Margaret Barker as Mormon Apologist?

[DanGB]

The idea that she is in it for the money is hilarious. She does what she does because she believes it.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Kevin,

I think I was agreeing with you in my post above. Even with the speaking fees the Church may have paid her, it's not alot of money.

I was really questioning the claim that she was ridiculed for any work of hers on Mormon themes. I just doubt any of her works in this area are enough to draw attention, let alone criticism or ridicule, to her over the years. If it had, I'm sure we would have heard about it on this board.

[William Schryver]

Who, if any, of those that know Barker has actually ridiculed her for her acknowledgement of various Mormon themes? I not sure what you mean by her "courage". What courage was needed in whatever Mormon related work/support she was involved with.

She has begun to be the target of ridicule from the exMormon/apostate crowd. That was my meaning. I do not know the extent to which she has been subjected to criticism among Biblical scholars on account of how her works reflect on Mormonism. Perhaps Kevin could speak to that issue.

[DanGB]

She has begun to be the target of ridicule from the exMormon/apostate crowd.

Where and what would such comments be? Are there specifics that you have come across that you believe have been noticed by Ms. Barker?

[Glenn101]

Where and what would such comments be? Are there specifics that you have come across that you believe have been noticed by Ms. Barker?

Just do an internet search for Margaret Barker and criticism. You will find plenty of disagreement. I doubt that LDS scholars agree with all that she comes up with, but her work finds some common ground with LDS beliefs.

Glenn

[Chris Smith]

Are you suggesting that her interest in Mormonism is but a way to generate financial gain for remaning an outsider but showing an artificicial interest to merely get paid?

Not at all. Just that when a special interest group takes a zealous interest in one's work, it doesn't take a great deal of courage to reach out to them.

I knew that Jan Shipp did that years ago but I guess I just don't know enough about Barker.

I think this is probably too-cynical an interpretation of Shipps's motives.

Is she well respected n her peer group?

I guess it depends on who you talk to. There are plenty of people who like her work, but she has also been the subject of a lot of fairly sharp criticism on account of a certain methodological sloppiness that seems to pervade her work and color her conclusions. See here for more about that.

The Mormon connection has done nothing to change her direction.

Well, that's not entirely true. She has stated in the past that an article by one "H. Nibley" helped get her started on her current scholarly path, though she wasn't aware of H. Nibley's Mormon background until a much later date.

The post I linked above describes Barker's methodology as "Nibleyesque"-- perhaps a telling criticism.

Peace,

-Chris

[Tsuzuki]

If she fully understands the LDS gospel and then rejects obeying it, would that not make her a son (daughter)

of perdition? What is her stated reason for refusing to be converted, if she believes the Book of Mormon

to be an authentic, ancient divine document?

Could it be that she is considering joining some other BoM-believing group, than the LDS?

UD

Maybe the Lord is telling her to hold out until such time as the priesthood is offered to women.

[Glenn101]

Uncle Dale, on 30 January 2010 - 11:45 PM, said:

If she fully understands the LDS gospel and then rejects obeying it, would that not make her a son (daughter)

of perdition? What is her stated reason for refusing to be converted, if she believes the Book of Mormon

to be an authentic, ancient divine document?

Could it be that she is considering joining some other BoM-believing group, than the LDS?

UD

Maybe the Lord is telling her to hold out until such time as the priesthood is offered to women.

Maybe (probably) she does not fully understand the LDS Gospel. And this should also probably be on its own thread.

Glenn

[William Schryver]

CS:

She has stated in the past that an article by one "H. Nibley" helped get her started on her current scholarly path, though she wasn't aware of H. Nibley's Mormon background until a much later date.

The post I linked above describes Barker's methodology as "Nibleyesque"-- perhaps a telling criticism.

