Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

"It" being the Book of Mormon? I'm not misrepresenting the text ("forcing it into the 6th century BCE"). The book opens "in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4). That's pretty straightforward. I know you have proposed various explanations for how the anachronistic elements got into the text, but I don't think it's "unfair" to point them out.

"For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" does not mean those words were inscribed in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah. That'd be like saying the Gettysburg Address was written four score and seven years before the end of the Civil War.

Nephi doesn't mention the commandment to keep the small plates until 1 Nephi:19, after he arrives in the promised land. The straightforward reading is that the book was written several decades after the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, in an unknown location. None of the authors were living in the Middle East. We have no idea who the plates were passed to from generation to generation. I find it highly unlikely that Christians could hold on to a Jewish text for 400 years without giving in to the urge to make Jesus the Messiah.

That the entirety of the Book of Mormon as we have it was written in an unknown location and passed from Jew to Jew to Jew to Christian to Christian to Christian seems an insignificant detail. But it does help us discuss anachronisms more precisely. 

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Gray said:

Jesus suffering for sins is not a Jewish idea - that's a Christian idea. The Paschal lamb didn't suffer for anyone's sins. It was a meal shared with God, in reconciliation. Baptism for the remission of sins and entrance into heaven is a Christian idea, not a Jewish idea. The Jewish ritual that it evolved from had a completely different function. This is normative Christianity, and this is the heart of Mormonism too.

Again, just to get at my point on Friday, I think looking at the debate from 1st century is misplaced. As I said traditionally defenders have appealed to the DSS but I find that somewhat problematic in that most don't read them that way. You can appeal to far less accepted interpretations like those of Kohl, but really the elements we need to defend in the Book of Mormon don't make sense in the late 2cd temple era.

I think the approach to the debate is wrong since of course critics are also largely appealing to Jewish belief from the 2cd temple period to say something is anachronistic. However the Nephites are pre-exilic. The problem is that we have very little data on pre-exilic Israel. I also think that while there are obvious reasons for some to view the Nephites as anachronistic starting with 1 Nephi 10, it's also very much an argument from silence neglecting the role of the Josiah reforms and the whole Deuteronomist and Priestly traditions in forming what became post-exilic theology.

It's one thing to say we have no positive evidence for the Book of Mormon's take. To say it's anachronistic presupposes that 1st century Jewish though reflects 7th century Jewish thought (not to mention the problem of northern Israel's theology prior to their destruction) Again, it's not totally an argument from silence since we do have Jeremiah and elements of proto-Isaiah. But there's not a lot of other texts that are unambiguously pre-exilic. (And even in proto-Isaiah there's disagreement of what is authentically 7th century)

That said I do think there are some interesting exegesis by Nephi of Isaiah that suggests how Nephi and Lehi arrived at their theology. That's not really been engaged with carefully.

Link to comment
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:26 PM, clarkgoble said:

To answer that requires a bit of a tangent. I know this might seem like I'm being willy and avoiding the question. But it's actually pretty important to the question.

When you look at appeals to testability, particularly in science, it's a type of argument by surprise. So a theory predicts some new phenomena, people look and there it is. What that in turn requires is the ability to be surprised. However if there's no new data coming, you simply can't be surprised. So you end up arguing about drawing nuance from text which is what most of the historic textual criticism amounts to in Biblical studies. There's simply no new data since all the data is pretty well known....

I disagree with this on a couple of different levels. First, using the phrase "appeal to testability" implies that wanting a theory to be testable is a fallacy like an appeal to authority, an appeal to emotion, or an appeal to ignorance. Testability isn't a logical fallacy. Rather, it is an essential property of hypotheses under purview of science. If a hypothesis isn't testable, it isn't subject to scientific scrutiny and is simply an arbitrary belief or a toothless description of the evidence that doesn't actually imply anything.

So how can you test something when there isn't an "ability to be surprised?" Here is an example. When people are studying data science, they will likely come upon the question of the probability of surviving the Titanic. Now, there is absolutely no new data about who survived the Titanic--there is an authoritative list of who was on the boat and who survived and who didn't. What the fledgling data scientist is trying to do is figure out a model using the tools of predictive analytics that will predict who survived and who didn't based upon the characteristics of the people. Known characteristics are passenger or crew, position and rank if crew, age, sex, class of ticket, marital status, whether traveling with children, occupation, etc. Such a model about how these characteristics affect survival probability can lend insight into what actually happened.

If you create a dataset that includes all passengers and put every known detail as an explanatory variable and run it through a generalized linear model, you will get something that successfully predicts who survived and who died with a high degree of accuracy. There are a couple of problems with this. First, there is no way to test how well the model works--there is no "ability to be surprised", as you put it. Thus, the model isn't subject to scientific scrutiny. And if you happen to know anything about linear regression, this model as I described it will be hopelessly over-specified: although it fits the data, it wouldn't have any predictive power.

So when dealing with this issue, what does the fledgling data scientist do? First, he will randomly assign each passenger to one of two datasets: a training dataset, and a testing dataset. He will then put the testing dataset into a conceptual lockbox and will pretend he knows nothing about those lives. He will then create a model based solely on the training dataset. His hypothesis will likely be that age, sex, and ticket class are important predictors. He might fine-tune his model beyond that. The more variable he adds to the model, the better it will fit the training data. But by adding those variables, is he creating a valuable model with predictive capabilities? Or is he overfitting the model?

After his model is calibrated, he takes the testing dataset out of the lockbox and measures how well the model predicts using that data.

If somebody had a testable theory on Isaiah, he could do the same thing. Randomly throw half the chapters into a lockbox, and then analyze the remaining half in the training chapters. If you study the training chapters and come up with a hypothesis (e.g. the "translator" didn't fix any of the known translation issues in the KJV), you can then test that with the test dataset--does the same pattern emerge there? 

