Explanation for "Nephi and His Asherah"

[Kevin Christensen]

Barker's public views of the historicity of the Book of Mormon are available in a transcript here:

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margar...arker-talk.html

The official version, published in the BYU Studies volume on the 2005 Washington DC Conference includes footnotes, some additional information, and is even more positive than the transcript. She has demonstrated her ability to publically tell people what she thinks (see for example, her preface to The Great High Priest, wither respect to the Cambridge group) She could have turned down the invitation to speak. She could have done what Kirster Stendahl did, treating it respectfully, but as pseudepigrapha, dismissing historicity as a matter of course. She could have distanced herself and her work from the Book of Mormon altogether by bringing up objections. Instead, she asks whether the text fits the picture of Jerusalem in 600 BCE, and says yes, it does.

In the six years of occasional correspondence, and the two personal encounters I've had with Margaret, I've never felt the need to press her for her private views. I'm sufficiently pleased that she has publically responded so favorably to things LDS, including the Book of Mormon, and various things she has learned from LDS scholars. I'm pleased that she has taught us so much. Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah" is a brilliant piece of work, but the picture is far more complex and profound. No one essay, and no one scholar can put it all together. So, how did Joseph Smith do it in two months with his face in a hat? I'm personally convinced that her work specifically contributes to the fulfillment of prophecies in 1 Nephi 13, referring to the "plain and precious things" being restored, as I have explained in "Paradigms Regained," and in more specific detail in one of the Meridian essays. I see God working through her where she is, and have no anxiety about pressing her to change course.

And as far as being "rational" goes, in the Enlightenment sense, I have a different paradigm altogether. I'm a post modernist. See my "Paradigms Crossed" in RBBM 7:2 and "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" at the Meridian Magazine.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Graham]

== I was when NO ONE who has criticized the article here has produced ANY evidence whatsoever.

This is not true. I demonstrated that plenty of evidence was not taken into account and that the non-LDS scholarly view of the JEDP causes far more problems for the BoM. But my post was qued so it appears early on in the discussion, so perhaps nobody read it.

[Kevin Graham]

Bill says Barker speaks favorably of Peterson

[bentleye]

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.

Hi, Bill. Please tell me what evidence Dr. Peterson provided to connect Ashera to Lehi and/or Nephi. I saw none. Show me where that BOM text lead to the conclusion "Ashera". The BOM text only showed a vision of a virgin and a tree, two images which are popular throughout the Bible, and as a christmas motif.

Dr. Peterson doesn't even definitively assert anything beyond "somehow" the tree and the virgin are identified together. That is what is speculative. It is only personal opinion. It is not a baseless opinion, but it is based on such facts as would support many alternative conclusions. Botanical and Feminine imagery, after all, mix in lots of religious traditions including Joseph's own Bible.

The rest of the article may be quite erudite but it "assumes a fact not in evidence", assumes that the Ashera link is made.

David

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi, Bill. Please tell me what evidence Dr. Peterson provided to connect Ashera to Lehi and/or Nephi. I saw none. Show me where that BOM text lead to the conclusion "Ashera". The BOM text only showed a vision of a virgin and a tree, two images which are popular throughout the Bible, and as a christmas motif.

You haven't understood Dan's argument. I suggest you reread it in the full-length version.

[Who Knows]

Hi, Bill. Please tell me what evidence Dr. Peterson provided to connect Ashera to Lehi and/or Nephi. I saw none. Show me where that BOM text lead to the conclusion "Ashera". The BOM text only showed a vision of a virgin and a tree, two images which are popular throughout the Bible, and as a christmas motif.

You haven't understood Dan's argument. I suggest you reread it in the full-length version.

From what I've gathered, Dan's argument is that the symbols used to describe it in the BOM are similar to the way it was originally described. Kind of a correlation type thing.

[Cold Steel]

Call for evidence.

1- How extensive were Christmas celebrations in America in the 1820s?

Christmas was celebrated in the East and Midwest mostly, though there were some tribes of mysterious "white Indians" in South America who put up decorations for their white God, Quetzalcoatl.

