33 replies to this topic

[CASteinman]

Hamilton Porter, on 07 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

I disagree with that but thanks for the sources.

Perhaps I should have been more precise.  If Adam is not real then the Gospel is apparently invalid -- if by Gospel, one means the teachings regarding the Plan of Redemption as described by Book of Mormon prophets Jacob, Alma and Moroni.  Also as described by modern prophets such as Joseph Smith.

In addition, it tarnishes Jesus as either being deceptive or deceived Himself.

[David T]

Robert F. Smith, on 07 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Don't worry yourself unnecessarily.  The Genesis Creation & Garden stories are not meant as history-writing or science writing, but as dramatic ritual and catechetical texts.  Most biblical scholars see them as temple texts (especially in the context of other such ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation & garden).  The Brethren have frequently spoken of them in the past as being "figurative," as here http://scottwoodward...rtsofstory.html  To insist that they are actual historical accounts is a category mistake.

See Manfried Dietrich, “Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten,” in B. Janowski & Beate Ego, eds., Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 281-323.

Oh, I I don't worry myself on this account. I'm well aware of everything you've said. It's BCSpace's assertion and mindset that is frustrating and has the strong appearance of arrogance.

Edited by David T, 08 June 2012 - 05:34 AM.

[Hamilton Porter]

Ron Beron, on 07 June 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

More on this...you might want to look at the Mesopotamian legend of "Adapa and the Southwind Myth".

Thanks man, that was cool.

[Hamilton Porter]

CASteinman, on 07 June 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Perhaps I should have been more precise.  If Adam is not real then the Gospel is apparently invalid -- if by Gospel, one means the teachings regarding the Plan of Redemption as described by Book of Mormon prophets Jacob, Alma and Moroni.  Also as described by modern prophets such as Joseph Smith.

In addition, it tarnishes Jesus as either being deceptive or deceived Himself.

Don't agree with that either. Jesus was merely following tradition.

[Log]

Christ was following tradition, even in the D&C, huh?  I don't know that I would ever be so bold as to publicly take that position.

[CASteinman]

Hamilton Porter, on 09 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Don't agree with that either. Jesus was merely following tradition.

So, according to you, Jesus was teaching the weakness of a particular tradition by appealing to a related false tradition rather than appealing to the truth.


What about Jacob, Alma, Moroni, Paul, Joseph Smith?

Edited by CASteinman, 09 June 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Hamilton Porter, on 04 June 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

I don't need evidence that Adam and Eve were real (they probably weren't), just that the the tradition didn't seep into Judaism from the Zoroastrians (and is available to Lehi). Thanks.

Preferably a book by a prestigious university press. Thanks.

The most recent evidence suggests that the biblical account of Eden was produced by an Israelite scribe in Judea during the Neo-Assyrian era.

In terms of biblical scholarship, the literary and historical assessment of Genesis 1-11 is greatly disputed, especially in recent decades as the model of Pentateuchal studies has shifted in large part from a documentary analysis to a supplementary approach, particularly among European scholars.  Whereas in older documentary models, J (the source featuring the Eden account) was considered the oldest source dated to as early as the beginning of the monarchy in Judah, it is now often seen as quite late and perhaps even as a supplement to or commentary on P (e.g., de Pury, Ska, Blenkinsopp, Kratz).


Nonetheless, the documentary approach still has a strong following amongst Israeli and North American scholars and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, Friedman, et al.).

For source critics, J’s highly anthropomorphic image of deity reflects an early Israelite religious conception.  Often dated in 20^th century documentary analysis to the 10^th or 9^th centuries BCE, J has long been considered by documentary critics as “the most ancient historiographic work of the Bible.”[1 Though beginning with Wellhausen’s work, the critical consensus has typically interpreted J as the foundational strand of the Pentateuch, as I suggested, recent evidence suggests that J perhaps developed as a response to the view of national history and Assyrian imperialism witnessed in the Covenant Code and its accompanying Elohist or E narrative.

The Neo-Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V commenced their conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel beginning in 740 BCE.  During this era, the southern kingdom of Judah quickly became an Assyrian vassal state.  As a result, Neo-Assyrian Mesopotamian influence did not extend into Israel and Judah until the mid-ninth century BCE, and this impact upon Israelite scribal schools remained somewhat trivial until the mid-eighth century.

However, recent studies have shown that during this segment of Neo-Assyrian occupation, Israelite scribes began to construct their own literary works in response to their exposure to Mesopotamian sources, including the Laws of Hammurapi.  Thus, Israelite reaction to Neo-Assyrian imperialism appears to have provided the original impetus for the creation of the Pentateuchal sources, including J's story of Eden.

In sum, though J may not be the earliest of the Pentateuchal sources, nonetheless, J provides one of the earliest biblical conceptions.  For what it's worth, I'm personally quite confident that it was produced during the Neo-Assyrian occupation of Judea and is therefore pre-exilic.



[1] Albert de Pury, "Yahwist ("J") Source," in ABD (ed. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1013.

[Ron Beron]

Log, on 09 June 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Christ was following tradition, even in the D&C, huh?  I don't know that I would ever be so bold as to publicly take that position.

This requires a greater forum of whether Jesus was always correct in his assertions even when they seemed to go contrary to known facts.  There would be few of willing to take that position even though secretly we might hold to it.

[Hamilton Porter]

CASteinman, on 09 June 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

So, according to you, Jesus was teaching the weakness of a particular tradition by appealing to a related false tradition rather than appealing to the truth.


