Nephi And His Asherah

[maklelan]

Here Nephi relies on Matthew who relied on the Septuagint's mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew uses the Septuagint’s parthenos or “virgin” (Matt. 1:23) for Isaiah's almah, meaning “young woman”. Had Isaiah specifically meant “virgin”, he would have used bethulah. -- Tim Callahan, Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? 115-16.

It's actually not really a mistranslation. There is quite a bit of semantic overlap between almah and parthenos, and the latter does not invariably refer to virginity (nor does betulah). You find parthenos used to render almah in Gen 24:43, as well. While parthenos often appears to prioritize virginity, and almah does not, there are instances where virginity is not only within the semantic range, but seems to be highlighted. This doesn't mean that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, or that the Christian tradition is contiguous with the text's meaning throughout its circulation, but it's simply incorrect to state that the Septuagint mistranslated the word. In the Syro-Palestinian and Greco-Roman worlds, it was not uncommon for virginity and sex to be paradoxically juxtaposed in texts relating to the divine. Anat, for instance, the Ugaritic warrior goddess, was most frequently called "Virgin," even though she is represented sleeping with, and bearing a steer (yes, a steer) to, Baal. She was also Yahweh's consort at the Jewish military installation at Elephantine. Rodrigo de Sousa has a great article on this entitled "Is the Choice of ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΣ in LXX Isa. 7:14 Theologically Motivated?" Journal of Semitic Studies 53.2 (2008): 211-32.

[Chris Smith]

Provided that the author indicated is already known to have existed.

When an unprecedented new text introduces a boatload of previously unknown characters, there is no reason to begin our examination by assuming those characters wrote it.

It would be interesting to find out what Blass thinks about Mormon apologists' use of this quote. When I contacted John Brinkman about a similar statement quoted by the apologists, he replied that "I am in Europe, without access to a working library and am unable to verify the quotation. I find it hard to believe that I would have made an unqualified assertion of this sort and would like to check the context before replying." He never got back to me, but in any case, he evidently didn't endorse the application of the principle to such a text.

[Ron Beron]

When Elisha summoned 450 priest of Baal and 400 priests of Asherah, his consort, for a contest somehow I don't think God intended to elevate Asherah's role. Quite the converse. 1 Kings 18.

Nor did he denigrate either. Only the priests of Baal were destroyed not the priests of Asherah.

[Robert F. Smith]

Rev 22: 1-2 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life."

According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ is directly associated with the "love of God" in 1 John 4:9, Titus 3:4 and Rom 8:39, while 2 Cor 13:14 associates it with his grace. Even more stunning is Romans 5:5 which says, the "love of God has been poured out within our hearts..." This sounds almost identical to Nephi "it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts..."

These are some whopper parallel verses that are not mentioned in Dan's article. In the New Testament, only two things are said to give mankind eternal life: the Tree of life and Jesus Christ. The narrative in 1 Nephi 11 begins with the Tree and the climax ends with the Lamb of God. I don't think Mormons generally find this narrative "perplexing," at all, or at least, not as much as Dan's suggests. The explanation I provided above is, I believe, the most reasonable one based on the biblical evidence.

Again the narrative in 1 Nephi 11 resembles too much of the New Testament, and therefore makes perfect sense if we understand this. There is no need to seek profound meanings in a preexilic Israelite context. And BTW, Nephi's reference to the "virgin" Mary would be considered an anachronism in Israelite religion; just another reason to believe the chapter reflects more from the New Testament than anything else.

No anachronism at all.

In line with I Nephi 11:13-18 (esp. “mother of [the son of] god”), Isaiah does make a rather bold prediction at 7:14 (∥II Nephi 17:14) that “a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” which is quoted at Matthew 1:23 – where it is interpreted to refer to Mary the Mother of Jesus, a virgin (who is here the recipient of an angelic dream-vision), i.e., she who will give birth to "the Son of God" (a phrase well-known at Qumran). There is of course plenty of controversy here as to the intended meaning of Hebrew ʿalma, a word translated by the learned Septuaginta (the 3rd century B.C. Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt) into Greek as parthenos, “virgin.” Many modern scholars maintain that the Hebrew word means simply “young woman,” rather than a virgin. However, the post-Christian Jewish understanding was that the intent had been “virgin,” and that a new version of the Septuagint was needed. Thus, they changed parthenos to neanis “young-woman” to cover the problem of Jewish-Christian claims (Barker, Temple Mysticism, 27, citing Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71).

The upshot is that, as noted by Margaret Barker, 1QIs^a Isaiah 7:11 reads “Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God” (Barker, Temple Mysticism, 166 n. 91)!!

The early Jewish understanding is certainly superior here, and the parallel use of betula and ʿalma in Ugaritic references to ʿAnat may indicate an ancient equation of the two words as a standard parallel word-pair. Moreover, an Ugaritic text (“The Betrothal of Moon and Nikkal-Ib”) has the same line or type-scene paralleling Isaiah 7:14 in Ugaritic, hl ǵlmt tld b[n . . .] “Behold, the ʿalmat shall give birth to a chi[ld]”(CAT 1.24, line 7, in Simon Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry [1997], 216; cf. Legend of Kirta, tablet 1, column VI, lines 31-35).

Even in ancient Sumerian texts (2000 years before Christ), the virginity of the Mother goddess is paramount – along with a host of other astonishing parallels concerning her son (Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite [1969], 133).

Nephi's response: "it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts..." This spectacularly similar to Romans 5:5 - "the love of God has been poured out within our hearts..."