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

Most of the houses then were actually made of trees, except in major cities where they were made of bricks. Only the very rich cut down trees and dragged them inside, where they were invariably knocked over by cats.

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

Well, they would have used colored bulbs, but they couldn't figure out where to plug them in. Ornaments were first hung from the trees to frighten the cats, but apparently they had the opposite effect.

Seriously, since this topic has come up, I keep seeing allusions to goddess like women everywhere. From the Apocalypse of James, for example:

'[...] of alien things?' You are to say to him, 'They are not entirely alien, but they are from Achamoth, who is the female. And these she produced as she brought down the race from the Pre-existent One. So then they are not alien, but they are ours. They are indeed ours because she who is mistress of them is from the Pre-existent One. At the same time they are alien because the Pre-existent One did not have intercourse with her, when she produced them.' When he also says to you, 'Where will you go?', you are to say to him, 'To the place from which I have come, there shall I return.' And if you say these things, you will escape their attacks. (Translated by James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.)

Who is Achamoth? Is she another goddess? Why are there so many names all of a sudden?

[bentleye]

You haven't understood Dan's argument.  I suggest you reread it in the full-length version.

Bill, I didn't read the full length version. I read the one in the link to the Farms site that you posted ( I think it was you) at the beginning of this thread. I don't have access to the full length version. If someone has a link, please post it.

I will say though that FARMs did no service putting up the short version, because whoever edited it cut out the most crucial part, if it is there. As I've said, an essay on what ancient jews believed is of no value to Mormon studies unless there is also a strong case made that important BOM characters believed it too.

I was asking you to please describe or show me the facts (whether they are in the long or short version of the article) that demonstrate a belief by Lehi and/or Nehi in Ashera. I was asking you, because your postings here suggested that you understand the facts supporting Dr. Peterson's argument. Sometimes a person with a good understanding of an argument, phenomenon etc. can explain it in simple terms so someone who doesn't get it can grasp it.

No hard feelings if you don't wish to do that.

Take care.

David

[Mighty Curelom]

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?

You've misunderstood my post. I'm not ACTUALLY suggesting that Joseph Smith imbued the passage in question with oblique Christmas imagery. What I am suggesting is that given enough knowledge of virtually any culture's mythology, you can find (or invent) connections to OTHER mythologies. This case is especially easy because it uses some of the most common and universal elements of mythology: trees, fruit, virgins, mothers.

Incidentally, this is the exact defense used when elements of the Christian mythos are compared with religions preceding the advent of Christianity.

[Bill Hamblin]

I was asking you to please describe or show me the facts (whether they are in the long or short version of the article) that demonstrate a belief by Lehi and/or Nehi in Ashera.

I don't believe Dan's argument requires that Nephi BELIEVE in Ashera. Is there somewhere in the article where Dan makes this claim? Maybe I missed it; I read it a while ago. If there is, point it out to me. Dan is talking about the ancient context of overlapping symbols in ancient Israel and surrounding cultures that make the Tree of Life/Mary correlation meaningful and understandable. You are requesting evidence for something that Dan doesn't claim, nor that is necessary for his argument. That's why I think you haven't understood the argument. Dan can clarify his views when he gets back.

[Bill Hamblin]

What I am suggesting is that given enough knowledge of virtually any culture's mythology, you can find (or invent) connections to OTHER mythologies.

What an extraordinary claim. Call for evidence.

I take it you are not going to provide any evidence for your Christmas connection?

[Who Knows]

What I am suggesting is that given enough knowledge of virtually any culture's mythology, you can find (or invent) connections to OTHER mythologies.

What an extraordinary claim. Call for evidence.

I take it you are not going to provide any evidence for your Christmas connection?

You're missing his point - he's saying it's possible to connect, depending on your goal/motivation.

[Matt Andrews]

Bill wrote:

MC wrote:

What I am suggesting is that given enough knowledge of virtually any culture's mythology, you can find (or invent) connections to OTHER mythologies.

[Kevin Graham]

== Dan is talking about the ancient context of overlapping symbols in ancient Israel and surrounding cultures that make the Tree of Life/Mary correlation meaningful and understandable.

