The Bible Vs. The Book Of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

Temples

Critique: “The evidence of archaeology in the Old World tells us that, when Nephi built a replica of Solomon’s temple, he was simply doing what others had done and would yet do.”

Response: I agree; it is certainly possible that a group of Israelites, separated from the Jerusalem temple and its culture, might choose to build its own temple, even if doing so was a violation of the Law (as I think it would have been).

----------

Critique: Against the criticism that the Nephites were not Levites and so could not officiate in an Israelite temple, Brant comments: “Scholars do not know if the temples at Elephantine and Arad were staffed by descendants of Aaron, but recent research indicates that there were important temple officials who were not descendants of Aaron.” He cites Margaret Barker in support of the idea of a “Melchizedek priesthood” that “had no priestly descent” and who argues that the Yeb texts reflect a possible non-Aaronic priesthood. According to Barker, “The ‘surface’ picture of the Aaronite high priesthood in the Old Testament, therefore, must be treated with caution.”

Response: It is conceivable that a group of Israelites without a contingent of Levites would take it upon themselves to appoint non-Levites to officiate in their temple. However, if we accept the Old Testament as authoritative, such a practice would be contrary to God’s revealed instructions. The Book of Mormon represents the practice as not merely historical fact but as divinely authorized, and that is clearly open to challenge.

[Brant Gardner]

Temples

Critique: “The evidence of archaeology in the Old World tells us that, when Nephi built a replica of Solomon’s temple, he was simply doing what others had done and would yet do.”

Response: I agree; it is certainly possible that a group of Israelites, separated from the Jerusalem temple and its culture, might choose to build its own temple, even if doing so was a violation of the Law (as I think it would have been).

I guess I don't know what your opinion is of post-exilic revisions of the Bible (or of the changes that appear to have begun under Josiah). I agree that later Israelites saw the Jerusalem temple as unique, but that was a process that Josiah initiated and which became absolutely normative after the return from exile.

Going any farther on this issue requires some understanding of history, and I don't know where you are on that topic.

Critique: Against the criticism that the Nephites were not Levites and so could not officiate in an Israelite temple, Brant comments: “Scholars do not know if the temples at Elephantine and Arad were staffed by descendants of Aaron, but recent research indicates that there were important temple officials who were not descendants of Aaron.” He cites Margaret Barker in support of the idea of a “Melchizedek priesthood” that “had no priestly descent” and who argues that the Yeb texts reflect a possible non-Aaronic priesthood. According to Barker, “The ‘surface’ picture of the Aaronite high priesthood in the Old Testament, therefore, must be treated with caution.”

Response: It is conceivable that a group of Israelites without a contingent of Levites would take it upon themselves to appoint non-Levites to officiate in their temple. However, if we accept the Old Testament as authoritative, such a practice would be contrary to God’s revealed instructions. The Book of Mormon represents the practice as not merely historical fact but as divinely authorized, and that is clearly open to challenge.

See above. It depends on how you see the Old Testament. If you read it as unchanging in its approach from the beginning to the end, then I would have to agree with you. Clearly I don't.

[Mark Beesley]

At this point, it seems your answer to my question was no, a brief mention of LDS academicians' views would not satisfy you. This is very telling. It confirms that what I have been saying all along is correct. Your critique presupposes that the film is unacceptable because it isn't four times as long.

If a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more lentthy film, or even a series of films, then what is the argument against it? It's too coslty to be fair? The fillm audience's attention span precluded a fair film? Or simply, the film does not attempt to be fair?

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

If a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more lentthy film, or even a series of films, then what is the argument against it? It's too coslty to be fair? The fillm audience's attention span precluded a fair film? Or simply, the film does not attempt to be fair?

I disagree with your premise, that "a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more [lengthy] film." No, but a fair handling of the subject matter to Brant's satisfaction appears to require a lengthier film.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

I understand that there are different views on these historical questions. Furthermore, my position is that what matters is not what Israelites thought at various points in history; presumably there was diversity of thought on all sorts of issues at various times. What matters is what God's prophets revealed as found in the authoritative written word of God, whatever the prehistory of that Scripture might be.

I will say that I think it would have been helpful if the film had explained that the issue here was more theological than it was historical. That is, the question is whether a Nephite temple and priesthood would be theologically authorized, not whether they would be historically possible.