It is significant that the "love of God" never refers to Mary in the NT, nor is it ever referenced in the OT, nor is it associated with Asherah in Wisdom literature.

It is always Jesus Christ who provides the water of everlasting life, not the tree, not the virgin, not God's wife.

Thus, Jesus is the Love of God and Jesus provides mankind with the water of life.

It is wrong to suggest, as Dan does in his article, that Joseph Smith could not have "scarcely" figured out this connection using the Bible alone. Meaning, there is no need to seek profound parallels with Wisdom literature when the ingredients (i.e. whiteness, tree, water, love of God) for this metaphorical recipe was written all over the New Testament. In fact, it appears that Romans 5:5 is cited almost verbatim in the Nephi narrative.

Greek agape-love of God for man (Jer 31:3, Hos 11:4), and of man for God (Jer 2:2) translates Hebrew ʼahaba “love,” which typically appears in parallel with hesed “grace, mercy” (see II Corinthians 13:14, which you cite). Thus, depending on one’s theory of translation, when Joseph is translating the Book of Mormon text is he supposed to follow a simplistic plenary dictation directly from the Lord, or is he permitted to use language already familiar to him – perhaps even rendering meanings in a kind of metaphrase somewhat unlike a mechanical word-for-word translation of the original? Familiar phrases should certainly be acceptable. Of course, one can apply an a priori judgment to all of this.

So, if the fruit is described in I Nephi 8:11 as tasting most sweet, we can conjure up Song of Songs 2:3, just as we can parallel the river of water in 8:13 with Deuteronomy 10:7, Joel 1:20, and I Enoch 14:19, in addition to Revelation 22:1. We are after all speaking about a New Testament text which is based heavily on the OT in LXX Greek, which is in turn based on Semitic style and turns of phrase (J. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [1971]). So, the translation of I Nephi 11:22 sounds very much like Romans 5:5, but could as easily have been rendered in a fashion more like Ecclesiasticus 18:11. The same for the fountain of living waters in 11:25, which parallels Jerermiah 2:13, 17:13, as well as Revelation 7:17, 21:6. So for the tree of life in the same verse – Genesis 3:22, Proverbs 3:18, 13:12, and Revelation 22:1-2 (and I Enoch 14:19, 62:3,5, and Psalms of Solomon 14:3), etc., with a profusion of such parallels listed in the apparatus to the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (1986-1987).

It isn't that you are in bad company in making the assertions you do. I recall many years ago Krister Stendahl wrote an analysis of some similar Book of Mormon phrases, but failed to examine the broader implications -- and even missed several major OT parallels which rendered his thesis faulty.

I should probably also mention that many of the scholars Dan mentions accept the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) which places some of the BoM Isaiah citations, after the period from which Lehi set sail for the Americas. This is a huge obstacle for LDS scholars who now need to explain how the Book of Mormon could quote an Isaiah redactor before he was even born.

Since the Book of Mormon itself is edited and redacted in much the same fashion that the Documentary Hypothesis suggests for the biblical texts, it should be no problem for Book of Mormon scholars. The issue of Isaiah and the Isaianic School is a separate one, and raises questions about the dating of particular portions of the text. To the minds of many, the matter remains unsettled.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

There is something fundamentally wrong with a rejection of a common ground, the scriptures, in favor of a highly speculative theory based upon a destable fertility cult.

Sounds like a kangaroo cult, or court, to me. Perhaps you'd like explain why you reject those Scriptures telling us about the many plain and precious parts removed from Scripture. Do I need to cite them?

When Elisha summoned 450 priest of Baal and 400 priests of Asherah, his consort, for a contest somehow I don't think God intended to elevate Asherah's role. Quite the converse. 1 Kings 18.

This Mormon apologia fascination with a detestable cult reveals too much about the lengths we go to justify the Book of Mormon.

If it was so "detestable," why did the Priests of Asherah (the consort of YHWH) remain unharmed while the priests of Baal were slaughtered? The prophets indeed inveighed against Baal. Why did they permit Asherah to slide by?

There is simply no support for the theory, and summoning Eliza Snow won't work. Disputing the resort to Asherah is not the same as disputing the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.

I am assuming that you do not dispute the notion that we have a mother in heaven, and that you won't suggest that Eliza Snow (and her song) become persona non grata any time soon. However, you do appear to be attempting to rewrite archeological history, and perhaps trying to deny the cult tendencies extant in ancient Israel.

Interesting though. I sat on a disciplinary council where the couple advanced and taught in church the doctrine that Asherah represented a complimentary priesthood. Close connection with Salt Lake on the doctrine led to excommunication. So it isn't like Dr Peterson's theory came as a complete surprise when I first read it. I had seen it before, or a more pernicious variation. This couple in my stake followed Asherah to her ultimate conclusion. Ritual prostitution.

The theory is not Peterson's, and it is not new. Most scholars dealing with the ancient Near East understand the archeological artefacts and inscriptions being found in that fashion. You're in denial, counselor.

[Xander]

with I Nephi 11:13-18 (esp. “mother of [the son of] god”), Isaiah does make a rather bold prediction at 7:14 (∥II Nephi 17:14) that “a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” which is quoted at Matthew 1:23 – where it is interpreted to refer to Mary the Mother of Jesus, a virgin (who is here the recipient of an angelic dream-vision), i.e., she who will give birth to "the Son of God" (a phrase well-known at Qumran). There is of course plenty of controversy here as to the intended meaning of Hebrew ʿalma, a word translated by the learned Septuaginta (the 3rd century B.C. Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt) into Greek as parthenos, “virgin.” Many modern scholars maintain that the Hebrew word means simply “young woman,” rather than a virgin. However, the post-Christian Jewish understanding was that the intent had been “virgin,” and that a new version of the Septuagint was needed. Thus, they changed parthenos to neanis “young-woman” to cover the problem of Jewish-Christian claims (Barker, Temple Mysticism, 27, citing Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71).

