Baptisms for the Dead in the Second Temple?

[Five Solas]

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  And before someone jumps up & spouts 1 Corinthians 15:29! – it’s worth a look at the Wikipedia entry on that topic. 

;0)

So what do folks here think?

--Erik

___________________________________________

Once I wanted to be the greatest
Two fists of solid rock
With brains that could explain any feeling

--Cat Power, 2006

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  And before someone jumps up & spouts 1 Corinthians 15:29! – it’s worth a look at the Wikipedia entry on that topic. 

;0)

So what do folks here think?

--Erik

 

___________________________________________

Once I wanted to be the greatest
Two fists of solid rock
With brains that could explain any feeling

--Cat Power, 2006

Good questions, good luck though.

[longview]

The ordinance of baptism was very likely familiar to some of the Jews BEFORE the Meridian of Time (Jesus' mortal ministry).  Notice how the Pharisees and scribes did NOT question the actions of John the Baptist performing the work in the river Jordan.  They only asked by what authority John was operating under.  It was because they were jealous for their position and power in controlling the affairs of the Jerusalem Temple.

Some of you may be aware of the term "Brasen Sea" mentioned in a few places in the Old Testament.  Those references do not go into great detail about the purpose of the brass basin (large enough to immerse people into the water) that rested on the backs of 12 brasen oxens.  Here are some of the scriptures:

2nd Chronicles 4:  2 Also he (Solomon) made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.  3 And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast.  4 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

2nd Kings 16:17 And (wicked) king Ahaz (father of Hezekiah) cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brasen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones.

Jeremiah 52:17 Also the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord, the Chaldeans brake, and carried all the brass of them to Babylon.

My impression is that apostates throughout Old Testament times were hostile to this doctrine (as well as other doctrines) and went out of their way in suppressing this teaching from the canons (scriptures).  I also believe that apostates have taken precious truths out of the New Testament letters and records (which would have include more detail on Baptism for the Dead).

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  And before someone jumps up & spouts 1 Corinthians 15:29! – it’s worth a look at the Wikipedia entry on that topic. 

I can't see it being in the second temple period. First off there's no evidence for it that I'm aware of. Secondly there was no Melchizedek Priesthood authority in general distribution in the second temple period. You can argue for it at least up to Elisha and the School of the Prophets. But I don't see it being in the second temple period beyond perhaps individual prophets potentially being directly ordained by angels. (I'm not saying that's true of any second temple prophets just that I acknowledge it as a possibility) Finally a strong case could be made that baptism for the dead makes no sense until Jesus visits spirit prison and releases the prisoner.

To the wikipedia, while there isn't scholarly consensus on the topic I think there's far more scholars that accept a practice of baptism for the dead from 1 Cor 15:29 than that article suggests. Again it's not hard to find prominent scholars arguing for such a reading. That's not to say it's the consensus or even majority reading. But I think Mormons can appeal legitimately to 1 Cor 15:29 even if it's not apt to be convincing to most non-Mormons.

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, longview said:

The ordinance of baptism was very likely familiar to some of the Jews BEFORE the Meridian of Time (Jesus' mortal ministry).  Notice how the Pharisees and scribes did NOT question the actions of John the Baptist performing the work in the river Jordan.  They only asked by what authority John was operating under.  It was because they were jealous for their position and power in controlling the affairs of the Jerusalem Temple.

Note that John's baptism is a form of mikvah which is pretty common in Judaism. It's not hard to find Jewish baptismal fonts archaeologically. Note though that typically a mikvah is done by the person themselves to themselves. It's required in the Law of Moses for various ritual reasons. By the time of Christ it was required for converts to Judaism even though conversion was relatively limited at the time.

There clearly are some differences with John's baptism from the type of mikvah required under the Law of Moses. However it's pretty unclear the historic basis for John's baptism. A lot assume it's a variation on a conversion mikvah. It's possible the baptism of Alma is tied to that as in some ways as well. It's in some ways more Mosaic than Christian. Some scholars connect John with the Essenes and in turn the Essenes with the displaced legitimate priesthood of the second temple that happened during the Hellenistic conquest. But there's little consensus and quite a lot of speculation. One common scholarly speculation is that John's baptism was a priestly baptism rather than a conversion baptism. i.e. he was legitimating Jesus as a priest.