I guess I don't know what your opinion is of post-exilic revisions of the Bible (or of the changes that appear to have begun under Josiah). I agree that later Israelites saw the Jerusalem temple as unique, but that was a process that Josiah initiated and which became absolutely normative after the return from exile.

Going any farther on this issue requires some understanding of history, and I don't know where you are on that topic.

See above. It depends on how you see the Old Testament. If you read it as unchanging in its approach from the beginning to the end, then I would have to agree with you. Clearly I don't.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark,

You wrote:

I disagree with your premise, that "a fair handling of the subject matter requires a more [lengthy] film." No, but a fair handling of the subject matter to Brant's satisfaction appears to require a lengthier film.

I don't want to intrude too severely in this conversation, so I will simply point out the following. You said in a prior reponse (and have said something of a similar nature in other responses):

Warfare

Critique: “When one is looking for evidence of a battle, it is essential to dig at the location where the battle took place. A known historical siege took place at Masada (the first-century site mentioned in the film). Digging at that location is digging at a battle site…. Most of the Book of Mormon battles take place on open fields, not in cities. Since the archaeological excavations concentrate on the cities, it is not very surprising that the remnants of large battles are not found there, where they did not happen. That does not mean, however, that the battles did not happen.”

Response: In general, I think Brant’s argument here is valid. Unless we know where the battlefield would have been, we can’t infer from the lack of evidence that there was no battlefield. We need to know where to look. However, we do know one reasonable place to look.

Later, in the same post you wrote,

How much of the LDS scholarly views and arguments should the film have presented, according to Brant? I don’t know. But my own personal opinion is that Brant does have a point. I think it would have been better if the film had mentioned the two-Cumorahs theory. If Brant is criticizing the film because it doesn’t even mention this and other LDS scholarly theories, and he’s not suggesting the film should have hashed out these issues in back-and-forth argumentation, I think I would generally agree with his criticism. But then, I think that the film would have been much stronger had it mentioned some of those theories and then briefly responded to them.

Now granted, you used the word stronger, and have simply conceded the validity of Brant's points, while carefully avoiding the use of the word fair. But remembering what this discussion is about - an attack by the film-makers on the histoicity of the Book of Mormon - these are omissions by the film-makers that seriously compromise the integrity of the film, i.e. they left out things that might weaken their attack. You may not think that affects the "fairness" quality of the film. Most objective observes would, I suspect.

Why not simply concede that the film is not an attempt to portray a fair assessment of all of the issues surrounding the Book of Mormon, but rather is a focused attempt to highlight a few perceived weaknesses? Is that not a "fair" statement?

Edited to add: Your most recent response to Brant concerning " different views on these historical questions" would seem to bolster my point.

(I'm done interrupting. )

Edited May 6, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

I understand that there are different views on these historical questions. Furthermore, my position is that what matters is not what Israelites thought at various points in history; presumably there was diversity of thought on all sorts of issues at various times. What matters is what God's prophets revealed as found in the authoritative written word of God, whatever the prehistory of that Scripture might be.

We still are not communicating on this issue. Are you saying that there was no change in the way the Bible portrays God's word before and after the Exile, and that there was never any political influence on the policies represented by the Bible?

I will say that I think it would have been helpful if the film had explained that the issue here was more theological than it was historical. That is, the question is whether a Nephite temple and priesthood would be theologically authorized, not whether they would be historically possible.

Oh, such as whether Christ might have the priesthood authority to do what he did? As in the answer that Paul gave?

So, what you are telling me is that on top of a film that gives the illusion of scholarship by quoting professionals (but doesn't actually engage with scholarship) that it also gives the illusion of arguing about history (when its issues are really only theological)? You do realize that this is precisely the point of a review tagging the film as an illusion with no substance?

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

We still are not communicating on this issue. Are you saying that there was no change in the way the Bible portrays God's word before and after the Exile, and that there was never any political influence on the policies represented by the Bible?

I'm afraid this is a bit too vague for me to feel comfortable giving you a simple yes or no answer.

You wrote:

Oh, such as whether Christ might have the priesthood authority to do what he did? As in the answer that Paul gave?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.

You wrote:

So, what you are telling me is that on top of a film that gives the illusion of scholarship by quoting professionals (but doesn't actually engage with scholarship) that it also gives the illusion of arguing about history (when its issues are really only theological)? You do realize that this is precisely the point of a review tagging the film as an illusion with no substance?

