Introduction The Ensign Zarahemla Branch The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints September 2007 Newsletter Pastor s Corner Elder Bob Moore Other books of the Bible received the same scrutiny first given to Genesis. Eichhorn s Introduction to the Old Testament (1790) suggested two different authors for Isaiah. The reason: whoever wrote the last half of the book of Isaiah (chapters 40-66) must be a different author than the person who wrote the first half of the book (chapters 1-39). Supporters of this assertion call this unknown author Deutero-Isaiah (the second Isaiah) and conclude that he lived about 200 years after the time of the first Isaiah, after Cyrus defeat of Babylon and the conqueror s liberation of the Jews. Their rationale for this claim: both Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 predict the name of the Jewish liberator as Cyrus. They reject any notion that God would reveal such specific details beforehand. The same rationale that prophecy, if it exists as accurate predictions at all, cannot reveal detailed information, like a name is used to conclude that the book of Daniel was written sometime after the Macabean revolt of 165 BC. They justify their conclusion by first interpreting the abomination of desolation described in (Dan 9:27) to be the idol that Antiochus Epiphanes set up in the Temple. They also conclude that the predicted destruction of that abomination was Antiochus overthrow, beginning with the Macabean revolt. They deduce that Daniel is an allegorical, even fantasible, record of Jewish captivity woven together with a divine promise of eventual liberation, all designed to inspire the Jewish Macabean revolt and its goals. They go so far as to suggest that the date of authorship can be determined by the place where the text departs from the history that they superimpose on the book. After concluding that the entire book concerns Antiochus, they suggest that the predicted end was modified by later authors to make the text better fit what history records: The book apparently ended at [Dan] 12:8, but as the prediction there was not fulfilled, two later passages have been added with fresh calculations. Modern academics regard the Old Testament as a collection of legends, poems and history, most with inspiring messages, but all of human origin, devoid of divine authorship or detailed prophecy. In many cases they believe that the real authors are not the authors stated in the text. The real authors, they conclude, often invoked the name of a well known or respected people to enhance validity and reverence for their writings. Some go so far as to reject the history contained in the Bible as accurate and some regard its divinity as only as inspiring parables and allegories that uplift the human mind and spirit. Applications to the ew Testament In 1801, Herbert Marsh, an Englishman, hypothesized a lost source from which Matthew, Mark and Luke were derived. It was a complicated solution to the synoptic problem that his contemporaries ignored. Marsh labeled this source with the Hebrew letter beth. Scholars had already noted that the Synoptic Gospels are very similar. They postulated that all three gospel authors drew on the same tradition. The traditional view is that the common tradition was the harmonious testimony of the apostles. While there are many similarities, Matthew and Luke share information not contained in Mark. The common information that both Matthew and Luke share is called the double tradition, a different tradition than the common tradition. The synoptic problem was how to account for the double tradition. Marsh suggested that the double tradition was an older, lost text from which Matthew s and Luke s authors independently drew information to add to the common tradition. His hypothetical text answered the academic dilemma.
