Lehi vs. Isaiah

[David Bokovoy]

Greetings Friends,

I was thinking about how great it is to be a Mormon tonight and thought I would share a few thoughts with the board.

I know that some LDS commentators have interpreted Isaiah

[Brant Gardner]

I follow you with God on the throne being the Father - or the Most High God (Barker's usual designation). That makes sense in the descriptions of the council.

I can't see the connection with Moses's fiery serpent. I think altogether too much is made of that by people way too far removed from the world of sympathetic magic that would have created the symbol. In the context of the earthly event and the nature of the "cure," it fits with sympathetic magic. All of the rest of the meanings seem to be read into it backwards from Christianity. Those readings are useful for Christians, but I have a hard time seeing them as having any value at the time of the event.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Brant,

As always, thanks for your input.

I would strongly disagree, however, in as much as linking the seraph with Christ is a well-established scriptural connection:

[rameumptom]

David,

A note to add to the seraphim = fiery serpent/brazen serpent:

In 1 Nephi 17:41, it states that the people were bitten by flying fiery serpents. The seraphim in Isaiah are noted as having 6 wings and the ability for motion and power, due to those wings. The Bible does not state that the serpents in Moses' story were flying, but Nephi does tell us that - giving us a potential tie to a seraph on Moses' brazen staff.

Gary

[David Bokovoy]

An excellent point Gary! The fact that we should link the flying serpents in 1 Nephi 17:41 with the seraphim is in turn supported by Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6. Both of these references refer to the flying serpents as seraphim.

Regards,

David

[Brant Gardner]

David:

The connection between the Moses incident and Christ is well attested in reverse - not in anticipation. There are two possible connections, one with healing and one with raising up. The raising up is the association of the NT, as it should be. However, there is no clear way that a raising up would be referent in Moses's time.

More complicated is Helaman. There the healing fits the meaning, but I am certain that the "lifted up" is borrowed from John. That kind of phrase-borrowing from the NT happens a lot in the Book of Mormon. The bleed-through is obvious and in contexts where there is no possible common text (other than the KJV NT).

The "lifting up" has absolutely no available meaning in the Book of Mormon. We do have Nephi speaking of the crucifixion (with which he should not have been familiar), but the small plates were pretty unknown to the large plate tradition (Mormon just happens upon them and apparently was unaware of them - though quite aware of the large plate tradition).

Without a clear reference to crucifixion, that phrase has no context and no meaning. I can see the healing connection, but the "lifted up" connection is post-Christ's death.

[David Bokovoy]

Without a clear reference to crucifixion, that phrase has no context and no meaning. I can see the healing connection, but the "lifted up" connection is post-Christ's death.

Thanks Brant for clarifying your perspective.

In view of the fact that the image of the Son of Man being

[The Traveler]

Greetings Friends,

I was thinking about how great it is to be a Mormon tonight and thought I would share a few thoughts with the board.

I know that some LDS commentators have interpreted Isaiah

[David Bokovoy]

Hello The Traveler,

Thanks for your input.

There are only a few times that I know of where any man has had any direct access to the Father or his voice. In all cases Jesus Christ was physically present as an identifiably physical being.

Personally, I believe in a literal Isaiah who had a literal vision of God seated upon his throne. I do not believe that Isaiah literally saw winged snakes flying around the celestial courtroom.

I believe that the serpent imagery featured in the account is meant to tie Isaiah 6 with Numbers 21.

Therefore, I believe that Isaiah literally saw Jesus Christ, not a winged serpent.

Nephi in the Book of Mormon confirms this point:

[William Schryver]

Brant:

I must also argue that the image of Christ being

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks William for adding some important points to the discussion.

Hope all is well,

--David

[Brant Gardner]

William Schryver:

I see no reason to suppose that these prophets were not shown the literal scene of the Roman soldiers lifting up the cross upon which Jesus had been fastened.

I have no objection to a prophet seeing anything. The problem comes when the information the prophet sees is passed on to someone else (orally or by writing it down). The prophet who sees the scene of crucifixion sees it and has some reference - though it is doubtful they have the word for it.

When that scene is transmitted to anyone else, the possibilitites for confusion and misunderstanding increase when something like crucifixion is so completely unknown. It is something like the graphic in the Codex Rios that shows a Mixcoatl sacrifice. It has a man tied to a rack pierced by arrows. When I say it that way, it doesn't sound very familiar at all. Kingsborough saw it and immediately saw a crucifixion with the man pierced by a spear.

