The Texts Among the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Uncle Dale]

these things go forth from the Jews in purity, unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God; and after that they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles; behold, after this, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is the 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...

If the word of God went from the Jews to the Gentiles "in purity,"

and the Gentiles' "great and abominable church" thereafter removed

"many parts which are plain and most precious; and also, many Covenants

of the Lord," --- then why are the biblical texts found among the

Dead Sea Scrolls almost identical to the "Old Testament," as preserved

in the source materials of the Jewish and Christian Bibles?

Exactly WHAT did the "great and abominable church" remove from the

"record of the Jews" as it was available in the days when Jesus

and his first disciples walked the earth?

Uncle Dale

[Joseph Antley]

I know you don't usually like responses that aren't in lieu with traditional doctrinal teaching, but you might be interested in this blog post where I wrote my thoughts on the subject. This is the gist of it:

I think that maybe we

[Uncle Dale]

I know you don't usually like responses that aren't in lieu with traditional doctrinal teaching, but you might be interested in this blog post where I wrote my thoughts on the subject. This is the gist of it:

... rather they were the plain teachings of Jesus and the Apostles through which

the Bible was to be understood.

I think that you might make a case along those lines, if you restrict

the scope of it to the "New Testament."

The "Old Testament" is obviously unchanged, except for minor textual corruptions,

and the Jews of 2010 read and interpret it very much like the Jews of 2000 years ago.

I know that the LDS love to point out passages in the Hebrew Bible that they

view as supportive of the "antiquity of the gospel" and the "7 dispensations;"

but the rest of the Bible-reading world does not agree with that notion.

There has been a tremendous amount of scholarship published on the subject

of the Hebrew Bible (and the LXX) in the past couple of centuries, and the

jist of it all argues against the Jews and Israelites of antiquity being

full-blown Christians (like Alma, Samuel the Lamanite, etc.).

However, if you restrict your analysis to the "New Testament," you might well

argue that doctrines such as no-infant-baptism were inherent in the gospel

of 2000 years ago, no matter what changes (or lack thereof) have been inflicted

upon the NT texts.

Still -- until I hear your ideas spoken from the podium at General Conference,

I'll assume that they remain just that -- ideas and not potential doctrine.

I am enough of a restorationist myself, to deeply suspect the Christian Bible

as written -- and certainly as taught by creedal Christianity. I suspect that

if we could get into a time machine and go back to the days of the very first

Jesus-followers, we would there encounter texts somewhat different from the

modern canon, and teachings very different from modern mainstream Christianity.

So, I am already half-inclined to accept some of your ideas -- just not all of them.

My perpetual dilemma in hobnobbing with my Mormon cousins.

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

The "Old Testament" is obviously unchanged, except for minor textual corruptions,

and the Jews of 2010 read and interpret it very much like the Jews of 2000 years ago.

This is wrong. There are substantial changes in all sorts of ways.

You should examine the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. They mark all the differences.

And also compare the Masoretic text with the second century Septuagint.

See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research

[Uncle Dale]

This is wrong. There are substantial changes in all sorts of ways.

You should examine the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. They mark all the differences.

And also compare the Masoretic text with the second century Septuagint.

See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research

Yes, I know that there are discrepancies in Samuel, etc. But even

with all of that accounted for, the biblical texts found among

the DSS are probably very close to what Jesus and his first followers

had in their hands -- and thus, comparatively close to a modern

scholars' study text, such as the Anchor Bible series.

I see no reputable biblical scholars pointing to the Book of Mormon,

supplying textual or doctrinal material removed by the "mother of harlots."

But, if you can show me that the Bible, in the hands of the Gentiles

became something other than "the purity" coming forth from the hand

of "a Jew," I'd be happy to consult your examples.

Perhaps we can find some OT text that names Mary as the mother of

the forthcoming Jesus Christ -- that is the sort of thing that would

serve to validate 1st Nephi.

I'm always ready to learn -- please instruct me.

UD

[volgadon]

and the Jews of 2010 read and interpret it very much like the Jews of 2000 years ago.

Utter nonsense.

[Uncle Dale]

Utter nonsense.

I was not speaking of the Sadducees -- of course they no longer exist

and are roundly condemned by the later rabbis.

I was speaking of the Jews at the end of the first and second rebellions.

At least modern Jews tell me that they were essentially the same in doctrine

as Jews then and thereafter. Once the temple was gone, we all know that there

had to be changes.

As I told you once before, my wife is non-rabbinical, so she does not

see the Mishna and the Talmud as supplying good authority for the oral

law -- but even she identifies with modern Jews, as having preserved

the Pharisaical tenets reasonably well.