The question of authority in Matthew 21 is intriguing, especially from a Mormon perspective. 

It's worth noting that Nephite baptism seems largely novel with Nephi. Nephi in turn seems to develop the baptism largely due to a prophesy of John's baptism of Jesus that he seeks to emulate. As I mentioned Alma's baptism seems more closely tied to a traditional Jewish mikvah. We should be careful though since the brass plates represent pre-exilic Judaism and possibly quite a lot prior to Josiah's reforms and centralization of the cult. Judaism had evolved and changed quite a bit by John's time - especially due to the Babylonian captivity, the attempt to restore the temple, and then the Hellenistic conquest and transformation of Judaism with elements of platonism. So we shouldn't expect it to match the Nephites.

Regarding the molten sea, which we replicate in our temples, by the time of the priestly source it was viewed as being used just for washing of hands and feet ritually by the priests. It was actually taken off the oxen (presumably for easier access) by Ahaz. Given that the accounts we have were compiled by opposing camps rather late (~200 BC) we should be cautious in assuming we're getting an accurate picture of pre-exilic views let alone views from Solomon's time. McConkie suggests that priests baptized in it but there's really no evidence for this. His prooftext (2 Chron 4:2-6) assumes wash is baptize. But that's likely not the case although it is perhaps possible - again recognizing the problem that the few old accounts we have are likely redacted by people from the exile up to the compilation of the Old Testament.

Edited November 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  ..........................................................

Ritual purification was certainly a big deal among Jews during the 2nd temple period, and immersion baptism was a common practice long before Jesus came on the scene.  The Essenes were particularly known for it.  However, it was not a temple ordinance.

The question you are asking is really about redemption of the dead through intercession, which was a temple ordinance, as we know from the instance in II Maccabees 12:40-45 (which is part of the Roman Catholic canon), in which some Jewish soldiers, who had been killed in a recent battle, were found to have pagan idols on their persons.  In order to redeem them from that sinful state, their comrades took up a collection to pay for a temple sin-offering on their behalf.  Thus, a formal offering and prayer on their behalf was considered efficacious, but not baptism.  However, the actual Greek verbiage in II Macc 12:44 is otherwise nearly identical to that used by Paul in 1 Cor 15:29.  The KJV of II Macc 12:44 reads

Quote

"For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain, to pray for the dead."

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this board, the late non-Mormon biblical scholar James Barr believed that Paul had that very passage in mind when he authored 1 Cor 15:29.  Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Finally a strong case could be made that baptism for the dead makes no sense until Jesus visits spirit prison and releases the prisoner.

That is my take. I believe that it actually instituted after Christ's resurrection, although I have no ready reference to back it up. 

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  And before someone jumps up & spouts 1 Corinthians 15:29! – it’s worth a look at the Wikipedia entry on that topic. 

;0)

So what do folks here think?

I'm no scholar of this period, but I was never under the impression that ANY work for the dead was performed in any Jewish temple.  The ordinances of work for the dead were not established until after the death and resurrection of Christ opened those doors.  The Jewish temple was built with the old sacrifices and ceremonies in mind.  Christ's death changed the requirement of sacrifice and ordinance (or to be more precise, restored ordinances that predated the Mosaic law).

Nor was the LDS Endowment performed in the Jewish temple which was built specifically for the ordinances of the Mosaic law.  Why would we expect higher ordinances to be found there?
I am of the belief that the early Christians were baptized in rivers (and fonts) for the living and the dead.

And I also have no idea if the ordinance was carried out in early Christianity after the apostasy.  But I did find this.
12th Century Baptismal font of Renier d'Huy of Liege.

https://www.google.com/search?q=early+christian+baptismal+font&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidp--b9MPXAhUM2SYKHTLgDKcQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=895#imgrc=_

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

That is my take. I believe that it actually instituted after Christ's resurrection, although I have no ready reference to back it up. 