That is the way a data scientist would approach the issue, at least. Testability isn't about a literal "ability to be surprised." It's about demonstrating that there are real patterns in the data.

Link to comment
On 6/26/2018 at 1:30 PM, Brant Gardner said:

Sorenson probably. Me, definitely not.

As I said, the video was edited such that you were one in a series of people quoted as saying Nephi quickly took over Kaminaljuyu:

Quote

Brant Gardner:
“When Nephi and his family separate from his brothers they go up over the mountains and come into highland Guatemala where they found the City of Nephi. … The best candidate for the City of Nephi would probably be in the area of Kaminaljuyu.”

John Sorenson
“Kaminaljuyu was in fact the seedbed of civilization in southern Mesoamerica and that is the picture we get for the city of Nephi in many ways.”

Brant Gardner
“Within a relatively short period of time the descriptions we are hearing about the city of Nephi indicates there were a large number of people there, so this is a remarkable accomplishment in a very short period of time. For someone to not only be able to gather large numbers of people together but to coordinate; to get them to live in the same area, to get them to have the same basic beliefs, to get them to have the same economic system, to get them working together rather than working separately and Nephi’s able to do that - pull them together.” 

John Sorenson
“The sudden development is what I would expect of an immigrant party with a high level of skill; technologically; but maybe more intellectually and culturally, being inserted into a place and building in a new environment a new manifestation of civilization.” 

Alejandro Gonzalez 
“The influence of who dominates whom; the small arriving culture or the existing culture, is the one with more success. Who has more success in technological matters, in agricultural matters and in constructing buildings?”

Do you believe Nephi was able to "gather large numbers of people together but to coordinate; to get them to live in the same area, to get them to have the same basic beliefs, to get them to have the same economic system, to get them working together rather than working separately and Nephi’s able to do that - pull them together" in Kaminaljuyu? Would such a change in the dominant culture, economy, religion, and political system have occurred without any noticeable change in the material culture?

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Analytics said:

I disagree with this on a couple of different levels. First, using the phrase "appeal to testability" implies that wanting a theory to be testable is a fallacy like an appeal to authority, an appeal to emotion, or an appeal to ignorance. Testability isn't a logical fallacy. Rather, it is an essential property of hypotheses under purview of science. If a hypothesis isn't testable, it isn't subject to scientific scrutiny and is simply an arbitrary belief or a toothless description of the evidence that doesn't actually imply anything.

I don't think that a fair characterization of my position. I think analyzing why testability functions is important. Further in some fields there simply isn't easy testability. However the implication of that is that we feel less confidence in such fields. History based upon what is effectively deconstructing texts is a great example of that. So my point wasn't to diminish tests. Far from it. Rather it was to point out how they function and why your question is inherently problematic given the data we have.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

So how can you test something when there isn't an "ability to be surprised?"

But your example shows my point. Particularly in the case we were discussing. You can have pieces of evidence and you may not have mined the information in them. The example I gave, my ignorance of peshers and targums, was a great example of this relative to the pieces of evidence in question. I then turned around and noted that I didn't think there was much new right now that could be mined from the texts. Now I certainly could be wrong - I'm open to being surprised. 

Let me turn it around. Do you think there is any new relevant data that can be gleaned from the text? I'd love to find some. They do pop up every now and then. The evidence for pre-modern English in the Book of Mormon translation is certainly one I'd never have expected.

My point is just that wanting a test is not the same as being able to create a test. And some fields - particularly in the softer sciences (and history isn't even a science although arguably some see philology as a science) just don't have much by way of tests.

To the final point though, of course you can test without being surprised. All the tests we continue to run on say quantum mechanics (particularly Bell's Theorem), the Standard Model, and time dilation in GR are all things we know. We get exactly the results we predict. We do them to make sure we're not surprised (and honestly most physicists hope we're surprised). That strengthens our belief in those models/theories of course. But it has a different effect than say seeing the position of Mercury moved as predicted by Relativity back in the 20's.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, the video was edited such that you were one in a series of people quoted as saying Nephi quickly took over Kaminaljuyu:

Do you believe Nephi was able to "gather large numbers of people together but to coordinate; to get them to live in the same area, to get them to have the same basic beliefs, to get them to have the same economic system, to get them working together rather than working separately and Nephi’s able to do that - pull them together" in Kaminaljuyu? Would such a change in the dominant culture, economy, religion, and political system have occurred without any noticeable change in the material culture?

That video was from quite a while ago, and I would probably word things differently today. At the time, I accepted Sorenson's suggestion of Kaminaljuyu. I would not suggest it now for the very reasons that I think Sorenson liked it. I think it is too big too early. I think it was already established and there wasn't anything that the new group had to offer. Sorenson more often attributes Mesoamerican cultural developments to the presence of the Near Easterners--and I think that the direction of influence was much, much stronger in the other direction.

That doesn't really answer your question about a change in the dominant culture. To answer that, we really need to examine assumptions. We are dealing with material culture, so what is a reasonable expectation for a change in material culture?

1) Building materials and building forms. I don't see much reason for a change here. Even if we were to assume that the Lehites included someone with building skills, it was for a different climate and different building materials. I've been in Ladino buildings (modern, but no air conditioning) and In native homes in southern Mexico. The native homes were much more pleasant places to sit. So I don't see an influence on architecture.

2) Pottery styles. Again, I don't see any functional reason that local styles would change. The functions were adapted to the available foodstuffs and that wouldn't change. The Book of Mormon says that they grew transplanted grains, but I don't see that lasting very long. I don't see the material culture surrounding food to have changed much, if at all.

