Book Of Mormon Proven Right

[Zakuska]

I can see Lord Kerrys been reading the story of Joseph in Egypt again.

...Cup-O-Tea...

[e=mc2]

Fortiqurn:

Are the LDS on this forum always so aggressive and insulting? You are making base insuations which have absolutely no merit whatever.

Well, if I am misreading you then my bad. It sure appeared to me as if you read a mere webpage blurb and all the sudden Barker's materials were being shunned, and now were understood to be of lesser quality, etc. That was the impresssion you gave more than one of us, obviously. Thanks for clarifying. No we are not always this aggressive, only so when some of our favorite scholars appear to be attacked....

[Fortigurn]

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."

I read that article earlier today.

[Fortigurn]

Well, if I am misreading you then my bad. It sure appeared to me as if you read a mere webpage blurb and all the sudden Barker's materials were being shunned, and now were understood to be of lesser quality, etc. That was the impresssion you gave more than one of us, obviously. Thanks for clarifying. No we are not always this aggressive, only so when some of our favorite scholars appear to be attacked....

I asked who she was. I also asked for her academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, and academic recognition. I was given links to a number of criticisms of her work, as well as to reviews. I also found Kevin Christensen's mini-bio of her. I discovered from Christensen's mini-bio (which was quoted), that she is not a recognised authority in the fields on which she writes. I discovered from the other links provided that her books are consistently criticised for leaps of logic, erroneous conclusions, speculation, and lack of academic rigour.

I did not once 'shun' anything she wrote. I did get the impression very strongly that what she writes is of lesser quality than that of recognised authorities in the fields on which she writes.

[e=mc2]

Accepted authority hardly is the voucher for true knowldge of things however. True enough, I misread you. Apologies offered. Now then, I have found Barker's work to be breaths and breaths of fresh air, and even found I disagree with her on some things. Overall her work is simply electrifying though, and not simply because she has come out and said the Book of Mormon accurately reflects First Temple Wisdom traditions either, although I have to admit, that's an astonishing assessment, because, from what little I have read, it's what I have found also.

Fortiqurn:

I did get the impression very strongly that what she writes is of lesser quality than that of recognised authorities in the fields on which she writes.

NOTHING she has written is "lesser quality." It may be dfferent than what is the common Joe's ordinary everyday understanding, but good heavenlies, lesser quality?! Not by a long shot, a real long shot.

Best,

Kerry

[emeliza]

Fortigurn~ I asked who she was. I also asked for her academic credentials, peer reviewed literature, and academic recognition. I was given links to a number of criticisms of her work, as well as to reviews.

Actually the way this thread reads is that you asked who she was, then were given her credentials. At which point you agreed with what CK stated in a negative way. After that you were given the links to her work. So from the stand point of someone reading the thread it appears that you disagreed with her prior to having read anything by her.

[consiglieri]

Actually the way this thread reads is that you asked who she was, then were given her credentials. At which point you agreed with what CK stated in a negative way. After that you were given the links to her work. So from the stand point of someone reading the thread it appears that you disagreed with her prior to having read anything by her.

It is likely that is Fortigurn's MO with the Book of Mormon, as well.

The Book of Mormon has been classed as one of those books that one does not have to read in order to have an opinion about.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

USU78, Thank you for furthering the discussion.

Back atcha, kiddo.

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?

The Exodus 3:18 3-day journey never happened. And we have no idea from later chapters in Exodus how long it took to get to the Red Sea shore. That is why I talked in my prior post about "first stage" of the two exoduses. First stage for Moses was getting to/through the Red Sea. First stage for Lehi was getting outside the 3-day radius.

Now, as to the "priestly function" issue. A priest is he who acts as intermediary between the g-d and the congregation of the people. In performing sacrifices, Lehi acts both on his own behalf and on behalf of his group. Moses, in holding up his staff and invoking G-d's power to hold back the water and dry out the riverbed, is acting both on his own behalf and on behalf of his group. But the thank offering of Lehi and the spontaneous celebration by the Israelites under Miriam are of different types. Lehi is plainly acting in a priestly function in the most quintessential of priestly functions: the burnt offering. Miriam is leading the chorus of the people while Moses watches and/or participates. The text isn't really clear on what Moses is doing during the celebration. Probably napping and getting a massage for his poor shoulders.

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.

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?

Once again, remember that the proposed 3-day journey by Moses never actually happened.