Glenn

Since Elijah was the last of the ancient prophets to hold this authority, he was the prophet chosen to come in the last days and restore that fulness. But what was the particular nature of the keys held by Elijah? Some have thought it was the keys of baptism for the dead; but it was not just that. There was no baptism for the dead in the days of Elijah, or before Christ bridged the gulf which separated the righteous in paradise from the wicked in the spirit world. Christ was the first to declare the gospel to the dead, and it was not until after his resurrection that the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:114) 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm no scholar of this period, but I was never under the impression that ANY work for the dead was performed in any Jewish temple.  The ordinances of work for the dead were not established until after the death and resurrection of Christ opened those doors.  

As I have already pointed out, intercession for the dead was a 2nd temple practice before Jesus was born, and this has been a theme in Judaism even after they had no temple (seeking intercession for the dead through prayer).

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 The Jewish temple was built with the old sacrifices and ceremonies in mind.  Christ's death changed the requirement of sacrifice and ordinance (or to be more precise, restored ordinances that predated the Mosaic law).

Nor was the LDS Endowment performed in the Jewish temple which was built specifically for the ordinances of the Mosaic law.  Why would we expect higher ordinances to be found there?

Yet the ritually progressive form and tripartite structure of the Tabernacle and both Jewish temples are very much analogous to LDS form and structure.  In addition we consistently find the sequence of washing, anointing, clothing, and worship in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 8:6-13, II Sam 12:20, Ruth 3:2-4), and elsewhere in the ancient world -- as so frequently pointed out by Hugh Nibley.  The entire Endowment liturgy is present in Gen 1 - 3, which takes place inside a temple (the Garden of Eden).  Repentance and salvation were the objectives in each case.

The late Frank M. Cross referred to all that as "the ritual drama of the old Israelite cultus"  (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973).  Indeed, we even find the Endowment sequence and Plan of Salvation in I Ne 1 - II Ne 33, as follows:   (1) Foundation-Creation I Ne 1 - 18, (2) Division-Fall I Ne 19 - II Ne 5, (3) Redemption-Atonement II Ne 6 - 30, and (4) Conclusion-Veil II Ne 31-33; Andrew Whitesides, August 17, 2008; J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63, with strong Israelite temple motifs; N. Rappleye, “Nephi the Good: A Commentary on 1 Nephi 1:1-3,” MormonInterpreter Blog, Jan 3, 2014, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-the-good-a-commentary-on-1-nephi-11-3/#more-4490 , observing that Nephi only began his record after building a temple (II Ne 5:16,28-30).

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am of the belief that the early Christians were baptized in rivers (and fonts) for the living and the dead...........................................

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Duncan’s interesting thread “Ordinances performed in Temple” popped a question into my head—and I’m a little embarrassed to say I’m not sure of the answer (and it seems like I ought to know).

Do LDS believe baptism for the dead was practiced in the Second Temple (destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD) and in Solomon’s Temple before that, and perhaps even earlier?

Or asked differently, has the ordinance been carried out continuously, except for an ~ 18 century hiatus between 70 AD & the time of Joseph Smith?

And if so—what is the evidence?  And before someone jumps up & spouts 1 Corinthians 15:29! – it’s worth a look at the Wikipedia entry on that topic. 

;0)

So what do folks here think?

--Erik

 

___________________________________________

Once I wanted to be the greatest
Two fists of solid rock
With brains that could explain any feeling

--Cat Power, 2006

There were baptisms, but the mention "Baptisms for the Dead", was mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the Corinthian letters (epistles), so it may be a Christian doctrine. After all, it would seem it is an ordinance that could only come after the Atonement, not before. 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The late Frank M. Cross referred to all that as "the ritual drama of the old Israelite cultus"  (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973).  Indeed, we even find the Endowment sequence and Plan of Salvation in I Ne 1 - II Ne 33, as follows:   (1) Foundation-Creation I Ne 1 - 18, (2) Division-Fall I Ne 19 - II Ne 5, (3) Redemption-Atonement II Ne 6 - 30, and (4) Conclusion-Veil II Ne 31-33; Andrew Whitesides, August 17, 2008; J. Spencer, An Other Testament, 42-63, with strong Israelite temple motifs; N. Rappleye, “Nephi the Good: A Commentary on 1 Nephi 1:1-3,” MormonInterpreter Blog, Jan 3, 2014, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-the-good-a-commentary-on-1-nephi-11-3/#more-4490 , observing that Nephi only began his record after building a temple (II Ne 5:16,28-30).