I never cease to be intrigued by a particular practice of the circle of Mormon critics: banding together to convey the impression that there is a consensus about something for which there is neither consensus nor even compelling evidence. Smith's comment above is a typical example. He is acting as though the late Hugh Nibley's "methodology" is known--presumably by everyone--to be something worthy of scorn. He is telling us that someone describing Margaret Barker's methodology as "Nibleyesque," is a criticism; that to be like Nibley is a bad thing. There is an underlying innuendo that suggests that everyone knows that now; everyone knows that Hugh Nibley was an unreliable scholar who employed faulty methodologies and is not worthy of serious consideration.

Is there actually a basis for any of this? No, there is not. It is a gross exaggeration based on isolated criticisms; a blatant misrepresentation of the enduring quality of Nibley's body of work, a body of work that has largely defied the critics of Mormonism. Therefore they have constructed this myth of Nibley the apologetic hack; Nibley the "less-than-scholarly" scholar; Nibley the "Liar for the Lord".

They seized upon Kent P. Jackson's isolated friendly criticism that was based on a limited (and, I believe, flawed) survey of the evidence; a criticism that, from my perspective, was motivated more by objections to Nibley's preferred tone than by the actual content of his analysis. Jackson is not enamored by Nibley's sharp polemical edge. So what? The question is whether or not Nibley is right far more often than he is wrong. (Furthermore, I believe Jackson's fundamental critique--that Nibley saw connections where there were none--is more of a commentary on Jackson's inability to see those connections; his inability to "put the pieces together".)

In any case, the critics, unable to produce their own body of credible criticism of Nibley, have instead erected on Jackson's flimsy foundation what has become, in exmormon/antimormon circles, an almost ubiquitous myth of Nibley the academic clown prince of Mormonism.

My counsel to those who happen onto suggestions of this myth, whether here or elsewhere in the bloggernacle, is to simply not believe it. It isn't true. Was Nibley perfect? No, not by any means. But he is right far more often than he is wrong, and it has been my personal experience of late to discover that he was even right when he didn't fully understand the reasons why. Do not believe anyone who attempts to convince you that Hugh Nibley is something "less than" a reliable source. Instead, pick up anything he ever wrote and read it. I promise, you'll learn something very valuable, and your faith in the divine origins of the restoration will be strengthened.

[Kevin Christensen]

Where and what would such comments be? Are there specifics that you have come across that you believe have been noticed by Ms. Barker?

You've seen Chris commenting in this thread. I thought he had more class than to say some of the things he has said. Very disappointing.

She was once invited to head up a group of scholars studying the origins of Christian Liturgy at Cambridge. She resigned after a few months because she decided that they weren't interested in truth. If she was the sort that was into advancing her career by cultivating influential friends in high places, she would have played ball there. Cambridge has a little more prestige than Provo, I think you would agree.

An essay by Paul Owen in The New Mormon Challenge devoted a fifth of its space to criticizing Margaret Barker's The Great Angel simply because four LDS scholars had quoted a paragraph from it. He obviously wrote before Paradigms Regained came out. I mention to her that I was writing a response, and she offered some helpful suggestions and let me publish them in my essay in FR 14/1-2. I wanted to title her response "A Demonstration of the Art of Self Defense."

TT's criticisms in various places in the bloggernacle are based on his reading of one or two essays at most (What King Josiah Reformed and her Washington D.C. talk), and from his take on those, he strives to discredit her whole body of work.

I doubt if there are many people on the planet whose writing could be justly characterized as Nibleyesque. Few have the linguistic talent and wide range of reading. I certainly don't. I personally cannot see such an description as a other than a compliment. The essay that she read was Nibley's Christian Envy of the Temple, as published in the Jewish Quarterly Review. It was one of many things that turned her towards the temple. But certainly not the only or even major one.

Paradigms Regained includes a bibliography of reviews of her work, published before any connection with LDS scholarship.