The next person to advance a hypothetical lost text was the German Schleiermacher. In 1832, he interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis. Papias wrote about 125: Matthew compiled the oracles [Greek: logia] of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech. Rather than the traditional interpretation -- that Papias was referring to the gospel of Matthew initially written in Hebrew -- Schleiermacher believed that Papias was actually testifying about a collection of the Savior s sayings, now lost, that was available to the Evangelists and which Matthew interpreted in a Hebrew manner of speech while writing his gospel. This postulated book of sayings provided a valuable text from which the authors of the synoptic gospel could confidently quote. Papias wrote a five-volume work entitled Logia of the Lord, which literally means Oracles of the Lord. The work was a commentary, or series of interpretations, based on those oracles, which has utterly disappeared and is known only through fragments quoted by later writers. Schleiermacher s suggestion is that the Logia on which Papias made his commentary was a book containing the sayings of Jesus. In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis. His contribution was that the common source for Matthew, Mark and Luke was the Gospel of Mark itself. He postulated that it was the first gospel to be written. The second source, from which both Matthew and Luke took information, is the sayings source. The authors of Matthew and Luke each and independently enlarged the Markian gospel by adding information contained in the sayings book. In 1863, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed the Two-Source Hypothesis in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem. This approach to the authorship of the synoptic gospels has maintained its dominance ever since. At the time of Holtamann s endorsement, the second, lost sayings source was usually called the Logia on account of Papias. Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). Toward the end of the 19th century, however, doubts began to grow on the propriety of anchoring the existence of the collection of sayings to the testimony of Papias. The loss of his Logia may have been due to his inclusion of questionable material. Eusebius testified that it contained some strange parables and teachings of the savior, and some other more mythical accounts. He also called Papias a man of small mental capacity. Academics chose the letter Q, a neutral symbol for the postulated sayings book, to distance themselves from Papias and his commentary on the oracles of Jesus and any questions an association might raise. Q was originally devised by Johannes Weiss and was based on the German word Quelle, meaning source. Scholars now call this proposed second source the Q Manuscript. The Two-Source Hypothesis contains a mentioned, but fundamental and often overlooked point the priority of the Gospel of Mark. Markian priority maintains that Mark was the earliest written synoptic gospel and the primary source for the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Academics point to a variety of evidences for this assertion. One evidence is content. It looks at the special Markian material that is not found in Matthew and Luke and suggests that it is much easier to explain the omission of this material by Matthew and Luke than it is to explain the omission by the evangelist Mark of the double tradition, special Matthean, and/or special Lukan material. Ninety percent of Mark is shared with Matthew, while fifty-five percent of Mark is shared with Luke. Explanations of this shared content in another way than Markian priority create problems. For instance, suppose Mark merged Matthew and Luke into his gospel. Since Mark s gospel is shorter and more concise, its author would have had to have passed over substantial amounts and types of material. There seems no reasonable explanation for scholars who also think that such extensive omissions belie the character of Mark's own content. Scholars conclude that it is more probable that Mark is a source behind the other two gospels. They also have difficulty understanding why Mark would have been preserved and accepted as canonical or why Mark was not eclipsed entirely by Matthew and Luke if Mark were a later-written gospel. Another evidence of Markian priority is the sequence of events. Mark 2:1-3:6 records a series of incidents that are apparently not connected in time or place, but document the growth of Pharisaic opposition. Matthew places the first three incidents in chapter 9 and the other two in chapter 12. Matthew s division of the incidents destroys Marks apparent record of growing Pharisaic opposition. The most sensible explanation is that Matthew s author did not understand Mark s reason for recording them in a single chapter and arbitrarily divided them when copying from Mark.