This is a great point that I don't think gets discussed enough. Ignoring the theological details here of the temple broadly speaking these are pretty prominent Mesopotamian and Egyptian themes. While it's fair to debate when more sophisticated views of the resurrection entered into Judaism proper, speaking more broadly these are just extremely common themes. Now of course critics will debate what that means. A diffusionist like Nibley would argue they arise out of basic understanding from prophets that gets corrupted as it becomes diffused. However even critics who see it more in environmental structural terms have to acknowledge that whatever one says about Mormon theology on these points, they simply aren't out of character for the ANE.

Now once we start getting into more particularities rather than broad structural similarities things get a bit more tricky. That's both because of the different strains of Christianity (types of gnosticism typically being disparaged by eastern and western Chrisianity) but also because from a theological perspective one has to ask what an actual Christ does as contrasted with the more mythic figures of Mesopotamian pantheons.

[Five Solas]

On 11/16/2017 at 12:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the actual Greek verbiage in II Macc 12:44 is otherwise nearly identical to that used by Paul in 1 Cor 15:29.  The KJV of II Macc 12:44 reads

Quote

"For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain, to pray for the dead."

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this board, the late non-Mormon biblical scholar James Barr believed that Paul had that very passage in mind when he authored 1 Cor 15:29.  Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19.

I've read II Maccabees, but I never connected 12:44 with 1 Corinthians 15:29.  That's really interesting.  

LDS often use the latter to argue their practice of baptism for the dead was part of the early Christian Church.  But by connecting it to II Maccabees - you imply that whatever it was exactly that Paul was referring to - that activity predated the early Christian Church. 

And if you are right and this is also true--

On 11/16/2017 at 2:00 PM, MDalby said:

Christ was the first to declare the gospel to the dead, and it was not until after his resurrection that the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:114) 

Then 1 Corinthians 15:29 has nothing to do with the LDS practice of baptism for the dead--because Paul is referring to an activity conducted "before the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted."  The timeline tells us 1 Corinthians 15:29 must have been about something else (even though we're not certain what or who it was).

Would you agree with my conclusion? 

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I've read II Maccabees, but I never connected 12:44 with 1 Corinthians 15:29.  That's really interesting.  

LDS often use the latter to argue their practice of baptism for the dead was part of the early Christian Church.  But by connecting it to II Maccabees - you imply that whatever it was exactly that Paul was referring to - that activity predated the early Christian Church. 

And if you are right and this is also true--

Then 1 Corinthians 15:29 has nothing to do with the LDS practice of baptism for the dead--because Paul is referring to an activity conducted "before the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted."  The timeline tells us 1 Corinthians 15:29 must have been about something else (even though we're not certain what or who it was).

Would you agree with my conclusion? 

-.............

Bear in mind that intercessory prayer and sin-offerings for the dead in the Temple is the pre-Pauline principle, and the prayer part of that continues in Judaism into later periods.  Baptism for the dead, while still intercessory, is not quite the same, and we have no clear history of the introduction or development of such a practice in early Christianity.  As for the full initiation listed in the Gospel of Philip, I recommend that we be cautious in saying what early esoteric Christian practices may have entailed.  After all, even to this day, we do not have the detailed liturgy of any of the contemporary pagan mystery religions of that time.  People simply kept their promises of secrecy.  Even so, what can be  known of early Christian esoteric rites has been assembled at http://fortydayministry.com/ .

In any case, non-Mormon scholar Lung-kwong Lo said that "According to this belief and Paul's courage to facing death as a martyr, 'baptized for the dead' in v. 29 should be understood as ordinary baptism for those who died as martyrs before they got chance to be baptized alive."   “ʽBaptized for the dead’ as an Identity Marker of Early Christianity,” paper presented Nov 20, 2011, at the SBL annual meeting in San Francisco.  I would recommend a look at some Mormon scholarship on this rite as well:

Hugh W. Nibley, "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times," online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/transcript/baptism-for-the-dead-in-ancient-times/ .

