There are a number of words one could use to describe Owen's argument, but scholarship is not one of them.

The Normal Run of Things

A passage in 1 Maccabees illustrates how foreign policy was conducted in the ancient world (or at least the Hellenistic world). The Seleucid general has kidnapped the Hasmonean ruler, Jonathan:

And now send a hundred talents of silver and two of his sons as hostages and do not allow rebellion from us and we will release him (1 Maccabees 13:16).

A conquering power would demand tribute and hostages to keep conquered subjects submissive and in line. The idea was that if the subjected revolted them the hostages would be killed. The tribute would be expected on an annual basis. This is the normal way that things worked. One can see the same procedures at work in the El-Amarna letters from a thousand years earlier.

In this case:

Simon knew that he spoke with deception to him (1 Maccabees 13:17).

That too, unfortunately, was not uncommon either.

Secular and Theological Vocabulary

Words are often used in a number of different ways. Many words are just normal words that are used in many different circumstances. Some are technical terms used in special circumstances. There are often special dictionaries to explain technical terms in foreign languages. Theological vocabulary is one set of specialty vocabulary and those who are studying the New Testament have numerous dictionaries to explain the special nuances of vocabulary that is seen as technical theological vocabulary with special significance. Using these dictionaries is normally seen as a way of unpacking the theological significance of a scriptural passage.

One can perhaps go overboard with this tendency. Here is an example of a passage that is filled with technical theological vocabulary where it might be helpful to translate it to bring out the special theological meaning of the passage:

9 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρέσβεις πρὸς δημήτριον τὸν βασιλέα λέγων δεῦρο συνθώμεθα πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς διαθήκην καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν θυγατέρα μου ἣν εἶχεν ἀλέξανδρος καὶ βασιλεύσεις τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ πατρός σου
10  μεταμεμέλημαι γὰρ δοὺς αὐτῷ τὴν θυγατέρα μου ἐζήτησεν γὰρ ἀποκτεῖναί με
11  καὶ ἐψόγισεν αὐτὸν χάριν τοῦ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὸν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ
12  καὶ ἀφελόμενος αὐτοῦ τὴν θυγατέρα ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν τῷ δημητρίῳ καὶ ἠλλοιώθη τῷ ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ ἐφάνη ἡ ἔχθρα αὐτῶν
13  καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πτολεμαῖος εἰς ἀντιόχειαν καὶ περιέθετο τὸ διάδημα τῆς ἀσίας καὶ περιέθετο δύο διαδήματα περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς αἰγύπτου καὶ ἀσίας
14  ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἦν ἐν κιλικίᾳ κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς ἐκείνους ὅτι ἀπεστάτουν οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων ἐκείνων
15  καὶ ἤκουσεν ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ἦλθεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ ἐξήγαγεν πτολεμαῖος καὶ ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐν χειρὶ ἰσχυρᾷ καὶ ἐτροπώσατο αὐτόν
16  καὶ ἔφυγεν ἀλέξανδρος εἰς τὴν ἀραβίαν τοῦ σκεπασθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς πτολεμαῖος ὑψώθη
17  καὶ ἀφεῖλεν ζαβδιηλ ὁ ἄραψ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τῷ πτολεμαίῳ (1 Maccabees 11:9–17)

9 And he sent out ambassadors as apostles to Demetrius, the king, saying: Come let us make a covenant with each other and I will give you my daughter whom Alexander has married and you shall rule the kingdom of your father.
10 I have repented of giving my daughter to him since he has sought to kill me.
11 And he blamed the same grace of him lusting for his kingdom.
12 And having expiated his daughter, he gave her to Demetrius and alienated Alexander and their enmity was revealed.
13 And Ptolemy entered into Antioch and began to bestow the crown of Asia and began to bestow two crowns around his head, that of Egypt and Asia.
14 Alexander the king was in Cicily in those days since those in that place had apostatized.
15 And Alexander heard and came to war against him and exegeted war and he answered him with a strong hand and furnished him with an oar thong.
16 And Alexander fled into Arabia to be protected there, but King Ptolemy was exalted.
17 And Zabdiel, the Arab, expiated the head of Alexander and sent it as an apostle to Ptolemy.

