Explanation for "Nephi and His Asherah"

[The Dude]

You're missing the joke -- or, at least, the allusion.

[Olavarria]

Here's a nifty little asherah article

http://www.jstor.org/view/00219231/sp05029...=3&config=jstor

[Kevin Graham]

One thing that struck me about this article was the numerous references to Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus in trying to identify

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson, have ever done a follow up article on Joseph Smith Sr.'s Asherath?

No, but I have some additional material that I may someday publish as an update on "Nephi and His Asherah."

Ciould it be Joseph Smith Sr. had a bit of the Jewish lore in him as well?

Not likely.

Hmmm....Joseph Smith Sr's dream also has a white tree with fruit, and a river of water.  While he doesn't provide the virgin-wisdom connection that Nephi supposedly does, could it be that Joseph Smith Sr. was secretly a believer in the Asherath as the divine wife of Yaweh?

The connection with the virgin is no mere detail. That's the essence of my argument.

Absent that, there is no reason to connect the tree with Asherah (or, secondarily, with Wisdom).

The connection is present in 1 Nephi 11, but it is absent from both 1 Nephi 8 and Lucy Mack Smith's retelling of Joseph Sr.'s decades-old dream (a retelling that may, itself, have been flavored by her awareness of 1 Nephi .

Surely, the inclusion in Joseph Smith Sr's dream of two authentically preexilic religious symbols (Asherah and Wisdom), that could scarcely have been derived by a New York farmer from the Bible, strongly suggests that Joseph Smith Sr. was, indeed, divinely tutored in the ways of ancient Israel, or was, as some scholars believe, actually a  resurrected ancient Israelite.

I'm well aware of your perpetual cynicism and urge to mock, but, since neither Asherah nor Wisdom appears to be present in Joseph Sr.'s dream, this particular little bit of flippancy misses its mark by a light year or two.

It would certainly be nice to see something substantive on this topic. And by that, Dude, I simply mean actual attention to the evidence and the logic, not mere dismissal.

No, the only complaint that I once heard of from a member of the Church was that I was, apparently, advocating goddess-worship (or some such thing), and that I ought to be fired from BYU. But, although I've often been told by critics that the article stinks, and, once in a while, have been told that it proves nothing (which has never struck me as much more of an argument than "Neener neener neener! You missed me!"), I've never actually had anybody confront me on the evidence or the analysis.

[Olavarria]

Asherah was a virgin mother, consort to El and was identified with a bright, white fruit tree.

Mary was a virgin mother, mother of God's child and was identifed with a bright white fruit tree(both are descried as beutiful and white).

Same time period, same locale.

Facts are stuburn things.

[Olavarria]

oops, i meant a tree of white fruit.

[The Dude]

It would certainly be nice to see something substantive on this topic. And by that, Dude, I simply mean actual attention to the evidence and the logic, not mere dismissal.

You mean like what you just did to cinepro?

I'm well aware of your perpetual cynicism and urge to mock, but, since neither Asherah nor Wisdom appears to be present in Joseph Sr.'s dream, this particular little bit of flippancy misses its mark by a light year or two.

Minus the whif of irony (something you two masters know so well), I thought cinepro made some good points about the similarity between Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream and Nephi's vision. Why didn't you mention this aspect in your article, along with some perceptive counter arguments? Maybe you've published it somewhere else?

If Joseph Sr. provided some elements of the vision-story to his son's imagination, and the young farmboy prophet decided to incorporate those elements -- intact as a vision -- into his new christian scipture, then it would be most natural for him to choose some element of that vision to convey key Christian teachings. There goes your argument if you can't rebut it. Merely insisting that Ashera and Wisdom do not appear in the J. Sr.'s dream is void since the symbols you rely on to link Ashera and Wisdom DO appear in J.Sr.'s dream. You'll have to do better.

No, the only complaint that I once heard of from a member of the Church was that I was, apparently, advocating goddess-worship (or some such thing), and that I ought to be fired from BYU.