3) Government. There is nothing we know about Book of Mormon government that would suggest that it different from the surrounding models. Indeed, the surrounding models better explain the text.

4) Religion. This is clearly the one where we expect a change. But what would be the nature of the change? Iconographically, both Judaism and Christianity appropriated visual systems that were available in the surrounding area. Combined with the declared aniconism of the Israelite religion, it is hard to know what new iconography might have been expected, or even if it could be discernible. I can see a decrease in religious display, but even then we wouldn't expect an absence, given the way multiple iconographies existed in Israel.

So, the archaeological problem is that it is very difficult to define what we might expect of a Lehite-influenced culture, even in the rare realm in which they imparted culture (religion) rather than absorbed it.

Link to comment
On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You yourself say that you are "talking about the uniquely Christian doctrines, which developed in the first century onward," and that is why I have been hectoring you to stop applying moribund normative Hellenistic Christian doctrines.  This is precisely the form of Christianity denied by LDS theology, even though you are blind to it.

Are you avoiding specifying which doctrines are Hellenistic for some reason? Do you include atonement theology in that assessment? Both central to mainstream Christian and Mormon theology, both developed from the first century onwards as a way of explaining the death of Jesus.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I know of no sunday school teachers who talk about the text as I do.  Instead I read them in ancient context with the full panoply of archeology and intertestamental literature, and ferreting out the OT Hebrew parallels which are so fully masked by the KJV translation -- things which you don't see or acknowledge.

What you're doing is making a learned but theological reading of the text, as opposed to a historical one.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet you seem to accept the historical reconstructions of the Jesus Seminar (and those like them), while I tend to accept Birger Pearson's criticism of them and their flawed assumptions -- especially the criterion of uniqueness as a measure of the "oldest 'layer' of Jesus-tradition," which excludes anything from either Judaism or the Easter faith (the later Christian community):  Walter Weaver notes that "the trend in Jesus research is away from this strict criterion and toward locating Jesus precisely within his Judaic context."  Weaver in Charlesworth & Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, 3-4.

Strawman, I haven't brought that up either. I'll ask again, was your last encounter with critical scholarship in the 1990s?

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you didn't get the memo on proxy sacrifice in Judaism, Gray:  James Barr pointed to that important principle in II Macc 12:45-46, which C. L. Brinton renders in his Septuagint (LXX) translation as “reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.”  The New American Bible translates “atonement for the dead that they might be free from sin,” the New English Bible as “an atoning sacrifice to free the dead from their sin,” and the Jerusalem Bible as “atonement sacrifice offered for the dead, so that they might be released from their sin.”  The principle was obviously present prior to New Testament times, though the means in the Maccabean source (in the Apocrypha) was a Temple offering, a standard mode of expiation for living and dead Israelites – if merely a type of the atonement to be made by Jesus.  Indeed, the late, great James Barr goes so far as to assert that, in discussing proxy baptism in I Corinthians 15:29, Paul was referring directly to II Maccabees 12 (Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism [1983] 40-43, n. 19).  You deny continuity, while I emphasize it.

Your interpretation is unjewish. Again, the pascal lamb didn't suffer for anyone's sins. It was a meal shared with God. In Christian theology Jesus suffers as a vicarious sacrifice for sin. That wasn't the traditional Jewish notion of atonement. It was more of a reconciliation, not a transfer of guilt as if sin were one of Plato's forms. Even further removed from Jewish atonement is the Mormon adoption of penal substitution theory, which is based on feudalistic crime and punishment.

These elements of the gift and the meal came together in animal sacrifice. How was one to create, maintain, or restore good relations between a human person and a divine being? What visible acts could do that with an Invisible Being? If by gift, the animal was totally destroyed, at least as far as the offerer was concerned. No doubt the smoke and the smell rising upward symbolized the transition of the gift from earth to heaven and from human being to God. If by meal, the animal was transferred to God by having its blood poured over the altar and was then returned to the offerer as divine food for a feast with God. In other words, it was not so much that the offerer invited God to a meal, but that God invited the offerer to a meal.

That understanding of sacrifice clarifies the etymology of the term. It derives from the Latin sacrum facere, that is, to make (facere) sacred (sacrum). In a sacrifice, the animal is made sacred and given to God as a sacred gift or returned to the offerer as a sacred meal.

Sacrificial offerers never thought that the point of sacrifice was to make the animal suffer or that the greatest sacrifice was one in which the animal suffered lengthily and terribly. Whether for a human meal or a divine meal, an animal had to be slain, but that was done swiftly and efficiently— ancient priests were also excellent butchers. Likewise, sacrificial offerers never thought that the animal was dying in their place, that they deserved to be killed in punishment for their sins but that God would accept the slain animal as substitutionary atonement or vicarious satisfaction. Blood sacrifice should never be confused with or collapsed into either suffering or substitution, let alone substitutionary suffering. We may or may not like ancient blood sacrifice, but we should neither caricature it nor libel it. -    [John Dominic Crossan, God and Empire]

 

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I wasn't raised near the place where I was born, and that is not a necessary consideration.  Just because someone was from someplace doesn't mean that that was his birthplace. The assumption you are making is a faith assumption equally as much as the notion that Bethlehem is Jesus' birthplace.  At this remove from the events, how could we establish the fact either way?   We cannot.  And it is absurd to suggest that there is a historical fact in that matter.  Not only the Jesus Seminar sought to establish facts about the historical Jesus, but many scholars have attempted to do so, and nearly all have failed.  Why? Because they pretended to know more than can be known via secular historical principles.  Most scholars now acknowledge that the best way to understand Jesus is to understand Judaism.  Not Hellenism.

