Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 hours ago, Gray said: I don't think I'm wrong, but please feel free to cite specific scholarship to the contrary. Nevo seems to have already done so. I suppose it comes down to seeing continuity on the one hand (as I do), and not seeing it on the other (as you and Nevo do), and I have cited muultiple sources to make my case. I always like to quote 2 Nephi 25:5, Quote I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. The dominant approach during the 19th and 20th centuries was to emphasize disconintuity with the OT, along with fully Hellenistic interpretations of the NT and Christian history. The Jesus Seminar buttressed that with focus only on the unique aspects of Jesus, rather than an appeal to his Judaic normalcy. Nevo quotes Jewish understanding only selectively, rather than going whole hog -- for example he needs to reject the uniqueness principle and accept the continuity of Jesus with already extant notions of dying and rising suffering servant which existed thousands of years before Jesus came on the scene. As Walter Weaver says, Quote apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted; at the same time it came from late Judaism and therefore constituted a common resource of synagogue and church. Weaver in Charlesworth & Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 14. Anthony J. Saldarini concurred: Quote A Christian Jesus is a parochial, self-serving myth and an Aryan Jesus a perverse one. But why then have Christians so persistently thought of Jesus as a Christian and resisted admitting the obvious, that Jesus as a Jew? Answer: the pervasive problem of uniqueness. * * * * To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings. Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church. They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness. Saldarini, "What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?" Bible Review, 15/3 (June 1999):17 (emphasis added). Bruce Chilton chimes in as well: Quote hasn't the world of academic convention proven it is tone deaf to the Judaism of Jesus and the earliest Christians? Chilton, Bible Review, 16/4 (August 2000):54. The great George Mendenhall opined: Quote virtually no attention is given to the more remote Israelite past (Premonarchy, Monarchy, and Exile). The overwhelming attention given to Judaism in the more recent Hellenistic and Roman periods–and to the non-Jewish world in general–does not prepare students to see the many ways in which Jesus and the early church were more than mere products of their times, and prevents them from recognizing possible reformational dynamics at work in early Christianity. Worse yet, it fails to do justice to the New Testament itself, where a third of the verses clearly allude to the Israelite religious tradition. Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, ed. Gary A. Herion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 249-250 (Appendix C, “The New Testament in Israelite Perspective”). Jesus’ parables were an archaic, pre-exilic prophetic form (cf II Sam 12:1-9, Isa 5:1-7). His reference to God as Abba was likewise pre-exilic (Hos 11:1-11). Mendenhall, 219. Quote Such modern lack of archaic perspective leaves us blind to the Good Shepherd Parable as a homily on Ezekiel 34, or the Sermon on the Mount as an updating of the non-coercive Covenant Code in Exodus 21 - 23. Such myopia leaves the reader unaware that the term “Kingdom of God” is archaic “religious shorthand for the premonarchic understanding of the rule or kingship of Yahweh.” In view of this, and much more, it is little wonder that Jesus was regarded as a prophet by the humble masses (Matt 21:45-46), simply because it is the typical village population which maintains the archaic tradition, and it was from such a population that Jesus himself came. Mendenhall, 220. Like her late father, Milton, Martha Himmelfarb has been an ardent supporter of another kind of uniqueness, Israelite uniqueness -- including the uniqueness of the Hebrew Bible -- rejecting continuity with Canaanite (Ugartic) culture. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Gray said: I don't think I'm misinformed Robert, although of course I'm as fallible as the next person. Are you saying that Jesus wasn't thoroughly Jewish? Are you claiming that Mormonism IS thoroughly Jewish? Despite the fact that it rejects the law of Moses, teaches feudalistic penal substitution atonement theory, teaches eternal salvation based on faith in Jesus, and so forth? None of those things were part of Jesus' program. The fact that you keep trying to connect critical scholarship with atheism tells me you don't really grasp what critical scholarship is. Am I wrong? Are you not attempting to associate the two somehow? When those in authority teach folklore, it becomes doctrine. Scholars can tell you what Mormonism was, but leaders define what Mormonism is, at least for the institutional church. That's almost a metaphor for the the larger discussion we're having now. Your personal Mormonism may vary. Once again, you may want to come to grips with the writings of Sterling McMurrin and the more recent works of Terryl Givens on Wrestling the Angel and Feeding the Flock, in order to extricate yourself from the pop-culture approach to Mormonism. Do you prefer ad hominems? Really? Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Gray said: The connections are thin enough that you can make them between any two religious traditions you choose. At this point we're talking about Joseph Campbell level archetypes. Christianity simply did not exist 600, 500 or 200 years before Jesus. Christianity didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime, either. There is certainly an evolutionary chain you can follow back before the advent of Christianity, where certain concepts start to evolve (resurrection of the dead, God/Satan dualism, etc). But that's just the point. These concepts gradually evolved, making their appearance in the BOM outside of time and place very jarring. I don't think that's quite fair. Calling them Joseph Campbell level seems a bit much. Further I'd say the Jesus/Mithra connections establish the broader cultural issues in late antiquity (post-NT but establish the place of mystery religions in the Roman empire at that time). So while they don't establish a source for the 1st century NT they do I think convey the interests and stresses in the region in the 2cd century up through the domination of Christianity. Also with regards to the Book of Mormon we have to distinguish between 1 Nephi - Jacob and Mosiah onward. The latter is being compiled, redacted and summarized by Mormon living well into the Christian era. Then we have the nature of the translation which I think nearly everyone accepts as loose and thus may well be interpolating things in a more Christian Protestant fashion than what we'd have found with the plates alone. As I said the most interesting aspects are more Egyptian and there are pretty compelling reasons to think there was a minority Egyptian view that was somewhat syncretic and yet still accepted by the main body. There we have the ability of anyone, not just royals, to be resurrected. We have the idea of a judgment at the time of resurrection. The Horus similarities are well known and even if you think them Joseph Campbell level distortions, in a syncretic form of Judaism as we know existed at that time in Egypt, they appear a legit source for Nephi. (Horus-Yaho is well known in literature from around that time broadly) We know Psalm 20 may connections to these syncretic traditions of Horus. Identifying Ps 20 with Egypt is contentious, but referenced in most commentaries and well within the mainstream. (See Zevit, "The Common Origin of the Aramaicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20") In making these claims I'm certainly not in the least buying into the atheist conspiracy theories for the origins of Christianity. (That Christianity is just a copy of Egypt is a well known conspiracy theory of dubious quality) Now I certainly am not saying this explains everything - vicarious atonement is dubious in Egypt from my limited knowledge. But it explains much of what's in 1 Nephi - Jacob. I think the idea of a purification offering, even if not understood post-exilic in those terms, makes sense for Nephi. That is what role did the spirit (nefesh) of the animal in the sacrifice make. Perhaps things would go better if you could point to what it doesn't explain in those texts. Edited July 12, 2018 by clarkgoble Link to comment
Nevo Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I suppose it comes down to seeing continuity on the one hand (as I do), and not seeing it on the other (as you and Nevo do), and I have cited multiple sources to make my case. . . . The dominant approach during the 19th and 20th centuries was to emphasize discontinuity with the OT, along with fully Hellenistic interpretations of the NT and Christian history. The Jesus Seminar buttressed that with focus only on the unique aspects of Jesus, rather than an appeal to his Judaic normalcy. Nevo quotes Jewish understanding only selectively, rather than going whole hog -- for example he needs to reject the uniqueness principle and accept the continuity of Jesus with already extant notions of dying and rising suffering servant which existed thousands of years before Jesus came on the scene. For the record, I have no issue seeing continuity between the NT and parts of the OT. There is a great deal of continuity between the NT and the visions of Daniel, for example. I agree completely with Weaver that "apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted." But apocalypticism as such emerged in the second century BCE. That's problematic for 1 and 2 Nephi. Also, I do not resist Jesus' Jewishness in the least. In fact, I find Dale Allison's portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic Jewish prophet to be wholly convincing. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nevo said: For the record, I have no issue seeing continuity between the NT and parts of the OT. There is a great deal of continuity between the NT and the visions of Daniel, for example. I agree completely with Weaver that "apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted." But apocalypticism as such emerged in the second century BCE. That's problematic for 1 and 2 Nephi. Also, I do not resist Jesus' Jewishness in the least. In fact, I find Dale Allison's portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic Jewish prophet to be wholly convincing. Wrong. As I point out in the recent Welch Festschrift ("To Seek the Law of the Lord," 453-454), Claims that apocalyptic is a late literary genre and so must be anachronistic in the Book of Mormon, ignore the sage observations of scholars like the late Frank Moore Cross, Jr.: Quote The origins of the apocalyptic must be searched for as early as the sixth century B.C.