She is offering a new paradigm. If a critic is actually engaging her work, their criticism should demonstrate that. If a critic is simply trying to discredit her somehow, as a way to avoid engaging her work, their criticism will unavoidably demonstrate that. For example, in FR 14, I said this:

Owen bases his response on two fundamental assumptions:

* He assumes the authority of the received Old and New Testament texts

[Nevo]

I confess I did describe Barker's methodology as "Nibleyesque" and I provided a specific example of what I meant by it. Perhaps the label was unfair to both scholars. I certainly do not regard Hugh Nibley as "the academic clown prince of Mormonism." Although I do consider some of his scholarship "unreliable"

[Joseph Antley]

What I object to is her tendency to make sweeping assertions with little or nothing to back them up, and to mine texts rather indiscriminately to fit her eccentric theories.

What specific "sweeping assertions" and "eccentric theories" do you have in mind?

[Chris Smith]

You've seen Chris commenting in this thread. I thought he had more class than to say some of the things he has said.

Are you referring to my suggestion that scholars benefit from reaching out to interested audiences, or to my opinion that Barker and Nibley are methodologically sloppy? I don't see why either comment shows I lack "class" (though I obviously should have been clearer about what I meant with the former, since some here seem to think I was accusing Barker of being "in it for the money").

To be clear: all I was saying was that we should not oversell Barker's actions for apologetic purposes. She is not going to be martyred for writing favorable or apologetic articles about Mormonism. Such is well within the bounds of academic respectability, and I don't think she has anything to lose by it. I have no doubts as to the sincerity of her motives.

(Baptism, on the other hand, might seriously damage her credibility in the eyes of her fellow scholars. It will be very interesting to see whether her journey results in baptism and, if so, how much bigotry she encounters from her peers as a result.)

[Obiwan]

Well then, if she is qualified to be accepted among the LDS, even while rejecting

their gospel, perhaps that is why the leaders of the church send no missionaries

to baptize her. They do not feel that her sins will be a stain upon their garments.

On the other hand, if she is such a prominent advocate of ancient Israelite religion,

perhaps she agrees with the FLDS, that the Mormons have abandoned the true precepts

of President John Taylor.

Her advocacy of a plurality of gods would not set her well for acceptance into

the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

the Strangites, nor the RLDS/Community of Christ -- even if she acknowledges

Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet (as most of them do).

What course is left open to a believer in the Standard Works, who refuses an

LDS baptism?

UD

You know UD.... you sure make a lot of assumptions.

Believing in revelations, scriptures, etc. doesn't "automatically" assume one to believe on a "particular" religion. I don't know about you, but more often than not conversion to a religion is often a step by step process, and for the intellectually inclined requires a considerable more amount of time and knowledge. Her interests seem to be lots of things, not simply the LDS Church. For example, people often believe on the Bible long before or if ever joining a religion, especially joining a religion as if it is "true".

Thus, your logic in this is odd to me.....

[DanGB]

Are you referring to my suggestion that scholars benefit from reaching out to interested audiences, or to my opinion that Barker and Nibley are methodologically sloppy? I don't see why either comment shows I lack "class" (though I obviously should have been clearer about what I meant with the former, since some here seem to think I was accusing Barker of being "in it for the money").

To be clear: all I was saying was that we should not oversell Barker's actions for apologetic purposes. She is not going to be martyred for writing favorable or apologetic articles about Mormonism. Such is well within the bounds of academic respectability, and I don't think she has anything to lose by it. I have no doubts as to the sincerity of her motives.

(Baptism, on the other hand, might seriously damage her credibility in the eyes of her fellow scholars. It will be very interesting to see whether her journey results in baptism and, if so, how much bigotry she encounters from her peers as a result.)

Chris/Kevin

Did not want to start a board brawl. I was just asking a question about this Barker because I had no idea who she is. Hell, I would bet that less than 10% of members even know who Nibley is, let alone Barker. Sounds like the audience for this debate may be isolated to the Provo area/alums!

[volgadon]

. I was just asking a question about this Barker because I had no idea who she is.

Hadn't someone told you already in a prior thread?