The problem in referents. If you know crucifixion and don't know a Mixcoatl sacrifice, you can easily make a mistake.

The problem with the proof texts you are providing is that they all come through Joseph Smith. Of course I believe that he was a prophet and seer - that he was a "translator." However, without a firm grasp on the way the process of translation worked, it makes too many assumptions to suggest that because the various texts he produced used crucifixion that therefore the ancient peoples would have understood it - and particularly understand it with a single-word reference rather than a description.

The evidence I see for the translation of the Book of Mormon simply doesn't support the thesis that there was a word-for-word representation of the source text. In the case of Moses, we are even farther from a "text," because we have Joseph's "translation" of something that wasn't there. It is vision or revelation much more than our understanding of translation.

The proof texts work if and only if you posit a very tight translation of the text. That is a very problemmatic position with regards to the text, although there is an argument for tight translation of names.

I realize that I am in a rather unpopular minority on this one, but I have to go where the data lead, and they do not lead to a tight translation. That leaves me with the problem of a reference to an event for which no one except the person who saw it in vision would have any reference. Those things require description (and might get Ezekial-like). The very simple and very Christian phrasing of the passages in Joseph Smith-translated texts much more strongly suggests phrasal borrowing than an ancient text. Since that process is very well attested and the alternative is very hard to understand (how a tightly translated text could have han any ancient meaning), I'll stick with the strength of the evidence.

[Cold Steel]

The connection between the Moses incident and Christ is well attested in reverse -- not in anticipation. There are two possible connections, one with healing and one with raising up. The raising up is the association of the NT, as it should be. However, there is no clear way that a raising up would be referent in Moses's time.

Wasn't the connection between Abraham and Issac also attested in reverse and not in anticipation? Nearly everything done by way of ritual sacrifice pointed the way to the Lamb of God being slain for the sins of the world.

The serpent and the staff also are transcultural. "The single serpent staff also appears on a Sumerian vase of c. 2000 B.C. representing the healing god Ningishita, the prototype of the Greek Asklepios," reports Keith Blayney (see website). The Greek god Hermes also had a staff of both wings and serpents that was applied to medicine in the seventh century A.D. The staff was given to him by Apollo, god of medicine, but whether that had anything to do with it who can say?

Another reference indicates "that the serpent on the staff may in fact represent the guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis), commonly called the fiery serpent. The serpent and staff are symbolic of the removal of the worm by winding it around a staff and slowly withdrawing it from the unfortunate victim's tissues."

There also are strong ties between the Mayan diety Quetzalcoatl, the god of science and medicine, with the "winged serpent." An online article entitled Aztec Beliefs Help Conquer Mexico by Armando Barraza: "The sacred 'feathered serpent' is not unique to Mesoamerican cultures. In fact, it is a symbol that is nearly universal, in that it appears around the world, during all eras of history." The combination of feathers with serpents is unusual indeed and may be quite significant.

Another unusual aspect of serpents is that they in many cultures are symbolic of renewal. They way they shed their skins and come forth in a newness of life, leaving the old behind is also one that Christians might find appropriate. That the serpent also can be applied to Satan is interesting in its irony. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers," said Jesus to His critics, "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Quite often we are taught things that will only be clear to us in the reverse, and I believe the the staff of Moses was a type of Christ who was to come. At least there exists a strong possibility.

[Cold Steel]

Of course I believe that he was a prophet and seer -- that he was a "translator." However, without a firm grasp on the way the process of translation worked, it makes too many assumptions... The evidence I see for the translation of the Book of Mormon simply doesn't support the thesis that there was a word-for-word representation of the source text.

I think you're right on with this. How else can we explain the repeated use of the term "noon-day sun" which Joseph refered to a brightness beyond all else? "Brighter than the noon-day sun" isn't a term one sees in many translated texts. One could argue, I suppose, that he borrowed the term from the translated text, but I find its use to be frequent enough to leave open your views.

There also seems that some safeguards were built in to the process. Joseph's scribes indicated that if Joseph's wasn't an accurate rendidition then Joseph couldn't proceed with the process. Also, as others have noted, certain Hebrew forms of writing made it through this process. But you're on the money, IMHO.