[1] Thus, not only are Second Isaiah, and Isaiah 24 - 27 (the so-called Isaianic Apocalypse), 34 - 35, all from no later than the 6th century B.C., but (according to Cross) Quote [t]he mythological lore of Ugarit will be increasingly important for apocalyptic studies. One thinks of the superb paper of J. A. Emerton, "The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery," . . .[2] The origins of apocalyptic, it seems, must now be sought for at least as early as the second millennium B.C.! And perhaps earlier, according to the 1984 University of Oslo dissertation of Helge S. Kvanvig[3] -- especially comparing Daniel 7 with the Akkadian "Vision of the Nether World."[4] The arguments for the transmission of major apocalyptic traditions from such early times down to the time of Joseph Smith have been dealt with elsewhere, and will not concern us here.[5] [1] Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 343, i.e., the Exile presumably transformed religious institutions such as prophecy; cf. Cross in Hershel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (Vintage, 1992/1993/ Random House, 1996), 163-166; Paul D. Hanson, "From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Unresolved Issues," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 15 (Jan 1980):3-6. [2] Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 345, and n. 8 for quotation, citing Emerton in Journal of Theological Studies, 9 (1958):225-242; cf. Cross, CMHE, 346, n. 13, where he states that Jewish apocalyptic was derived from "old Canaanite mythic lore." See also the comments of Matthew Black in Bible Review, 3/2 (Summer 1987):39, on the very early nature of the Enoch tradition (cf. 19,21,23). ....... [3] Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man (Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), part 1 from his dissertation, and part 2 from his article, "An Akkadian Vision as Background for Dan 7," Studia Theologica, 35 (1981):85-89. Cf. James VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984). [4] Kvanvig, Roots of Alpocalyptic, 389-441; E. A. Speiser in J. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. (Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 109-110.......; cf. John J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Eerdmans, 1984), 79. [5] On the survival of early Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, see H. Curtis Wright in BYU Studies, 31/3 (Summer 1991):63, n. 6. Edited July 13, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nevo said: For the record, I have no issue seeing continuity between the NT and parts of the OT. There is a great deal of continuity between the NT and the visions of Daniel, for example. I agree completely with Weaver that "apocalypticism was the ground in which early Christianity was planted." But apocalypticism as such emerged in the second century BCE. That's problematic for 1 and 2 Nephi. Certain aspects of the apocalyptic genre arise with Hellenistic and Zoroastrian influence. However typically apocalyptic is tied to Isaiah 24-27. (Interestingly the origin of apocalypse as a formal genre is 1832 by a German scholar who tied it to Daniel, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, the Sibylline Oracles, Ascension of Isaiah and of course Revelation) Some, because of the apocalyptic genre date Isaiah 24-27 to the Hellenistic period. While many saw Isaiah 24-27 as early post-exilic (despite being in proto-isaiah) most now see it as eighth or sixth century even if redacted and edited over time. There's also growing consensus that the apocalyptic genre developed in the early 19th century is itself problematic. (See William Barker's Isaiah's Kingship Polemic who argues for Ugarit parallels for Isaiah 24-27) So there's now a conception that early apocalypses such as in Isaiah should be distinguished from later Hellenistic apocalypses and be called porto-apocalypses with strong Canaanite influence. Where 1 Nephi fits thus isn't obvious. Making this more complex is a general assessment that while Isaiah 24-27 is old, it has "undergone a process of successive restructuring over a significant period of time." (Carol Dempsey, "Words of Woe, Visions of Grandeur: a Literary and Hermeenutical Study of Isaiah 24-27") It's interesting since Ugarit parallels to Nephi's apocalypse have long been noted. (The tree of life - Asheroth parallel being one of the better known ones) While there are some parallels between Nephi's vision and say 1 Enoch (the geography is somewhat similar in places) there are also pretty significant differences with far less radical symbolism. Barker's thesis is quite interesting to Mormons since it gets at other elements of parallel between Nephi and Canaanite myth I've brought up here before (such as the hell motif in 2 Ne 15:14 & Isaiah 5:14) Anyway I'd say that even acknowledging interpretive elements of the translation that make use of later KJV texts including Revelation might distort the underlying text, still one should probably point to specific