Another example of how content seems to confirm Markian priority is Mark s use of chiasms. A chiasm is a specific Hebraic repetition in which different phrases are repeated in opposite order, such as item a, then item b, item b again, and then item a. Mark apparently used chiasms to indicate a passage of time between the beginning and end of a given incident by inserting the b material between the a material. Proponents find this pattern in chapter 3, where the scribes accusation that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebub is sandwiched in between the time Jesus' friends, perhaps his family, announce that he is beside himself (Mark 3:21) and the time his family calls for him. They also find this pattern in chapter 6, where the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29) is placed in between the commissioning of the Twelve and their subsequent report of their mission, thus indicating the passage of time for the mission to occur. They believe that it is easier to suppose that Mark is the original literary artist, while Matthew contains the memory of Mark's order without retaining Mark's narrative logic. A third type of evidence is grammar. Matthew and Luke repeatedly improve Mark s grammar, supposedly as they copied from his text. They regularly emend awkward or ungrammatical sentences; sometimes they substitute the usual Greek word for a Latinism; and there are two cases where they give the literary equivalent of Greek words, which Phrynichus the grammarian expressly tells us belonged to vulgar speech. Lastly, there are eight instances in which Mark preserves the original Aramaic words used by our Lord. Of these Luke has none, while Matthew retains only one While not all scholars agree that Mark wrote the first gospel, the conclusion that Mark s gospel is the common source for Matthew and Luke is the preferred conclusion in academia. Scholars almost unanimously agree that the second source for Matthew s and Mark s double tradition is a lost sayings book called Q. 14th 16th 19th 22nd 26th 28th MOR I G DEVOTIO S FOR SEPTEMBER 2007 September 2nd September 9th September 16th september BIRTHDAYS Steven Woll Sam Simmons Drew Henson Alyssa Canfield Peggy Gerber Chuck Perry Rolland James Family Tim Canfield Family Charles Peabody Family This revelation was received at the Seventies Reunion held in Lamoni in June 2007. Brother Mike Hefner awoke in the middle of the night to find this printed on his computer. He read it the next day at the Dedication service and then shared it with the pastor and priesthood of our branch. We are reprinting it for the branch. I am the Lord thy God I have given you this revelation as you have been searching for the truth by following me. Be not afraid my son the Church shall be reborn once again. The Church of your fathers will come back again. The apostasy shall end. The leaders who have not fallen shall build the church but their offspring will lead the church. Please do not be weary with the fighting that goes on between brothers and sisters for the house of the Lord shall quite all disputes. Follow your fathers in their plans support them in all ways for they will need to rely on their children to help My Church grow. Be not afraid to go out into the world to spread my word as my prophet did. A new prophet will come from the line of my prophet who came before. He will lead the church till the last days of this earth. Israel will rise again and throw off the shackles that have kept in bondage these many years. When this happens you shall then know that My Son shall return to this world. September 23rd Robert Woll Family September 30th Brad Gault Family
Musical Schedule September 2nd Devotion Karen Hawley Worship Karen Hawley September 9th Devotions Jill Moore Worship Jeri Gault Evening Jill Moore September 16th Devotions Sharon Francis Worship Karen Hawley Evening Jeri Gault September 23rd Devotions Jill Moore Worship Jill Moore Evening Karen Hawley September 30th Devotions Jeri Gault Worship Jeri Gault Evening Sharon Francis ************************* Special Music EVE TS FOR SEPTEMBER I SEPTEMBER 3rd 2:00 6:00 p.m. Swimming party at the home of Rolland and Marilyn James. The address is 818 orthwest 18th Street in Blue Springs. From Main and 15th Street in downtown Blue Springs go north on 15th to Willowbrook. Turn left on Willowbrook and go to 18th Street. Turn right on 18th to 818 orthwest 18th. The house is the only house with a flagpole. There is a bathroom you may change in if you like. We will have drinks and you may bring snacks if you like. 16th After Worship Service a Back to School Potluck is planned 22nd Women s Department trip to Jamesport. (see article below) 29th 7:00 p.m. Will be a Campfire at the home of Rex and Penny Curtis. S mores and drinks will be provided. September 2nd September 9th September 16th Communion Service Rolland James Heather Gault WOMEN S DEPARTMENT NEWS September 23rd September 30th Jerry Gerber Kevin McMilian If you have anything to submit for the newsletter, please call Marilyn 215-2299 OR e-mail it to Marilyn (mholey1@comcast.net)(marilyncounts@gmail.com) put it in the EWSLETTER BOX OR give it to me at church. BUT PLEASE JUST SHARE WITH US I THE EWS- LETTER. Deadline for the October 2007 ewsletter will be Sunday, September 23rd, 2007. This ewsletter will be distributed on Sunday September 30th, 2007. Thank you for supporting the congregational newsletter. The Women's Group will begin meeting again in this month. I had wanted to start the meetings off with a fun activity for the ladies. What I have found is something that I think everyone would enjoy. Jamesport Missouri, the Amish community is having Lost Arts and Skills demonstrations on Saturday September 22nd. The tentative plan is to have each lady bring a sack lunch, with drinks and maybe snacks for the afternoon, meet at the Church at 9 a.m. carpool up, have our "picnic lunch" there, view the demonstrations and return to the church by around 4 ish. Please let me know as possible if you plan on going so that I can work out who can drive and such. Call Karen Woll at home phone after 4 p.m. 229-3718 or cell at 419-0172. Marilyn James and Rolland James
