Book Of Mormon Proven Right

[Chris Smith]

USU78, Thank you for furthering the discussion.

The events of thanksgiving following the end of the first leg of each Exodus, however, are not quite the same. With Lehi, we have the finding of water and the thank-offering on the altar constructed just outside the Jerusalem Temple's "spiritual hegemony." With Moses, we have the escape through water and the celebration after Pharaoh's overthrow, best expressed by Miriam in her Siegesgesang.

There is no need, however, to analyse with any priestly rigor the [probably] spontaneous celebration by Saved Israel in Trans-Red-Sea Sinai, since there is no priestly function occurring as far as we know. The reason the analysis of the Lehi event is interesting is because of the priestly nature of the act of constructing an altar and offering thank-offerings. If the thank-offerings were to be acceptable to G-d, they must be made with ritual purity and in proper order. Being outside the 3-day radius of the Jerusalem Temple is, according to the author(s) of the Temple Scroll, the sine qua non to the acceptability of the sacrifice.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In both Exodus 3:18 and 1 Ne. 2, there is sacrifice associated with the three-day journey. Maybe you could clarify what distinguishes the "priestly" function being performed in 1 Nephi 2 from the sacrifice made in Ex. 3?

It should also be noted that 1 Ne. 2 makes no explicit reference to the "spiritual hegemony" of the Jerusalem temple. If Lehi was following some kind of ritual legislation, it is not apparent from the text. We have only a sequence of events: 3 day journey, discovery of water, and then construction of an altar and sacrifice. If we were to infer a motive for his having chosen to stop and sacrifice here (rather than somewhere else), the obvious choice would be that he was thankful for the river and for the beautiful valley that God had given him as a place of refuge.

CK, thanks for reminding us of the structure of 1 Nephi and the recurring theme in many of the BoM books. Whoever wrote 1 Nephi was highly conscious of the parallel between the Moses-led Exodus and the Lehi-led one.

I agree that, thematically and structurally, the 3 day journeys by Lehi and Moses are inextricably connected and are meant to be by the author.

We now have grounds for meaningful discussion. Granted an intentional parallel between Lehi's three-day journey/sacrifice and Moses' three-day journey/sacrifice, does the Temple Scroll legislation have any implications for BoM historicity?

I think you are right to highlight the following important questions:

1. Is the Temple Scroll evidence of an older tradition, perhaps dating to the time of Lehi?

2. Might Moses and the Israelites in Egypt have been acting in accordance with a similar rule?

The first question is simply unanswerable, though I see no particular reason to answer in the affirmative. The second, if answered affirmatively, would allow us to see the Moses account and the Lehi account as having had a shared motivation: both were just trying to obey the ritual laws. But do remember that Moses hasn't even issued any ritual laws yet (this is prior to Sinai). I am much more inclined to see the Nephi account and the Temple Scroll legislation as both being dependent on Exodus 3. This makes more sense than trying to reverse the dependency, making Moses' actions contingent upon a ritual law that wasn't written down until a thousand years later.

I think it might be helpful to summarize the possibilities here. Granted the dependency of 1 Ne. 2 on Ex. 3, there are several possiblities:

1) 1 Ne. 2 is dependent on Ex. 3 and both of these are dependent on the Temple Scroll legislation (which existed in some oral or written form long before it was written down on that scroll).

2) Both 1 Ne. 2 and the Temple Scroll are dependent on Ex. 3.

3) 1 Ne. 2 is dependent on Ex. 3, and the Temple Scroll is unrelated to either of them.

4) Ex. 3 is dependent on the Temple Scroll, and 1 Ne. 2 is dependent on Ex. 3, so that any dependency of 1 Ne. 2 on the Temple Scroll is mediated through Exodus.

Possibilities 1 and 4 might be defensible, but they are neither proven nor even likely. The only way this could add support to BoM historicity is if Option 1 could be established with a fairly high degree of probability. I don't see that happening.