This is certain to reveal much deeper theological significance than a secular translation would:

9 And he sent ambassadors  to Demetrius, the king, saying: Come let us make a treaty with each other and I will give you my daughter whom Alexander has married and you shall rule the kingdom of your father.
10 I have reconsidered giving my daughter to him since he has sought to kill me.
11 And he blamed him because he desired his kingdom.
12 And having taken back his daughter, he gave her to Demetrius and alienated Alexander and their enmity was open.
13 And Ptolemy entered into Antioch and wore the crown of Asia and began to wear two crowns around his head, that of Egypt and Asia.
14 Alexander the king was in Cicily in those days since those in that place had revolted.
15 And Alexander heard and came to war against him and waged war and he opposed him with a strong arm and set him to flight.
16 And Alexander fled into Arabia for protection there, but King Ptolemy was victorious.
17 And Zabdiel, the Arab, took off the head of Alexander and sent it to Ptolemy.

On second thought, perhaps some passages do not have deep theological meaning even if they are scriptural and even if they are filled with technical theological terms.

The Interconnected Ancient World V: The Uses of Fish Gall

In his discussion of Norse magic, Stephen Mitchell brings up an example of Nordic "magic" from "medieval Nordic leechbooks":

One recommends that the gall of a black dog, or of a particular kind of fish, be burned in a wooden vessel and used as a remedy against witchcraft and diabolical influences. A Danish formula against wantonness calls for a potion made of the leaves of a plant mixed with liquid, although what makes it stand out is the instruction that the brew should be blended while the Pater noster is being "read." Modern readers naturally assume that recipes of this sort are a form of magic.

But how would medieval users have understood such practices? If a petitioner were to intone phrases invoking a pagan god or the Christian deity while burning the fish gall, for example, would we understand it as a religious practice? Or if the fumes of gall were believed to have a specific chemical or pharmacological purpose, should we then understand this practice as a kind of primitive science? And are the answers we give to these queries merely elusive matters of perspective, or are they in fact hard and fast conclusions, as true in the modern context as they would have been in pre-Christian Scandinavia?

(Stephen A. Mitchell, Witchcraft and Magic in the Nordic Middle Ages [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011], 25-26.)

Mitchell brings these examples of Nordic medicine up to raise the point of whether they constitute "magic." The question he does not raise is whether they are Nordic. I have my doubts about whether this is particularly pre-Christian Nordic because it appears elsewhere in a standard version that was known in Scandinavia among the Christians.

Burning the gall of a particular kind of fish to drive out demons is found in the book of Tobit. The book of Tobit is considered one of the apocryphal books because it is found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. It was, however, considered biblical in the Catholic church in medieval times. The modern Icelandic version of the passage in question (Tobit 6:7-9) is:

Og ungi maðurinn sagði við engilinn: “Bróðir Asaría, til hvers er hjartað, lifrin og gallið úr fiskinum?” Og hann svaraði: “Hjartað og lifrin eru til þess, að ef ári eða illur andi þjáir enhvern, þá á að brenna því sem reykelsi fyrir manninum eða konunni, þá verða þau ekki framar þjáð.”

(Those looking for a translation can see here.) Here the angel specifically says that if someone is suffering from a demon or evil spirit that burning the guts of a fish in front of the afflicted man or woman will drive away the demon. (It worked in Tobit's case.) Here we see a Hellenistic Near Eastern folk practice becoming a medieval Scandinavian one.