elements that are anachronistic rather than just gesturing to the genre itself as problematic. Especially given the differences from the genre in the visions in 1 & 2 Nephi and the explicit ties to Isaiah. Further these Canaanite mythic ties simply can't be dismissed - especially if key Persian and Hellenistic elements seem lacking in Nephi's texts. Even the later Hellenistic influenced apocalypses like Daniel partake significantly of a Canaanite element. See John Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, particularly around page 126. He notes: The parallel lies in the pattern, not just in the individual motifs. Of course, Daniel does not give an exact reproduction of the Ugaritic myth. To begin with, the Ugaritic myths are more than a thousand years older than Daniel and the traditions must inevitably have undergone some changed. Besides the tradition provides the building blocks for Daniel's vision and he adapts it for his own purpose. Those are just Canaanite ties. There are also Egyptian parallels although I'm less knowledgeable on those elements. While it is a later apocalypse in the Hellenistic period, Collins notes that The Potter's Oracle draws on the structure of Egyptian creation myths and the prophecy of Neferty from 2000 BC. So the Hellenistic period has the authors drawing on these far more ancient mythic elements. Edited July 13, 2018 by clarkgoble 1 Link to comment
Nevo Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Certain aspects of the apocalyptic genre arise with Hellenistic and Zoroastrian influence. However typically apocalyptic is tied to Isaiah 24-27. . . . Some, because of the apocalyptic genre date Isaiah 24-27 to the Hellenistic period. While many saw Isaiah 24-27 as early post-exilic (despite being in proto-isaiah) most now see it as eighth or sixth century even if redacted and edited over time. There's also growing consensus that the apocalyptic genre developed in the early 19th century is itself problematic. (See William Barker's Isaiah's Kingship Polemic who argues for Ugarit parallels for Isaiah 24-27) So there's now a conception that early apocalypses such as in Isaiah should be distinguished from later Hellenistic apocalypses and be called proto-apocalypses with strong Canaanite influence. Where 1 Nephi fits thus isn't obvious. Making this more complex is a general assessment that while Isaiah 24-27 is old, it has "undergone a process of successive restructuring over a significant period of time." (Carol Dempsey, "Words of Woe, Visions of Grandeur: a Literary and Hermeenutical Study of Isaiah 24-27") Hi, Clark. There's no need to classify Isaiah 24-27 as apocalyptic at all, as your own sources take pains to emphasize. William Barker says on page 1 of his monograph: "Isa. 24-27 is not apocalyptic in form or function. Further, this has been widely recognised for some time." Likewise, Carol Dempsey writes: "Recent scholarship . . . argues against assigning [Isa. 24-27] to the apocalyptic genre." So also Joseph Blenkinsopp: "Much of [Isa. 24-27] has nothing in common with apocalypse. There is therefore a growing consensus that this designation is misleading and should be abandoned" (Isaiah 1-39, 346). Given that Isaiah 24-27 (which Blenkinsopp dates to after 539 BCE) isn't an apocalypse and shouldn't be assigned to the apocalyptic genre, this doesn't push the apocalyptic genre back to the "eighth or sixth century," as you seem to want. The genre arises in the second century. That's pretty well established at this point. That apocalyptic works draw on older elements is uncontroversial, I think. 1 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nevo said: Hi, Clark. There's no need to classify Isaiah 24-27 as apocalyptic at all, as your own sources take pains to emphasize. William Barker says on page 1 of his monograph: "Isa. 24-27 is not apocalyptic in form or function. Further, this has been widely recognised for some time." Likewise, Carol Dempsey writes: "Recent scholarship . . . argues against assigning [Isa. 24-27] to the apocalyptic genre." So also Joseph Blenkinsopp: "Much of [Isa. 24-27] has nothing in common with apocalypse. There is therefore a growing consensus that this designation is misleading and should be abandoned" (Isaiah 1-39, 346). Given that Isaiah 24-27 (which Blenkinsopp dates to after 539 BCE) isn't an apocalypse and shouldn't be assigned to the apocalyptic genre, this doesn't push the apocalyptic genre back to the "eighth or sixth century," as you seem to want. The genre arises in the second century. That's pretty well established at this point. That apocalyptic works draw on older elements is uncontroversial, I think. I think you missed the argument. Why is Nephi's a late Hellenistic apocalypse? You're not engaging that. While late apocalypses are making use of Egyptian and Canaanite myths so too do we find these in earlier texts such as proto-Isaiah. So such elements can't imply apocalypse. While I certainly don't deny in the least some parallels to later apocalypse (say elements of geography in 1 Enoch - although the parallels there are more to mountains of Canaanite myth rather than the cosmic elements) I'm arguing that we don't have a classic late apocalypse ala Daniel or 1 Enoch. The point about Isaiah's Apocalypse is just to say that there is a genre (Blenkinsopp dates it to just