We know that the evangelists were embarrassed that Jesus was known to have come from Nazareth. They each created independent and contradictory apologetics in order to try to get around it. That is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.

The sad fact is almost all ancient nativities are invented. We'll likely never know anything about Jesus' birth, other than it was probably in Nazareth, to Mary.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 7:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I emphasize continuity with the OT, you just don't see it, and in so doing you are certainly not alone -- many people make that crucial error -- precisely those wedded to a sunday school level of understanding, which makes all the wrong assumptions about normative Christianity.   As long as you maintain the fantasy that you are conversant with "responsible historical scholarship," you will continue to fail to understand Jesus in his actual context.

I'm conversant enough with mainstream scholarship to understand when someone is going beyond the limits of history and into theology.  I may be a hayseed, but I did not just  fall off the turnip truck. :)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

That video was from quite a while ago, and I would probably word things differently today. At the time, I accepted Sorenson's suggestion of Kaminaljuyu. I would not suggest it now for the very reasons that I think Sorenson liked it. I think it is too big too early. I think it was already established and there wasn't anything that the new group had to offer. Sorenson more often attributes Mesoamerican cultural developments to the presence of the Near Easterners--and I think that the direction of influence was much, much stronger in the other direction.

That doesn't really answer your question about a change in the dominant culture. To answer that, we really need to examine assumptions. We are dealing with material culture, so what is a reasonable expectation for a change in material culture?

1) Building materials and building forms. I don't see much reason for a change here. Even if we were to assume that the Lehites included someone with building skills, it was for a different climate and different building materials. I've been in Ladino buildings (modern, but no air conditioning) and In native homes in southern Mexico. The native homes were much more pleasant places to sit. So I don't see an influence on architecture.

2) Pottery styles. Again, I don't see any functional reason that local styles would change. The functions were adapted to the available foodstuffs and that wouldn't change. The Book of Mormon says that they grew transplanted grains, but I don't see that lasting very long. I don't see the material culture surrounding food to have changed much, if at all.

3) Government. There is nothing we know about Book of Mormon government that would suggest that it different from the surrounding models. Indeed, the surrounding models better explain the text.

4) Religion. This is clearly the one where we expect a change. But what would be the nature of the change? Iconographically, both Judaism and Christianity appropriated visual systems that were available in the surrounding area. Combined with the declared aniconism of the Israelite religion, it is hard to know what new iconography might have been expected, or even if it could be discernible. I can see a decrease in religious display, but even then we wouldn't expect an absence, given the way multiple iconographies existed in Israel.

So, the archaeological problem is that it is very difficult to define what we might expect of a Lehite-influenced culture, even in the rare realm in which they imparted culture (religion) rather than absorbed it.

As far as pottery, would you expect to see evidence of high-heat technology, given that Nephi et al. brought it with them?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As far as pottery, would you expect to see evidence of high-heat technology, given that Nephi et al. brought it with them?

I don't know that Nephi brought any knowledge of pottery making with him. Metal work certainly, and that the absence of known metalworking is one of the last issues for a Book of Mormon set in Mesoamerica.

Link to comment
Just now, Brant Gardner said:

I don't know that Nephi brought any knowledge of pottery making with him. Metal work certainly, and that the absence of known metalworking is one of the last issues for a Book of Mormon set in Mesoamerica.

Usually metallurgy and high-heat pottery go hand in hand. Obviously we disagree that this is one of the last issues. 

Link to comment
On 7/3/2018 at 3:29 PM, Gray said:

Are you avoiding specifying which doctrines are Hellenistic for some reason? Do you include atonement theology in that assessment? Both central to mainstream Christian and Mormon theology, both developed from the first century onwards as a way of explaining the death of Jesus.

What you're doing is making a learned but theological reading of the text, as opposed to a historical one..............................................................

I already indicated via Ernst Benz the apostate "Christian" opposition to a corporeal God, who is normative in Mormonism and primitive Christianity, but rejected thereafter.  The problems for Hellenistic Christianity are overwhelmingly anti-Judaic and anti-Bible.  They posit a God who is the Uncaused First Cause and only Necessary Being, supernatural Creatio Ex Nihilo, and a raft of other nonsense.  That is the nature of your normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, which is paradoxical and self-destructive.  Mormonism posits just the opposite:  God as part of an infinite chain of being, in a fully naturalistic universe (in which all creation is from pre-existing matter). where humans are necessary beings, coeternal with God.

Quote

Your interpretation is unjewish. Again, the pascal lamb didn't suffer for anyone's sins. It was a meal shared with God. In Christian theology Jesus suffers as a vicarious sacrifice for sin. That wasn't the traditional Jewish notion of atonement. It was more of a reconciliation, not a transfer of guilt as if sin were one of Plato's forms. Even further removed from Jewish atonement is the Mormon adoption of penal substitution theory, which is based on feudalistic crime and punishment.........................................

Going on a Crossan rant won't hide your failure to note that "atonement" is "reconciliation."  That is what Hebrew kippur  means.  It is all about expiation of sin.  As to your false statement that it is unjewish, Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom comments that “it seems strange that the high priest is both expiator and the expiated, that he officiates for his own sin.”[1]  You might want to read the book of Hebrews about who that HP is.

The blood of the Paschal lamb not only saves the first born of Israel in Egypt, but it presages Jesus as the Paschal Lamb of God who saves all mankind.  The Last Supper is a celebration of that very act via a traditional Seder meal.  You ignore the obvious.

[1] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1991), 232 (re Leviticus 4:5).

Atonement was a regular Israelite temple rite, as well as an integral part of every covenant renewal ceremony, as in Mosiah 3:5 – 4:8, and 1QS ii, 25-iii, 12. 