Emphasis mine

The problem here is that Nephi wasn't a "post-Christian Jew." Hence, the anachronism.

The upshot is that, as noted by Margaret Barker, 1QIsa Isaiah 7:11 reads “Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God” (Barker, Temple Mysticism, 166 n. 91)!!

I don't see how this helps your argument. On one hand you want to use earlier Jewish sources to equate Asherah with a Mormon concept of a mother in heaven, but Asherah was considered the consort of Yahweh. In Mormon theology, Yahweh is Jesus, the son of "heavenly mother," not her husband. At this point to have to go back further in time where Asherah (whose name and concept derive from those nasty Zoomorphic Gods of Ugarit) was the consort of El, which is closer, but still isn't the Mormon father in heaven named Elohim. Trust me when I say that I know the cognitive contortions required for this apologetic to get off the ground, because I used to engage in it quite a bit. We know where the Asherah concept comes from. You can think it was from divine revelation if you want, but there is nothing in the Bible to support this, and there exists a plethora of archaeological data to suggest it was simply a concept borrowed from some of the nastier Mesopotamian religions. As such, Mormon apologists would do well to just let this go, and forget trying to establish evidence for a Heavenly Mother from these texts.

The early Jewish understanding is certainly superior here

Then you should apply it consistently. You can't just pick the parts that seem to fit a Mormon concept while rejecting all the things that undermine it.

and the parallel use of betula and ʿalma in Ugaritic references to ʿAnat may indicate an ancient equation of the two words as a standard parallel word-pair. Moreover, an Ugaritic text (“The Betrothal of Moon and Nikkal-Ib”) has the same line or type-scene paralleling Isaiah 7:14 in Ugaritic, hl ǵlmt tld b[n . . .] “Behold, the ʿalmat shall give birth to a chi[ld]”(CAT 1.24, line 7, in Simon Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry [1997], 216; cf. Legend of Kirta, tablet 1, column VI, lines 31-35).

Again, do you really want to use Ugaritic texts to support any Mormon concepts? According to Ugaritic religion, the female goddess in heaven was in fact a cow and her husband was a Bull, El, who had literal sex with her to produce her offspring, not least of which was Yahweh who was at times identified as a storm God represented as a calf (which adds new meaning to the golden calf ritual explained by Moses) and later on, a mighty bull. These gods engaged in all sorts of devious sex, fought like crazy, etc., nothing at all like the LDS concept of a heavenly family. If you want to use the Ugaritic religion as a backdrop, then let's do it full speed.

Even in ancient Sumerian texts (2000 years before Christ), the virginity of the Mother goddess is paramount – along with a host of other astonishing parallels concerning her son (Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite [1969], 133).

I'm also aware of the overall context which makes a conflation with Mormon theology virtually impossible. rcrockett has it right. What you're doing is essentially following the Hugh Nibley method of going back throughout the history of man to find anything that could conceivably be seen as a "parallel" to some Mormon concept, and then that leap in logic is justified by nothing more than apologetic expediency. This is the fallacy of parallelomania, and it simply won't do for convincing those who do not already begin with the same theological/apologetic premise.

Greek agape-love of God for man (Jer 31:3, Hos 11:4), and of man for God (Jer 2:2) translates Hebrew ʼahaba “love,” which typically appears in parallel with hesed “grace, mercy” (see II Corinthians 13:14, which you cite). Thus, depending on one’s theory of translation, when Joseph is translating the Book of Mormon text is he supposed to follow a simplistic plenary dictation directly from the Lord, or is he permitted to use language already familiar to him – perhaps even rendering meanings in a kind of metaphrase somewhat unlike a mechanical word-for-word translation of the original? Familiar phrases should certainly be acceptable. Of course, one can apply an a priori judgment to all of this.

You have to do more than show similarities in isolated words. You have to deal with the phrase constructs that bear too much of a resemblance to be coincidence. Following the law of parsimony, Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the Bible. This is something even LDS OT scholar David Bokovoy has admitted. You really have to stretch things to argue that maybe Joseph Smith was translating a literal ancient Jewish text that just coincidentally ended up looking just like a verse the apostle Paul wrote six centuries later.

So, if the fruit is described in I Nephi 8:11 as tasting most sweet, we can conjure up Song of Songs 2:3, just as we can parallel the river of water in 8:13 with Deuteronomy 10:7, Joel 1:20, and I Enoch 14:19, in addition to Revelation 22:1. We are after all speaking about a New Testament text which is based heavily on the OT in LXX Greek, which is in turn based on Semitic style and turns of phrase (J. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [1971]). So, the translation of I Nephi 11:22 sounds very much like Romans 5:5, but could as easily have been rendered in a fashion more like Ecclesiasticus 18:11. The same for the fountain of living waters in 11:25, which parallels Jerermiah 2:13, 17:13, as well as Revelation 7:17, 21:6. So for the tree of life in the same verse – Genesis 3:22, Proverbs 3:18, 13:12, and Revelation 22:1-2 (and I Enoch 14:19, 62:3,5, and Psalms of Solomon 14:3), etc., with a profusion of such parallels listed in the apparatus to the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (1986-1987).