after the exile but others date it older as I mentioned) with some apocalyptic features that's not a classic apocalypse that is generally accepted as pre-exilic. So the issue is the burden of proof that Lehi's and Nephi's vision are hellenistic apocalypses rather than a pre-exilic genre making use of mythic imagery and structures out of Egypt and Canaan. The key line in my comments you're reacting to is, "there's also growing consensus that the apocalyptic genre developed in the early 19th century is itself problematic..." Your appeal to Blenkinsopp establishes this. The point then is that what is apocalyptic is itself under debate with many taking differing positions over the past 25 years. Even classic hellenistic apocalyptic texts are themselves seen as having earlier strata out of which the late work is constructed. In some ways that's obvious since often the versions of apocalypses we have are actually medieval but which we assume originally date to the hellenistic era with some editing and redaction of sections. Even texts like 1 Enoch are usually seen as made up of individual texts that have been put together. (This is probably more obvious in 1 Enoch than some other texts) A classic apocalypse like 1 Enoch no longer has all its main sections even dated to the hellenistic era but to the early post-exilic times with some arguing even for pre-exilic origins. (Part of the argument here is the lack of reference to ritual and theology of the Torah that was seen as later D and P developments) What I'm getting at is a distinction between hellenistic era apocalypse and what scholars call proto-apocalypse. Proto-apocalypses are generally taken to be Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 38-39, Zechariah 9-13 and Joel 2:28-3:2. As with all these categories there's continued debate over details. But that's a fairly safe claim. Some of those seem pre-exilic or at least significant scholars have argued for such. Even post-exilic dates usually are early post-exilic. To me what's characteristic of Nephi's vision is that it's not so heavily symbolic like the later Hellenistic visions but is much more an entering an mythic world and has elements more properly characterized as prophetic rather than apocalyptic. (This is particularly true of Nephi's vision where the angel is explaining the mythic images and then gives a more traditional prophetic treatment) The mythic element clearly has symbolism - such as the iron rod or the tree of life. But it's in a fashion quite unlike later apocalypses where you get crazy beasts that have more complex signifiers. The mythic imagery in Nephi is far more natural with a literalistic element to it. Lehi see's his family moving through "mists of darkness" (perhaps a dust storm) and having to hold to a rod to avoid literalistic obstacles) However classic apocalyptic texts have an emphasis on the heavenly world and it's economy which is completely absent from the Book of Mormon. (One could argue Lehi's vision is heaven, but it's not presented as such, as still is very different from most of the texts even including the parts of 1 Enoch with a geographic element) Likewise there's no mystical or speculative aspects such as we find in Enoch. Echatology is different in prophetic and proto-apocalyptic texts as well with a focus on this-worldly rather than other-worldly. Again, outside of the mythic vision of Lehi's family at the tree of life, the focus of Nephi's vision is this world's history (given in more plain prophetic form) Even books which has a slight mythic or apocalyptic nature to them are primarily literal historic books. (Say 1 Ne 13:21 - in a classic apocalypse it'd be a heavenly book with the emphasis on the otherworldly realm) Most significantly even the eschatological element, while alluded to at the end, aren't even in the vision. Again completely unlike classic apocalypses. Edited July 13, 2018 by clarkgoble 1 Link to comment
Nevo Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 8 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I think you missed the argument. Oh, I'm sure I did. 8 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Why is Nephi's a late Hellenistic apocalypse? You're not engaging that. It isn't a late Hellenistic apocalypse. Who is saying that? My position is very simple: The Book of Mormon is a Christian text, dependent on the KJV and centuries of Christian theological reflection. Christian texts are anachronistic in 600 BCE. 8 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I'm arguing that we don't have a classic late apocalypse ala Daniel or 1 Enoch. The point about Isaiah's Apocalypse is just to say that there is a genre (Blenkinsopp dates it to just after the exile but others date it older as I mentioned) with some apocalyptic features that's not a classic apocalypse that is generally accepted as pre-exilic. Daniel and 1 Enoch aren't "late" apocalypses—they're among the very earliest examples of the genre. Isaiah 24–27 isn't an example of the genre, as numerous scholars have pointed out. There is, in fact, no pre-exilic genre of apocalypse. But I'm just repeating myself now. 3 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 41 minutes ago, Nevo said: Oh, I'm sure I did. It isn't a late Hellenistic apocalypse. Who is saying that? My position is very simple: The Book of Mormon is a Christian text, dependent on the KJV and centuries of Christian theological reflection. Christian texts are anachronistic in 600 BCE. That is the one issue apologists can’t get around. A book written in 600 BCE should not be dependent on the English Bible and late Protestant theology. 