Singing Hymns in 1 Maccabees

After a big battle, the Maccabees sang a hymn:

καὶ ἐπιστραφέντες ὕμνουν καὶ εὐλόγουν εἰς οὐρανὸν ὅτι καλόν ὅτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ

And they returned singing hymns and they praised heaven: "For he is good and his mercy endureth forever" (1 Maccabees 4:24)

The line "For he is good and his mercy endureth forever" is actually the name of the psalm that they sang. It was Psalm 118 which repeats the line a number of times during the course of the psalm. It is also said to have been sung in 2 Chronicles 5:13; 7:3; and Ezra 3:11. It appears to have been one of the more popular of the psalms. It seems to be less popular in modern times.

Accepting the Will of Heaven

At the end of a rousing speech urging the defense of the temple, Judas Maccabees tells the people:

ὡς δ' ἂν ᾖ θέλημα ἐν οὐρανῷ οὕτως ποιήσει

Whatsoever be the will in heaven, so it will be done. (1 Maccabees 3:60)

This, of course, is echoed in the Lord's Prayer:

γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.

May thy will happen, as in heaven, so also on earth. (Matthew 6:10)

The hope is that the will of heaven will happen on earth, which does not seem likely to be the case most of the time. This life is a time when terrible things happen on earth. Men do terrible things to each other. Sometimes these terrible things are feigned to be the will of heaven. I have a hard time believing that firing a single mother who has done nothing wrong, for example, and leaving her without means of support is really the will of heaven. (James 1:27 argues against such a perverse notion.) What this means is that after two thousand years the Lord's Prayer is still valid.

Salvation as Politics

When Judas the Hammerer went to war against the Persians, he began to have success against them. The account in 1 Maccabees says of his military victories that

εὐοδώθη σωτηρία ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ

salvation prospered in his hand (1 Maccabees 3:6)

So the idea that salvation could be a political or military matter was certainly attested in ancient Judaism. The ancient notion of salvation incorporates political and military success, but includes much more than those notions. It also encompassed ideas of healing, and of eternal life.

Reasons to Revolt

There are only a few good reasons to rebel, and no good reasons if one is rebelling against God. One rationale for rebellion might be supplied in 1 Maccabees.

The Seleucid ruler, Antiochus, wanted a united empire and decided to unite the empire under worship of his gods and thus required all to sacrifice to his gods. Here is the setting for the revolt:

καὶ ἦλθον οἱ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως οἱ καταναγκάζοντες τὴν ἀποστασίαν εἰς μωδεϊν τὴν πόλιν ἵνα θυσιάσωσιν

And those who were compelling the apostasy came from the king to the city of Modein so that they might sacrifice. (1 Maccabees 2:15)

Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, was approached, as a priest and leader in the community to set the example for everyone else and sacrifice like a good citizen.

καὶ ἀπεκρίθησαν οἱ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ εἶπον τῷ ματταθια λέγοντες ἄρχων καὶ ἔνδοξος καὶ μέγας εἶ ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ καὶ ἐστηρισμένος υἱοῖς καὶ ἀδελφοῖς
νῦν πρόσελθε πρῶτος καὶ ποίησον τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως ὡς ἐποίησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ιουδα καὶ οἱ καταλειφθέντες ἐν ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἔσῃ σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου τῶν φίλων τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου δοξασθήσεσθε ἀργυρίῳ καὶ χρυσίῳ καὶ ἀποστολαῖς πολλαῖς


And the messengers from the king said to Mattathias answered, saying, You are a leader, and notable, and great in this city and are supported by sons and brothers. Now go first and do the command of the king as all the nations and the men of Judah and those who have left Jerusalem have done, and you and your sons will be friends of the king and you and your sons will be glorified with silver and gold and many gifts.

This would have been a tempting moment for those who wish to go along and get along. What could be so bad about obeying the direct order of the king?