Now, while I agree that there is no explicit reference to the "spiritual hegemony" of the Jerusalem Temple in the BoM or in any other (biblical or otherwise) reference prior to the Temple Scroll (whose substance may well or may well not go much farther back than late Second Temple), the existence of the Temple Scroll 3-day provision provides an interesting piece of evidence as background only to explain a possible significance of Lehi's 3 days beyond the obvious Exodus parallel. Farther than that I do not believe it is prudent to go.

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 agree there's no evidence one way or another on your # 1 question other than the existence of the Temple Scroll itself, which comes to us from the late Second Temple period without provenance. As to the second, I have merely speculated here as to a possible basis for Moses' demand of Pharaoh. Hell, for all we know there may have been some kind of magic associated with the 3-mile radius among ancient peoples. It makes a certain sense, but I'm unaware of any express mention of such a rule.

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.

I agree that, absent something new from the ground, we won't ever be able to establish any such thing. At best it's speculation, but useful nevertheless to the believer to show a plausible piece of the background to an historical BoM.

[e=mc2]

Just as an aside, now that we are all friends again (we always have been, no biggie, spats like this are sorta fun anyway right? ), I would personally put Barker's book The Great High Priest against pretty much anything as far as Biblical scholarship goes. No, not for the idea of seeing how many agree with what she writes, because agreement hardly qualifies as the arbiter of what is true, yes? As Nibley said lo those many years ago, "Socrates long ago showed what a hollow thing consensus is." But I mean for sheer interesting ideas, making you say "OHMIHECK!" a few times too many, and causing us to say "man I gotta look into that more," and go buy many of her references. Barker's book is still one of the most stimulating, insightful things I have *ever* read. Truly. I get something out of it every time I look into it. Her ideas coming from the Dead Sea Scrolls are always especially interesting for me personally. She's constantly trying to assess that mysterious enigmatic figure of Melchizedek, of which I have to post more about some day soon. I find the same thing with Leonora Leet's magnificent research. Anyway, the description of Barker's research, or even the impression of it being of lesser quality just doesn't occur with me., But then perhaps, I am a mere sophomore with biblical studies, so what do I know really anyway? O.K., back to the books.

[Kevin Christensen]

My mini biography of Margaret Barker was written in 2000, and is out of date. A better source would be her website at www.margaretbarker.com. She has published twelve books to date. Margaret Barker is indeed a recognized world class authority on the temple. She was invited to head up a study of the influence of the temple on Christian liturgy at the Center of Advance Religious and Theological Studies at Cambridge in England. In 1999, she served a term as President Elect of the Society for Old Testament Studies. She was invited to write a commentary on Isaiah for Eerdman's Bible Commentary 2000. Several of her books came about because she has been invited to speak at important teaching institutions. The Risen Lord, Temple Theology, and The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God all came about this way.

I have explored some specific criticisms of her work in The New Mormon Challenge and by one BYU Professor, Professor Szinc, in FR 16:2. In both instances, I found the criticisms superficial and inadequate when I examined the specifics. Here she is criticized via vague generalizations, a proof text or two, and reverent deference to some unspecified authorities. The idea is to brush her aside as quickly and as painlessly as possible (as not orthodox), rather than to genuinely confront and explore the details and implications of her growing body of work.

However, despite some criticism, which should be expected since she offers a radically different approach, she continues to be published in a variety of important journals. Her books continue to attract attention. She is invited to speak at important venues by signicant scholars who recognize the importance of her work. As I understand how paradigms change, all is happening just as I would expect. It is not a matter of flipping a switch, and all academics of whatever stripe suddenly line up and say "Aye!" in unison.

I am personally aware of dozens of top scholars who have not only read, but have been changed by her work.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[e=mc2]

Well, I'm certainly not a top scholar, but I most certainly *have* been changed by her works. I continue to be amazed at the depth, and breadth of her analysis and her piquant (whaddya mean you don't know that word, go look it up... ) interpretations of the history of the biblical record, as well as its meaning.

Thanks for adding an updated context Kevin.

[Chris Smith]

the existence of the Temple Scroll 3-day provision provides an interesting piece of evidence as background only to explain a possible significance of Lehi's 3 days beyond the obvious Exodus parallel. Farther than that I do not believe it is prudent to go.