ACTIVITY CALE DAR Zarahemla Branch September S M T W Th F S 1 2 John 10:15-16 9:15 Morning Worship 9:30 Sunday School 10:30 Worship Service Presiding: Rex Curtis Preaching: Mike Hefner o Evening Service 3 2:00 p.m. Pool Party at Rolland & Marilyn James 4 5 7:00 p.m. Prayer Service Tim Canfield Presiding Isaiah 29:11-12 6 7 8 9 II ephi 2:38-40 9:15 Morning Worship 9:30 Sunday School 10:30 Worship Service Presiding: Brad Gault Preaching: Rex Curtis 6:00 pm Evening Service Presiding: Tim Canfield Bible Marking 10 7:00 Priesthood Meeting at the church 11 12 7:00 p.m. Prayer Service Dean Falconer Presiding D & C 83:8a-b 13 14 15 16 D & C 26:2a 9:15 Morning Worship 9:30 Sunday School 10:30 Worship Service Presiding: Tim Canfield Preaching: Dean Falconer MO THLY POTLUCK 6:00 pm Evening Service Presiding: Dean Falconer Religio 23 Psalms 85:8-11 9:15 Morning Worship 9:30 Sunday School 10:30 Worship Service Presiding: Doug Trahern Preaching: Chuck Perry 6:00 pm Evening Service Presiding: Chuck Perry Bible Marking 17 18 19 7:00 p.m. Prayer Service Bob Moore Presiding Psalms 22:21-23 24 25 26 7:00 p.m. Prayer Service Brad Gault Presiding Hebrews 8:8-10 20 21 22 27 28 29 Women s Department Jamesport trip 7:00 p.m. Campfire at Rex & Penny Curtis 30 III ephi 12:2-3 9:15 Morning Worship 9:30 Sunday School 10:30 Worship Service Presiding: Patrick McKay Preaching: Don Scott 6:00 pm Evening Service Presiding:
Zarahemla Branch The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 502 Southwest 17th Street Blue Springs, MO 64015
Respect and reverence for Christianity and in particular, the Bible, has drastically declined during the last half-century. America is steadily removing its Christian underpinnings and erasing its Biblical references. One significant reason is the development and acceptance, first among scholars and then within the populace, of Biblical criticism. Higher criticism, or historical criticism as it is sometimes called, investigates the origins of the Biblical text. It tries to discover who wrote the text and when it was written. Lower criticism, or textual criticism, tries to discover the original text. After nearly two and a half centuries, the result of Biblical criticism is that most scholars and a significant number of the public, including pastors and church officials, believe that the Bible has human origins and little, if any, divine utterances. Advocates for the restored gospel are in a unique position to defend the divinity of the scriptures. Latter-day revelation provides a robust arsenal, but proper use of those defenses requires a thorough understanding of the opposing view. Each saint should know what Biblical criticism is, its strengths and weaknesses, and why the church s traditional view about the nature of scripture is far superior. The following chapters outline how Biblical criticism developed, what it ignored, what it produced, why it developed, and how it remains inferior to traditional views. Its length requires that it be serialized in several issues. My hope is that each person will be better equipped to help those who may have lost faith in the divinity of the Bible and better withstand the present assault against Christianity and its scriptures. The Development of Biblical Criticism In 1753 Jean Astruc, a notable French Catholic physician published a book in which he pointed out that Genesis used two different names for God. The first is Elohim and the other Jehovah. He suggested a reason: Moses used two different pre-existing histories to compile the Bible. Astruc was the son of a Protestant minister who had converted to Catholicism, but their ancestors were of medieval Jewish origin. Astruc s observation attracted little attention until German scholar, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, who claimed to have made the discovery independently, published an Introduction to the Old Testament in 1780-83. He extended Astruc s conclusion to the entire Pentateuch, finding both Eloheim and Jehovah sections throughout the Mosaic books and observed that these two sections shared other characteristics beyond the name for God, at least in Genesis. He also hypothesized that Deuteronomy was composed by another person during the reign of Josiah. A Catholic priest of Scottish origin but Parisian residency, Alexander Geddes, added to the evolving hypothesis by suggesting that the Pentateuch was a collection of fragmentary sections, some written by Moses, some by Joshua and some by unknown authors, but put together during the reign of Solomon. Geddes' opinion was introduced into Germany by Janes Vater in 1805. At the same time a young German scholar, Wilhelm De Wette, joined these historical arguments with evidences supplied by vocabulary and style. He repeated well known