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ματταθιας καὶ εἶπεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ εἰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν οἴκῳ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ βασιλέως ἀκούουσιν αὐτοῦ ἀποστῆναι ἕκαστος ἀπὸ λατρείας πατέρων αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾑρετίσαντο ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς αὐτοῦ
κἀγὼ καὶ οἱ υἱοί μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου πορευσόμεθα ἐν διαθήκῃ πατέρων ἡμῶν
ἵλεως ἡμῖν καταλιπεῖν νόμον καὶ δικαιώματα
τῶν λόγων τοῦ βασιλέως οὐκ ἀκουσόμεθα παρελθεῖν τὴν λατρείαν ἡμῶν δεξιὰν ἢ ἀριστεράν

Mattathias answered and said with a loud voice: Even though all the nations which are in the dominion of the king of kings obey him and each apostatizes from the worship of his fathers and delights in his commandments, I and my sons and my brethren will walk in the covenant of our fathers. Far be it from us to abandon the law and ordinances. We will not obey the word of the king to turn aside from our worship to the right or to the left. (1 Maccabees 2:15–22)

Mattathias's answer is that covenant with God trumps the command of the king. Obeying the law is good, but the law of God takes precedence over the law of man.

Maccabees frames the issue of apostasy, which is rebellion, as rebellion against God rather than rebellion against the king.

So Mattathias started a rebellion that eventually succeeded in liberating Judea from the Persians. But the justification for the rebellion was rooted in covenants with God made and kept.

John and Jonathan

There are many people who think that John is a shortened form of Jonathan. If that were the case, one might wonder why Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, had children named both John and Jonathan (1 Maccabees 2:2-5).

John comes from Hebrew Yohhannan and means "Jehovah is merciful." Jonathan comes from Hebrew Yohnatan and means "Jehovah has given (a son)." They are not the same name and were not interchangeable.

The Abomination of Desolation

The English phrase "abomination of desolation" comes from the King James translation of Matthew 24:15. The Greek phrase is τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. As Jesus says, it appears in Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11: 31. It also appears in 1 Maccabees 1:54.

Daniel 9:27 uses the concept after mentioning that it will occur after the Messiah is cut off (yikkaret; Daniel 9:26).

Daniel 11:31 says that it will come after the sanctuary of the temple is polluted and the daily sacrifice is taken away.

The mention in 1 Maccabees 1:54 is perhaps more interesting because the use of the phrase is not a prophecy but rather in a historical text. The situation described is clearly depicted as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel. (Jesus projects it as still in the future.) Prefaced to this use is a description of the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Antiochus wanted a unified populous (1 Maccabees 1:41) and wanted his empire to go in a new direction, therefore he commanded "each to abandon his customs" (1 Maccabees 1:42). As a consequence, "many from Israel were happy to serve him and they sacrificed to idols and violated the Sabbath" (1 Maccabees 1:43) and "to follow the customs of the heathen" (1 Maccabees 1:44). They stopped the sacrifices (1 Maccabees 1:45), and "polluted the holy things" (1 Maccabees 1:46). They built altars to idols (1 Maccabees 1:47), "so that they forgot the law and changed all the judgments and whosoever would not do according to the command of the king was put to death" (1 Maccabees 1:49-50). Furthermore, they set up overseers (ἐπισκόπους, "bishops" although "spies" might be a better translation in the context) to insure that everyone followed the new way of thinking. "Everyone who abandoned the law and did evil in the earth" was promoted into positions of responsibility (1 Maccabees 1:52). And then, "on the fifteenth of Chaseleu, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, an abomination of desolation (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως) was established at the altar" (1 Maccabees 1:54).


This passage shows the processes that led the authors of 1 Maccabees to decide that the prophecy of Daniel had been fulfilled. Polluting the sanctuary and cutting off the daily sacrifices are both mentioned to draw the reader's attention that the conditions had been met. But following the Gentile customs and doing things their way. Covenants and the law were both abandoned. Spies were put in place to report and insure that everyone behaved the way that the new regime wanted them to. And "they burned the books of the law which they found" (1 Maccabees 1:56). It was, after all, important to rewrite the history and make the previous orthodoxy disappear.

This description from Maccabees supplies an understanding of what Jesus was predicting for the future of Christianity before his death.