I agree there's no evidence one way or another on your # 1 question other than the existence of the Temple Scroll itself, which comes to us from the late Second Temple period without provenance. As to the second, I have merely speculated here as to a possible basis for Moses' demand of Pharaoh. Hell, for all we know there may have been some kind of magic associated with the 3-mile radius among ancient peoples. It makes a certain sense, but I'm unaware of any express mention of such a rule.

I agree that, absent something new from the ground, we won't ever be able to establish any such thing. At best it's speculation, but useful nevertheless to the believer to show a plausible piece of the background to an historical BoM.

I can agree with this. But I would like to take issue with your assertion that Moses' proposed three-day journey never happened. I believe it did.

Note, please, that the Israelites crossed not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. I believe that the most plausible scenario for such a corssing has been offered by James K. Hoffmeier: the Israelites were attempting to steer a middle way between two Egyptian fortresses in the Delta region (Migdol and I forget what the other was). There's no desert here; the Israelites find themselves bogged down in marshy swamplands, even trapped up against a small sea, until Moses parts the waters. It's only on the other side of the Sea of Reeds that the Israelites finally depart from the Egyptian delta and enter the "Wilderness" of Shur, a desert.

Remember that the proposed three-day journey was into the desert:

"The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.' - Exodus 3:18

Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword." - Exodus 5:3

The Israelites are not talking about journeying a total of three days, but rather of journeying three days into the desert. They finally do so in Exodus 15, which exhibits another very important parallel to 1 Ne. 2 (I apologize for the length of this quotation, but I think it is necessary:

Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water. 23 When they came to Marah, they could not drink its water because it was bitter. (That is why the place is called Marah.) 24 So the people grumbled against Moses, saying, "What are we to drink?"

25 Then Moses cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became sweet.

There the LORD made a decree and a law for them, and there he tested them. 26 He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."

27 Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped there near the water.

The obvious omission here is the sacrifice and festival of celebration; perhaps it happened and we are not told about it, or perhaps the people were already too busy grumbling to be in the mood for thanksgiving. Bust speaking of grumbling, that brings us to the other important parallels here with Lehi's account. The first is that the people were grumbling. The second is that they traveled three days and found water, then camped beside it.

Lehi's account is somewhat idealized and simplified, but it is nevertheless a sort of retelling of the Moses story: Lehi is depicted as a new Moses, the great patriarch of a new nation, with all of Moses' strengths and none of his faults. Many of the details in 1 Nephi 2 can be explained by appeal to Exodus, including the three-day journey and sacrifice. I therefore see no reason to appeal to the Temple Scroll as forming any kind of background for the Book of Mormon; actually, I think the Exile and Diaspora are the probable impetuses for the Temple Scroll's legislation concerning people offering sacrifice "outside of Jerusalem's spiritual hegemony". Some people were simply so far away that it was unrealistic for them to travel to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices; they therefore penned an exception clause, perhaps based on Exodus but perhaps also just utilizing the sacred number three, for those who don't live within easy traveling distance.

-CK

[USU78]

But I would like to take issue with your assertion that Moses' proposed three-day journey never happened. I believe it did.

Yet there's no express textual evidence it was a three-day journey to the Reed Sea [yeah, I know about that stuff, having first encountered it on my mission]. This makes your proposition speculative, though you may have a reasonable basis for so speculating.

{snip the Reed Sea stuff}

Remember that the proposed three-day journey was into the desert:

"The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.' - Exodus 3:18

Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword." - Exodus 5:3

The Israelites are not talking about journeying a total of three days, but rather of journeying three days into the desert. They finally do so in Exodus 15, which exhibits another very important parallel to 1 Ne. 2

True enough, but it is still all just speculative and propositional at that point. I agree it's significant, but let's not get overhasty, unless we're equally hasty to accept the Temple Scroll/1 Nephi parallel as well.

The obvious omission here is the sacrifice and festival of celebration; perhaps it happened and we are not told about it, or perhaps the people were already too busy grumbling to be in the mood for thanksgiving.

I agree we may reasonably speculate that a thank-offering would have been offered by the Levites on the thither side of the Reed Sea, but the text is silent on priestly functions at this point in the relation of the tale.

Bust speaking of grumbling, that brings us to the other important parallels here with Lehi's account. The first is that the people were grumbling. The second is that they traveled three days and found water, then camped beside it.