Quote

Since the festival meant close encounter with God, the need for purification, atonement and forgiveness was readily acknowledged . . . . The ministry of atonement carried out annually by the post-exilic high priest was largely inherited from the king. -- Blake Ostler, Dialogue 20/1 (Spring 1987):92-93 (66 -123), quoting John H. Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah (London: SPCK, 1979), 11,33, and Ezekiel 45:17; 1 Kings 8.

In each case the atonement (whether performed by Jesus or the Israelite high priest) is vicarious, as in the Wave-Sheaf ritual on Easter Sunday morning, Hebrew hēnîp, tĕnûpâ, “wave-offering” = Ugaritic np, npy “atonement, expurgation, purification, expiation.”

Quote

We know that the evangelists were embarrassed that Jesus was known to have come from Nazareth. They each created independent and contradictory apologetics in order to try to get around it. That is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.

The sad fact is almost all ancient nativities are invented. We'll likely never know anything about Jesus' birth, other than it was probably in Nazareth, to Mary.

You are substituting conjecture for historical fact, Gray.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  You retreat to mere opinion-mongering here.

Quote

I'm conversant enough with mainstream scholarship to understand when someone is going beyond the limits of history and into theology.  I may be a hayseed, but I did not just  fall off the turnip truck. :)

You can try to dignify and disguise your theological special pleading here, but to what purpose?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Usually metallurgy and high-heat pottery go hand in hand. Obviously we disagree that this is one of the last issues. 

I think that Brant means that the issue remains up in the air -- undetermined.  It remains a problem and crux interpretatum.  You disagree with his honesty?

Link to comment
Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that Brant means that the issue remains up in the air -- undetermined.  It remains a problem and crux interpretatum.  You disagree with his honesty?

I have never questioned Brant’s honesty and integrity. I would have thought you knew that. 

Link to comment
On 7/3/2018 at 9:10 PM, jkwilliams said:

Usually metallurgy and high-heat pottery go hand in hand. Obviously we disagree that this is one of the last issues. 

I think the question though is whether the Lehites were ignorant of pottery, how long their presumed high temperature metallurgy persisted, and whether that time frame was sufficient to provide the shift you mentioned happening elsewhere. It's interesting that by Jarom 1:8 it appears like metal use has shifted. While copper, brass and steel are mentioned, swords aren't and only arrow, dart and javelin are weapons. Tools for tilling seems the focus. I halfway wonder if high temperature metal working as been lost by then. Admittedly that's around 200 years later - presumably more than long enough for high temperature pottery to develop using the same metallurgy technology. However from Jarom we can't know when/if the technology was lost.

The main problem is that with the death of Jacob - presumably around 60 - 70 years after reaching America - we really have no records until King Benjamin. Jarom is the most informative and it clearly demonstrates some huge cultural shifts that happened over the prior 200 years. It'd be nice to have the more historical record of what happened in Jacob's lifetime from the plates of Lehi.

My questions would be when the Nephites merged with indigenous groups. There are at best only indirect references which can be interpreted that way. We have the Nephites fleeing from the main group in 2 Ne 5. It's not clear when that happens although it sounds like Jacob and Joseph aren't married yet. (verse 6) When this is written it's 30 years after arrival (verse 27) Mixing may have already happened give the "and all those who would go with me" in addition to the listed family. Those could be the fabled "others" or merely nephews and nieces. Metallurgy is present in the new location (2 Ne 5:14-15) and presumably there are metals for mining in the area. So the question becomes how the knowledge could be lost.

Link to comment
On 7/1/2018 at 8:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, a separate tradition in some sense.  But why do you insist in making the center of your argument the normative Hellenistic Christianity late in the 1st century AD.  Is this the primitive church for you?   It should not be.  And do you understand that primitive christianity as consonant with many ideas at Qumran?

What do you mean by primitive Christianity? Do you actually mean Judaism, or something else?

 

On 7/1/2018 at 8:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I was referring to research which shows atheists to be closed-minded.

What does atheism have to do with critical scholarship? Are you trying to associate the two somehow?

 

On 7/1/2018 at 8:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  The supernatural (a law-abrogating principle) is not only outside the realm of history, it is also a paradox, and is not even possible.  Yet it is a constituent element of normative Judaism and Christianity.

Also a part of normative modern Mormonism, although it's correct to say it's not congruent with some of Mormonism's founding theology.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=supernatural

 

On 7/1/2018 at 8:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends  very much on whether that vision is an internal electro-chemical function of the brain, or an actual communication from outside one's self.  Both are entirely natural functions.  Yet they are not necessarily of equal value.

Why not? The value of either is entirely subjective. As someone who is a naturalist in fact and not just in theory, I've had spiritual insights myself recently, and I find them to be very meaningful. I've never been prone to visions, but I would think the principle would be similar. A vision is an entirely subjective experience, usually with a strong emotional component. They can be life changing and transforming, and are of value regardless of the source.

Link to comment
On 7/2/2018 at 11:06 AM, clarkgoble said:

Again, just to get at my point on Friday, I think looking at the debate from 1st century is misplaced. As I said traditionally defenders have appealed to the DSS but I find that somewhat problematic in that most don't read them that way. You can appeal to far less accepted interpretations like those of Kohl, but really the elements we need to defend in the Book of Mormon don't make sense in the late 2cd temple era.

I think the approach to the debate is wrong since of course critics are also largely appealing to Jewish belief from the 2cd temple period to say something is anachronistic. However the Nephites are pre-exilic. The problem is that we have very little data on pre-exilic Israel. I also think that while there are obvious reasons for some to view the Nephites as anachronistic starting with 1 Nephi 10, it's also very much an argument from silence neglecting the role of the Josiah reforms and the whole Deuteronomist and Priestly traditions in forming what became post-exilic theology.