No. Most of the points the film raises are historical issues, not theological issues. The section on temples and priesthood is the first section of the film to raise what is arguably a theological question as distinct from a historical one.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

Now granted, you used the word stronger, and have simply conceded the validity of Brant's points, while carefully avoiding the use of the word fair.

I don't think this is an accurate summary of what I have said. I have conceded the validity of some of Brant's points and disputed other points. With regard to the points I have conceded, I have suggested that they don't justify Brant's description of the film in such language as the following (emphasis added):

performs magic tricks with ideas...slickly demonstrates its points with the classic techniques of misdirection, unexamined assumptions, and hidden information...empty propaganda...plays upon existing assumptions without calling attention to what the producers do not want the viewer to see...this film opts for the propaganda technique of ignoring anything that does not support its thesis...remarkable lack of scholarly honesty...performs a mind-reading trick...they really have no answer and consequently prefer to pretend that one does not exist...intentionally oversimplifies...Murphy must know that his statement is misleading...The only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive.....

You say that "they left out things that might weaken their attack." Yes, that could be argued, just as it could be argued that Brant left out things that might weaken his defense, as I have documented. On the other hand, the film left out things that might have strengthened their criticism of the Book of Mormon. In fact, some of the things Brant urges they should have included would, in my opinion, have done just that.

[Brant Gardner]

I'm afraid this is a bit too vague for me to feel comfortable giving you a simple yes or no answer.

I suspect that it comes from different views of the construction of the text. I am suggesting that there were changes in the way temples were conceived before and after the exile, and that the restriction to the Jerusalem temple was part of a political agenda to concentrate both secular and religious authority in the same place. Therefore, the previous practices that allowed for temples (and shrines) outside of Jerusalem were changed to meet political exigencies rather than following the dictate from God.

However, if you posit that this was dictated by God, then that defines the reason that we see the data differently. In that case, I am arguing from history, and you are arguing from a faith-proposition. That is fine, but it tells us that there is no way for the two to meet.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.

Actually, I was quite sure of that. It uses information that I believe is absolutely relevant but which I suspect you see as entirely different. Paul had to address Jesus' non-Levitical descent. Therefore:

Hebrews: 5:3-6

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The question Paul is answering is how Christ can offer a sacrifice for sin and not be of the line of Aaron or the tribe of Levi. Paul indicates that there is another way, and that it is legitimate.

Please assume that I would use Paul's argument for why Lehi might also offer a sacrifice.

No. Most of the points the film raises are historical issues, not theological issues. The section on temples and priesthood is the first section of the film to raise what is arguably a theological question as distinct from a historical one.

Well, at least we agree that we should be discussing things on the basis of history rather than theology in most cases. Following that lead of the film, I submit that may answer for the historical situation is completely apt.

As for the theological one, see Paul.

[Brant Gardner]

You say that "they left out things that might weaken their attack." Yes, that could be argued, just as it could be argued that Brant left out things that might weaken his defense, as I have documented.

Let us please remember that I offered a critique of the film, not a defense of the Book of Mormon. I would (and have) argued that point very differently.

The issue of the review was to show how the film created an illusion that it was offering some strong historical evidence, but did so only by offering a distorted picture that misrepresented some information and (with what can only be assumed as intention) ignored others. Reviewing what the film claims and what it actually did leads to the conclusion of an attempt to create an illusion at best, and to delude at worst.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

I suspect that it comes from different views of the construction of the text. I am suggesting that there were changes in the way temples were conceived before and after the exile, and that the restriction to the Jerusalem temple was part of a political agenda to concentrate both secular and religious authority in the same place. Therefore, the previous practices that allowed for temples (and shrines) outside of Jerusalem were changed to meet political exigencies rather than following the dictate from God.

However, if you posit that this was dictated by God, then that defines the reason that we see the data differently. In that case, I am arguing from history, and you are arguing from a faith-proposition. That is fine, but it tells us that there is no way for the two to meet.

I am extremely dubious about the historical reconstruction you are suggesting (or following). It is part of a radical historical revisionist theory of the origins of the Old Testament that is itself, I would suggest, part of an ideological agenda to dismantle the practical religious and theological authority of the Old Testament. This is an agenda that questions the existence of the patriarchs and of Moses, denies the Exodus and the Conquest or pacifies them into something theologically unremarkable, and claims that "monotheism" was a postexilic innovation of the Deuteronomists. I have both historiographical and theological objections to that revisionism. Obviously, this is a huge subject and we can hardly even scratch the surface of it here. But I wish to state for now that the issue as I see it is a historical issue with theological implications.