What about Jacob, Alma, Moroni, Paul, Joseph Smith?

following tradition

[CASteinman]

Hamilton Porter, on 09 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

following tradition

Seems to me you are saying that if Jesus, prophets and apostles all teach something differently and none of them teach what you believe, nevertheless you are right because they are either being allegorical, dishonest or misled.

[Hamilton Porter]

Cushan Rishathaim, on 09 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The most recent evidence suggests that the biblical account of Eden was produced by an Israelite scribe in Judea during the Neo-Assyrian era.

In terms of biblical scholarship, the literary and historical assessment of Genesis 1-11 is greatly disputed, especially in recent decades as the model of Pentateuchal studies has shifted in large part from a documentary analysis to a supplementary approach, particularly among European scholars.  Whereas in older documentary models, J (the source featuring the Eden account) was considered the oldest source dated to as early as the beginning of the monarchy in Judah, it is now often seen as quite late and perhaps even as a supplement to or commentary on P (e.g., de Pury, Ska, Blenkinsopp, Kratz).


Nonetheless, the documentary approach still has a strong following amongst Israeli and North American scholars and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, Friedman, et al.).

For source critics, J’s highly anthropomorphic image of deity reflects an early Israelite religious conception.  Often dated in 20^th century documentary analysis to the 10^th or 9^th centuries BCE, J has long been considered by documentary critics as “the most ancient historiographic work of the Bible.”[1 Though beginning with Wellhausen’s work, the critical consensus has typically interpreted J as the foundational strand of the Pentateuch, as I suggested, recent evidence suggests that J perhaps developed as a response to the view of national history and Assyrian imperialism witnessed in the Covenant Code and its accompanying Elohist or E narrative.

The Neo-Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V commenced their conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel beginning in 740 BCE.  During this era, the southern kingdom of Judah quickly became an Assyrian vassal state.  As a result, Neo-Assyrian Mesopotamian influence did not extend into Israel and Judah until the mid-ninth century BCE, and this impact upon Israelite scribal schools remained somewhat trivial until the mid-eighth century.

However, recent studies have shown that during this segment of Neo-Assyrian occupation, Israelite scribes began to construct their own literary works in response to their exposure to Mesopotamian sources, including the Laws of Hammurapi.  Thus, Israelite reaction to Neo-Assyrian imperialism appears to have provided the original impetus for the creation of the Pentateuchal sources, including J's story of Eden.

In sum, though J may not be the earliest of the Pentateuchal sources, nonetheless, J provides one of the earliest biblical conceptions.  For what it's worth, I'm personally quite confident that it was produced during the Neo-Assyrian occupation of Judea and is therefore pre-exilic.



[1] Albert de Pury, "Yahwist ("J") Source," in ABD (ed. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1013.

Thanks for the analysis. I find Mesopatamian/Canaanite/Egyptian parallels fascinating. Since you quoted the ABD, I think I should have looked up one of the bajillion commentaries I have as well.

Edited by Hamilton Porter, 09 June 2012 - 07:22 PM.

[Valentinus]

Because of textual and literary criticisms concerning Genesis and creation, we have no choice but to approach other scripture sensitively. The theory that Genesis 1 was written long after 2 & 3 is problematic. Not the BoA nor the D&C are able to 'correct' supposed 'misconceptions'.

The study of J, P and E must be separated from LDS scripture and theology.

Also, I recommend that people read The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Originsby Peter Enns.

[Aliwe]

Ron Beron, on 09 June 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

This requires a greater forum of whether Jesus was always correct in his assertions even when they seemed to go contrary to known facts.  There would be few of willing to take that position even though secretly we might hold to it.

If demoniacs were really just people with mental health problems, and Jesus gave them a physical cure, then we can see that Jesus went along with folk superstitions without correcting them, saying, for example, "This kind [of demon] goeth out only by fasting".  So it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was more focused on healing people, and preaching the message of the Banquet of God, than trying to give them scientific explanations for what he was really doing.   And if you reject that position, and hold that Jesus could not pass along the slightest error, then we are left with the story of Jonah in the belly of a fish as a historical event rather than a story element in an extended parable designed to get Jonah back into the mission field without delay, because Jesus cited that incident as a sign foretelling his death and resurrection.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Jonah is an interesting case. I've read speculation that the Ship, the Fish, and the feminine Sheol are aspects of a Sea-Goddess complex in which the Sea only ceased Her raging when Jonah was cast into the Fish's belly, especially since "Jonah" itself means "Dove", lending it to comparison with the feminine Holy Spirit of Wisdom which brooded over the waters of Creation in the earth (itself part of that Goddess imagery, as in Hesiod's Theogony, etc.). If that's right, then Jonah's story might be an allegory comparable to The Pearl, illustrating a premortal existence and a sleep/descent into this world, thereby functioning as a useful metaphor for Christ's mission (part of which, remember, was to institute a renewal of the female Holy Spirit of Wisdom), which was also symbolized by the Fish.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind during these types of discussions that it's not a matter of Christ not "appealing to the truth" if He used metaphorical or allegorical stories to teach. It's a matter of speaking in a language that His listeners will be able to understand. To this day, we do the same thing with fictional stories all the time; a girl watches Sex and the City and describes herself as "a Samantha" to her friends, a group of teenagers doing tricks on their bikes call one particularly daring guy a "Han Solo." Or whatever. Samantha and Han are not real, but the archetypal language can be used to describe something "true." In a similar way, if Adam and Eve are not literally the first progenitors of our race, they can still be useful archetypes used in Temple ritual, without threatening the reality of Christ or the Atonement.

It's context-dependent. As Joseph Smith said, “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
...

(On a completely unrelated note, props for the Francine Peters icon, Aliwe. SiP is awesome.)

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 21 June 2012 - 08:46 AM.