It's one thing to say we have no positive evidence for the Book of Mormon's take. To say it's anachronistic presupposes that 1st century Jewish though reflects 7th century Jewish thought (not to mention the problem of northern Israel's theology prior to their destruction) Again, it's not totally an argument from silence since we do have Jeremiah and elements of proto-Isaiah. But there's not a lot of other texts that are unambiguously pre-exilic. (And even in proto-Isaiah there's disagreement of what is authentically 7th century)

That said I do think there are some interesting exegesis by Nephi of Isaiah that suggests how Nephi and Lehi arrived at their theology. That's not really been engaged with carefully.

I think it's safe to say that pre-exhilic Jewish theology would be even further from the Christianity of the BOM than late second temple Judaism, which gave birth to Christianity. The further back you go in Judaism, the more it starts to resemble the religious beliefs and practices of Canaanites and other neighboring groups, which don't remotely resemble BOM Christianity.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My questions would be when the Nephites merged with indigenous groups. There are at best only indirect references which can be interpreted that way. We have the Nephites fleeing from the main group in 2 Ne 5. It's not clear when that happens although it sounds like Jacob and Joseph aren't married yet. (verse 6) When this is written it's 30 years after arrival (verse 27) Mixing may have already happened give the "and all those who would go with me" in addition to the listed family. Those could be the fabled "others" or merely nephews and nieces. Metallurgy is present in the new location (2 Ne 5:14-15) and presumably there are metals for mining in the area. So the question becomes how the knowledge could be lost.

How do you respond to critics that say the book of mormon text, itself, posits that the land was not inhabited by others when the jaredites came or was relatively empty when Lehi came?

2 Nephi 1

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. . . . [And then, after they have "rejected the gospel"...]
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How do you respond to critics that say the book of mormon text, itself, posits that the land was not inhabited by others when the jaredites came or was relatively empty when Lehi came?

Just a small request, but that text with multiple font sizes is pretty hard to read.

To your texts, all of them note (and even emphasize) that others would be led here. To me that's an argument for others not an argument against. The bit about nations is clearly referring to people back in the ANE who by all accounts don't know about America. So I'm not sure of the relevance of that.

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's safe to say that pre-exhilic Jewish theology would be even further from the Christianity of the BOM than late second temple Judaism, which gave birth to Christianity. The further back you go in Judaism, the more it starts to resemble the religious beliefs and practices of Canaanites and other neighboring groups, which don't remotely resemble BOM Christianity.

I'd disagree since there is that Canaanite idea of rebirth, a divine pantheon, similar sacrifice traditions, more explicit theology of resurrection and life after death and so forth. Move from the Canaanites to Egypt and there's more there. The main argument would be the problematic penal theology of atonement. However I'm skeptical Nephi/Jacob held to that let alone pre-exilic Israel. The main Nephite exegesis of Isaiah seems to take the idea of messiah as rescuing the exiles (whether northern or from the Babylonian exile) as typological of the individual, the nation politically, the nation morally & ritually, and the future apocalyptic. So it functions on multiple layers. It's at the individual ritual cleanliness level that is seen as problematic, as I understand it. And I certainly agree that in the 2cd temple period that doesn't appear to be widespread. It's worth questioning how ritual uncleanliness (such as touching corpses, semen or menstrual blood etc.) relates to sin & ethical bad behavior. Clearly in the Book of Mormon it's this later that's the emphasis although often in a way that it is a national uncleanliness. (See for instance early on Jacob's criticisms of the Nephites in Jac 2)

Most of the NT conception of vicarious atonement is seen in the context of Hellenistic conceptions - the pharmakoi. This type of human sacrifice as expiatory is well known. The question is whether Canaanite human sacrifice had a similar function. If it did then it would make perfect sense for drives to purge Judaism from Canaanite influence would remove such traditions. (Much as the pantheon became angels, the mother figure was removed, and Yahweh and El became merged) We know of similarities between the Canaanite practice and Greek practice of pharmakoi. King Mesha of Moab, when he sacrifices his son, is very similar to the Greek narratives. Of course from what texts we have Canaanites weren't as focused on sin (although it is an element) There's even an interesting text in the Ugarit corpus that has Baal sacrificing his firstborn - although there are controversies as the text is damaged on the tablet where firstborn is reconstructed. (Some think it is "male animal" and not "firstborn") 

 Again, somewhat speculative and I certainly don't deny that. However if these traditions were in at least some forms of Judaism we'd fully understand why they'd be expunged by Deuteronomists and Priestly tradition.

I should note that the evidence for more traditional conceptions of child sacrifice among the Canaanites is lacking, despite the Old Testament condemnations. It's not in the Ugarit texts nor is there archaelogical evidence for it. So we may have hyperbole and xenophobia emphasized by those attempting to purge Judaism of such influences.

There is vicarious sacrifice in the more cosmological narratives such as Asherah offering herself to Yam to free her children followed by Baal defeating Yam. I've argued before here that elements of that narrative seem tied to how Nephi reads Isaiah. There's then Baal's fight with Mot (literally the mouth of hell and the ruler of hell) that again has echoes in the Book of Mormon I'd argue. Baal's resurrection comes after Mot kills him. Baal's wife Anat recovers the body and attacks Mot, ripping him to pieces. Baal is then resurrected which applies not just to him but to the whole nation particularly crops. (And is tied to the seasonal cycle)

As I mention the key issue for many is the Day of Atonement and how it relates to the conception of Christ as sacrifice. Some date this rather late to well after the exile period. Others see it as arising out of Canaanite religion and late in the monarchian period. Many note parallels to the Akitu festival in Babylon and see that as the origin. Interestingly we don't get an explicit reference to the Day of Atonement in the Book of Mormon. Within the Book of Mormon we don't see discussion of purification offerings as much as reparation and peace offerings. It's these reparation and peace issues that seem tied to sin and atonement in the text. Peace offerings are common in Canaanite religion and are making peace between the worshippers and also between them and God. Likewise reparation offerings are common. 