You wrote:

Actually, I was quite sure of that. It uses information that I believe is absolutely relevant but which I suspect you see as entirely different. Paul had to address Jesus' non-Levitical descent. Therefore:

Hebrews: 5:3-6

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The question Paul is answering is how Christ can offer a sacrifice for sin and not be of the line of Aaron or the tribe of Levi. Paul indicates that there is another way, and that it is legitimate.

Please assume that I would use Paul's argument for why Lehi might also offer a sacrifice.

I guess you may need to connect the dots of this argument for me a little more, but I will respond as best I understand your argument. Jesus qualifies to be a priest not because * surprise! * there are actually two earthly priesthoods and Jesus, along with all other non-Levites, happens to qualify for the non-Aaronic one. Nor is the point in Hebrews 5:3-6 that God can make an exception to the Levites-only rule if he wants, from which precedent one might argue that if God can make an exception for Jesus he can make an exception for Lehi too (!). The point of the passage is that the Old Testament reveals (as shown by the quotations from Psalm 2:7 and 110:4) that God intended all along to supersede the Aaronic priesthood with a very different kind of priest in the person of the Messiah. As the writer of Hebrews lays out his argument, he explains in Hebrews 7 that Jesus is uniquely qualified by virtue of his innocence, death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven to offer his own death as the final, ultimate sacrifice for sins. Jesus is not one of many members of another earthly priesthood; he is the sole "member" of a new order of priest as our one and only heavenly, great high priest. Lehi, even if he existed, could not have qualified to be that kind of priest. Hebrews 5:3-6, in context, is completely useless as precedent for someone like Lehi serving as a priest under the covenant God made with Israel.

[Bill Hamblin]

I am extremely dubious about the historical reconstruction you are suggesting (or following). It is part of a radical historical revisionist theory of the origins of the Old Testament that is itself, I would suggest, part of an ideological agenda to dismantle the practical religious and theological authority of the Old Testament. This is an agenda that questions the existence of the patriarchs and of Moses, denies the Exodus and the Conquest or pacifies them into something theologically unremarkable, and claims that "monotheism" was a postexilic innovation of the Deuteronomists. I have both historiographical and theological objections to that revisionism. Obviously, this is a huge subject and we can hardly even scratch the surface of it here. But I wish to state for now that the issue as I see it is a historical issue with theological implications.

The Bible itself suggests something like this happened with the story of Josiah's reforms and the discovery of the lost book (presumably Deuteronomy) in the temple.

I guess you may need to connect the dots of this argument for me a little more, but I will respond as best I understand your argument. Jesus qualifies to be a priest not because * surprise! * there are actually two earthly priesthoods and Jesus, along with all other non-Levites, happens to qualify for the non-Aaronic one. Nor is the point in Hebrews 5:3-6 that God can make an exception to the Levites-only rule if he wants, from which precedent one might argue that if God can make an exception for Jesus he can make an exception for Lehi too (!). The point of the passage is that the Old Testament reveals (as shown by the quotations from Psalm 2:7 and 110:4) that God intended all along to supersede the Aaronic priesthood with a very different kind of priest in the person of the Messiah. As the writer of Hebrews lays out his argument, he explains in Hebrews 7 that Jesus is uniquely qualified by virtue of his innocence, death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven to offer his own death as the final, ultimate sacrifice for sins. Jesus is not one of many members of another earthly priesthood; he is the sole "member" of a new order of priest as our one and only heavenly, great high priest. Lehi, even if he existed, could not have qualified to be that kind of priest. Hebrews 5:3-6, in context, is completely useless as precedent for someone like Lehi serving as a priest under the covenant God made with Israel.

If God can call Samuel an Ephramite (1 Sam. 1:1) to serve as a priest in his temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), it is not clear why you object to the same possibility with Nephi.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

The Bible itself suggests something like this happened with the story of Josiah's reforms and the discovery of the lost book (presumably Deuteronomy) in the temple.

Naw. The biblical narrative speaks of the discovery of the book of the Law in the temple and presents Josiah's reforms as restorative of teachings and practices of the Law that had been neglected. The modern liberal revisionist narrative claims that the book (or at least the beginnings of the book) originated in the time of Josiah and represented an innovative, unprecedented new direction in the history of Israel.

You wrote:

If God can call Samuel an Ephramite (1 Sam. 1:1) to serve as a priest in his temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), it is not clear why you object to the same possibility with Nephi.