No question: Laman/Lemuel function as parellels to recalcitrant Israel that must be cleansed by first passing through water and then the burning furnace of the desert before entering the new land, just as Laban functions as parallel to Pharaoh, refusing to "let the [record] go" until G-d, through Nephi, whacks his first-born self.

Lehi's account is somewhat idealized and simplified, but it is nevertheless a sort of retelling of the Moses story: Lehi is depicted as a new Moses, the great patriarch of a new nation, with all of Moses' strengths and none of his faults. Many of the details in 1 Nephi 2 can be explained by appeal to Exodus, including the three-day journey and sacrifice. I therefore see no reason to appeal to the Temple Scroll as forming any kind of background for the Book of Mormon; actually, I think the Exile and Diaspora are the probable impetuses for the Temple Scroll's legislation concerning people offering sacrifice "outside of Jerusalem's spiritual hegemony". Some people were simply so far away that it was unrealistic for them to travel to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices; they therefore penned an exception clause, perhaps based on Exodus but perhaps also just utilizing the sacred number three, for those who don't live within easy traveling distance.

I like the notion, and we can speculate away, with good cause, that the 3-day rule was one of compassion for the poor who hadn't the means to travel to the newly exclusive Jerusalem holy site. In our theorizing, however, we must also account somehow for the Elephantine Temple as well (built ca. 407 B.C.E.). Was it built before or after the 3-day rules was adopted/revealed? Who can say? We now have, via JSJr, some evidence that the 3-day rule may have existed prior to the Diaspora and may have provided impetus to the approval for Elephantine. It makes little sense to me that the 3-day rule would have been subsequent to Elephantine. There is much that militates towards its being prior thereto.

[Chris Smith]

Yet there's no express textual evidence it was a three-day journey to the Reed Sea [yeah, I know about that stuff, having first encountered it on my mission]. This makes your proposition speculative, though you may have a reasonable basis for so speculating.

I am suggesting that the three-day journey took place after the Reed Sea crossing. It was not until that crossing that they entered anything remotely like a "desert."

I like the notion, and we can speculate away, with good cause, that the 3-day rule was one of compassion for the poor who hadn't the means to travel to the newly exclusive Jerusalem holy site. In our theorizing, however, we must also account somehow for the Elephantine Temple as well (built ca. 407 B.C.E.). Was it built before or after the 3-day rules was adopted/revealed? Who can say?

I don't know, and I really don't think it matters. I'd say that the builders of the Elephantine Temple were probably unaware of the three-day rule, if it was around at the time, because rather than practicing a decentralized form of sacrifice, they built their own center of worship. My speculation is that the Elephantine Temple and the Temple Scroll legislation were two different solutions to the same problem, which was that the Diaspora and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple made it impossible for the scattered Jews to perform sacrifices in a central location, as required by Deuteronomy and the Josian reforms. I admit that this is only speculation, but I also think that it is reasonable speculation; it does not require assumption of facts not in evidence, like an early date for the Temple Scroll legislation.

In conclusion, I think we are mostly in agreement on several points:

1) Aspects of Lehi's journey closely parallel the Exodus wandering in the wilderness; this probably includes part or all of the three-day journey/sacrifice sequence, depending on whether we admit parallels only from Ex. 3, only from Ex. 15, or are willing to allow that the author of 1 Ne. 2 combined elements of both (perhaps assuming, as I do, that the journey described in Ex. 15 is the one anticipated in Ex. 3).

2) There is no direct evidence for an early date for the Temple Scroll. As such, we may posit a couple possibilities as to its orgin: either (a) it records a pre-exilic tradition that was not written down until later or (b ) it records a later halakhah on the Deuteronomic code, perhaps designed to address specific problems that arose as a result of the Diaspora and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

3) If option (a) above is preferred, then the Temple Scroll legislation may have provided the legal basis for Lehi's imitation of Moses' sacrifice.

4) This parallel between 1 Ne 2 and the Temple Scroll does not constitute evidence for Book of Mormon historicity.

I will only add that even if Book of Mormon historicity is assumed, one is left wondering how accurately Nephi has recorded the details of his family's journey in the wilderness. How many of the facts have been massaged in order to create a parallel to the Exodus story and to present his father Lehi as the Moses-like patiarch of a great nation? Perhaps we should be careful about building geographies based on details that appear to be an imitation of Old Testament narratives. Just a thought.

-CK

*EDIT* By the way, USU, this has been a refreshingly cordial and informative exchange. Thanks.