The point is, Dan Peterson raised these points from Wisdom Literature to support his contention that Joseph Smith was really translating an Ancient Jewish document, but as I have shown, all of these metaphorical elements were already present in the New Testament. But again, I think it is clear which interpretation is more plausible. You want to retranslate Hebrew words so that they will look more like New Testament verses. But the point is, if Joseph Smith were really translating these things in an Ancient Jewish context, than the translation produced would look more like those OT verses you just alluded to, and not a near verbatim copy of anachronistic Christian era verses.

It isn't that you are in bad company in making the assertions you do. I recall many years ago Krister Stendahl wrote an analysis of some similar Book of Mormon phrases, but failed to examine the broader implications -- and even missed several major OT parallels which rendered his thesis faulty.

These parallels proved nothing "faulty" in my argument. Do you understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic? We're dealing with probabilities here, and the fact is you have to make all sorts of strange assumptions unsupported by anything aside from your personal idea of how Joseph Smith translated reformed Egyptian words. And this is the frustrating part of dealing with Book of Mormon apologists because the ground is constantly being shifted. For example, if the Book of Mormon contains a "if-and" construction, then that is because he was translating word for word from an ancient Hebrew text, preserving a Hebraism.

But whenever we see him copy entire phrases from the New Testament, suddenly we are told that these are the instances where he was just using phrases and concepts known to him, not that he was doing a literal translation as with the chiasmus, if-and, etc. This is not how scholars approach a critical text. It is strictly an apologetic approach. The way they cite non-LDS scholars as if they'd for a second agree to the manner in which their comments are being used by Mormon apologists, is quite frankly disturbing.

Since the Book of Mormon itself is edited and redacted in much the same fashion that the Documentary Hypothesis suggests for the biblical texts, it should be no problem for Book of Mormon scholars. The issue of Isaiah and the Isaianic School is a separate one, and raises questions about the dating of particular portions of the text. To the minds of many, the matter remains unsettled.

I'm thinking those minds all have one thing in common too. I'll let you guess what that is.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

edit

Edited December 18, 2011 by Xander

[Bob Crockett]

Nor did he denigrate either. Only the priests of Baal were destroyed not the priests of Asherah.

Hardly an endorsement. And I read 1 Kings 19 as evidence that all were destroyed. I particularly like Micah's diatribe against Asherah.

Further, Smith's slipping into personal attacks to counter my observations, which should tell you something about the strength of his position. And further, I have said nothing about objecting to the doctrine of Mother in Heaven, but for some reason my posts get recast into a position I have never taken.

More later after I re-read the false god William Dever.

Edited December 18, 2011 by rcrocket

[maklelan]

I should probably also mention that many of the scholars Dan mentions accept the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) which places some of the BoM Isaiah citations, after the period from which Lehi set sail for the Americas. This is a huge obstacle for LDS scholars who now need to explain how the Book of Mormon could quote an Isaiah redactor before he was even born.

I just saw someone quote this. A few words of correction: While Deutero-Isaiah is accepted by virtually all scholars (and me) as a late exilic text, it is not a redaction, and it has nothing to do with JEDP or the Documentary Hypothesis (which is just one interpretation of the notion of "JEDP"). The latter has to do with the Pentateuch, although it also bears on the historical writings down to the exile. Deutero-Isaiah is a text from the prophetic genre that never uses the name "Isaiah" and was simply tacked on to the book of Isaiah at some later time. That is all.

[altersteve]

Xander, I don't believe anyone is claiming that three represents Mary, or that Mary is the "love of God." But there seems to be a correlation between Mary and the love of God that the text itself is implying. The "love of God" does not necessarily have to refer to Jesus Christ, either.

[Xander]

Xander, I don't believe anyone is claiming that three represents Mary, or that Mary is the "love of God." But there seems to be a correlation between Mary and the love of God that the text itself is implying. The "love of God" does not necessarily have to refer to Jesus Christ, either.

But it must necessarily refer to Mary if Dan's argument expects to get off the ground. As it is, there is no reason to believe it does. Read his article again.

[Ron Beron]

Hardly an endorsement. And I read 1 Kings 19 as evidence that all were destroyed. I particularly like Micah's diatribe against Asherah.

Further, Smith's slipping into personal attacks to counter my observations, which should tell you something about the strength of his position. And further, I have said nothing about objecting to the doctrine of Mother in Heaven, but for some reason my posts get recast into a position I have never taken.

More later after I re-read the false god William Dever.

Perhaps you confusing the duality of the Asherah. One one level it was truly a pagan symbol of an earlier fertility figure, but on an entirely more metaphorical basis she was a simile for the creative powers of God and as such she came to be represented variously as the the Tree of Life, Sophia, Logos, and ultimately Jesus was seen as a form of Wisdom personified especially in the writings of Matthew 11:19 and discussed at length in "Wisdom in Matthew: Transformation of a Symbol" by Celia Deutsch Novum Testamentum Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 13-47.

Additionally, I Kings 19 does not reference the killing of the priests, but prophets (nabi) and then it was a recap of that found previously in chapter 18 where only the priests of Baal were referenced.

[Bob Crockett]

Perhaps you confusing the duality of the Asherah. One one level it was truly a pagan symbol of an earlier fertility figure, but on an entirely more metaphorical basis she was a simile for the creative powers of God and as such she came to be represented variously as the the Tree of Life, Sophia, Logos, and ultimately Jesus was seen as a form of Wisdom personified especially in the writings of Matthew 11:19 and discussed at length in "Wisdom in Matthew: Transformation of a Symbol" by Celia Deutsch Novum Testamentum Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 13-47.