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nevo said: Oh, I'm sure I did. It isn't a late Hellenistic apocalypse. Who is saying that? My position is very simple: The Book of Mormon is a Christian text, dependent on the KJV and centuries of Christian theological reflection. Christian texts are anachronistic in 600 BCE. Daniel and 1 Enoch aren't "late" apocalypses—they're among the very earliest examples of the genre. Isaiah 24–27 isn't an example of the genre, as numerous scholars have pointed out. There is, in fact, no pre-exilic genre of apocalypse. But I'm just repeating myself now. Again you're still missing it. You were saying apocalypse as one element of the Book of Mormon was anachronistic. My point is that it isn't on the basis of the distinction between proto-apocalypse and later apocalypses. Of the main apocalypses like Revelation typically elements of 1 Enoch are seen as early. You're the one who brought up the apocalypse angle but to show that the apocalypse angle is anachronistic you need to show it is characteristic of the hellenistic era apocalypses rather than the porto-apocalypse. You've not done that and I listed some reasons why Nephi/Lehi's "apocalypse" isn't the typical Hellenistic and onward apocalypse. If you're now backing off of the claim the Book of Mormon has anachronistic apocalypses in it then that's fine of course. Edited July 14, 2018 by clarkgoble Link to comment
Rajah Manchou Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: That is the one issue apologists can’t get around. A book written in 600 BCE should not be dependent on the English Bible and late Protestant theology. The Book of Mormon is not a pre-exilic book written in 600 BCE. It is a book that claims to be a collection of multiple records (some abridged) of unknown provenance written in an unidentified "promised land" between 550 BC and 420 AD, and translated in the 19th century. There's only one contributor that would have known anything about 600 BCE and pre-exilic Israel. Even Jacob was born in the wilderness and never lived in Jerusalem. 1 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: The Book of Mormon is not a pre-exilic book written in 600 BCE. It is a book that claims to be a collection of multiple records (some abridged) of unknown provenance written in an unidentified "promised land" between 550 BC and 420 AD, and translated in the 19th century. There's only one contributor that would have known anything about 600 BCE and pre-exilic Israel. Even Jacob was born in the wilderness and never lived in Jerusalem. None of that accounts for the textual and theological dependency on the English Bible and late Protestant thought. Link to comment
Rajah Manchou Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: None of that accounts for the textual and theological dependency on the English Bible and late Protestant thought. "and translated in the 19th century." 1 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Just now, Rajah Manchou said: "and translated in the 19th century." Yeah, got that. 1 Link to comment
Nevo Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: You were saying apocalypse as one element of the Book of Mormon was anachronistic. . . . You're the one who brought up the apocalypse angle . . . . If you're now backing off of the claim the Book of Mormon has anachronistic apocalypses in it then that's fine of course. Where have I said a single word about Book of Mormon apocalypses?! No wonder I have a hard time following your posts. We're not even reading the same thread. You brought up "Nephi's apocalypse" here and "Lehi's and Nephi's vision" here. I haven't said anything about them. For your reference, here are the actual claims I have made in this thread about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon: On 6/29/2018 at 10:07 PM, Nevo said: Lehi envisions a coming Messiah that will redeem the world (1 Nephi 1:19).That idea would have made zero sense to a pre-exilic Jew. So would the idea of "the fall of man" (2 Nephi 2:4), whereby "all men . . . were lost because of the transgression of their parents;" a "devil" who seeks "the misery of all mankind" (2 Nephi 2:18); and a Messiah who "offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law" (2 Nephi 2:7). These are all clear anachronisms. On 7/1/2018 at 6:04 PM, Nevo said: The "revolutionary developments" that Jenkins describes were not in place yet in 300 BCE, let alone in 600 BCE, and were a response to specific historical developments in Palestine. Yet, very early on, the Book of Mormon discusses the importance of faith in Jesus Christ, baptism for the remission of sins, universal resurrection, heaven and hell, Satan and his "angels", a crucified messiah who atones for the sins of the world, the Fall of Adam, the gospel going to the Gentiles, etc., all of which is thoroughly anachronistic. On 7/7/2018 at 9:46 AM, Nevo said: Marc Zvi Brettler's essay, "The New Testament Between the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Rabbinic Literature," notes that "there is much in the New Testament that is not anticipated in the Tanakh, such as the core idea of a divine messiah who brings redemption by dying for Israel's sins." He continues: Quote Some of these ideas exist separately in the Hebrew Bible—a messiah (though that term is never used there of the future ideal Davidic king), a future ideal king who has some supernatural or at least hyperbolically described characteristics (see Isa. 11.1–5), though he is never called divine, and a suffering servant (see esp. Isa. 53), though the identity of this servant is very unclear, and it is uncertain if the Hebrew Bible intends an individual or a group, and if this servant lives in the past, present, or future. Thus, some of what is new in the New Testament reflects a bringing together of separate ideas found in the Tanakh. Some of the New Testament themes draw not directly upon the Tanakh but upon Hellenistic Jewish literature. For example, the concept of the martyr, put to death by the state, whose sacrifice has salvific meaning for fellow Jews, begins to be developed in the apocryphal book 2 Maccabees. . . . The shift of Satan from a member of the heavenly court to a personification of evil likewise develops in this milieu. In Lee Levine's essay, "The Synagogue," he notes that "synagogues in Judea are first attested in the first century BCE, and in one case (Modi'in) perhaps as early as the second century" (compare 2 Nephi 26:26). In her essay, "Afterlife and Resurrection," Martha Himmelfarb observes that "most of the writings that eventually became part of the Tanakh say nothing about reward and punishment after death. Rather, they envision the dead, righteous and wicked together, enduring a shadowy existence in Sheol, an inhospitable place often described as a miry pit . . . . The blessings and curses that attach to Israel's covenant with God play a central role in the Torah and prophetic writings, but they are typically experienced collectively by the people of Israel as a group, and they take place in this world. The only strand of the Tanakh to emphasize the reward and punishment of the individual is Wisdom literature, but these texts locate rewards and punishments in this life" (compare 2 Nephi 9:15–18). Himmelfarb notes that the first Jewish text to describe a final judgment and reward and punishment after death is the Book of the Watchers, which is dated to the end of the third century BCE. From there, she traces the idea through the second-century BCE books of Daniel (ch. 12) and 2 Maccabees (ch. 7) to the New Testament and beyond. 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) Nevermind Edited July 14, 2018 by mfbukowski Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) Never mind Edited July 14, 2018 by jkwilliams Link to comment
TOmNossor Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 On 6/24/2018 at 9:36 PM, cinepro said: In addition to the list above, two of the most damaging things for the Theory of Divine Origin are the incompatible theories regarding the location of Book of Mormon events, and the inconclusive evidence for whether or not the translation was "loose" or "tight." Those are two drastically different methods of translation, and invoking both to explain different aspects of the translation weakens the likelihood that either were used. I am enjoying this thread. I am not horrified by the heartland vs. the Mesoamerican model. There are problems and benefits to both. I have always leaned strongly in the Mesoamerican direction. That being said, it is not appropriate to use evidence from the heartland model to explain problems with the Mesoamerican model. One could say, “there is no compass problem with the Mesoamerican model because look at this heartland orientation.” Then say, and look at Teotihuacan where there is a convergence of “lack of trees,” “many waters,” “the land Northward (relative to the rest of the proposed geography for the BOM in this area),” and the archeological find of manmade “cement.” But this is either dishonest or idiotic. I find the “tight” vs. “loose” translation to be a much larger issue. I only partially agree with Cinepro when he says the existence of the other weakens the one. Brant Gardner (I am pretty sure I am right that he is the loose translation guy and I have seen him say …) offers arguments about this or that problem being caused by loose “translation.” Some of the “translation artifacts” are evidence of ancient origins are weakened by the idea of a “loose translation.” As I recall Brant Gardner acknowledges this and so I do not criticize his position ONLY the position of those who use “loose translation” explanations for this or that problem and “tight translation” evidences for this or that evidence. I have long felt that it is appropriate to view the translation as tight or loose and take the good with the bad. I have not yet decided which case is stronger, but I think both have merits that critics seldom address. NOW, the real reason I post right now (only 5 pages into a 37 page thread) is that I think the recognition of the incompatibility of “loose” vs. “tight” is important so I refuse to allow evidences and explanations from both sides to be put on the scale. The reason I mention this here is because of the things Daniel Peterson and SMAC point to. Critics seem to agree that the BOM is not from God, but their explanations are often mutually exclusive. If it is appropriate for believers to evaluate the strengths of the “loose” translation model and not intermingle those strengths with the “tight” translations strengths, SURELY it is appropriate for the case of “automatic writing” or “the brilliant conman” to stand alone. Critics shouldn’t ask that an amalgamation of evidences from contradictory explanations be weighed. And when they do LDS are right to reject this and call it intellectually lacking! Charity, TOm 2 Link to comment