1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves.

[Bill Hamblin]

1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves.

It was? CFR.

How about the fact that Moses and Samuel are equated in Jer. 15:1.

Moses and Aaron were among his priests,

Samuel was among those who called upon his name. (Ps 99:6)

Here, in Hebrew poetic parallelism, Samuel is a priest like Moses.

What about Samuel offering burnt offerings (1 Sam. 7:9)?

So:

1- he wears priestly robes (1 Sam 2:18)

2- he "serves" in the temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), a technical term for temple liturgy (HALOT 1661-2)

3- he offers sacrifice (1 Sam 7:9)--supposedly a prerogative of priests.

4- he, like Moses is "stands before the Lord" (Ps 99:6 and Jer. 15:1)

The obvious conclusion is that Samuel was a priest, though not a Levite. Alas, since it doesn't match your Evangelical theology, you reject the obvious meaning of the text.

[Bill Hamblin]

Naw. The biblical narrative speaks of the discovery of the book of the Law in the temple and presents Josiah's reforms as restorative of teachings and practices of the Law that had been neglected. The modern liberal revisionist narrative claims that the book (or at least the beginnings of the book) originated in the time of Josiah and represented an innovative, unprecedented new direction in the history of Israel.

Of course, that's your spin. What the Bible says actually is that the Passover had not been properly kept between the days of Samuel and the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21-22; 2 Chr 35:18). This is confirmed by the fact that the Passover is never mentioned between Josh 6:10 and these passages. That obviously demonstrates that whatever is going on, the Passover temple rituals of the days of Josiah were new, not something that had been neglected.

[Rob Bowman]

Historical Figures

Critique: The film discounts the reality of the Book of Mormon prophets because no evidence for them exists outside the Book of Mormon, in contrast to the extrabiblical documentation for the existence of various figures mentioned in the Bible. However, this lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon figures is due to the paucity of texts: “For the great majority of Mesoamerica, no adequate texts have survived to tell us about anything, let alone personal names.”

Response: The lack of evidence for such Book of Mormon figures as Lehi or Nephi is not a strong argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I would agree that the general lack of texts with proper names during the Book of Mormon period means that the absence of evidence is in this respect not evidence of absence.

----------

Critique: The film argues that because there is no evidence that Christ ever visited the Americas—and no evidence for Christianity there during the Book of Mormon era—Joseph Smith made it up. Brant replies that the lack of evidence for Christ’s visit is again the result of a lack of texts. As for the absence of Christianity, Brant argues that “the land” that was Christianized would have been a local region only, not the entire hemisphere, and that any iconographic evidence is likely to be ambiguous, since Christian iconography in the Old World is also often ambiguous.

Response: 4 Nephi 1 is as expansive as it could be in describing the Christianization of the Book of Mormon land: “the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land…. the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast…. And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land…. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there any Lamanites, nor any manner of –ites…. the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land….” (4 Ne. 1:2-23). Let us assume for the sake of argument a limited Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. We would still be looking here at a whole civilization converted to faith in Christ and living consistent with that belief for about two centuries. This civilization was so widespread and dominant that it did not have to worry about robbers or murderers in their midst; they were ethnically one people without “any manner of –ites” polluting their culture. This description rules out a “limited presence” scenario in which the Christian Nephites were just one of several religious and cultural traditions mixed together in the same civilization. But that is the context in which the ambiguous Jewish and Christian iconography of the Old World is found. Besides, while some iconography in the Old World is ambiguous, a lot of it is not, a point that Brant’s argument ignores. The fact is that if what 4 Nephi says is true, we should find some iconographic evidence of a Christian-like civilization in the first two centuries AD in Mesoamerica. But as Brant concedes, we don’t. As best I understand it, the evidence we have for the area that most LDS scholars claim was the Book of Mormon region shows a decidedly non-Christian religious and cultural civilization throughout the Book of Mormon era.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Of course, that's your spin. What the Bible says actually is that the Passover had not been properly kept between the days of Samuel and the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21-22; 2 Chr 35:18). This is confirmed by the fact that the Passover is never mentioned between Josh 6:10 and these passages. That obviously demonstrates that whatever is going on, the Passover temple rituals of the days of Josiah were new, not something that had been neglected.

Guffaw.

