Explanation for "Nephi and His Asherah"

[USU78]

An interesting bit of trivia: Mary is said to have rested on/at a tree in Egypt during the Holy Family's visit there. Here's a site showing pix and giving a discussion of the so-called Virgin Tree.

[Daniel Peterson]

Another of Kevin Graham's responses:

== 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.

Many things represent the love of God. Jesus does, but so does the Plan of Salvation. So does the creation of the earth. So does his speaking to prophets. So does the gift of temple ordinances. So do the promises given in the scriptures.

I've never been talking about "Nephi's answer." My article is about the nonverbal communication in 1 Nephi 11 that undergirds that answer, that takes Nephi from professed ignorance about the meaning of the tree to a declaration that he knows its meaning.

The incarnation of Christ, his life, and his atoning mission, represent the love of God. But many things can represent his incarnation, life, and mission, or remind us of them, including a cross, the bread and water/wine of the sacrament or communion, the words of John 1, and, yes, to hundreds of millions of Christians, the Virgin Mary.

Symbols are rich and multivalent. If they could simply be reduced to neat verbal equations (e.g., the tree = the love of God), there would be little point in using them. They would constitute nothing more than a simplistic and rather pointless code that anybody with a decoder ring from a box of cereal could pretty easily dispense with.

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.

I disagree. The transition from "I don't know the meaning of the tree" to "I know the meaning of the tree" without any intervening verbal instruction from the angel/Spirit as to the meaning of the tree calls for explanation. I offered an explanation. I see nothing in anything you've said that casts doubt upon that explanation.

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.

This is a bit of a rabbit trail, but, in passing, I'll state my disagreement. Ancient Israelites knew what virginity was, and they prized it in unmarried women. Nothing in 1 Nephi 11 says anything about "perpetual virginity" in Mary, or, really, anything about "virgin birth." It says nothing about the mode of Jesus's conception. She was a virgin. Then she had a baby. The text still refers to her as a virgin, but this may well be simply for consistency of identification; it does not assert her postpartum virginity.

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.

More precisely, with the ambient culture out of which the OT emerged.

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.

They are compelling for some purposes. I have no problem with that nor with those purposes. But they provide no answer to the question of why simply showing Nephi a virgin and then the same virgin with child, and identifying her as the mother of the Son of God, helps him to grasp the meaning of the tree. But that question, and no other, was the precise focus of my article.

Much of what you've said thus far strikes me as of, at most, marginal relevance.

[Zakuska]

I would Identify "the fruit of the tree" as Christ rather than the tree itself. After all... is not Christ the bread of life... those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have Eternal life. This is the love of God.

I also once in a while call my wife love. Why wouldn't God refer to his tree as love?

[Daniel Peterson]

Comments on another Kevin Graham response:

== 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.

Neither the connection between the Tree of Life and a river nor the notion that the tree in 1 Nephi 11 symbolizes the love of God played any role in my linking the virgin and the tree, and neither has any relevance to breaking that link.

Nobody has yet to respond to my counter-argument.

If that's your counterargument, or any significant portion thereof, there's nothing to which to respond. It's not germane.

[consiglieri]

While we are waiting for something more of substance, may I share the following germane story from Sunday school this past week?

The teacher was talking about Proverbs, and he read a particular proverb from chapter three or so (I confess I wasn't paying strict attention).

I did sit up when he read the proverb that connected the tree of life with wisdom. He then referred the class to Nephi's vision. I was all ears. He asked what the tree represents. Nobody was forthcoming. I thought about launching into Asherah, but didn't, wanting to hear what the teacher said. He said emphatically that the tree is the "love of God." Period. No mention of anything else.

I didn't launch into a discussion of the Asherah because I didn't think that anybody else would be really interested, and it would take so much time to do it justice that I would be grabbing the class and running, and I'm not sure that is my place as a student.

But it was an interesting perspective as I watched the teacher get so close to the meaning. I mean, he had it all. It was right there at his fingertips. He had linked wisdom, the tree of life, and Nephi's vision. I felt like yelling, "You're hot! You're very hot!" But he didn't get it. Simply because he didn't have the connecting link of Asherah, which is what Daniel Peterson's paper is all about.