John A. Tvedtnes, “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity,” in Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, The Temple in Time and Eternity (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1086&index=4 .

You might also want to consider the deeper principle here in 1 Peter 4:5-6, "Who (all who have ever lived) shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick (those whose spirits are clothed in mortal flesh) and the dead (those spirits who no longer inhabit mortal bodies).  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead (those who are out of the body), that they might be judged according to men in the flesh (those still in the body), but live according to God in the spirit.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Then 1 Corinthians 15:29 has nothing to do with the LDS practice of baptism for the dead--because Paul is referring to an activity conducted "before the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted."  The timeline tells us 1 Corinthians 15:29 must have been about something else (even though we're not certain what or who it was).

Would you agree with my conclusion? 

I’m not quite following your argument. I think Paul is referring to practice after Christ’s death. If I read Robert right he’s just referring to broader work for the dead but not baptism for the dead.

[Five Solas]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bear in mind that intercessory prayer and sin-offerings for the dead in the Temple is the pre-Pauline principle, and the prayer part of that continues in Judaism into later periods.  Baptism for the dead, while still intercessory, is not quite the same, and we have no clear history of the introduction or development of such a practice in early Christianity.  As for the full initiation listed in the Gospel of Philip, I recommend that we be cautious in saying what early esoteric Christian practices may have entailed.  After all, even to this day, we do not have the detailed liturgy of any of the contemporary pagan mystery religions of that time.  People simply kept their promises of secrecy.  Even so, what can be  known of early Christian esoteric rites has been assembled at http://fortydayministry.com/ .

In any case, non-Mormon scholar Lung-kwong Lo said that "According to this belief and Paul's courage to facing death as a martyr, 'baptized for the dead' in v. 29 should be understood as ordinary baptism for those who died as martyrs before they got chance to be baptized alive."   “ʽBaptized for the dead’ as an Identity Marker of Early Christianity,” paper presented Nov 20, 2011, at the SBL annual meeting in San Francisco.  I would recommend a look at some Mormon scholarship on this rite as well:

Hugh W. Nibley, "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times," online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/transcript/baptism-for-the-dead-in-ancient-times/ .

John A. Tvedtnes, “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity,” in Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, The Temple in Time and Eternity (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1086&index=4 .

You might also want to consider the deeper principle here in 1 Peter 4:5-6, "Who (all who have ever lived) shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick (those whose spirits are clothed in mortal flesh) and the dead (those spirits who no longer inhabit mortal bodies).  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead (those who are out of the body), that they might be judged according to men in the flesh (those still in the body), but live according to God in the spirit.

You were making a *very* strong case for the II Maccabees 12:44 <--> 1 Corinthians 15:29 connection in your previous post, Robert F. Smith.  And now you appear to be walking it back.  A reader might think that when confronted with the implication of this connection (it refutes the LDS claim that 1 Corinthians 15:29 validates proxy baptism)--you lost your appetite for it. 

;0)

Let's take a moment to recall your previous language advocating the connection between those passages--

On 11/16/2017 at 12:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the actual Greek verbiage in II Macc 12:44 is otherwise nearly identical to that used by Paul in 1 Cor 15:29.

 

On 11/16/2017 at 12:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this board, the late non-Mormon biblical scholar James Barr believed that Paul had that very passage in mind when he authored 1 Cor 15:29.  Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19.

You can't have it both ways.  If Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29 had the words found in II Maccabees 12:44 "in mind"--then it isn't possible Paul had the LDS notion of proxy baptism "in mind"--because the latter isn't possible until after Christ's resurrection (and II Maccabees is well before).  Again, we are told--

On 11/16/2017 at 2:00 PM, MDalby said:

it was not until after his resurrection that the privilege of baptism for the dead was granted.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:114) 

The point I'm making isn't that hard to follow, is it?

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I’m not quite following your argument.

clarkgoble, are you following it now? 