Additionally, I Kings 19 does not reference the killing of the priests, but prophets (nabi) and then it was a recap of that found previously in chapter 18 where only the priests of Baal were referenced.

I am not confusing anything. I've read the literature. I'm really not ready to respond, but here is my early assessment. I'd like more time to fill in references, but I don't have that time.

The Hebrew Bible roundly and thoroughly condemns Asherah, whether as a cult symbol or any other kind of symbol. Possible inroads into that are (1) Leah's naming one of her sons Asher, (2) Abraham's planting of a grove [Gen. 21:33] although the word there is apparently tamarisk and not asherah, and (3) apparently, the dubious assertion that God spared the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18. But, I could go on pages and pages with Jehovah's condemnation of Asherah. There are too many to point out; Asherah is condemned more frequently that sexual sins, it seems, and often committing sexual sins is equivalent to worshiping Asherah.

A number of largely secular (meaning, they don't believe the Bible is the Word of God) have developed a distinction between the "official" religion and "folk" or "popular" religion, arguing that post-exillic clerics and scribes have edited out favorable references to Asherah because they had the power to do so. [There is zero evidence of this, by the way; it is just an assertion.] Thus, the argument goes, because Asherah is found in the temple for 2/3rds of its existence, and Asherah is found in many homes and places of Hebrew worship, than Asherah as a consort of Yahweh was possible, or was indeed, a legitimate form of the worship of Yahweh.

Some Latter-day Saints have adopted this nihilistic view of the Bible to argue that Yahweh does indeed have a consort, legitimately, and the Asherah cult worship can be found in Nephi's vision of the tree. But, to get there, they, perhaps unwittingly, pummel the legitimacy of the Bible as the Word of God, to the point that it becomes worthless in addressing all sorts of topics, like the resurrection, sexual behavior, sabbath worship and the unadulterated worship of God. These Saints sign onto polytheism of the type, once again, the Word of God condemns without hesitation. They link arms with the atheist Hebrew scholars who would find, essentially, the presence of Satan in God's court in the preexistence [Job] as evidence that Satan, too, might be God. Or, more perniciously, that there is no Satan. These Saints cite heavily to these atheist scholars, like Dever, and give him a nice pat on the back for a job well done.

I point you to Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt's work in FARMS Review at http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=639, which reviews Dever's recent book. It kind of summarizes things, and she does note that there are things which she might take exception to (excuse the split infinitive), but I don't think the review goes far enough to locate Dever in the pantheon (and I use that word intentionally) of Hebrew scholars.

But Dever is a false foundation. He admits that he is a feminist. He admits the Hebrew Bible is misogynistic. He takes exception to the role of women in the Hebrew priesthood and exception to the fact that God is male. He has an agenda, and that is to make God female. I realize I am using a little hyperbole here to discuss Dever, but indeed his view of Hebrew worship is colored by his relativism. But, some non-Hebrew readers think he's the greatest and worship at his altar.

If you're going to argue that Nephi has his Asherah, in a revelatory religion, you're going to want to do some foundation work. Does the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures say that a legitimate form of worship is to worship Asherah, or even the mother? [My personal view is the reason that we don't say anything much at all about "mother" is that there is likely not a single mother.] What does the Book of Mormon say on the subject? Does Joseph Smith say that we worship Asherah, or a mother? Do any of the modern prophets say the same? [My reading of the Gospel Library sources which refer to Asherah show universal condemnation by those who mention it/her; Sperry, Ludlow, etc.]

I point out in passing, although I realize this will weaken my argument for many of you, the remarkable similarity with this unusual view of Asherah to the Sorenson map and the belief in two Cumorahs, where the words of living prophets expressly on the subject are subjugated to a Mormon modernist view. But, I digress.

My view on this subject is known to a few who have heard me weigh forth on it. This is not a personal attack, by any means. I take exception to a few things generated by FARMS and the Journal but otherwise worship at their altar.

For those of who take exception to my views, keep in mind: (1) I believe in a mother in heaven, (2) I believe that the Bible has errors, (3) I think the Book of Mormon should used to judge the Bible. I realize this post sort of swims against the current amongst the hobbyist apologist (of which I am one) but I have been thinking about it for 10 years. I'm not all that interested in posts that deride my chosen profession or my perceived lack of faith, if you don't mind.

Edited December 20, 2011 by rcrocket

[Senator]

Some Latter-day Saints have adopted this nihilistic view of the Bible to argue that Yahweh does indeed have a consort, legitimately, and the Asherah cult worship can be found in Nephi's vision of the tree. But, to get there, they really must pummel the legitimacy of the Bible as the Word of God, to the point that it becomes worthless in addressing all sorts of topics, like the resurrection, sexual behavior, sabbath worship and the unadulterated worship of God. These LDS scholars sign onto polytheism of the type, once again, the Word of God condemns without hesitation. They link arms with the atheist Hebrew scholars who would find, essentially, the presence of Satan in God's court in the preexistence [Job] as evidence that Satan, too, might be God. Or, more perniciously, that there is no Satan. These LDS scholars cite heavily to these atheist scholars, like Dever, and give him a nice pat on the back for a job well done.

My, my! There's trouble in River City!

[Bob Crockett]

and ultimately Jesus was seen as a form of Wisdom personified especially in the writings of Matthew 11:19 and discussed at length in "Wisdom in Matthew: Transformation of a Symbol" by Celia Deutsch Novum Testamentum Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 13-47.