[volgadon]

I confess I did describe Barker's methodology as "Nibleyesque" and I provided a specific example of what I meant by it. Perhaps the label was unfair to both scholars. I certainly do not regard Hugh Nibley as "the academic clown prince of Mormonism." Although I do consider some of his scholarship "unreliable"

[Nevo]

What specific "sweeping assertions" and "eccentric theories" do you have in mind?

I provided several examples in the thread Chris linked. I've bolded them here for easy identification:

It was Josiah, not Nebuchadnezzar, who finally destroyed the old temple, and there were long memories about the work of Josiah. Essential items from the temple were 'hidden' in his time

[elguanteloko]

After she read that, she decided she needed to read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price completely. She managed in one day, and reported, "I was amazed at how much I recognized."

I need to get myself one of those ultra-reading skills.

[David T]

In her book, The Risen Lord, Barker argues that Jesus was resurrected at his baptism. Which is to say, he experienced a mystical ascent to the throne of God wherein he was declared to be God's son. According to Barker, Jesus "did not envisage a physical resurrection." Instead, resurrection "was an angelic state, living in the presence of God" (Barker, The Risen Lord, 10). She continues: "[R]esurrection was the rebirth experience which made a human being into a son of God. For some it was to be a post-mortem experience.... For others, notably the high priests, it was achieved by ascent to the throne, where the Glory transformed or else destroyed any who looked on it. The son of God then returned to earth for a short time as a messenger from God, usually to announce judgement" (25).

I read The Risen Lord about a month ago. It seems that whenever Barker talks about 'Resurrection', LDS could read in its place ' Calling And Election Made Sure' to great benefit and insight.

[USU78]

In her book, The Risen Lord, Barker argues that Jesus was resurrected at his baptism. Which is to say, he experienced a mystical ascent to the throne of God wherein he was declared to be God's son. According to Barker, Jesus "did not envisage a physical resurrection." Instead, resurrection "was an angelic state, living in the presence of God" (Barker, The Risen Lord, 10). She continues: "[R]esurrection was the rebirth experience which made a human being into a son of God. For some it was to be a post-mortem experience.... For others, notably the high priests, it was achieved by ascent to the throne, where the Glory transformed or else destroyed any who looked on it. The son of God then returned to earth for a short time as a messenger from God, usually to announce judgement" (25).

Some additional examples of Barker's idiosyncratic interpretations can be found here.

"Thou art My Son: This day have I begotten Thee." Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.

Was G-d [or an angel on His behalf] quoting/paraphrasing the Psalm both at Jordan and at the Temple in Bountiful [and, maybe, in the Grove]? Probably.

Was there an ascension at Jordan? Interesting thought. We'll have to think about this and its implications.

[volgadon]

"Thou art My Son: This day have I begotten Thee." Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.

Was G-d [or an angel on His behalf] quoting/paraphrasing the Psalm both at Jordan and at the Temple in Bountiful [and, maybe, in the Grove]? Probably.

Was there an ascension at Jordan? Interesting thought. We'll have to think about this and its implications.

IMHO, there are more fruitful parallels with targumic and midrashic retellings of the akedah. Mark seems to allude to Isaac's near sacrifice in such a way that an observant listener will understand the focus of Christ's ministry, that it leads to him becoming a sacrifice for us.

[Kevin Christensen]

"Thou art My Son: This day have I begotten Thee." Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.

Was G-d [or an angel on His behalf] quoting/paraphrasing the Psalm both at Jordan and at the Temple in Bountiful [and, maybe, in the Grove]? Probably.

Was there an ascension at Jordan? Interesting thought. We'll have to think about this and its implications.

In Paradigms Regained, I have a section comparing the basic argument of The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, with D&C 93. I now read The Risen Lord as a key commentary on D&C 93, even though at that point, Barker had not read the Doctrine and Covenants.