Blessings,

-CK

[Fortigurn]

Backing vocals for CK.

[structurecop]

Who's Margaret Barker, and why should I care?

Biblical scholar.

[Fortigurn]

Biblical scholar.

Relevant academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, standing in the academic community?

[structurecop]

Relevant academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, standing in the academic community?

Educated at Cambridge, Margaret Barker is a math and religion teacher at the Ockbrook School in England. She is a Methodist preacher, the mother of two children, and she acts as a trustee for a refuge for battered women. She has been a member of the Society for Old Testament Study and recently served a term as the president of that society. While she remains outside the university world in order to "keep [her] academic freedom,"1 she states that "it has been my ambition to redraw the map of biblical studies."2 At this writing, she has published seven books and several journal articles. A survey of her titles introduces her themes: The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity; The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity; The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple In Jerusalem; The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God; On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament; The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith; and The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Her works exhibit exhaustive readings of both primary and secondary sources, thinking that is both rigorous and imaginative, and impressive mastery of these materials in terms of both the overall picture and in the significance of small details. She demonstrates bold vision in suggesting hypotheses and challenging preconceptions, and she displays an uncanny ability to trace thematic connections between texts. She shows familiarity with original languages and textual variants for key passages and occasionally suggests plausible explanations and alternate readings for those variations based on underlying Hebrew or Aramaic.

[Fortigurn]

Educated at Cambridge, Margaret Barker is a math and religion teacher...

Thanks, that's what I need to know.

[Hammer]

It should also be noted that 1 Ne. 2 makes no explicit reference to the "spiritual hegemony" of the Jerusalem temple. If Lehi was following some kind of ritual legislation, it is not apparent from the text. We have only a sequence of events: 3 day journey, discovery of water, and then construction of an altar and sacrifice. If we were to infer a motive for his having chosen to stop and sacrifice here (rather than somewhere else), the obvious choice would be that he was thankful for the river and for the beautiful valley that God had given him as a place of refuge.

If something was so common to the people for such an extended period of time, would it be something written down for record? When writing things for people who are not familiar with our ways, it isn't unheard of to leave some of the most common and ordinary (by frequency and regularity) performances out of our writings.

So not finding mention of specifics of why, doesn't eliminate its validity in this context.

[Fortigurn]

If something was so common to the people for such an extended period of time, would it be something written down for record? When writing things for people who are not familiar with our ways, it isn't unheard of to leave some of the most common and ordinary (by frequency and regularity) performances out of our writings.

So not finding mention of specifics of why, doesn't eliminate its validity in this context.

The problem with this is that it's circular reasoning. You have assumed the conclusion, and now you're attempting to explain how the text is in harmony with the conclusion.

The fact is that there is nothing in the text which indicates Lehi was aware of 1st Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy (or even 2nd Temple era sacrificial orthopraxy). We could not, for example, discover the rule of 'three days' in the Temple Scroll, from this passage in the Book of Mormon.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks, that's what I need to know.

Ms. Barker is well-informed and credentialed, but not particularly mainstream. If she had a Jump To Conclusions Mat, she'd get a lot of exercise.

-CK

[Fortigurn]

Ms. Barker is well-informed and credentialed, but not particularly mainstream. If she had a Jump To Conclusions Mat, she'd get a lot of exercise.

She seems well informed on some matters, but determined to draw alternative conclusions which fly in the face of the information she has been provided. She may be termed 'credentialed' in the sense that she has 'familiarity with original languages', but I haven't yet seen evidence of her academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, or academic standing.

I agree with you about her capacity for logical leaps.

[Nevo]

Barker apparently has an M.A. in theology from Cambridge University. She publishes with respected academic presses (SPCK, Westminster/John Knox, T&T Clark, E.J. Brill) and journals (e.g., Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Scottish Journal of Theology) but she is definitely something of a maverick.