And one more thing, Robert F. Smith.  I knew it was likely to be awful (based on previous experience) - but I clicked your Nibley link anyhow.  24,000+ words.  Tangent after tangent.  The off-topic and non-controversial footnoted to the nth degree.  And just when your eyes are watering and your brain is going numb from it all - he drops in a big 'ol slice of baloney.  Like this--

Who in the church performed the actual ordinance of baptizing for the dead? It was “those apostles and teachers” of the first generation, according to the Shepherd of Hermas, who “went down living into the water” in behalf of those who had died156 and in speaking of the whole affair as a thing of the past that source implies that the work was confined to those men and their generation. This is clearly borne out in our other accounts.

In the immortal words of Withnail, "What absolute twaddle."  Why would you foist this on anyone, Robert F. Smith?  You can't believe this any more than I do - so really, what's the point? 

As a side note, my brother-in-law has a large amount of shelf space in his small library dedicated to Nibley - pristine hardback copies, volume after volume.  In his mind, Nibley has proved Mormonism can go toe-to-toe with anything out there & hold its ground.  He's a great guy in many ways.  And if he ever gets around to making a careful read of any of those books...

--Erik

__________________________________________________

Well, Ramona likes her malt liquor
And a band from Wales that's called The Alarm
She said she cried when they broke up
She still plays their records at the snake farm

--Ray Wylie Hubbard, 2010

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You were making a *very* strong case for the II Maccabees 12:44 <--> 1 Corinthians 15:29 connection in your previous post, Robert F. Smith.  And now you appear to be walking it back.  A reader might think that when confronted with the implication of this connection (it refutes the LDS claim that 1 Corinthians 15:29 validates proxy baptism)--you lost your appetite for it.  .........................................

Sorry, Erik, but you are attributing to me claims I did not make.  The rite in 1 Cor 15:29 is an early Christian practice, which I placed in its larger context.  It may make you uncomfortable to deal with the fact that it makes perfect sense in context, but you need to calmly accept the facts as even non-Mormon scholars see them.

40 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You can't have it both ways.  If Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29 had the words found in II Maccabees 12:44 "in mind"--then it isn't possible Paul had the LDS notion of proxy baptism "in mind"--because the latter isn't possible until after Christ's resurrection (and II Maccabees is well before). 

As I explained, the temple sin-offering and prayers offered on behalf of those dead Jewish soldiers are not the same thing as baptism for the dead outside a temple context, but both entail intercession by the living for the dead.  These are not LDS rites, but Jewish temple and early Jewish Christian rites, demonstrating yet again that early Christianity was a Jewish sect carrying on Jewish rites taught by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus -- all in the larger context of a complete Christian liturgy (later the entire Roman Catholic liturgy) which is fully Jewish at its core, as demonstrated systematically by a number of non-Mormon scholars (Gavin, Oesterley, Werner, and Barker).  Sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

40 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

.........................................

And one more thing, .........  I knew it was likely to be awful (based on previous experience) - but I clicked your Nibley link anyhow.  24,000+ words.  Tangent after tangent.  The off-topic and non-controversial footnoted to the nth degree.  And just when your eyes are watering and your brain is going numb from it all - he drops in a big 'ol slice of baloney.  Like this--

Who in the church performed the actual ordinance of baptizing for the dead? It was “those apostles and teachers” of the first generation, according to the Shepherd of Hermas, who “went down living into the water” in behalf of those who had died156 and in speaking of the whole affair as a thing of the past that source implies that the work was confined to those men and their generation. This is clearly borne out in our other accounts.

In the immortal words of Withnail, "What absolute twaddle."  .........................................

If it is such awful twaddle, why did Roman Catholic priest Bernard Foschini see fit to answer Nibley at length in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 13/1 (Jan 1951):51-53,70-73, online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720275?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

[Five Solas]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, Erik, but you are attributing to me claims I did not make.  The rite in 1 Cor 15:29 is an early Christian practice, which I placed in its larger context.  It may make you uncomfortable to deal with the fact that it makes perfect sense in context, but you need to calmly accept the facts as even non-Mormon scholars see them.