[Brant Gardner]

Cold Steel:

Wasn't the connection between Abraham and Issac also attested in reverse and not in anticipation? Nearly everything done by way of ritual sacrifice pointed the way to the Lamb of God being slain for the sins of the world.

Certainly. Our Christian connection is so strong that we frequently miss that it had to have had a more immediate meaning that was different. It is really much the same thing - we are so attuned to Christianity that we see all Israel through the Christian lenses. That doesn't mean that those understandings were immediately available.

The serpent and the staff also are transcultural.

Take care on this one. You are mixing cultures and meanings. The Greek serpent and staff are unrelated to Moses's usage. It is too easy to overreach the parallels.

Another reference indicates "that the serpent on the staff may in fact represent the guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis), commonly called the fiery serpent. The serpent and staff are symbolic of the removal of the worm by winding it around a staff and slowly withdrawing it from the unfortunate victim's tissues."

This one sounds suspicious. I believe the serpent shows up in Greek healing scenes because of its representation of wisdom. This explanation sounds like a later development trying to reconcile the more modern "bad" image of the snake with the healers.

There also are strong ties between the Mayan diety Quetzalcoatl, the god of science and medicine, with the "winged serpent."

<grin> You should know that it is really dangerous to mention Quetzalcoatl to me. I spent a good 10 years of my academic life untangling the Quetzalcoatl material. Quetzalcoatl is Aztec, not Maya. The Maya Kukulcan (Quiche Gugumatz) are later additions to the Maya pantheon, probably imported from Teotihuacan where the feathered serpent was a war symbol. In Aztec lore the demi-god Quetzalcoatl is credited with science and pretty much all culture, but he is conceptuall different from the animal quetzalcoatl, which was considered to be a real animal and is shown in the Telleriano-Remensis devouring a human.

An online article entitled Aztec Beliefs Help Conquer Mexico by Armando Barraza: "The sacred 'feathered serpent' is not unique to Mesoamerican cultures. In fact, it is a symbol that is nearly universal, in that it appears around the world, during all eras of history." The combination of feathers with serpents is unusual indeed and may be quite significant.

Sorry, but I doubt it. I am unaware of any valid connections even outside of Mesoamerica, though there are some very distant cousins in the American southwest. There is, however, an actual flying snake in Asia. I saw a clip of it on the web a couple of years back. It is the serpent version of a flying squirrel. What is even more fascinating is that it is a member of a group of snakes with the fangs at the back of the mouth rather than the front. This is an important iconographic marker of the Mesoamerican fire and feathered serpents. It also shows up on Chinese dragons and the buccal mask worn by the Indonesian Garuda. At present there is no way to tie the two continents' iconography together, though it seems non-random to me.

Another unusual aspect of serpents is that they in many cultures are symbolic of renewal.

This part is universal because it is universally observable. It has no relation to Moses's use, however.

Quite often we are taught things that will only be clear to us in the reverse, and I believe the the staff of Moses was a type of Christ who was to come. At least there exists a strong possibility.

OK. How could it do that? Moses is leading his people in a time and place completely unfamiliar with crucifixion. The logical reason for the pole is that everyone had to look - and that meant that the serpent had to be visible above the crowd. The effective part of the brazen serpent was the serpent image itself. Raising it on a pole was simply functional.

I agree that it makes a good Christian symbol in retrospect, but only in retrospect. It cannot have been the original intent.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Brant,

I agree that it makes a good Christian symbol in retrospect, but only in retrospect. It cannot have been the original intent.

You really do hold some interesting beliefs.

I of course mean no disrespect; I simply wish to understand your views.

Is it your opinion that God would not have known how subsequent prophets would look upon this event in retrospect? That God

[Ron Beron]

David,

You make so many fine points, but if I may I would like to address just one of them. The fact that you are juxtaposing the visions and/or dreams with that of serpents or seraphim really got me to think. The mechanics of the visions you are mentioning are exactly like that of the Mongolian Tungus/shaman who seeks the help of serpents in his visions by imitating their movements. The Hittite also practiced a form of serpent guidance. A basin is filled with water and then a snake or eel is let loose in the water,

From such a practice the priests were able to divine the future. In Australia shamanism the priest or shaman will symbolically enter the water where he would be "killed" by a serpent releasing his spirit. He is then 'brought back to life' at which time he gains magical powers.