A sampling of critical reactions to Barker's work can be found here. I list a few of my own reservations here and here.

[Fortigurn]

Barker apparently has an M.A. in theology from Cambridge University. She publishes with respected academic presses (SPCK, Westminster/John Knox, T&T Clark, E.J. Brill) and journals (e.g., Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Scottish Journal of Theology) but she is definitely something of a maverick.

A sampling of critical reactions to Barker's work can be found here. I list a few of my own reservations here and here.

Your first link was more than enough. Thanks. At least she publishes in a peer reviewed arena, where her work receives the criticism it deserves.

[SolarPowered]

Educated at Cambridge, Margaret Barker is a math and religion teacher...

Thanks, that's what I need to know.

Yes, clearly no more scholarly credibility than, say, a patent clerk.

Edit: OK, I see that farther down you do give her credit for some level of credibility.

[Chris Smith]

Your first link was more than enough.

Based on a description she read on Amazon, Juliann apparently thinks that CBQ is a Catholic propaganda mill.

[Fortigurn]

Based on a description she read on Amazon, Juliann apparently thinks that CBQ is a Catholic propaganda mill.

Ouch.

[hagoth7]

The claim made was 'Book Of Mormon Proved Right'. The specific claim was that the Temple Scroll 11Q19 verified that the Book of Mormon recorded accurately Jewish sacrificial orthopraxy during the era alleged for Lehi.

It has been demonstrated that:

* There is no evidence as yet that this sacrificial orthopraxy existed outside the Qumran community

It is not even established that the Dead Sea Scrolls trace to the Qumran community. [similar to finding a Neanderthal skull in your neighbor's back yard and then positing that your neighbors invented fire.]

The Qumran link was merely the Jesuit interpretation that sounded great to the press. Other interpretations, which are usually brushed under the carpet, are that the Dead Sea Scrolls derive not from Qumram, but instead from a larger library in Jerusalem, representative of the various factions of Judaism, rather than of a single desert community.

I'd recommend "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls", a very interesting read.

[consiglieri]

She seems well informed on some matters, but determined to draw alternative conclusions which fly in the face of the information she has been provided. She may be termed 'credentialed' in the sense that she has 'familiarity with original languages', but I haven't yet seen evidence of her academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, or academic standing.

I agree with you about her capacity for logical leaps.

How is it you can agree about Margaret Barker's "capacity for logical leaps" when only a few hours ago you were saying you didn't know who she was and asking why you should care?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[e=mc2]

Fortiqurn:

She seems well informed on some matters, but determined to draw alternative conclusions which fly in the face of the information she has been provided. She may be termed 'credentialed' in the sense that she has 'familiarity with original languages', but I haven't yet seen evidence of her academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, or academic standing.

I agree with you about her capacity for logical leaps.

Kerry:

Seeing you in one breath in one day ask who she is, and then the next day posturing as if you understand all her thousands of pages of research has to make me scratch my head. You mean to tell me now you totally understand her view after a mere day? She has about 9 books to her credit, [many of them between 400-500 pages, and yes I have read them] and now you have the skinny on it all? Whoa........ that's qute a brain you be a packin there pilgrim......

Go to this link of mine:

http://backyardprofessor.typepad.com/the_backyard_professor/

Look under "Biblical scholarship and Early Christianity." There is a wealth of Barker's materials. Learn before you spout, it'll save you some serious embarrassment.

I echo Kevin Christensen's interpretation of Barker's research:

"At this writing, she has published seven books and several journal articles. A survey of her titles introduces her themes: The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity; The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity; The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple In Jerusalem; The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God; On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament; The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith; and The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Her works exhibit exhaustive readings of both primary and secondary sources, thinking that is both rigorous and imaginative, and impressive mastery of these materials in terms of both the overall picture and in the significance of small details. She demonstrates bold vision in suggesting hypotheses and challenging preconceptions, and she displays an uncanny ability to trace thematic connections between texts. She shows familiarity with original languages and textual variants for key passages and occasionally suggests plausible explanations and alternate readings for those variations based on underlying Hebrew or Aramaic. As I read her books, I get a sense of immense learning and a continuing progression, with each book growing from and building on the foundation of the earlier ones.