Again we don't know much about northern Israel theology other than the D and P portray them as too Canaanite. There are elements in the Book of Mormon that have long led apologists to suspect Lehi has northern ties. Certainly he's at odds with many D practices. All I'm really suggesting is that Lehi's theology is more like Canaanite than what we get in the 2cd temple period. Then in the 2cd temple period we get Hellenistic influences that restore some elements, like the idea of pharmakoi, that had been earlier purged. 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Just to add, the big questions for pre-exilic judaism is whether there was a memra theology. We know that by the 1st century there are traditions equating in various ways the Messiah with Michael or Metatron (who is the lesser YHWH). I've argued in the past for the close similarity of say Abinadi's conception of God with Metatron speculation in Merkvah texts. However I've also tried to emphasize this is late with some of the key texts being late antiquity or even the early medieval era. We just don't know if they can be found in pre-exilic period even if elements of them can be found in pre-Christian pesher and targum not to mention later ones.

Memra, for those not familar with it was a development in 2cd temple targums and peshers where the word of God or messenger of God is anthropomorphized into a kind of second or lower diety. There's actually interpretive translations of traditional passages where Memra is used. The debate is then what influence this had on early Christianity as well as how it allowed the Greek conception of the divine logos to enter Judaism and Christianity. (There's far from consensus on the issue)

While the memra unsurprisingly doesn't appear typically in the Book of Mormon translations (which follows the KJV when possible) the idea sure seems to be there. 

A key aspect of the Memra is this redeeming aspect. "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targum Yerushalmi to Lev. 22:12)  Again, this is late and so it's as completely fair to criticize it's relevance. (In this case worse since it's medieval)

The theory is that these elements end up in targums, midrashes and peshers due to their being older traditions excluded by the elites who followed the Deuteronomist or Priestly traditions. But until an unambiguous pre-exilic text appears we'll just never know for sure. The argument is that both these textual/theological traditions exclude and repress elements that don't reflect centralization of the cult under Aaronic priests in Jerusalem and strict monotheism. More or less that's Barker's thesis. 

In this case the place to look for parallels to Nephi's theology isn't 2cd temple texts - since at best they'll be ambiguous and of too late a date to convince anyone. As I mentioned even the Day of Atonement is frequently seen as fairly late - typically around 400 BCE. So appealing to that tends to be dismissed as relevant. Rather it's to the surrounding region (Egypt and Canaan in particular) that seems more relevant - particularly for the Northern Kingdom. Still we can find variants of these among the Canaanites as shown in the Ugarit texts. In addition to the baptism and atonement rituals from the Ugarit texts there are similar rituals in the broad Assyro-Babylonian texts. (Indeed some argue that the Priestly tradition picked up some of these rituals while in Babylon)

The big difference from Judaism (as transformed by the Deuteronomists and Priestly tradition) is that Baal dies every fall and his resurrection or at least rebirth not only restores him but restores the world. In Ugarit religion there's the tradition of weeping for the dead with the hope that grief will cause the gods to restore them. This gets condemned by Jeremiah which is the counter-argument to this be a pre-exilic view -- see Jer 16:6, 41:5 although the treatment in Is 22:12 seems more ambiguous. 

An other similarity with Ugarit is the use of scapegoats.

Now I'm obviously not the one to be able to make a compelling argument here. Further our knowledge of iron age Israel and Canaan is pretty limited. I'm just saying it's the place to look if we're taking the Book of Mormon seriously.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gray said:

What do you mean by primitive Christianity? Do you actually mean Judaism, or something else?

I assumed that you knew that early Christianity was a Jewish sect.  Am I mistaken?

3 hours ago, Gray said:

What does atheism have to do with critical scholarship? Are you trying to associate the two somehow?

Atheism is a belief system based on faith.  Research shows that atheists tend to be closed-minded, which is the opposite of the claims they make for themselves.  It has nothing to do with scholarship.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Also a part of normative modern Mormonism, although it's correct to say it's not congruent with some of Mormonism's founding theology.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=supernatural 

The notion of the supernatural is only part of Mormon folklore, and has nothing to do with normative Mormon theology.  Few Mormons realize that.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Why not? The value of either is entirely subjective. As someone who is a naturalist in fact and not just in theory, I've had spiritual insights myself recently, and I find them to be very meaningful. I've never been prone to visions, but I would think the principle would be similar. A vision is an entirely subjective experience, usually with a strong emotional component. They can be life changing and transforming, and are of value regardless of the source.

Yes, faith is a subjective matter and is non-transferrable, and non-verifiable and non-falsifiable as a scientific matter.  The content of faith itself may be that an objective reality exists, but proving it by secular means may not be possible.  So, there is no means by which one can verify or falsify a subjective cosmic experience.  One can only describe it.  Does the Holy Spirit exist?  Does Mara exist?  I may say "yes," and Lord Siddhartha may say "yes," even though Mara is only illusion.  So, our illusions may be deeply meaningful to us, but possess no objective reality.  Others claim that they have objective existence.  Neither claim can be proved.  Inferred perhaps, but not proved.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I mention the key issue for many is the Day of Atonement and how it relates to the conception of Christ as sacrifice. Some date this rather late to well after the exile period. Others see it as arising out of Canaanite religion and late in the monarchian period. Many note parallels to the Akitu festival in Babylon and see that as the origin. Interestingly we don't get an explicit reference to the Day of Atonement in the Book of Mormon. Within the Book of Mormon we don't see discussion of purification offerings as much as reparation and peace offerings. It's these reparation and peace issues that seem tied to sin and atonement in the text. Peace offerings are common in Canaanite religion and are making peace between the worshippers and also between them and God. Likewise reparation offerings are common. 