But it doesn't become meaningful at all because Dan sees Nephi's answer as something altogether different from what Nephi actually says. Nephi's interpretation of the Tree was "the Love of God," which refers to Jesus, not Mary.

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

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, Dan mentions none of these parallel NT verses because he is trying to draw connections with the OT. But the NT parallels are far more compelling; one of which is almost an identical citation from Romans. The "Love of God" was Nephi's understanding, and this is almost always associated with Jesus Christ, never the virgin Mary.

[bentleye]

I don't believe Dan's argument requires that Nephi BELIEVE in Ashera.  Is there somewhere in the article where Dan makes this claim?  Maybe I missed it; I read it a while ago.  If there is, point it out to me.  Dan is talking about the ancient context of overlapping symbols in ancient Israel and surrounding cultures that make the Tree of Life/Mary correlation meaningful and understandable.  You are requesting evidence for something that Dan doesn't claim, nor that is necessary for his argument.  That's why I think you haven't understood the argument.  Dan can clarify his views when he gets back.

Thanks for that insight. I believe that you are correct. The article does not say that Nephi believed in Ashera. His conclusion was actually this:

"The inclusion in 1 Nephi of two authentically preexilic religious symbols (Asherah and Wisdom) that could scarcely have been derived by the New York farmboy Joseph Smith from the Bible strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is, indeed, an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition."

I think that leaves us where we were though. I still don't see anything but speculation or faith that connects BOM to Ashera. None of the BOM symbolism discussed is necessarilly connected to Ashera. It is more likely derived from the Bible. Virgins with Babies and Tree metaphors used to explain the coming of the Kindom of God. Water. It is all in the Bible, or similar. Why would you assume that it came from directly from the ancient near east directly unless you already assumed the truth of the BOM?

The funny thing about this is that even if the long version of the Article demonstrates a link between Ashera and BOM, that would necessarilly show a link with the bible as well since the symbolism is the same. That would suggest to me that if there is any Ashera in the BOM, she got there from the Bible. A farmboy could be pretty familiar with the Bible. And he does not have to know anything about Ashera to accidentally transfer her with the Bible symbolism he is using.

Best wishes.

David

[The Dude]

Hebraisms are underwhelming. Why? The Book of Mormon comes from the Bible, and this relationship predicts there will be Hebraisms no matter if you believe the BoM is ancient or 19th century.

The clearest evidence for apologists would logically be evidence that is not related to the Bible in any way, but is clearly linked to the BoM. This means external evidences in American archaeology (best) or clear instances of ancient America reflected in the BoM text (second best).

[Bill Hamblin]

Is Bill referring to something else, or is the reference to Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

Hebraisms are underwhelming. Why? The Book of Mormon comes from the Bible, and this relationship predicts there will be Hebraisms no matter if you believe the BoM is ancient or 19th century.

In other words, as I said, your theory is controlling the data.

At least you've admitted their are Hebraisms. That's progress.

[Bill Hamblin]

MC

What I am suggesting is that given enough knowledge of virtually any culture's mythology, you can find (or invent) connections to OTHER mythologies. This case is especially easy because it uses some of the most common and universal elements of mythology: trees, fruit, virgins, mothers.

Bentleye

Do you actually doubt the claim, or are you just quibbling for quibblings sake? I mean, do you actually have in mind a mythology which does not have connections to another mythology? I'd refer you to the many works of Joseph Campbell, who has done a lot of work finding all kinds of connections between various mythologies. I'd think he'd be quite comfortable with MC's claim, and may have even made it himself.

I find it unlikely that you could suggest any two mythologies where one could not find connections. (Feel free to suggest a few, if you like.)

There are no "universal elements" in mythology. There are an extraordinarily complex array of symbols and stories, some which seem to find parallel, some which don't. Some are widespread; some are rare or even unique. None are universal except at the most generic level (e.g. all mythologies have heroes). Campbell's work, while interesting, often is highly speculative; he furthermore interpolates mythology into his Jungian context rather than its original historical context, etc.