Your description in Isaiah 6 of the visions of the seraphim/serpents and in Numbers of the serpents who attack the people is fairly reminiscent of the shaman's oracle. In the Interpreter's Bible the following comment is given on Isaiah's vision.

There can be no doubt that Isaiah here describes a profoundly real psychological and spiritual experience through which he passed on a particular occasion. While it is true that in late written prophecy, like Zech. 1:1-8, and in apocalyptic books the vision-description has become a literary form, this is only because visions had been recorded by the classical prophets (cf. Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3; Jer. 24:1-3). They in turn had inherited the tradition of the more ancient "seers" (cf. I Sam. 9:9). In the great prophets the ecstatic experience is far oftener an audition than a vision, or, as here, a visionary experience in the course of which the prophet hears the word of the Lord. It is noteworthy, too, that Isaiah, like Amos and Jeremiah, describes what he sees in terms of the familiar world of the senses and not, like the apocalyptic writers, in grotesque imagery which defies graphic representation (cf. Dan. 7:7-. The ecstasy of the great prophets differed profoundly from the crude psycho-physical manifestations of the older and contemporary professional "holy men" (cf. I Sam. 19:23-24; Mic. 3:5); it was the intensified spiritual perception of noble minds. This is not to say that the visions and oracles originated with these men; they themselves were sure that God had spoken to them and would speak through them. In the last analysis the whole Hebrew and Christian religion rests upon our acceptance of this claim.

I believe that what we are witnessing here and in subsequent visions of various prophets including Joseph Smith is a quixotic or shamanistic oracle. In Walter Burkett's book, "The Creation of the Sacred", he states of the shaman's journey.

"Shamanism ritualizes the fantastic, giving shape to realms of the unknown.  The shaman concentrates on the realistic action program of the quest, how to get what is needed.  The action includes leaving home, assembling helpers, arriving at the essential spot, making deals with an adversary--usually a god of master--which may involve supplication, laborious service, trick, or force.  Then it is necessary to find the way back through dangerous realms, and to evade pursuing demons".

In both Isaiah's and Lehi's vision we are confronted with this very same paradigm of seeing an adversary or fantastic creature in a dream and then coming back with the interpretation. In Lehi's dream there is this very same formula. He dreams of heaven with various creatures. From this he gains his oracle. In like fashion Isaiah has the same vision and like you say becomes a malak or herald.

Are what we seeing here and in various other heavenly visions something more archaic and primordial than prophetic vision? Something more akin to a real psychic break such as the shaman

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Ace,

Are what we seeing here and in various other heavenly visions something more archaic and primordial than prophetic vision? Something more akin to a real psychic break such as the shaman

[Brant Gardner]

David:

Is it your opinion that God would not have known how subsequent prophets would look upon this event in retrospect?

I believe God can show what he wishes to show. What I also know is that no matter what God shows, unless common people can understand it, they won't (small truism there). Take Ezekiel's vision. What did he see? Perhaps in the ancient context it was understood quite well. In the modern world, we reinterpret the symbols and get spaceships. If you don't understand a referent, you can't get correct meaning from it.

No matter what picture a prophet receives of God, how can that picture be communicated? If you attempt to use a single word for it, that word had better exist in your language. Suppose some important metaphor was couched in a prophetic vision of a zeppelin. Even with the revelation of the word, who would understand what a zeppelin was in the days of the ancient prophets? It would have to be described - not referenced in a single word.

So with crucifixion. If you have no good referent, you have no name. The closest we come in Israel is being "hung on a tree." (Deut 21:22). I doubt that was understood as crucifixion. If there is no cultural referent, there is no meaning.

That God

[Brant Gardner]

Enemy Ace:

The mechanics of the visions you are mentioning are exactly like that of the Mongolian Tungus/shaman who seeks the help of serpents in his visions by imitating their movements. The Hittite also practiced a form of serpent guidance.

This gets into difficult areas in the history of religion. I think that it is pretty clear that the earliest discernible layer of religious impulse is shamanic. However, there was (at an unknown point) a shift in some of the fundamental aspects of the experience with "the other" that left the more shamanic definition of and experience with the world in the eastern religions (and interestingly the Americas) but altered that experience in western religions.

As the primary religions that continue to define this new relationship between man and "the other," Jewish and Christian worldviews are some pretty good markers of the differences. However, the earlier you go the more these cradle religions both approach the more shamanic beginnings. What is certainly retained for a long time are the principles of imitation. The popular religion kept them long after the prophets attempted to move the people away from them.