Just to anticipate a criticism, there have been arguments for elements of the Day of Atonement in the Book of Mormon. However these are thematic rather than explicit. (Welch also suggests it is pre-exilic whereas most from what I can see consider it post-exilic although there's not consensus) The other problem is that many claim Mosiah 2-5 as a Feast of the Tabernacles which makes it problematic as a Day of Atonement. If elements of both (plus coronation elements) are present that suggests that these ritual holidays were themselves not fully formed for the Nephites. (As an aside since the feast of the tabernacles celebrates the flight from Egypt while dwelling in tents, it's hard to imagine it didn't take on an element of Nephite history with Nephi and Lehi's flight -- all assuming it was in existence pre-exile.)

Link to comment
On 7/3/2018 at 11:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I already indicated via Ernst Benz the apostate "Christian" opposition to a corporeal God, who is normative in Mormonism and primitive Christianity, but rejected thereafter.  The problems for Hellenistic Christianity are overwhelmingly anti-Judaic and anti-Bible.  They posit a God who is the Uncaused First Cause and only Necessary Being, supernatural Creatio Ex Nihilo, and a raft of other nonsense.  That is the nature of your normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, which is paradoxical and self-destructive.  Mormonism posits just the opposite:  God as part of an infinite chain of being, in a fully naturalistic universe (in which all creation is from pre-existing matter). where humans are necessary beings, coeternal with God.

Thank you for clarifying. Of course this doesn't solve the issue of first century and later normative Christian/Mormon theology in the BOM.

 

On 7/3/2018 at 11:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Going on a Crossan rant won't hide your failure to note that "atonement" is "reconciliation."  That is what Hebrew kippur  means.  It is all about expiation of sin.  As to your false statement that it is unjewish, Jewish scholar Jacob Milgrom comments that “it seems strange that the high priest is both expiator and the expiated, that he officiates for his own sin.”[1]  You might want to read the book of Hebrews about who that HP is.

 

 

On 7/3/2018 at 11:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:
The blood of the Paschal lamb not only saves the first born of Israel in Egypt, but it presages Jesus as the Paschal Lamb of God who saves all mankind.  The Last Supper is a celebration of that very act via a traditional Seder meal.  You ignore the obvious.

[1] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1991), 232 (re Leviticus 4:5).

Atonement was a regular Israelite temple rite, as well as an integral part of every covenant renewal ceremony, as in Mosiah 3:5 – 4:8, and 1QS ii, 25-iii, 12. 

In each case the atonement (whether performed by Jesus or the Israelite high priest) is vicarious, as in the Wave-Sheaf ritual on Easter Sunday morning, Hebrew hēnîp, tĕnûpâ, “wave-offering” = Ugaritic np, npy “atonement, expurgation, purification, expiation.”

You are substituting conjecture for historical fact, Gray.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  You retreat to mere opinion-mongering here.

You can try to dignify and disguise your theological special pleading here, but to what purpose?

Yes, atonement is reconciliation. But it's not reconciliation through suffering of an innocent victim, as the Christians came to believe. At least it's not in Jewish thought. You're trying to smuggle in Christian concepts into Judaism under the cover of some shared terminology.

 

Link to comment
On 7/5/2018 at 1:33 PM, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree since there is that Canaanite idea of rebirth, a divine pantheon, similar sacrifice traditions, more explicit theology of resurrection and life after death and so forth. Move from the Canaanites to Egypt and there's more there. The main argument would be the problematic penal theology of atonement. However I'm skeptical Nephi/Jacob held to that let alone pre-exilic Israel. The main Nephite exegesis of Isaiah seems to take the idea of messiah as rescuing the exiles (whether northern or from the Babylonian exile) as typological of the individual, the nation politically, the nation morally & ritually, and the future apocalyptic. So it functions on multiple layers. It's at the individual ritual cleanliness level that is seen as problematic, as I understand it. And I certainly agree that in the 2cd temple period that doesn't appear to be widespread. It's worth questioning how ritual uncleanliness (such as touching corpses, semen or menstrual blood etc.) relates to sin & ethical bad behavior. Clearly in the Book of Mormon it's this later that's the emphasis although often in a way that it is a national uncleanliness. (See for instance early on Jacob's criticisms of the Nephites in Jac 2)

That's a really thin connection. That holds true for any number of Axial age theologies, including Greek theology.

There is no equivalence in Christianity with ritual impurity. The closest modern analog I can think of is cooties.

 

Quote

Most of the NT conception of vicarious atonement is seen in the context of Hellenistic conceptions - the pharmakoi. This type of human sacrifice as expiatory is well known. The question is whether Canaanite human sacrifice had a similar function. If it did then it would make perfect sense for drives to purge Judaism from Canaanite influence would remove such traditions. (Much as the pantheon became angels, the mother figure was removed, and Yahweh and El became merged) We know of similarities between the Canaanite practice and Greek practice of pharmakoi. King Mesha of Moab, when he sacrifices his son, is very similar to the Greek narratives. Of course from what texts we have Canaanites weren't as focused on sin (although it is an element) There's even an interesting text in the Ugarit corpus that has Baal sacrificing his firstborn - although there are controversies as the text is damaged on the tablet where firstborn is reconstructed. (Some think it is "male animal" and not "firstborn") 

Again, these are very thin connections, similar to the types of connections people used to make with Jesus and Egyptian mythology to try to demonstrate that Jesus was an invented figure.

 

 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...