I presume that you profess the religion as known and practiced

by Elizabeth and Mary (prior to the births of their famous two

sons) to have been orthodox and Divine -- that God really did

answer Jewish prayers and forgive Jewish sins -- that the

annual Day of Atonement really was divinely sanctioned and

sanctified. If so -- if THAT Judaism was true and holy, then

all you need to do is to direct me to the reference works that

document its decline into apostasy, showing me where it is

that modern Judaism is an abomination unto the Lord.

I promise I will listen to your response. Where shall I begin?

Which encyclopedia articles provide the truth? Can I trust the

Anchor Bible Dictionary, in order to make a beginning here?

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...if you restrict your analysis to the "New Testament,"

...

Nephi seems to concentrate his message there --

Behold one of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb! Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been; and he shall also write concerning the end of the world; wherefore, the things which he shall write, are just and true; and, behold, they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written, were plain and pure, and most precious, and easy to the understanding of all men. ...

In other words, the "things which were written" by John the Revelator

were easily understood as he wrote them -- but the Church of the Devil

has somehow made the Book of the Revelation difficult to understand.

If that difficulty did not come about by altering the "things which

were written," then I suppose you have the task set before you of

telling us what John meant to convey -- and how that was altered.

Of course the Book of Mormon and the JST should supply you with

many of the answers.

If you can find them -- please share them.

I'm not convinced that the Book of the Revelation is the exact

same text as was originally in circulation before it was canonized --

but I'd be curious to hear the official LDS explanation of its errors.

UD

[urroner]

So, I guess the Josiah Reformation and the Deuteronomist movement changed very little of the scriptures or their original intepretation. TY UD, I grateful that you corrected me on this matter.

[Tribunal]

This is wrong. There are substantial changes in all sorts of ways.

You should examine the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. They mark all the differences.

And also compare the Masoretic text with the second century Septuagint.

See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible

Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research

Seriously? There's a Dead Sea Scrolls Bible? Awesome! I just looked it up, cool! What is your opinion of it? Would it make a good study aid along with the rest of Scripture?

[Kevin Christensen]

If the word of God went from the Jews to the Gentiles "in purity,"

and the Gentiles' "great and abominable church" thereafter removed

"many parts which are plain and most precious; and also, many Covenants

of the Lord," --- then why are the biblical texts found among the

Dead Sea Scrolls almost identical to the "Old Testament," as preserved

in the source materials of the Jewish and Christian Bibles?

Exactly WHAT did the "great and abominable church" remove from the

"record of the Jews" as it was available in the days when Jesus

and his first disciples walked the earth?

Uncle Dale

Try reading Barker's "Text and Context" for starters, and then go back and read 1 Nephi 13.

All the

texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Noel Reynold's essay in Early Christians in Disarray deals specifically with "The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42&chapid=209

I will show that the covenantal understandings of ordinances were lost or de-emphasized very early, and that this change made the later accommodation of Greek philosophy much easier for the third- and fourth-century Christians. But that only exacerbated the problem. As Christian thinkers turned increasingly to Greek philosophy after the mid-second century, they naturally shifted from the traditional Hebrew focus on history, including the covenants made at specific times and places, as a source of truth and obligation, to the Hellenistic contemplation of nature as a source of universal truth. And this shift solidified the attenuation of covenants in Christian thought and practice for the centuries that would follow.

And there is John W. Welch's important essay in Early Christians in Disarray.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42&chapid=204

And there is Barker's essay on "The Secret Tradition"

There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several

centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to

only a few of his followers. Eusebius quotes from a now lost work of Clement of Alexandria,

Hypotyposes:

[Uncle Dale]

...

There is a lot more (Barker's The Older Testament, for instance, or Kevin Barney on The King Follett discourse compared to recent scholarly studies on the beliefs of ancient Israel) but if you haven't yet read them, I recommend doing so because these things do point in the right direction. And they all lead to much more.

...

I do not have the time nor the inclination to do a lot of additional

reading during the upcoming holidays.

However, if you can simply point me to the "pure" scriptures

that Nephi's vision speaks of, then we can read them together.

As Nephi puts it, the word of God was pure, when it went forth from

the Jew -- but then the Gentiles' Church of the Devil got hold of

the scriptures and removed many covenants, and plain and precious parts

of the Christian gospel.

So, if the scriptures were pure and holy when still in the hands

of "the Jew," we can begin by looking at those texts.

Without directing me to a dozen heavy scholarly books, can you simply

summarize the facts of the matter in a sentence or two?