[USU78]

I am suggesting that the three-day journey took place after the Reed Sea crossing. It was not until that crossing that they entered anything remotely like a "desert."

That's fine . . . and it may well have happened. It's just that there's nothing express which ties the 2nd leg of Moses' journey from the Red/Reed Sea to the next stop, Horeb/Sinai. Moreover, even though the Exodus "desert" has a functional equivalency with 1 Nephi's "wilderness," we must be careful not to take the functional equivalency/parallel too far.

Moreover, the parallels can break down if we compare too closely what happened after the crossing of the Red/Reed Sea to what happened at the River of Water.

I don't know, and I really don't think it matters. I'd say that the builders of the Elephantine Temple were probably unaware of the three-day rule, if it was around at the time, because rather than practicing a decentralized form of sacrifice, they built their own center of worship. My speculation is that the Elephantine Temple and the Temple Scroll legislation were two different solutions to the same problem, which was that the Diaspora and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple made it impossible for the scattered Jews to perform sacrifices in a central location, as required by Deuteronomy and the Josian reforms. I admit that this is only speculation, but I also think that it is reasonable speculation; it does not require assumption of facts not in evidence, like an early date for the Temple Scroll legislation.

No, Elephantine was built during the late 5th Century B.C.E. and has nothing to do with the later Diaspora. Its relative proximity in time to Lehi (late 7th, early 6th) makes it worth our examination. The distance of the Egyptian Jews from Jerusalem justified authorization of a 2nd temple, the earlier outlawry of Ephraim at Samaria and other cult sites notwistanding. Both the 3 day rule and Elephantine address the same problem. I argue that the 3-day rule was adopted because of poverty and a desire to serve the spiritual needs of the Exile, which was just then ending (in the case of Elephantine). My view is that the Elephantine Jews would argue that if sacrifice on unhewn stones like Abraham did was OK so long as it was 3 days or more outside Jerusalem, then an actual Temple run by Jews for Jews in Egypt was even better, since there could be institutional control, something that would've warmed Ezra/Nehemiah's hearts.

In conclusion, I think we are mostly in agreement on several points:

1) Aspects of Lehi's journey closely parallel the Exodus wandering in the wilderness; this probably includes part or all of the three-day journey/sacrifice sequence, depending on whether we admit parallels only from Ex. 3, only from Ex. 15, or are willing to allow that the author of 1 Ne. 2 combined elements of both (perhaps assuming, as I do, that the journey described in Ex. 15 is the one anticipated in Ex. 3).

Okay.

2) There is no direct evidence for an early date for the Temple Scroll. As such, we may posit a couple possibilities as to its orgin: either (a) it records a pre-exilic tradition that was not written down until later or (b ) it records a later halakhah on the Deuteronomic code, perhaps designed to address specific problems that arose as a result of the Diaspora and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

We disagree on date here, because of the Elephantine and 1 Nephi evidence, but in general we are not far apart.

3) If option (a) above is preferred, then the Temple Scroll legislation may have provided the legal basis for Lehi's imitation of Moses' sacrifice.

Okay. Except that, since Lehi now realising he's a Northern Kingdomer by derivation, the Judahic/reform notions of priesthood may not apply to him, him having access to a higher authority, Abraham, Joseph, Joshua, and the prophetic calling itself. As such, it may moot the whole question, but it's still fun to talk about.

4) This parallel between 1 Ne 2 and the Temple Scroll does not constitute evidence for Book of Mormon historicity.

Here we part company. I think it's a nice hit, but recognize that it's got some significant evidentiary gaps to overcome before it could be called a solid hit.

I will only add that even if Book of Mormon historicity is assumed, one is left wondering how accurately Nephi has recorded the details of his family's journey in the wilderness. How many of the facts have been massaged in order to create a parallel to the Exodus story and to present his father Lehi as the Moses-like patiarch of a great nation? Perhaps we should be careful about building geographies based on details that appear to be an imitation of Old Testament narratives. Just a thought.

On this we agree in spades. And not only Nephi's idealisation of Lehi, but also Nephi's self-aggrandizement appear to be a large part of the text. I never much liked him. Reminds me too much of my older brother . . . but I digress.

[Chris Smith]

USU78,

Just a couple points of disagreement, and then I think we can wind this conversation down.