I challenge the utility of this Deutsch article for an argument about a mother in heaven or Nephi and his Asherah. As Deutsch points out, citing from Ben Sira,

Ben Sira [second century B.C.E.] expands on the traditional material, however. In chapter 24 he tells us that Lady Wisdom is God's word: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist" (v. 3). And she is present at creation, not only because she was created from eternity, but because she is the word spoken "in the beginning". (23).

I interpret Deutsch to say nothing more than Wisdom is described in the literature as female (although, not always), and that Wisdom is actually the word of God.

What am I to make of this argument other than the obvious, that a ship is often called a "she?"

Edited December 19, 2011 by rcrocket

[Ron Beron]

[quote name='rcrocket' writes,

I am not confusing anything. I've read the literature. I'm really not ready to respond, but here is my early assessment. I'd like more time to fill in references, but I don't have that time.

I'm glad you didn't have the time because I would be here all night.

The Hebrew Bible roundly and thoroughly condemns Asherah, whether as a cult symbol or any other kind of symbol.

I only agree to this in part, because while in early Israelite theology her presence whether legitimate or not was still noted as a viable deity. Only later was "she" removed from the temple and ostensibly from the actual worship service of the Jews. This does not mean that she was completely forgotten in folk worship or in metaphoric religious belief such as a belief in Hokhmah or Wisdom. What you see as completely metaphor was certainly seen as such after the diaspora, but taken as corporeal in early Israelite belief.

But, I could go on pages and pages with Jehovah's condemnation of Asherah. There are too many to point out; Asherah is condemned more frequently that sexual sins, it seems, and often committing sexual sins is equivalent to worshiping Asherah.

Please show we where it is condemned prior to King Manasseh or the introduction of Deuteronomist thought?

A number of largely secular (meaning, they don't believe the Bible is the Word of God) have developed a distinction between the "official" religion and "folk" or "popular" religion, arguing that post-exillic clerics and scribes have edited out favorable references to Asherah because they had the power to do so. [There is zero evidence of this, by the way; it is just an assertion.] Thus, the argument goes, because Asherah is found in the temple for 2/3rds of its existence, and Asherah is found in many homes and places of Hebrew worship, than Asherah as a consort of Yahweh was possible, or was indeed, a legitimate form of the worship of Yahweh.

Given this supposition Mormons should not accept the concept of the Three Nephite legends etc., because they are clearly folk belief. I do not believe anyone here is advocating a worship of Asherah or even a Mother in Heaven only that the ancient Jews worshiped originally a tangible deity known as a Asherah alongside that of YHWH, but later was subjected to a metaphoric explanation of the creative forces of God. It is simple religious evolution.

Some Latter-day Saints have adopted this nihilistic view of the Bible to argue that Yahweh does indeed have a consort, legitimately, and the Asherah cult worship can be found in Nephi's vision of the tree.

I don't think that has ever been an argument of real substance only that Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life can be metaphorically linked with the Asherah. Not as a real deity, but again as a symbol of God's Wisdom and Truth.

They link arms with the atheist Hebrew scholars who would find, essentially, the presence of Satan in God's court in the preexistence [Job] as evidence that Satan, too, might be God. Or, more perniciously, that there is no Satan. These Saints cite heavily to these atheist scholars, like Dever, and give him a nice pat on the back for a job well done.

Actually, without Dever's acknowledgement or not there is little evidence for the presence of a actual Satan personage in Job or other parts of the OT except for its role as a title for God's adversary. Not an adversary of God, but an adversary for God.

If you're going to argue that Nephi has his Asherah, in a revelatory religion, you're going to want to do some foundation work. Does the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures say that a legitimate form of worship is to worship Asherah, or even the mother?

I think you are painting my views with too broad a brush since I never even suggested that. I only said that the early proto-Israelites certainly did and certainly did continue until the post-diaspora and only then continued to relate God's Wisdom as an attribute of God's emanation of his nous or intellect.

I'm not all that interested in posts that deride my chosen profession or my perceived lack of faith, if you don't mind.

Why would your profession be of question here?

[Ron Beron]

I challenge the utility of this Deutsch article for an argument about a mother in heaven or Nephi and his Asherah. As Deutsch points out, citing from Ben Sira,

I interpret Deutsch to say nothing more than Wisdom is described in the literature as female (although, not always), and that Wisdom is actually the word of God.

What am I to make of this argument other than the obvious, that a ship is often called a "she?"

The argument given is that the Logos and the concept of Wisdom are identical and that Jesus has been attributed to it. While the Hebrew word for Wisdom is feminine it does not necessarily mean that Wisdom is female.

[Mike Reed]

I don't get why people are so impressed by the Nephi's Asherah speculation. There were two trees in the garden of Eden. Eve was created through Adam's flesh (rib), and conversely Jesus (the second Adam) born from the flesh of Mary. Adam and Eve were both associated to the Tree of knowledge. Marry and Jesus were both associated to the Tree of Life. Does anyone here deny that 18th-19th century Christians taught these things? It was Mary and Jesus that were shown in Nephi's vision, not Elohim's wife. Associating a tree with Jesus and/or Mary wasn't the slightest bit absurd in Joseph's day. Has any apologist bothered to research "two seeds" in christian thinking? There is no need to turn to ancient near-Eastern explanations that were far remove from Joseph's understanding and 19th century environment.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Robert F. Smith]

rcrocket, on 19 December 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

Some Latter-day Saints have adopted this nihilistic view of the Bible to argue that Yahweh does indeed have a consort, legitimately, and the Asherah cult worship can be found in Nephi's vision of the tree. But, to get there, they really must pummel the legitimacy of the Bible as the Word of God, to the point that it becomes worthless in addressing all sorts of topics, like the resurrection, sexual behavior, sabbath worship and the unadulterated worship of God. These LDS scholars sign onto polytheism of the type, once again, the Word of God condemns without hesitation. They link arms with the atheist Hebrew scholars who would find, essentially, the presence of Satan in God's court in the preexistence [Job] as evidence that Satan, too, might be God. Or, more perniciously, that there is no Satan. These LDS scholars cite heavily to these atheist scholars, like Dever, and give him a nice pat on the back for a job well done.