Yeah, when I read the article I could see someone of hard LDS or EV persuasion dismissing the article for that kind of reason. I wonder what their counter explanation would be?

I've never actually had anybody confront me on the evidence or the analysis.

And who has cited it in the last eight years?

[Daniel Peterson]

It would certainly be nice to see something substantive on this topic. And by that, Dude, I simply mean actual attention to the evidence and the logic, not mere dismissal.

You mean like what you just did to cinepro?

I was under no illusion that I was responding to a scholarly article.

But, as a matter of fact, the absence from Joseph Sr.'s dream of the factors that, according to my argument, link the tree of 1 Nephi 11 to Asherah, and, thence, to Lady Wisdom, makes that dream, and cinepro's unserious comments, irrelevant to my article.

I thought cinepro made some good points about the similarity between Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream and Nephi's vision.

Can you identify what those were?

If Joseph Sr. provided some elements of the vision-story to his son's imagination, and the young farmboy prophet decided to incorporate those elements -- intact as a vision -- into his new christian scipture, then it would be most natural for him to choose some element of that vision to convey key Christian teachings.  There goes your argument if you can't rebut it.

The crucial elements of my argument are, as I said, absent from Joseph Sr.'s dream.

Merely insisting that Ashera and Wisdom do not appear in the J. Sr.'s dream is void since the symbols you rely on to link Ashera and Wisdom DO appear in J.Sr.'s dream.  You'll have to do better.

That's nonsense. You plainly haven't read my argument carefully enough.

And who has cited it in the last eight years?

Couldn't tell you. I haven't been keeping tabs. I'm not in the business for that.

[Olavarria]

And who has cited it in the last eight years?

Oh yes, because the subject of first temple feminine divinity motifs in the BoM is all the rage in todays academic circles. That doesn't seem like substantive ground for dismissing Dr. Petersen's argument. Attack his research, attack the BoM. How would the interest of other scholars make it true?

[Beowulf]

Dan is being modest.

Margaret Barker has cited Dr. Peterson's paper on at least two occasions that I know of. (Once at the Joseph Smith symposium at the Smithsonian in 2005, and again when she contributed a chapter to a book about Lehi's Jerusalem, a copy of which I have in my possession.)

And in regards to the comment earlier in this thread wondering how a non-believer like Barker could possibly use the Book of Mormon as evidence for her own theories about OT times... Well, you will just have to ask HER, because she has done it. (Thereby disproving the anti-Mormon assumption that Book of Mormon scholarship is 100% ignored by the wider world... )

Beowulf

[The Dude]

And who has cited it in the last eight years?

Oh yes, because the subject of first temple feminine divinity motifs in the BoM is all the rage in todays academic circles. That doesn't seem like substantive ground for dismissing Dr. Petersen's argument. Attack his research, attack the BoM. How would the interest of other scholars make it true?

The mere interest of other scholars wouldn't make it true or false, of course. It would depend on what they say. This is an important function of scholars as a community.

gtaggart:

Would you please post as much of Dr. Barker's comments about "Nephi and His Ashera" that you think will not violate copyright? Or could you paraphrase at least?

[Beowulf]

The mere interest of other scholars wouldn't make it true or false, of course. It would depend on what they say. This is an important function of scholars as a community.

This is true.

But the point that I was making is that the anti-Mormon jab that no one EVER addresses BofM issues in the real world has plainly been proved false.

A counter-example exists.

I have the book, but I don't have time to run it down right now. Remind me in a few days when I am not so harried, and I will try to show some of it.

[Bill Hamblin]

As I noted earlier:

Non-Mormon biblical scholar Margaret Barker has commented favorably on Dan

[Mighty Curelom]

Why would Nephi see a connection between a tree and the virginal mother of a divine child? I believe that Nephi's vision reflects a meaning derived from popular Christmas festivities, as practiced by modern Americans, and can only be fully appreciated with this in mind.