As I explained, the temple sin-offering and prayers offered on behalf of those dead Jewish soldiers are not the same thing as baptism for the dead outside a temple context, but both entail intercession by the living for the dead.  These are not LDS rites, but Jewish temple and early Jewish Christian rites, demonstrating yet again that early Christianity was a Jewish sect carrying on Jewish rites taught by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus -- all in the larger context of a complete Christian liturgy (later the entire Roman Catholic liturgy) which is fully Jewish at its core, as demonstrated systematically by a number of non-Mormon scholars (Gavin, Oesterley, Werner, and Barker).  Sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

If it is such awful twaddle, why did Roman Catholic priest Bernard Foschini see fit to answer Nibley at length in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 13/1 (Jan 1951):51-53,70-73, online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720275?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

Well, I don't wish to put words in your mouth, Robert F. Smith.  If you're arguing 1 Cor 15:29 is just a natural/logical extension of the "larger context" of Jewish thought & practice that traces back to Maccabees and perhaps earlier--I'm good with it.  And if all that similarity you wrote about previously between 1 Cor 15:29 & Mac 12:44 just means Paul used the latter as a sort of template/style guide to make this particular post-resurrection point--again, no worries.

I like that you put an idea out there that was new to me.  So thank you for that. 

It's interesting you think a Catholic priest's response to Nibley somehow validates Nibley's work.  I'm sure Catholic priests have responded to a great many ideas over the centuries, but I wouldn't imagine their making reply (or rebuttal in this case) necessarily lends gravitas to source.  And in this case, the LDS response back to Foschini was downright insulting.  The BYU online library tells us Foschini "dogmatically rejected" Nibley.  The definition of dogmatic reads (per Google) - "Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true."  Now if that's a fair assessment (and I suspect it actually isn't--but I couldn't access your link without registering)--you'd at least have to concede Foschini was giving Nibley a taste of his own medicine. 

You'll at least acknowledge that much, am I right?

--Erik  

Edited November 20, 2017 by Five Solas
clarity + fix typo

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Well, I don't wish to put words in your mouth, Robert F. Smith.  If you're arguing 1 Cor 15:29 is just a natural/logical extension of the "larger context" of Jewish thought & practice that traces back to Maccabees and perhaps earlier--I'm good with it.  And if all that similarity you wrote about previously between 1 Cor 15:29 & Mac 12:44 just means Paul used the latter as a sort of template/style guide to make this particular post-resurrection point--again, no worries.

I like that you put an idea out there that was new to me.  So thank you for that. 

That was the main point, Erik:  That Paul was using the same argument he found in II Macc, i.e., if there is no resurrection, then why bother to engage in such rites?  He didn't say whether he approved of such intercessory rites.  We have to look elsewhere to seek evidence on that score, which is why I cited Peter, and scholars like Tvedtnes & Nibley, and the vast assemblage on esoterica available free at http://fortydayministry.com/ .

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's interesting you think a Catholic priest's response to Nibley somehow validates Nibley's work.  I'm sure Catholic priests have responded to a great many ideas over the centuries, but I wouldn't imagine their making reply (or rebuttal in this case) necessarily lends gravitas to source.  And in this case, the LDS response back to Foschini was downright insulting.  The BYU online library tells us Foschini "dogmatically rejected" Nibley.  The definition of dogmatic reads (per Google) - "Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true."  Now if that's a fair assessment (and I suspect it actually isn't--but I couldn't access your link without registering)--you'd at least have to concede Foschini was giving Nibley a taste of his own medicine. 

You'll at least acknowledge that much, am I right?.....

Of course, and it is not the only time great scholars have attacked Nibley (but why take note of someone who is so unimportant?).  Another noteworthy instance was Nibley's article in Church History, 30/2 (June 1961):131-154, about what the Mormons call “The Great Apostasy,” reprinted in Nibley's Collected Works IV:168-208.   Hans J. Hillerbrand replied in CH, 30/3 (Dec 1961):481-482, followed immediately (482-483) by a rejoinder from Robert M. Grant on behalf of the non-Mormon editors and in defense of Nibley.  Grant skewered Hillerbrand for offering fallacies in place of substantive argument from the patristic material itself.  No such reply has ever been forthcoming.

[strappinglad]

I  recently read an essay by Kevin Barney on ' Baptism for the Dead ' . It runs about 50 pages and gets quite deep into the various theories concerning 1 Cor 15:29 . I found it in the book " To seek the Law of the Lord - essays to honor John Welch " which I have mentioned before. Probably there is a link to it separately but I am not aware of one.