cinepro Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 3 hours ago, TOmNossor said: NOW, the real reason I post right now (only 5 pages into a 37 page thread) is that I think the recognition of the incompatibility of “loose” vs. “tight” is important so I refuse to allow evidences and explanations from both sides to be put on the scale. The reason I mention this here is because of the things Daniel Peterson and SMAC point to. Critics seem to agree that the BOM is not from God, but their explanations are often mutually exclusive. If it is appropriate for believers to evaluate the strengths of the “loose” translation model and not intermingle those strengths with the “tight” translations strengths, SURELY it is appropriate for the case of “automatic writing” or “the brilliant conman” to stand alone. Critics shouldn’t ask that an amalgamation of evidences from contradictory explanations be weighed. And when they do LDS are right to reject this and call it intellectually lacking! The problem is that believers and critics alike aren't required to support any theory. It's not a competition where all the theories are lined up and whichever is best must be believed (and certainly, I agree that if we allow for God's intervention and can attribute anything we want to that intervention, then the theories involving God are far stronger). No, the other option is that we just don't know where it came from. In which case, the rational thing to do is withhold firm belief in any single theory (including the Divine Theory of Translation) until a theory is formulated that can't be falsified (meaning, it satisfactorily explains all the data without resorting to ad-hoc reasoning and special pleading). Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Nevo said: Where have I said a single word about Book of Mormon apocalypses?! No wonder I have a hard time following your posts. We're not even reading the same thread. You brought up "Nephi's apocalypse" here and "Lehi's and Nephi's vision" here. I haven't said anything about them. I was reacting to this: "But apocalypticism as such emerged in the second century BCE. That's problematic for 1 and 2 Nephi." The comment of mine you linked to even included your comments so this criticism and denial seems quite odd to me. But I'll drop it if it's not something you want to talk about or if you no longer think it problematic for 1 Nephi - 2 Nephi. In making my various comments though I was trying to get at what apocalypses were like around the exile (or more properly proto-apocalypses) and how that relates to Nephi's claims. (Although some of his claims he presents as novel) The significance is that while the porto-apocalypses aren't otherworldly they are focused on how Yahweh as God dominates all the world. Quote Terror, and the pit, and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth! Whoever flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit, and whoever climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble. The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunkard, it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again. Edited July 14, 2018 by clarkgoble Link to comment
JarMan Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 18 hours ago, jkwilliams said: None of that accounts for the textual and theological dependency on the English Bible and late Protestant thought. I agree with everything here except for the word “late.” I think all theology in the Book of Mormon was in place by the mid-17th Century. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 20 hours ago, jkwilliams said: That is the one issue apologists can’t get around. A book written in 600 BCE should not be dependent on the English Bible and late Protestant theology. If one does not accept revelation, yes, as to the English Bible bit, but, according to LDS theology, the Book of Mormon is based upon revelation. That explains just about everything, if one accepts the Restoration narrative. Glenn Link to comment
JarMan Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: If one does not accept revelation, yes, as to the English Bible bit, but, according to LDS theology, the Book of Mormon is based upon revelation. That explains just about everything, if one accepts the Restoration narrative. Glenn Some Book of Mormon concepts have been abandoned and replaced. The Book of Mormon hell is one example. That is hard to square with the revelation narrative. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 2 hours ago, JarMan said: Some Book of Mormon concepts have been abandoned and replaced. The Book of Mormon hell is one example. That is hard to square with the revelation narrative. Please explain the Book of Mormon concept of hell that that has been abandoned. Link to comment
Recommended Posts