Apostasy in 1 Maccabees

Anyone who is at all familiar with the basic story of the revolt of the Maccabees will not be surprised that the book opens up discussing apostasy. The successors of Alexander, according to the author, "filled the earth with evil" (1 Maccabees 1:9):

In those days [the days of Antiochus Epiphanes] wicked sons came from Israel and persuaded many saying: We will go and make a covenant with the nations round about us, since we have abstained from them many evils have come upon us. And the saying was good in their eyes. And some of the people were pleased and went to the king, and he gave them authority to enact the standards of the Gentiles. And they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the custom of the Gentiles. And they made themselves uncircumcised and apostatized from the holy covenant and joined themselves to the heathen and sold themselves to do iniquity. (1 Maccabees 1:11-15)

So the author sets up the opposition, one can make a covenant with God or with the Gentiles, one cannot keep both. Those who wanted to accommodate the world are depicted as apostatizing from their covenants. Unlike some uses of the verb apostatize in Greek, the apostates are depicted as not revolting against the king, but their covenants. The king, who has already been identified as wicked, gives them authority to do what they want. So, for Maccabees, apostasy may be perfectly compatible with possessing authority. They also have standards, but those standards are those of the Gentiles rather than those deriving from the covenant.

Of course, one of the historical ironies of the Maccabees is that while the Maccabees revolted against a corrupt monarch, they became equally corrupt in their turn. Apostasy is a constant problem.

Greco-Roman Hittites

The Hittites, for modern scholars, a nation of people living in Anatlia from about 1800-1200 BC. The spoke the earliest attested Indo-European language, a distant cousin to English. (The Hittite word for water is watar.) The Hittites seem to have been wiped out aroun the time the Israelites entered the promised land.

Most of the Hittites in the Bible (think Uriah the Hittite, you know, the guy David betrayed to his death to cover up his adultery with Uriah's wife, Bathsheba) are the various Neo-Hittite kingdoms in the areas of modern Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. They too spoke an Indo-European language, Luwian, but also Aramaic, a Semitic language. These kingdoms disappeared in the Assyrian expansion by the end of the eighth century. Conventional wisdom says there were no more Hittites after that time.

Conventional wisdom is wrong.

1 Maccabees opens with the words:

And it came to pass, after the conquest of Alexander, son of Philip of Macedon, who came from the land of the Hittites (Χεττιμ), and he smote Darius, the king of the Persians and the Medes, and he reigned in his stead, and previously over Greece. (1 Maccabees 1:1)

The author of Maccabees identifies those place on the other side of the Mediterranean, not to mention Anatolia, as the land of the Hittites (Χεττιμ). This is also reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Commentary on Habakkuk, the enemies of Israel (such as the Chaldeans) are identified as Hittites, which seems to indicate the same thing as it does in Maccabees. Modern scholars have often identified the Hittites of the Habakkuk Commentary as the Romans. It seems, in light of the Septuagint, that the term Hittite could either be a geographic or linguistic designation. Geographically it would be the lands northward and across the sea from Israel. Linguistically it would mean Indo-Europeans.

Thus a notion of Hittites continues at least a millennium after the people that modern scholars recognize as Hittites have disappeared from the scene.

Something to Remember the Next Time You Gut a Fish

The book of Tobit is part of the real Apocrypha, that is books that are part of the Septuagint--the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible--but excluded from the Hebrew Bible.

When Tobit and the angel Raphael (disguised as a relative of Tobit) are journeying by the Tigris, they catch a fish.

And the angel said to him: Gut the fish and taking out the heart and the liver and the gall, set them carefully aside. (Tobit 6:5).

After eating the fish, Tobit asks:

Azaria, my brother, what is the liver and heart and gall of the fish? And he said to him: The heart and the liver, if someone is bothered by a demon or an evil spirit, he should smoke these before a man or woman and he will never be bothered again. (Tobit 6:7-9)

When they approach Ecbatana, Raphael tells Tobit of his intention to have Tobit marry Sarah, the woman whose previous seven husbands had been killed by demons. The marriage is agreed upon, the documents are drawn up and the wedding feast is made.