Viking mythology is quite similar to pagan Germanic mythology, but shows many more distinctions from Polynesian mythology. Indo-European mythologies have more parallels among themselves than they do with non-Indo-European mythologies. NW Semitic mythology shows more parallels to Hebrew mythology than it does to Tibetan mythology, etc. etc. Mongolian mythology is closer to Turkish than it is to Zulu. It is clear that groups that share culture, language and religion also share close parallels in mythology, while groups with different culture, language and religion, far separated in time and space, have greater distinctions in mythology.

Those who claim that the close association of tree of life, with white fruit, and a virgin mother of God, etc. are universal mythological motifs bear a burden of proof. Simply saying "its universal" is an assertion, not evidence. I suspect, for example, that it is not a major theme in, say, Chinese or Indonesian mythology, but someone can check if they'd like.

But all of this is a distraction. Since the BOM posits a relationship between the ancient Near East and specifically biblical thought, it is reasonable to examine that claimed relationship as a test of historicity. It clearly passes that test in this case. It does not disprove BOM claims of historicity if we discover or fail to discover similar ideas in Chinese or Zulu thought. If one wishes to claim these specific ideas are universal, it should be demonstrated, not asserted.

Furthermore, the concept of Asherah is not discernable from the KJV, since the translators did not understand the term and generally translated it as "groves." The role/meaning of Asherah has been discovered through archaeology, the Ugaritica, etc. Only after it was recognized in that context, did it become discernable in the Bible. Precisely the same is found in the BOM. The BOM nicely reflects ancient understandings tree/ashera/mother discovered only by scholars in the twentieth century. Indeed, the BOM makes more sense when we assume these underlying symbols were part of Nephi

[Kevin Christensen]

bentleye writes:

That would suggest to me that if there is any Ashera in the BOM, she got there from the Bible. A farmboy could be pretty familiar with the Bible. And he does not have to know anything about Ashera to accidentally transfer her with the Bible symbolism he is using.

Ah. Accidentally getting it right. It's possible, but believers have always been cheeky enough to want to better define just how possible. Paraphrasing Hugh Nibley, it's a long way from a drawing a circle to making a Swiss watch that runs and keeps perfect time. Many interconnected things have to happen.

To better define the possibility of accidental transmission of the the Asherah notion, consider that the First Temple Judaism involves a wide constellation of interrelated ideas, specific to a time, place and culture. It happens that between the reforms of Josiah and the Deuteronomist reformers, and the Babylonian army, much was destroyed. The Book of Mormon makes specific predictions about that time and place that go beyond what is contained in the Bible. 1 Nephi 13 predicts that certain plain and precious things that been removed from the Biblie would be restored via textual discoveries coming forth after the arrival of the Book of Mormon. Did you read anything by or about Margaret Barker's work? And have you considered the information in Glimpses from Lehi's Jerusalem, a 2005 (edited to fix the obvious typo) volume from FARMS on the just the first part of the Book of Mormon in light of recent research?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

Glimpses from Lehi's Jerusalem, a 3005 volume from FARMS on the just the first part of the Book of Mormon in light of recent research?

Kevin's got it exactly right. Except I would suggest reading the 2005 edition of "Glimpses" rather than waiting a thousand years for the 3005 edition.

[Kevin Graham]

== His conclusion was actually this: "The inclusion in 1 Nephi of two authentically preexilic religious symbols (Asherah and Wisdom) that could scarcely have been derived by the New York farmboy Joseph Smith from the Bible strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is, indeed, an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition."

Unfortunately, there is no compelling reason to believe either of these symbols were referenced in 1 Nephi 11. Again, the tree of life/river connection, along with Jesus representing the "Love of God", is all over the New Testament.

Nobody has yet to respond to my counter-argument.

[The Dude]

Hebraisms are underwhelming. Why? The Book of Mormon comes from the Bible, and this relationship predicts there will be Hebraisms no matter if you believe the BoM is ancient or 19th century.

In other words, as I said, your theory is controlling the data.