On a slightly more humble note, I sometimes wonder how often God feels the same way as we stumble about from issue to issue, getting so close to putting the pieces together but lacking the one connecting link that brings it all together.

I am grateful that people like Daniel Peterson study so much in so many relevant fields to be in a postion to have the links that bring things like this together. It makes a lot of sense to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David Bokovoy]

In his attempt to correct Dan, Kevin draws upon one of my personal pet peeves:

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

[William Schryver]

David,

Excellent observations. The argument that Joseph Smith possessed a modern scholar's nuanced understanding of the Bible is similar to the assertion that he also was cognizant of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and any other number of obscure works that may have been available in upstate New York libraries, and that his encyclopedic knowledge of these things therefore informed all of his literary productions. Such arguments must necessarily ignore the body of evidence that suggests that Smith was largely illiterate and ignorant of such things. Not only that, but the witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon are unanimous in their declarations that he consulted no manuscripts of any kind during the process. Rather, were he engaged in a previously-conceived literary fraud, it would have been necessary for him to have memorized overwhelmingly voluminous passages of text, and to have then recited them in such a way as to avoid all contradictions with everything else he had previously dictated, and which he would subsequently dictate during the process of translation. The challenges embodied in such an attempt at fraud are so daunting as to defy logic.

So, yes, I agree with your argument that it is not necessary to automatically disregard any Book of Mormon passage that finds some corresponding reference in the Bible. In fact, as you note, many of these things actually strengthen the argument that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be: a translation of ancient records written by a people who possessed ancient Biblical texts.

[Ron Beron]

David and William,

Stop! You're giving me tingles! David, this is quite a revelation to me and, William, having read your post made me realize the greatness and vision of Joseph. Thanks.

[bentleye]

Quoted from article:

"Strikingly, though the vision of Mary seems irrelevant to Nephi's original question about the significance of the tree

[Kevin Graham]

David Bokovoy, a few days ago you made the following comment:

[David Bokovoy]

Kevin,

This certainly doesn

[gtaggart]

Nephi

[Kevin Graham]

== Do you seriously mean to say that you haven't read the much longer original article? You're finding fault with my arguments based on a condensed version, criticizing me for omissions in a popularized condensation?

Do you seriously mean to say that Bill Hamblin created this thread, provided a link to your online article, and challenged anyone to offer criticism, only as a prank?

Challenge anyone to offer critical feedback on an article and then complain because they

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Gtaggart,

Thanks for the interest and dialogue.

===Didn't find any matches for those word combinations in the Old Testament, so I'm assuming that you're not referring to those exact words. Would you mind giving a few examples from the Old Testament of what you mean. Thanks.

Sure.

I believe that conceptually, Nephi

[Kevin Graham]

== Of course I want to know if an argument has holes in it. Quite frankly, however, you have not demonstrated any holes in Dan

[David Bokovoy]

Kevin,

==That is not my argument. What's with the straw man, and why do you keep ignoring my statement to the contrary?

You are the one, Kevin, who has initiated a response to my post addressing the following comment:

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

[Kevin Graham]

== It

[Daniel Peterson]

== Do you seriously mean to say that you haven't read the much longer original article? You're finding fault with my arguments based on a condensed version, criticizing me for omissions in a popularized condensation?

Do you seriously mean to say that Bill Hamblin created this thread, provided a link to your online article, and challenged anyone to offer criticism, only as a prank?

Professor Hamblin cited both the original article and its much abridged shorter version. He supplied a link to the latter because it is on line and because he was being helpful. He did not supply a link to the former because it is not on line. I don't see anything "prankish" about that. The fact remains, though, that when longer and shorter versions of the same article exist, serious discussion (particularly when it focuses on purported "omissions") will concentrate on the fuller, longer version.

Challenge anyone to offer critical feedback on an article and then complain because they

[Kevin Graham]

I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this. I liked the article, I just do not think it is strong enough to force critics into a corner where they're presented a burden of proof.