My, my! There's trouble in River City!

Quite so. Trouble. They spell it with a T, and that rhymes with P, which stands for the pot calling the kettle black.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Please show we where it is condemned prior to King Manasseh or the introduction of Deuteronomist thought?

Exodus 34:13: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.

I fully acknowledge all the recent literature arguing that Yahweh had a consort, and that was Asherah. I can read Dever and Ackerman for myself and see it.

A believer would say that monotheism was instituted by Adam but there were constant inroads into monotheism through the adoption of pagan polytheism.

A cynic would say that because polytheism was so prevalent than, well, that must have been true doctrine.

Alas, henotheism has taken root among some of us.

Edited December 20, 2011 by rcrocket

[Ron Beron]

Exodus 34:13: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.

I should have worded that differently and, of course you are correct. There is only one problem and it sounds like a lame excuse, but still plausible; Exodus was written far after the death of Moses and certainly after the Jews returned from exile to Babylon. I don't intend to argue for a worship of any kind to pagan deity, but simply to show that the deity became a symbol of something greater in the minds of the Israelites. While her worship, at times, was an abomination, the symbol in which she became was not. In many ways, Christmas is the same. The origins of Christmas was certainly pagan, yet it has taken on a whole different meaning.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

I don't get why people are so impressed by the Nephi's Asherah speculation. There were two trees in the garden of Eden. Eve was created through Adam's flesh (rib), and conversely Jesus (the second Adam) born from the flesh of Mary. Adam and Eve were both associated to the Tree of knowledge. Marry and Jesus were both associated to the Tree of Life. Does anyone here deny that 18th-19th century Christians taught these things? It was Mary and Jesus that were shown in Nephi's vision, not Elohim's wife. Associating a tree with Jesus and/or Mary wasn't the slightest bit absurd in Joseph's day. Has any apologist bothered to research "two seeds" in christian thinking? There is no need to turn to ancient near-Eastern explanations that were far remove from Joseph's understanding and 19th century environment.

It is akin to the role, and this is near and dear to you, of crosses. By themselves they are fairly insignificant, but on a grander scale its meaning far reaching.

[Bob Crockett]

I should have worded that differently and, of course you are correct. There is only one problem and it sounds like a lame excuse, but still plausible; Exodus was written far after the death of Moses and certainly after the Jews returned from exile to Babylon. I don't intend to argue for a worship of any kind to pagan deity, but simply to show that the deity became a symbol of something greater in the minds of the Israelites. While her worship, at times, was an abomination, the symbol in which she became was not. In many ways, Christmas is the same. The origins of Christmas was certainly pagan, yet it has taken on a whole different meaning.

I would suggest, then, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Nowhere has Yahweh approved the worship of Asherah, the pole or symbol, or any other abstraction, of any sort; nor has Yahweh ever acknowledged Asherah as his consort.

I would further suggest that Yahweh's word is the best evidence of his intentions, and whenever He speaks about Asherah, it is to condemn it/her.

Let me further urge Latter-day Saints to avoid linking arms with the atheists.

Edited December 20, 2011 by rcrocket

[Mike Reed]

It is akin to the role, and this is near and dear to you, of crosses. By themselves they are fairly insignificant, but on a grander scale its meaning far reaching.

Good point. By "impressive," I suppose I was speaking more along the lines of people thinking that this is a Book of Mormon evidence (confirming its authenticity).

[Robert F. Smith]

The problem here is that Nephi wasn't a "post-Christian Jew." Hence, the anachronism.

Of course not, but you missed the point that the same understanding that the intended meaning was "virgin" existed in the Septuaginta and in earlier Canaanite sources. There is no anachronism.

On one hand you want to use earlier Jewish sources to equate Asherah with a Mormon concept of a mother in heaven, but Asherah was considered the consort of Yahweh. In Mormon theology, Yahweh is Jesus, the son of "heavenly mother," not her husband. At this point to have to go back further in time where Asherah (whose name and concept derive from those nasty Zoomorphic Gods of Ugarit) was the consort of El, which is closer, but still isn't the Mormon father in heaven named Elohim. Trust me when I say that I know the cognitive contortions required for this apologetic to get off the ground, because I used to engage in it quite a bit. We know where the Asherah concept comes from. You can think it was from divine revelation if you want, but there is nothing in the Bible to support this, and there exists a plethora of archaeological data to suggest it was simply a concept borrowed from some of the nastier Mesopotamian religions. As such, Mormon apologists would do well to just let this go, and forget trying to establish evidence for a Heavenly Mother from these texts.