If we take both your Joshua and 2 Kings references at face value, "what the Bible actually says" is clearly that the Passover was not new in the days of Josiah but something that had long been neglected. "And the king commanded all the people, 'Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.' For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 23:21-22 ESV). This passage clearly states that the Passover was part of the "Book of the Covenant," that it had been observed during the time of the judges, and that it had been neglected between the time of the judges (Judges 5:10-11, by the way, not 6:10) and the time of Josiah. This means that the Book of the Covenant originated no later than the time of the judges. That is "what the Bible actually says," of course.

I wonder, when you offered the above argument, if you had forgotten that the Passover is not mentioned even once in the entire Book of Mormon?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had written: "1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves." You replied:

It was? CFR.

I just gave you a reference. 1 Samuel 2:18 describes Samuel as a servant to a priest, not as a priest.

Jeremiah 15:1 says that Moses and Samuel both "stood before" the LORD. How does this prove that Samuel was a priest? Out of all the possible comparisons you might make between the two men, what in this text is the basis for claiming that it means they were both priests? Leviticus 9:5 says that the entire congregation of Israel "stood before the LORD" in front of the tent of meeting (see also 2 Chron. 20:13). Parties in a dispute were to "stand before the LORD" (Deut. 19:17). Moses and Samuel both interceded in prayer to the LORD on behalf of Israel. This is something that priests did, of course, but not only priests (e.g., Abraham also interceded with God on behalf of the cities in the plain).

Psalm 99:6 is indeed parallelism, but even "synonymous" parallelism does not mean an exact equivalency is being made. Thus, "Moses and Aaron were among his priests" explicitly identifies them as priests, while "Samuel was among those those called upon his name" describes him in general, non-official terms, as doing something that (again) priests did but others could do also.

Your strongest argument is that Samuel offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 7:9). Again, though, while this was something priests did (and was especially characteristic of priests), it was something that others also did, though never in the tabernacle.

You wrote:

So:

1- he wears priestly robes (1 Sam 2:18)

2- he "serves" in the temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), a technical term for temple liturgy (HALOT 1661-2)

3- he offers sacrifice (1 Sam 7:9)--supposedly a prerogative of priests.

4- he, like Moses is "stands before the Lord" (Ps 99:6 and Jer. 15:1)

The obvious conclusion is that Samuel was a priest, though not a Levite. Alas, since it doesn't match your Evangelical theology, you reject the obvious meaning of the text.

My evangelical theology has nothing to do with the issue here, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play ad hominem circumstantial games, I could just as easily assert that your LDS theology forces you to look for non-Levite priests in the Old Testament.

Your interpretation is possible but not necessarily correct. But let us assume that you are right and that Samuel was a priest. 1 Chronicles 6:28 appears to identify Samuel as a member of the tribe of Levi. You will say this contradicts 1 Samuel 1:1, but there need not be a contradiction: since Levites did not have their own territory, it would be natural to describe a Levite from the territory of Ephraim as an Ephraimite.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Guffaw.

If we take both your Joshua and 2 Kings references at face value, "what the Bible actually says" is clearly that the Passover was not new in the days of Josiah but something that had long been neglected. "And the king commanded all the people, 'Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.' For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 23:21-22 ESV). This passage clearly states that the Passover was part of the "Book of the Covenant," that it had been observed during the time of the judges, and that it had been neglected between the time of the judges (Judges 5:10-11, by the way, not 6:10) and the time of Josiah. This means that the Book of the Covenant originated no later than the time of the judges. That is "what the Bible actually says," of course.

I wonder, when you offered the above argument, if you had forgotten that the Passover is not mentioned even once in the entire Book of Mormon?

What was the Book of the Covenant? The book found in the temple (2 Chr 34:30; 2 Kgs 23:2), right?

What is the book found in the temple? Nearly everyone thinks its some version of Deuteronomy, right?

So, the Bible says either that Passover had not been kept at all in the days of the monarchy, or that it hadn't been kept as proscribed in the Book of the Covenant/Deuteronomy. Either way, the proscriptions in Deuteronomy had been unknown for four hundred years (2 Chr 34:21; 2 Kgs 22:13). The Passover regulations were utterly new to the people of Josiah's day. If they had this text about the Passover that they had merely neglected, why did they need to discover a new book to convince them to do the Passover right? All they would have to do is follow the requirements they already knew about in the books they already had. That is not what happened.