[Nevo]

An example of this sort of issue appears in the review I recently wrote of the Bible vs. The Book of Mormon DVD wherein I pointed to the following biblical link:

In a treatise concerning legal symbolism in Mesopotamia, Israeli scholar Meir Malul has noted the significance of the Akkadian expression "i/ana (libbi) x aradum," meaning "'to descend to x. This expression occurs in one sale document from Old Babylonian Susa, two Nuzi texts, a Middle Babylonian letter, and a neo-Babylonian sale document. Three other Old Babylonian texts from Susa contain the variation ana matim aradum, "'to descend to the land,'" which seems to convey a special nuance of the general meaning common to this and other expressions

[Daniel Peterson]

As I understand the answer, you say basically that "Nephi's vision reflects a meaning of the "sacred tree" that is unique to the ancient Near East, and that, indeed, can only be fully appreciated when the ancient Canaanite and Israelite associations of that tree are borne in mind."  This is plausible if your unwritten assumption is that the Book of Mormon is true.

It's also plausible if that isn't your assumption. It only becomes implausible if your assumption is that the Book of Mormon is not true.

And then NEPHI does not fully understand what he has been shown.  He says he knows the love of god, but that he does not know everything.  He may know the love of God just by the attentions of the angel, or by a feeling he feels within.  The angel has to explain to him that he is being shown the mother of God.

Nephi knows that "God loveth his children" (1 Nephi 11:17) before the virgin has been identified as "the mother of the Son of God" (1 Nephi 11:18), but, it seems, connects the tree with "the love of God" (1 Nephi 11:22) only after she has been so identified and after he has seen her holding the divine child.

That's what I find interesting. And it's what I see as flowing from the understanding, quite easily available to him in his time and place but very much out of fashion in post-exilic times, of a tree as symbolizing the consort of the Most High God who is the mother of his divine child[ren].

If there are parallells to ancient near eastern culture echoed in this narrative, that should not be surprising either.  The ancient near eastern symbolism, if any, comes along with the biblical symbolism for free, and with no awareness by the author necessary.

I heartily disagree. On the whole, Asherah-symbolism is suppressed in the Hebrew Bible. Much of what we're learning about Asherah-veneration comes from Israelite material culture, recently-found inscriptions, and modern discoveries of Ugaritic texts.

Again, I would encourage those who wish to critically engage my argument to do so by means of its full exposition, rather than via the greatly condensed version that appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The original version was longer for a reason.

[William Schryver]

DCP:

If you get to be the Krispy Kreme King, I want to be the Haagen Daz Duke. Tonight it will be one Coffee Almond Crunch bar and two Chocolate Dark Chocolate bars, one right after the other until I burst and splatter ice cream goo all over the bedroom walls -- because I can and no one can stop me. Mmmmmmmmm ... I can't wait.

You can only have that name if you change your avatar. Tough decision, eh? ~Oreos (the double-stuffed kind)

[Nevo]

DCP:

If you get to be the Krispy Kreme King, I want to be the Haagen Daz Duke.  Tonight it will be one Coffee Almond Crunch bar . . .

According to the H

[Zeitgeist]

Some thoughts on Daniel Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah"

Dan, first of all you are not to ever come near my trees.

You conclude your very interesting paper with: "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 would agree with you, if that was what was included in the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately for you, Asherah is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Asherah is a pagan/Jewish symbol (idol), hardly Christian and counter to Nephi's person.

I do not think Dr. Peterson would disagree, from his article, but how would any Asherah images not be an idol? Because its allegedly part of a heavenly vision? Isaiah

[Daniel Peterson]

Unfortunately for you, Asherah is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Not explicitly, obviously. My whole argument, supported (in its full version) with scores of references, is that there is an implicit indirect reference to Asherah. Merely saying "No there isn't" doesn't constitute a counterargument.

Asherah is a pagan/Jewish symbol (idol), hardly Christian and counter to Nephi's person.

Asherah did not show up in Christian symbolism. But she did show up among Canaanites and pre-exilic Jews. All quite true. In fact, precisely my point.

Had I thought that she was common in Christian times, I would not have suggested that her implicit presence in 1 Nephi 11 pointed to an earlier period.

The other issues you raise are not directly relevant to my argument, and should, if you're really interested in them, be raised as other threads. But I'll address some of your comments very hastily.

1 Nephi 8: Lehi