1) The "next stop" in Moses' wilderness wandering after the Red Sea was not Mt. Sinai, but rather the Waters of Marah/Elim (beside which, after their three-day sojourn in the desert, the Israelites set up camp). This is closely parallel to Lehi's three-day journey that brought him to the river Laman. When you take into account the murmuring of Lehi's sons/the Israelites, I think the parallel is solid.

2) The term Diaspora is frequently used to describe two separate scatterings: the 586 BC Exile under the Babylonians, and then again later under the Romans. When I said that the Temple Scroll/Elephantine was a response to the Diaspora, I was referring to the former. There is a significant body of scholarship that sees much of Exilic/Post-exilic Hebrew literature as a response to the problems created by the Diaspora: there is Ezra, who wants everybody to return to Israel. There are the prophets, who among other things tell people to contribute to the cities where they live. There is the Elephantine Temple, which provides an alternative worship center for Egyptian Jews, and (I would add) there is the Temple Scroll, which allows people who live far away from Jerusalem the luxury of decentralized sacrificial worship. I'm not saying that this absolutely is the impetus for the Temple Scroll, but I think it makes sense to understand it that way. If that is the impetus, then it still postdates Lehi. Lehi lived in the heyday of the Deuteronomic reform, and I honestly have a hard time seeing him sacrificing away from the Temple. But I wouldn't make a big issue out of it, because our picture of 600 BC Jewish orthopraxy is obviously incomplete.

Blessings,

-CK

[Fortigurn]

Actually the way this thread reads is that you asked who she was, then were given her credentials. At which point you agreed with what CK stated in a negative way. After that you were given the links to her work. So from the stand point of someone reading the thread it appears that you disagreed with her prior to having read anything by her.

I read Mr Christensen's mini-bio of Barker before I read the links. It may be 'out of date' insofar as her current work is concerned, but it cannot be 'out of date' insofar as its information concerning her past work and the academic response to it is concerned.

[e=mc2]

Actually I think the response to her materials is growing...

[Fortigurn]

Actually I think the response to her materials is growing...

Is there a growing acceptance of her previously unsupported arguments and conclusions?

[e=mc2]

Which unsupported views are you thinking? I know Mark S. Smith's newest, "The Origins of Jewish Monotheism" has a large amount of the same kind of argument with the materials she is using showing that the Old Testament is largely a redacted rewrite job, not the original happenings that occurred in and with Israelite contact with the other cultures......

[Fortigurn]

Which unsupported views are you thinking?

From Nevo:

* "In sum, while Barker's exposition may sometimes give the thoughtful reader pause, on the whole, it strikes this reviewer as a tissue of speculation that self-destructs for want of demonstration and even, in many cases, lack of argumentation" (G.W.E. Nickelsburg, review of The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity, Journal of Biblical Literature 109 [1990]: 337).

* "Others will probably agree that the findings of this study are as peculiar as the premise of the investigation, and that the methodology employed here lies largely outside the broad range of approaches to historical Jesus research entertained by most scholars. More disturbing is the fact that in this, her latest book, Barker seems unaware of, or perhaps unwilling to interact with, pointed criticisms of her argument in The Great Angel (e.g., Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 [1993] 795-97, Theology 96 [1993] 319-20; contrast Alan F. Segal's more careful, thorough and persuasive analysis along somewhat similar lines of certain later rabbinical texts: Two Powers in Heaven, 1977). Given that The Risen Lord is primarily a development of the dubious thesis first articulated in The Great Angel, I can only marginally recommend this book for those with a particular interest in historical Jesus scholarship" (James A. Kelhoffer, review of The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, Currents in Theology and Mission 25 [1998]: 320).

* "B. writes in an apodeictic manner, eschewing footnotes, and seldom, if ever, attempts to demonstrate the plausibility--or sometimes even the exact meaning--of her contentions. . . . There are no surprises here, then, for those already familiar with the work of this imaginative and idiosyncratic scholar. Others must be prepared for some startling obiter dicta. 'The ancient (Israelite) belief in God Most High and the second God with male and female aspects became the Christian Trinity' (p. 40). 'Those who wore the Name [of God on their headdress as priests] became the LORD' (p. 36). 'Wherever a Strong/Mighty Angel is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, it is the LORD' (p. 144)" (C. J. A. Hickling, review of Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to his Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 94 [2001]: 143).