There is no "cognitive contortion" involved in dealing with a continuum in Canaanite religion from the 2nd millennium B.C. into the 1st, even though you see it as "nasty" in some respects. Describing the nature of that religion (with all its variety) and its powerful parallels with Israelite religion (in all its variety) is a worthy scholarly enterprise, and it should be no surprise that the great mother goddess makes her appearance there and elsewhere (under other names) throughout the ancient world. That does not mean that all those mother goddess figures are anything more than a debased form of true religion, but the overlapping parallels should be instructive.

The same applies to the names and descriptive terms used for God in Canaanite, Hebrew, and other ancient Near Eastern texts. Not only are these titles and descriptors (rather than true "names"), but LDS theology sees roles being played by various entities under various titles.

Then you should apply it consistently. You can't just pick the parts that seem to fit a Mormon concept while rejecting all the things that undermine it.

Again, do you really want to use Ugaritic texts to support any Mormon concepts? According to Ugaritic religion, the female goddess in heaven was in fact a cow and her husband was a Bull, El, who had literal sex with her to produce her offspring, not least of which was Yahweh who was at times identified as a storm God represented as a calf (which adds new meaning to the golden calf ritual explained by Moses) and later on, a mighty bull. These gods engaged in all sorts of devious sex, fought like crazy, etc., nothing at all like the LDS concept of a heavenly family. If you want to use the Ugaritic religion as a backdrop, then let's do it full speed.

Yes. Let's do so, and you can start by reading

L’Heureux, Conrad E., Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Dagan, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monograph 21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979).

Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and

Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 2?? (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).

I'm also aware of the overall context which makes a conflation with Mormon theology virtually impossible. rcrockett has it right. What you're doing is essentially following the Hugh Nibley method of going back throughout the history of man to find anything that could conceivably be seen as a "parallel" to some Mormon concept, and then that leap in logic is justified by nothing more than apologetic expediency. This is the fallacy of parallelomania, and it simply won't do for convincing those who do not already begin with the same theological/apologetic premise.

True enough: Those who exclude the world of Joseph Campbell will certainly not accept parallels, which must ex hypothesi be false. Yet Nibley is being quite consistent (you yourself demand it!) in his application of ancient parallels to later times. Be careful what you wish for, Xander. The Mormons didn't invent the parallels between Sumero-Akkadian myth & literature and that which we find in much later Hebrew documents. They merely point them out. You and Bob Crockett may not be comfortable with that, but it is a quite legitimate method of showing how the Gospel has been around since time immemorial and that it is passed down from age to age.

You have to do more than show similarities in isolated words. You have to deal with the phrase constructs that bear too much of a resemblance to be coincidence. Following the law of parsimony, Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the Bible. This is something even LDS OT scholar David Bokovoy has admitted. You really have to stretch things to argue that maybe Joseph Smith was translating a literal ancient Jewish text that just coincidentally ended up looking just like a verse the apostle Paul wrote six centuries later.

Many LDS scholars (B. H. Roberts, Sperry, Ludlow, et al.) have stated that Joseph obviously used a copy of the KJV while engaged in his translation work -- at least when he came to the Isaiah sections.

You should probably allow Bokovoy to speak for himself (or quote him), but I have heard him state that certain types of formulaic words and phrases familiar from the OT do of course show up in the Book of Mormon, and for the same reasons that they show up intratextually in the Bible itself (Bible quoting Bible).

The point is, Dan Peterson raised these points from Wisdom Literature to support his contention that Joseph Smith was really translating an Ancient Jewish document, but as I have shown, all of these metaphorical elements were already present in the New Testament. But again, I think it is clear which interpretation is more plausible. You want to retranslate Hebrew words so that they will look more like New Testament verses. But the point is, if Joseph Smith were really translating these things in an Ancient Jewish context, than the translation produced would look more like those OT verses you just alluded to, and not a near verbatim copy of anachronistic Christian era verses.

One problem which we need to acknowledge is that the KJV translators of the OT did not translate the NT, so the disjuncture among words and phrases seems stark to those who don't know any better. A closer look confirms that the Semitic style and phraseology in common is there in spades. Without that realization any measure of plausibility, probability, or parsimony will naturally be skewed.

These parallels proved nothing "faulty" in my argument. Do you understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic? We're dealing with probabilities here, and the fact is you have to make all sorts of strange assumptions unsupported by anything aside from your personal idea of how Joseph Smith translated reformed Egyptian words. And this is the frustrating part of dealing with Book of Mormon apologists because the ground is constantly being shifted. For example, if the Book of Mormon contains a "if-and" construction, then that is because he was translating word for word from an ancient Hebrew text, preserving a Hebraism.

The "if-and" construction is irrelevant to our discussion, and would in any case be as likely to preserve an Egyptianism, and might not really be sufficiently distinctive from English to be of much use as a diagnostic tool.

Sorry, but the shifting ground you perceive is based on your faulty a priori assumptions. I have been very consistent.

I hope, by the way, that you are not including in your list of serious Book of Mormon apologists, Venice Priddis.

But whenever we see him copy entire phrases from the New Testament, suddenly we are told that these are the instances where he was just using phrases and concepts known to him, not that he was doing a literal translation as with the chiasmus, if-and, etc. This is not how scholars approach a critical text. It is strictly an apologetic approach. The way they cite non-LDS scholars as if they'd for a second agree to the manner in which their comments are being used by Mormon apologists, is quite frankly disturbing.

If you think that various non-LDS scholars are being quoted out of context, please call it to my attention. I don't want you to feel frustrated, and I assume that you are a very intelligent guy. So, by all means, give me specific instances in which you think that I have committed any error of fact or logic. Or demand a CFR. I'll be happy to oblige in either case.