In modern Christmas celebrations, it is customary to decorate a "Christmas tree," often with shiny bulbous ornaments--a striking parallel to the white fruit of Nephi's tree. Anyone familiar with Christmas trees would also be familiar with another cultural tradition: the nativity scene, where the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus are the central focus.

Thus, we have a cultural tradition linking two seemingly disparate elements: a tree with "fruit" and Mary/Jesus.

It is this strong connection which Nephi undoubtedly had in mind when he reaches the understanding that the tree of life is God's love. For Christmas is the time modern westerners celebrate that which is the greatest evidence of God's love--that he sent his only son to die for our sins.

The inclusion in 1 Nephi of modern Christmas imagery strongly suggests that the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon did, indeed, have a time machine capable of manipulating the space/time continuum via the use of a primative flux capacitor, although they may have had some difficulty getting their chariots up to exactly 88 mph.

[Bill Hamblin]

In modern Christmas celebrations, it is customary to decorate a "Christmas tree," often with shiny bulbous ornaments--a striking parallel to the white fruit of Nephi's tree.

Call for evidence.

1- How extensive were Christmas celebrations in American in the 1820s.

2- When were trees extensively set up in American houses, and in what culture?

3- What was used for decorations? When were "ornaments" first used? Was white the most common? Were such ornaments considered fruit?

4- When were miniature nativity scenes first used?

[phaedrus ut]

As I noted earlier:

Non-Mormon biblical scholar Margaret Barker has commented favorably on Dan

[smac97]

Here's some responses I've found to DCP's Nephi and His Asherah:

The jump Peterson makes to a divine vision incorporating that imagery so as to instruct Nephi is contrived, to say the least. I invited Peterson to discuss the relative merits of this paper on a recent flame war on M*, and he declined, choosing rather to argue the relative merits of Nibley

[Tarski]

In modern Christmas celebrations, it is customary to decorate a "Christmas tree," often with shiny bulbous ornaments--a striking parallel to the white fruit of Nephi's tree.

Call for evidence.

1- How extensive were Christmas celebrations in American in the 1820s.

2- When were trees extensively set up in American houses, and in what culture?

3- What was used for decorations? When were "ornaments" first used? Was white the most common? Were such ornaments considered fruit?

4- When were miniature nativity scenes first used?

Did these kind of skeptical instincts kick in with such force when you read Dan's article?

[Bill Hamblin]

"Contrived," "kooky," "speculative nonsense" and "numerous caveats."

Things are not looking well for DCP.

I should perhaps note that in some circles engagement of actual arguments, analysis and evidence, and presentation of counter-arguments, analysis and evidence is generally required before drawing conclusions.

As rebuttle, I will assert that Dan's article was "brilliant," "stunningly insightful," "closely based on the evidence" and "definative."

Gee, doing baseless opining is much, much easier that doing actual scholarship.

[Bill Hamblin]

Did these kind of skeptical instincts kick in with such force when you read Dan's article?

Indeed. I immediately noted that Dan's article provided actual evidence--extensive evidence--for his position from both ancient sources and contemporary cutting-edge non-LDS scholarship. Imagine how stunned I was when NO ONE who has criticized the article here has produced ANY evidence whatsoever.

Opining is cheap and easy; which is in part why it has no value.

[cinepro]

Beowulf said:

Margaret Barker has cited Dr. Peterson's paper on at least two occasions that I know of. (Once at the Joseph Smith symposium at the Smithsonian in 2005, and again when she contributed a chapter to a book about Lehi's Jerusalem, a copy of which I have in my possession.)

And in regards to the comment earlier in this thread wondering how a non-believer like Barker could possibly use the Book of Mormon as evidence for her own theories about OT times... Well, you will just have to ask HER, because she has done it. (Thereby disproving the anti-Mormon assumption that Book of Mormon scholarship is 100% ignored by the wider world... cool.gif )

As mentioned in my other thread, I don't see how Barker strengthens the believer's case.