UD

[volgadon]

Seriously? There's a Dead Sea Scrolls Bible? Awesome! I just looked it up, cool! What is your opinion of it? Would it make a good study aid along with the rest of Scripture?

I enjoy it. The DSSB definitely makes for a good study aid.

[volgadon]

I was not speaking of the Sadducees -- of course they no longer exist

and are roundly condemned by the later rabbis.

I was speaking of the Jews at the end of the first and second rebellions.

At least modern Jews tell me that they were essentially the same in doctrine

as Jews then and thereafter. Once the temple was gone, we all know that there

had to be changes.

As I told you once before, my wife is non-rabbinical, so she does not

see the Mishna and the Talmud as supplying good authority for the oral

law -- but even she identifies with modern Jews, as having preserved

the Pharisaical tenets reasonably well.

I presume that you profess the religion as known and practiced

by Elizabeth and Mary (prior to the births of their famous two

sons) to have been orthodox and Divine -- that God really did

answer Jewish prayers and forgive Jewish sins -- that the

annual Day of Atonement really was divinely sanctioned and

sanctified. If so -- if THAT Judaism was true and holy, then

all you need to do is to direct me to the reference works that

document its decline into apostasy, showing me where it is

that modern Judaism is an abomination unto the Lord.

I promise I will listen to your response. Where shall I begin?

Which encyclopedia articles provide the truth? Can I trust the

Anchor Bible Dictionary, in order to make a beginning here?

UD

.

For starters, you can drop the histrionics. If there is anyone on these boards least inclined to label modern Judaism an abomination unto the Lord, it is me. My point is that modern Jewish interpretation of the scriptures is not the same as interpretation of it 2000 years ago. For sure there are many points of contact, but also quite a few differences. Apostasy is neither here nor there. The fact remains that Judaism was not static. There a variety of internal and external historical developments to be factored in. For instance, modern Judaism holds that the suffering servant of Isaiah is a symbol for the people of Israel, yet earlier Jews saw it as a messianic symbol. The current trend in Judaism is a reaction to incessant browbeating and disputations from Christians throughout the centuries. You might look into Shalom Spiegel's essay On Medieval Hebrew Poetry. In it he traces the history of interpretation of Psalm 29.

[ssbn623]

Uncle Dale,

Since you don't want to read much over the holidays I suggest Dr. Barker's "Who was Melchizedek and Who was His God?" It's only 14 pages and demonstrates the damage a little corruption can cause.

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Melchizedek_Barker.pdf

This paper changed the way I read the New Testament.

[Uncle Dale]

...For sure there are many points of contact, but also quite a few differences.

...

OK -- now that we have resolved that matter,

let's get back to 1st Nephi and the claims of

scriptural purity when still in the hands of the Jew.

Can we at least assume that Jesus and his first

disciples were accessing "pure" scripture? -- or had

the Gentile Church of the Devil already corrupted

even the scriptures that Jesus advised be "searched?"

I know that some scholars believe that the first

Christians were using the LXX -- but I simply want

to know what scrolls Nephi was citing as "pure."

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

Since you don't want to read much over the holidays I suggest Dr. Barker's "Who was Melchizedek and Who was His God?" It's only 14 pages and demonstrates the damage a little corruption can cause.

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Melchizedek_Barker.pdf

This paper changed the way I read the New Testament.

Will THAT tell me what covenants the Gentile Church of the Devil

removed from the holy scriptures?

I am not so much interested in Melchizedek as I am in Nephi.

Does Barker agree with Nephi, that the great and abominable church

removed many plain and precious parts of the Christian Gospel,

after the Bible went into the hands of the Gentiles?

UD

[Tribunal]

The sub-topic of this thread is The Fulness of the Gospel. How does one reconcile the fulness of the Gospel? How have the Dead Sea Scrolls helped in our understanding? One can wonder if the evolution of our understanding of the Gospel (from the earlist Christian writings to the present) is by inspiration, line-upon-line, or because someone who is 'learned' claimed one set of historical 'facts' are more accurate than other historical 'facts'? Still, how does one know?

When one paints a picture of our current understanding of the fulness of the Gospel, what does the picture look like?

Does it all come down to modern-day revelation? Faith?

[Uncle Dale]

The sub-topic of this thread is The Fulness of the Gospel. How does one reconcile the fulness of the Gospel? How have the Dead Sea Scrolls helped in our understanding? One can wonder if the evolution of our understanding of the Gospel (from the earlist Christian writings to the present) is by inspiration, line-upon-line, or because someone who is 'learned' claimed one set of historical 'facts' are more accurate than other historical 'facts'? Still, how does one know?