In her work Barker writes not as a dispassionate scholar but as one deeply involved and committed not just to understanding but to living Christianity and persuading others to commitment and action. Her faith commitments do not handicap a notable ability to think outside the boxes of both Christian and secular orthodoxy and to make startling suggestions based on rigorous reading."

[consiglieri]

Your first link was more than enough. Thanks. At least she publishes in a peer reviewed arena, where her work receives the criticism it deserves.

Once again you are trying to have it both ways.

First you acknowledge that Margaret Barker publishes in a peer reviewed arena, itself noteworthy, but then you use it to slam her for saying that her work deserves criticism.

This is the kind of tactic I referred to earlier as "unleashing."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Dear e-mc2,

Looks like I beat you to the punch on that one by a minute. Yes!

I hope Fortigurn will tell us whether it is his abundant brain power or lack of scruples that accounts for his suspicious posts regarding Margaret Barker.

Fortigurn?

[Fortigurn]

How is it you can agree about Margaret Barker's "capacity for logical leaps" when only a few hours ago you were saying you didn't know who she was...

Because I read all three of the links provided, as well as a mini-bio on an LDS site.

...and asking why you should care?

I'm still asking why I should care.

Once again you are trying to have it both ways.

First you acknowledge that Margaret Barker publishes in a peer reviewed arena, itself noteworthy, but then you use it to slam her for saying that her work deserves criticism.

I did not use it to 'slam her'. On the contrary, I said that it was a good thing. You seem to have interpreted 'criticism' in a perjorative way here. Criticism is what happens to articles submitted to peer reviewed journals.

Seeing you in one breath in one day ask who she is, and then the next day posturng as if you understand all her thousands of pages of research has to make me scratch my head. You mean to tell me now you totally understand her view after a mere day? She has about 9 books to her credit, [many of them between 400-500 pages, and yes I have read them] and now you have the skinny on it all? Whoa........ that's qute a brain you be a packin there pilgrim......

I am not 'posturing as if I understand all her thousands of pages of research'. Nor am I claiming to 'totally understand her view after a mere day'. I said neither of these things.

Dear e-mc2,

Looks like I beat you to the punch on that one by a minute. Yes!

I hope Fortigurn will tell us whether it is his abundant brain power or lack of scruples that accounts for his suspicious posts regarding Margaret Barker.

Fortigurn?

Are the LDS on this forum always so aggressive and insulting? You are making base insuations which have absolutely no merit whatever. You claim without any evidence that my posts concerning Barker are 'suspicious', and imply I am lacking in scruples. In the meantime, you are neglecting the original topic.

Why do you write these things?

[consiglieri]

You've been caught out on this one, Fortigurn.

Best to just admit it.

[Fortigurn]

It is not even established that the Dead Sea Scrolls trace to the Qumran community.

Yes, I agree.

You've been caught out on this one, Fortigurn.

Best to just admit it.

Really? What did I do?

[hagoth7]

A few comments on the general thread.

Very interesting discussion.

1. It was an interesting parallel between the Book of Mormon and a Jewish text. Thank you for sharing that.

2. I agree with those who reject that parallel as somehow proving the Book of Mormon to be true. It doesn't.

3. More importantly, in my opinion, we do a disservice to the Book of Mormon to claim that a parallel somehow proves the Nephite record correct - even if the coincidence has substance to it. The only real proof is in the pudding - which comes from a prayerful reading of scripture.

[e=mc2]

the vast majority of us are saying nothing about proving the BofM. We all gave up using that silly word "PROVE" a long time ago. Now discussing ancient signal aspects of it is our cup o tea, but not for proof, more or less for instruction and learning more about it.