You misunderstand me. When I say "the BoM comes from the Bible" I'm just referring to the connections that we both agree on. You have admitted that Joseph Smith had the ability to "change" things to suit 19th century readers and reflect the King James Bible. I'm saying that his ability to interpolate obscures the conclusion you are trying to make.

[bentleye]

Ah.  Accidentally getting it right.  It's possible, but believers have always been cheeky enough to want to better define just how possible. Paraphrasing Hugh Nibley, it's a long way from a drawing a circle to making a Swiss watch that runs and keeps perfect time. Many interconnected things have to happen.

To better define the possibility of accidental transmission of the the Asherah notion, consider that the First Temple Judaism involves a wide constellation of interrelated ideas, specific to a time, place and culture.  It happens that between the reforms of Josiah and the Deuteronomist reformers, and the Babylonian army, much was destroyed. The Book of Mormon makes specific predictions about that time and place that go beyond what is contained in the Bible. 1 Nephi 13 predicts that certain plain and precious things that been removed from the Biblie would be restored via textual discoveries coming forth after the arrival of the Book of Mormon.  Did you read anything by or about Margaret Barker's work?  And have you considered the information in Glimpses from Lehi's Jerusalem, a 2005 (edited to fix the obvious typo) volume from FARMS on the just the first part of the Book of Mormon in light of recent research?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, first I want to reiterate. I don't see anything that puts Ashera in the BOM picture with any likelihood beyond speculation or faith. All I say is that if she is there, she is communicated by symbols that are like or near biblical symbols that are familiar to any biblical scholar or religious person.

If those symbols are Ashera as well as Christian, then it takes no knowledge whatever to transfer them. I can transfer them just by using the familiar images to tell a bible story. It is not complicated. I don't need to know what anything about the history of the images that a modern scholar may uncover years later.

Here is an example of what I mean.

This is a late period Egytian Isis with Baby Horus, 1085 t0 330 BC. Note that by that time in history she was wearing a sun disk and cow horns like Hathor.

http://www.hurstgallery.com/exhibit/past/passion/isis.html

Here is modern but traditional image of Mary with Baby Jesus.

http://stjamesanglican.chebucto.org/Chapel...ild_detail2.jpg

Wow. What do we have here. Did Isis lose her cow horns and get a more modest dress?

I honestly don't know the real story here. I could argue that the overlap in imagery here is too great to be any coincidence. This modern artist is telling us something. Perhaps he comes from ancient egypt in the first millenium B.C. How else could the artist come up with that crazy image overlap? That would seem even more likely if I knew that the artist was an illiterate campesino somewhere.

Or I could look for a simpler explanation based on what I know about the real world. Maybe it is a coincidence. The mother and child is a pretty universal image in human religions and secular literature and art. Light is also pretty common as a metaphor for goodness and sacred power. The modern image may have no relation to ancient egypt.

But what if further facts show that it is a modified ancient egyptian image? Surely that means that my modern artist has ancient egyptian knowledge, which means that he is probably ancient, right? Again, I wouldn't think so knowing what I know about human lifespans. I think it is more likely that the image in one form or another has desended from artist to artist since ancient times.

Here is one from the 15th century:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/masacci...adonna.jpg.html

All my artist needs is a an art book with lots of pictures of Mary, or even just the experience of attending church and looking at stained glass windows. He can take his inspiration from there to make Mary with a sun disc or halo as Christian artists have done since time out of mind. He looked to traditional art like JOseph Smith looked to the Bible. Neither of he nor Joseph had to know a darn thing about their symbols to transfer them along with their whole freight of meaning (if any).

I take your point about the constellation of interrelated ideas specific to a time and place. But Joseph did not have to know those details to re use or adapt the imagery that was forged in those times.

And we do not need to discuss the whole constellation for purposes of our discussion right here. This thread is focusing on the focus of the article: Ashera in the BOM.

Take care and best wishes.

David

[Daniel Peterson]

Hebraisms are underwhelming.

Really?

Which Hebraisms, specifically, do you have in mind?

The "if/and" conditional sentences in the original English text of Helaman and Moroni, perhaps?

Find me a parallel case in any published English translation of the Bible from which Joseph Smith could have derived this.