Assuming this discussion is focused on how "Nephi and His Asherah" supports the theory of historicity for the Book of Mormon, how is it helpful to say "Here is someone who likes the paper, but doesn't believe in the theory of historicity of the Book of Mormon"?

Meaning, even if we all accepted the brilliance and erudite insights illuminated by Dr. Peterson's article, we have yet to show that such insights speak to the historicity of the book, at least to the degree that a non-LDS scholar such as Barker, who is well qualified to appreciate the implications of such connections, has been able to resist a conclusion leading to acceptance of Joseph Smith's other claims.

And, if believers then seek to suggest that Barker actually believes the Book of Mormon (and Joseph Smith's claims) are "true", then we are faced with someone who has found sufficient evidence to believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but has not been forced to have the faith requisite to compel baptism into the Church. This flies in the face of the bedrock theory that God would like to provide evidence, but can't, because it would destroy agency if we had compelling evidence for Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, Christ, or even God Himself.

If Barker truly believes as Hamblin thinks she does, but also truly doesn't believe, as her resistance to baptism at the hands of proper authority indicates she does, then believers will need to make up another reason God must "hide" all that evidence.

Of course, Barker could get baptised. At which point, I will be the first to say "Holy Cow!", and admit I am knocked back to square one on this line of thought.

So, perhaps the best response to "Nephi and His Asherah" is to follow Barker's lead, and say "Yes. It is a great article, and his observations are totally sound. But there are still other confounding factors for a rational person to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's claims."

[Bill Hamblin]

Assuming this discussion is focused on how "Nephi and His Asherath" supports the theory of historicity for the Book of Mormon, how is it helpful to say "Here is someone who likes the paper, but doesn't believe in the theory of historicity of the Book of Mormon"?

Meaning, even if we all accepted the brilliance and erudite insights illuminated by Dr. Peterson's article, we have yet to show that such insights speak to the historicity of the book, at least to the degree that a non-LDS scholar such as Barker, who is well qualified to appreciate the implications of such connections, has been able to resist a conclusion leading to acceptance of Joseph Smith's other claims.

In other words, if the LDS make the case, it can't be trusted because it is biased. But if non-LDS agree with the LDS, their opinions don't really support the LDS position because they aren't LDS. Have I got it right?

By the way, have you actually READ what Barker had to say?

[Beowulf]

MC contributes this gem:

In modern Christmas celebrations, it is customary to decorate a "Christmas tree," often with shiny bulbous ornaments--a striking parallel to the white fruit of Nephi's tree. Anyone familiar with Christmas trees would also be familiar with another cultural tradition: the nativity scene, where the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus are the central focus.

Christmas trees??

Since everybody understood Joseph's obvious cribbing of modern icons, every commentator of the BofM in the 1830s immediately latched on to this interpretation...

Oh wait They didn't?

While I agree that Dan Peterson's Asherah comparison came out of left field (even for me, when I first read it), at least it had ancient antecedents, which he showed to my satisfaction (at least). This is what is remarkable about the analysis, because the comparison of Mary to a tree is not found in ANY text available in the 19th century (not even in Lucy Mack's description of Joseph Senior's vision, curious, since it is at the VERY CORE of the Nephi vision). Yet the Mother of God as a tree IS found in texts in Lehi's day, and (MORE IMPORTANT) in texts that are now universally considered heretical in Christian and Jewish circles, but were NOT prior to Josiah.

In other words, it is a breathtaking piece of analytical evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that nobody would have been able to discern in the 19th century (or even most of the 20th).

Beowulf

[cinepro]

In other words, if the LDS make the case, it can't be trusted because it is biased. But if non-LDS agree with the LDS, their opinions don't really support the LDS position because they aren't LDS. I've I got it right?

By the way, have you actually READ what Barker had to say?

Hamblin, do you know if Barker believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

Hamblin, do you know if Barker believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I do not.

Kevin Christiansen has been regularly in touch with her; he might know her views.