When one paints a picture of our current understanding of the fulness of the Gospel, what does the picture look like?

Does it all come down to modern-day revelation? Faith?

I just want to read the "pure" scriptures Nephi spoke of --

which were corrupted by the "Mother of Harlots" when the OT

Bible went from the hand of the Jew to the hand of the Gentile.

Will the biblical texts discovered along with the Dead Sea Scrolls

get me any closer to Nephi's "pure" scriptures?

Will the Joseph Smith Translation get me any closer to them?

Or ... should I believe the non-Mormon scholars, who say that

we already know the text of about 99.9% of the scriptures as they

were available in the days of Jesus and his first disciples?

UD

[Tribunal]

I just want to read the "pure" scriptures Nephi spoke of --

which were corrupted by the "Mother of Harlots" when the OT

Bible went from the hand of the Jew to the hand of the Gentile.

Will the biblical texts discovered along with the Dead Sea Scrolls

get me any closer to Nephi's "pure" scriptures?

Will the Joseph Smith Translation get me any closer to them?

Or ... should I believe the non-Mormon scholars, who say that

we already know the text of about 99.9% of the scriptures as they

were available in the days of Jesus and his first disciples?

UD

Now how much of your post was rhetorical and how much of it was sincere?

[Uncle Dale]

Now how much of your post was rhetorical and how much of it was sincere?

Actually, it was 100% sincere.

I have never ceased being a restorationist and I count restoring the

Gospel as originally taught in its purity as a #1 priority.

I am not an enemy to the Mormons on this score, and am not taking

the side of mainstream Christianity or modern Judaism against them.

If we can get closer to the "pure" scriptures spoken of in 1st Nephi,

then I am ready and willing to do just that.

If we can agree that a "great and abominable" set of churchmen have,

subsequent to Jesus' time, perverted the covenants and teachings he

professed unto the Saints, then that is my great desire.

As a Reorganized LDS, I was taught that the "great and abominable"

church stretches back in time to Cain and Lucifer, but that the books

of Moses and Enoch were only removed from the Pentateuch sometime after

the crucifixion. If THAT was when they were removed, then why do we

see no evidence of them in the pre-crucifixion biblical DSS texts?

UD

[ssbn623]

Will THAT tell me what covenants the Gentile Church of the Devil

removed from the holy scriptures?

I am not so much interested in Melchizedek as I am in Nephi.

Does Barker agree with Nephi, that the great and abominable church

removed many plain and precious parts of the Christian Gospel,

after the Bible went into the hands of the Gentiles?

UD

If you read Barker and reflect on what she is saying in that paper then you will see that this pretty much does agree with Nephi. You might consider Nephi's scriptures were pre-Josiah and our assumptions about the early Christian doctrines could have been built on those scriptures and the DSS materials rather than the Masoretic text.

[TAO]

Will the biblical texts discovered along with the Dead Sea Scrolls

get me any closer to Nephi's "pure" scriptures?

Depends. Remember, some of his scriptures were already corrupted as well.

Will the Joseph Smith Translation get me any closer to them?

Yes and No. The JST is a better interpreation for some of the missing scriptures. It does not match them. Nor does it cover all of them.

Or ... should I believe the non-Mormon scholars, who say that

we already know the text of about 99.9% of the scriptures as they

were available in the days of Jesus and his first disciples?

How big does a plain and precious thing/verse have to be... could be a single-word change, that it could.

[Uncle Dale]

If you read Barker and reflect on what she is saying in that paper then you will see that this pretty much does agree with Nephi. You might consider Nephi's scriptures were pre-Josiah and our assumptions about the early Christian doctrines could have been built on those scriptures and the DSS materials rather than the Masoretic text.

Let me get this clear in my mind --

Is Barker saying that Josiah was a Gentile and a promoter

of removing the Christian Gospel from the scriptures?

If devilish Gentile interference goes back THAT far,

then were the scriptures available to Jesus and his

first disciples already perverted by Josiah & Company?

Or, by "Gentile," does Nephi mean people of a later period?

He cites John's original text of the Revelation as an example

of pure scripture in the hands of the Jew -- later perverted

by the Mother of Harlots, in the hands of the Gentile.

Should we then assume that Josiah was somehow corrupting the

words of John the Revelator?

UD

[TAO]

If devilish Gentile interference goes back THAT far,

then were the scriptures available to Jesus and his

first disciples already perverted by Josiah & Company?

Yes, it was partly perverted then. Luckily, Jesus knew which ones to use, and which ones not to use.