Ancient Israel still retained a number of the aspects of religion that fed on the basic stream of how a shamanic world understood the way things worked - however, the relationship of the prophet to the divine was different. The shamanic ecstatic experiences were interpreted differently from the prophetic visions.

I suspect that there is quite a bit of similar source feeding them, but they have already had a fundamenetal split and the trajectory of understanding has already occurred by the time we get the Israelite records.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Brant,

===Surely you see how powerful that image has been<grin>?

Thanks Brant for clarifying your views. I have a much better feel for where you

[Cold Steel]

Take care on this one. You are mixing cultures and meanings. The Greek serpent and staff are unrelated to Moses's usage. It is too easy to overreach the parallels.

I realize this is always dangerous, but that's why I never draw conclusions; merely raise questions. That said, the Greeks also had the legend of the universal flood. At what point do neighboring cultures influence one another and in what ways? The serpent staff showing up as signs of healing in both Hebrew and Greek lore also raises my eyebrows. Coincidence?

<grin> You should know that it is really dangerous to mention Quetzalcoatl to me. I spent a good 10 years of my academic life untangling the Quetzalcoatl material. Quetzalcoatl is Aztec, not Maya. The Maya Kukulcan (Quiche Gugumatz) are later additions to the Maya pantheon, probably imported from Teotihuacan where the feathered serpent was a war symbol. In Aztec lore the demi-god Quetzalcoatl is credited with science and pretty much all culture, but he is conceptuall different from the animal quetzalcoatl, which was considered to be a real animal and is shown in the Telleriano-Remensis devouring a human.

Yes, you're right about Quetzalcoatl, of course. When I went to Chitzen Itza and visited the Pyramid of Kukulcan, I recall seeing all the feathered serpents and I get my wiring backward. Still, I find it interesting that in this culture the serpent and the wings were used. Some have speculated that Quetzalcoatl was a wandering Christian who may have brought some of the European culture to the Aztecs. Again, it may be coincidence or it may indicate something more. In the article previously cited, Barraza wrote: "The native belief in Quetzalcoatl became a thorn in the side of the Spanish priests as they attempted to spread their own beliefs among these civilizations. The Spanish admit to finding beautiful books but burned them because 'The Devil has got here ahead of us and has shown false Christianity,' as Diego de Landa, Bishop of the Yucat

[Warship]

David,

In Isaiah

[Brant Gardner]

David:

I believe that seers did receive visions of Jesus

[Ron Beron]

Enemy Ace:

The mechanics of the visions you are mentioning are exactly like that of the Mongolian Tungus/shaman who seeks the help of serpents in his visions by imitating their movements. The Hittite also practiced a form of serpent guidance.

This gets into difficult areas in the history of religion. I think that it is pretty clear that the earliest discernible layer of religious impulse is shamanic. However, there was (at an unknown point) a shift in some of the fundamental aspects of the experience with "the other" that left the more shamanic definition of and experience with the world in the eastern religions (and interestingly the Americas) but altered that experience in western religions.

As the primary religions that continue to define this new relationship between man and "the other," Jewish and Christian worldviews are some pretty good markers of the differences. However, the earlier you go the more these cradle religions both approach the more shamanic beginnings. What is certainly retained for a long time are the principles of imitation. The popular religion kept them long after the prophets attempted to move the people away from them.

Ancient Israel still retained a number of the aspects of religion that fed on the basic stream of how a shamanic world understood the way things worked - however, the relationship of the prophet to the divine was different. The shamanic ecstatic experiences were interpreted differently from the prophetic visions.

I suspect that there is quite a bit of similar source feeding them, but they have already had a fundamenetal split and the trajectory of understanding has already occurred by the time we get the Israelite records.

Brant,

I agree that there is a fine line here and one is that is difficult to cross. Obviously, there are differences between the 'large' picture elements of advanced religious structures such as Judaism and Christianity and the 'smaller' elements of animism and shamanism, but I believe the essential psychological elements are there nonetheless. While the prophet/shaman did not display the exact pattern seen in other aboriginal shamans, such as the initiatory ecstasies of visionary torture, renewal of life and mind, a journey to hell followed by a journey to heaven, they did parallel these activities enough to qualify as shamans or mystic travelers. Jaynes, Julian. (1976). "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" states about the role of ecstatic divination (otherwise known as shamanism)