When the feasters were finished, they led Tobit to her. When he was going he remembered the words of Raphael and took the ashes of the incense-burner and placed upon them the heart of the fish and the liver and smoked them. When the demon smelled the smell, he fled to Upper Egypt. (Tobit 8:1-3)

Remember, the fish was caught in the Tigris which is about 350 miles away by today's roads. So the fish was probably at least a month old and had not been refrigerated. Of course the demon Asmodeus wanted to flee to Upper Egypt a thousand miles away. Sarah, Tobit's new bride, probably did as well after getting such a wedding present.

Nothing quite says "I love you" like smoked fish guts.

Seven Grooms for One Sister

One of the more famous passages in the book of Tobit occurs in the third chapter:

In that day it happened to the daughter of Ragouel, Sarah in Ecbatana of the Medes and she was rebuked by the maid-servants of her father because she was given to seven husbands and Asmodeus, the evil demon, killed them before she could be with them as a wife, and they said to her: Don't you understand that you have strangled your husbands; you have already had seven and never taken the name of any of them. (Tobit 3:7-8).

The comparison is usually with Matthew 22:25-28, a puzzle set to Jesus by the Sadducees.

There were among us seven brothers and the first, having married, died and not having seed, left his wife to his brother. Likewise the second and the third until the seventh. Last of all the wife died. In the resurrection, therefore, of whom of the seven is she the wife, for all were married to her.

The difference is that in the puzzle set by the Sadducees, the husbands are brothers. That is not said in Tobit, where there are simply seven husbands. In Tobit, the marriages were never consummated. In Matthew nothing is said about that and the presumption is that they were all consummated. So, while there are similarities between Tobit and Matthew, they do not go very deep. Tobit may serve as a backdrop to the Sadducees' question, but the differences should not be ignored.

What a Woman

The story of Judith shows a very different take on the ideal woman from the modern woman.

The key parts are in the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of Judith. In the twelfth chapter Judith dresses provocatively and seduces Holofernes. He gets drunk and passes out, apparently not noticing that she was not drinking. Then in the thirteenth chapter, Judith takes Holofernes own sword and cuts off his head. She then puts it inside a sack and carries it back to her besieged city where it is hung from the wall. Holofernes' men discover him dead and decapitated and the siege is lifted.

Judith is portrayed as a pious woman. But her piety does not fit well with most modern notions of a pious woman (she is much more in the model of Jael in the book of Judges), although she does fit the modern movie heroine.

Nebuchadnezzer as God

In the book of Judith, Holophernes, chief general of the armies of Assyria, makes the following argument:

Who is God if not Nebuchadnezzar? He sends his might and he will destroy them from the face of the earth, and God will not save them (Judith 6:2).

A variation on the might make right argument, this one is more might makes not just right but deity. The standard ancient rebuttal was to point out that God could not only destroy but create as well. Any idiot can destroy something. Many of them do so unintentionally. To create, to build, shows more divinity than destruction does.

Apostasy in Judith

The following sentiment is one that we typically associate with the Book of Mormon. It comes, instead from the apocryphal book of Judith in a brief summation of Israelite history:

As long as they did not sin against their God, they had the good things, for God is one who hates iniquity among them; but when they apostatized from the way which he set for them, they were destroyed . . . (Judith 5:17-18).

So, according to this God set for Israel a path, a way, for Israel to go in. As long as they followed the path that he set, they were blessed with good things. This would have included peace, prosperity and posterity. Leaving the path that God had set is termed apostasy. It is a rebellion against his plans. This apostasy brought consequences; they lost both the good that they once possessed and they were destroyed.

The Book of Mormon sees the same pattern applying to the descendants of Israel in its times. Modern apostles say that the same still applies in our day. We should not be surprised to watch it happen.