* "The main drawback of B.'s exposition of Revelation is the lack of grounding of her fundamental position in direct evidence. Although B. draws numerous conclusions based on parallels--some unclear or tenuous--between various ancient texts and Revelation, she herself admits that there is insufficient evidence for her assertions" (Susan F. Mathews, review of Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to his Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 [2002]: 368).

* "B. explores the idea of human beings--in this case the Jewish priests--as angels, and makes some bold claims. First, based almost soley on evidence from the book of Revelation, she states, 'we must conclude that from the first generation, bishops were regarded as angels' (p. 105), but she offers little other support for such a claim. Second, regarding evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, she asserts, 'the Qumran texts confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that priests were regarded as angels' (p. 144). In dealing with material from Qumran, however, one cannot synthesize all the material to make a case for what the Qumran group believed without first making a case for why we should assume that all these texts are from the same community at the same point in their history; and that case is not made here. I find Barker's claims about the angelic nature of the priesthood unconvincing. The work of scholars such as C. A. Rowland, J. E. Fossum, L. Hurtado, and especially C. A. Gieschen, who have done important research in this area of study, is not mentioned" (Kevin P. Sullivan, review of Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 [2004]: 314).

* "In a more recent essay, Barker proposes that the worship of Jesus is to be explained by alleged traditions of the real apotheosis of divine kings and priests in ancient Israel, who were worshiped by Israelites as human embodiments of the God of Israel. It is not entirely clear how her various explanations fit together. . . . Moreover, examination of the evidence she proffers often makes it difficult to accept her claims. One example: Barker cites one line from Somn. 2.189 as showing that Philo knew and accepted the divinity of the high priest, whereas the context makes it clear that Philo specifically demurs from any such idea ('Is he then a god? I will not say so...')" (Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003]: 33n16).

* "Margaret Barker's The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1997), is another example of an idiosyncratic hypothesis. She uncovers a mystic experience of resurrection at the baptism and argues that Jesus rose before he died" (Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters [New York and London: T&T Clark, 2005], 213n60).

I'm sure he could provide you with more.

I know Mark S. Smith's newest, "The Origins of Jewish Monotheism" has a large amount of the same kind of argument with the materials she is using showing that the Old Testament is largely a redacted rewrite job, not the original happenings that occurred in and with Israelite contact with the other cultures......

The idea that most of the Old Testament (particularly the Pentateuch and the Primary History), is not a contemporary record but a collection of writings written long after and repeatedly redacted, is not an idea which originated with Barker. It is widely accepted, in a range of forms, by many conservative and liberal academics. This is not exactly news. It is no suprise at all that there are academics who agree with Barker about this process of redaction. It has been recognised within mainstream scholarship for over 100 years.

[e=mc2]

Ah, thank you, that is what I was looking for. Yes, in fact, those are some of the areas that I have had disagreements with her also. This hardly makes her work of "lesser quality" though. Sure there are disagreements, but for every disagreement, there are also agreements....... thank goodness! Otherwise it would be boring studying the Bible eh?

[Fortigurn]

This hardly makes her work of "lesser quality" though.

What makes her work of 'lesser quality' than those who practice proper academic research methodology, is her lack of proper academic research methodology.

[juliann]

What makes her work of 'lesser quality' than those who practice proper academic research methodology, is her lack of proper academic research methodology.

Oh, please. For someone who is shunned by "proper" scholars she somehow managed to become a president of http://www.sots.ac.uk/ The Society for Old Testament Study and present at conferences along with well known names. Killing the messenger isn't going to help you here. She has presented so many new directions for study she will always be an important source whether you agree with her or not. In scholarship, all new paradigms that threaten received wisdom start as fringe ....before becoming mainstream. It is a continuous cycle or there would be no need for scholarship.

[Fortigurn]

Oh, please. For someone who is shunned by "proper" scholars she somehow managed to become a president of http://www.sots.ac.uk/ The Society for Old Testament Study and present at conferences along with well known names.

I'm sorry, what's your point? This doesn't change the fact that her articles and theories are still widely criticized.

Killing the messenger isn't going to help you here.

I am not killing the messenger. I am in fact addressing the lack of credibility of the author of the message.

She has presented so many new directions for study she will always be an important source whether you agree with her or not.

Why?

In scholarship, all new paradigms that threaten received wisdom start as fringe ....before becoming mainstream. It is a continuous cycle or there would be no need for scholarship.

Not every new paradigm becomes mainstream. As Carl Sagan famously said, 'They also laughed at Bozo the clown'.