You can see some of the differences by comparing the Deuteronomic description of Passover (16:1- with those in Ex 12-13. There are a number of important differences. In Deut you have to go to the temple for Passover, can offer cattle instead of sheep, you must boil the meat instead of roasting it, and the offering must be done at the temple as a sacrifice. The Deuteronomic Passover was something new. That's why scholars talk about Deuteronomistic writings, and Deuteronomic reforms, etc.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I had written: "1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves." You replied:

I just gave you a reference. 1 Samuel 2:18 describes Samuel as a servant to a priest, not as a priest.

We are obviously reading a different Bible. Mine's the Masoretic. What's yours?

1 Sam 2:18

"Samuel was engaged in the service of the Lord as an attendant, girded with a linen ephod." (JPS)

This text does not say Samuel was a servant of the priests. The Hebrew is mešāret 'et peney YHWH. He was "ministering/serving before the face of YHWH," a technical term for temple service.

Can you name any example in the Bible where an ephod is worn by anyone other than a priest or king involved in temple/cultic-related activities?

[Bill Hamblin]

Your strongest argument is that Samuel offered a burnt sacrifice (1 Sam. 7:9). Again, though, while this was something priests did (and was especially characteristic of priests), it was something that others also did, though never in the tabernacle.

So, in 1 Sam 13:8 Saul offers a burnt offering without Samuel, and loses his kingship for it (1 Sam 13:14). To Samuel it was obviously important that he offer the sacrifice rather than Saul. This makes no sense if Samuel doesn't have a special relationship with sacrifices, that is, unless he is a priest.

[Bill Hamblin]

My evangelical theology has nothing to do with the issue here, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play ad hominem circumstantial games, I could just as easily assert that your LDS theology forces you to look for non-Levite priests in the Old Testament.

There is absolutely no problem finding clear biblical examples of non-Levitical and even non-Israelite priests of YHWH.

1- Melchizedek (Gen 14)

2- Jethro the Midianite (Ex 3:1, 18:1)

3- Ideally all Israel (Ex 19:6; Num 8:16-19)

4- Israelite priests before the Sinai covenant (Ex 19:22, 24), that is before the Levites are given exclusive priesthood rights (Num 8:16-19; cf. Ex 32:29; Num 3)

5- Samuel (as discussed here)

6- David's sons (2 Sam. 8:18)

7- Isaiah enters the Holy of Holies (Isa 6) implies priesthood

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

We are obviously reading a different Bible. Mine's the Masoretic. What's yours?

Can you possibly stop being so condescending?

Your response in fact ignores the text I cited.

"And the boy ministered to the LORD in the presence of Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 ESV).

"And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 JPS).

This text clearly distinguishes between the boy and the priest. The boy served the Lord under the priest. He was the priest's attendant or servant. Unlike the wicked servants of the priest who used their position to steal from the people (vv. 13-15, which uses the expression "the priest's servant"), Samuel was a good and faithful servant of the priest.

You wrote:

1 Sam 2:18

"Samuel was engaged in the service of the Lord as an attendant, girded with a linen ephod." (JPS)

This text does not say Samuel was a servant of the priests. The Hebrew is mešāret 'et peney YHWH. He was "ministering/serving before the face of YHWH," a technical term for temple service.

Can you name any example in the Bible where an ephod is worn by anyone other than a priest or king involved in temple/cultic-related activities?

If a king can be an exception, then there can be other exceptions. I agree that Samuel ministered before YHWH, but he did so as Eli's assistant or attendant.

[Bill Hamblin]

Can you possibly stop being so condescending?

Probably not.

Your response in fact ignores the text I cited.

"And the boy ministered to the LORD in the presence of Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 ESV).

"And the child did minister unto the LORD before Eli the priest" (1 Sam. 2:11 JPS).

This text clearly distinguishes between the boy and the priest. The boy served the Lord under the priest. He was the priest's attendant or servant. Unlike the wicked servants of the priest who used their position to steal from the people (vv. 13-15, which uses the expression "the priest's servant"), Samuel was a good and faithful servant of the priest.

Actually, you cited 2:18, not 2:11. I responded to 2:18. At any rate, of course Samuel ministered with Eli. He was learning how to be a priest. Why would Eli have a non-priest assist him in the tabernacle rituals? Samuel "served/ministered YHWH in the presence of Eli." It does not say he was serving Eli. It says he was serving YHWH in the presence of Eli.

Look at 3:3. "The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was." (ESV) Only priests could enter the Holy Place. Notice Samuel was sleeping in the temple, and has a temple theophany there. Why would Eli allow a non-priest to do this?