Paradigms are established by choosing examples and then generalizing from them to produce an interpretive framework, a map of the territory. Nevo's examples are not the examples I would choose to generalize from. I read everything of Barker's before I wrote Paradigms Regained, so that when I generalize, it is with a broad view of her work, in which later books build on the foundations of earlier ones. Those who only read the later books, or essays miss a large part of the argument. I recognize that her view of Josiah's Reform as crucial is central, and I think, very well established across a broad range of evidences. Scripture, archeology, and a range of non-canonical texts. The point of my publishing was to show how her views unexpectedly fit with some evidence that she did not consider (The Book of Mormon). Her comment about the priests in Arabia is not crucial to her basic argument (the number of priests in the last text she cited being just a number in a late text), but rather, the observations that she makes are interesting in light of what she establishes in other books, from The Older Testament to The Great Angel, and the Risen Lord. She thinks that readers of 1 Nephi ought to find it interesting. She also finds First Temple ideas in Islamic writing and architecture, and asks how it got there.

Some Nicklesburg's readings on Wisdom and 1 Enoch are targeted in The Older Testament. He's not a disinterested reviewer. That his expertise makes him an interesting reviewer is beyond question, certainly.

Regarding Priests as angels, the cited review doesn't make it clear that she's referring to their ritual/symbolic function in the temple liturgies. In An Extraordinary Gathering of Angels, she includes a picture of the Tabernacle choir as representing how this particular bit of ritual/symbolism works. For me, at least, it does very nicely.

I also like to pay attention when reviews slip into passive voice. Hurdato: "Moreover, examination of the evidence she proffers often makes it difficult to accept her claims." My experience and perspectives are different. When I write on the topic, I prefer to admit my subjectivity and say, I find her arguments and evidence very convincing. I take personal responsibility, admitting that my selection and emphasis and interpretive frameworks contribute to my conclusions. I'm not passively put into place by an objective response to evidence that somehow speaks for itself.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[J Green]

Like Kevin, I've noticed that she builds on earlier work. What may seem like simply a passing reference now has often been tackled in depth in earlier treatises. And her work is produced in the context of scholarship that has the meat to make her conclusions more than simply bizarre. Bernard Levinson's work on Deuteronomistic reform, and Gabriele Boccaccini's taxonomy of the progress of alternative Judaisms and its reflective literature (including the Enochic corpus) come to mind. And she is obviously building off of certain schools of thought that have always been there in terms of Messianic temple connections--Mowinckel for example. (And Mowinckel obviously influenced Hugh Nibley to some degree as well.)

"Thou art My Son: This day have I begotten Thee." Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.

Was G-d [or an angel on His behalf] quoting/paraphrasing the Psalm both at Jordan and at the Temple in Bountiful [and, maybe, in the Grove]? Probably.

Was there an ascension at Jordan? Interesting thought. We'll have to think about this and its implications.

In her book Christmas: The Original Story, MB points out that the earliest texts of the Lukan baptismal passage read as a direct quote of Psalm 2:7. The Ascension theme is indeed interesting.

IMHO, there are more fruitful parallels with targumic and midrashic retellings of the akedah. Mark seems to allude to Isaac's near sacrifice in such a way that an observant listener will understand the focus of Christ's ministry, that it leads to him becoming a sacrifice for us.

As Jacob Neusner and Boccaccini have ably demonstrated, we should be looking at Juadaisms (plural) at this point, and not just one Judaism. Given the fractured nature of second temple literature and groupings, I think everything we can get our hands on should be considered potentially fruitful. But you definitely have a point about the critical role of the akedah.

[USU78]

IMHO, there are more fruitful parallels with targumic and midrashic retellings of the akedah. Mark seems to allude to Isaac's near sacrifice in such a way that an observant listener will understand the focus of Christ's ministry, that it leads to him becoming a sacrifice for us.

Some ironies/parallels then:

Isaac was the son of the covenant promised to Abraham, born when Abraham dwelt in a tent; the Master was promised Son, indispensible to the covenant, as shown at His brisat the Temple.

Isaac went up the mountain; the Master went down into Jordan.

Isaac was bound by his father; the Master u]freed Himself from earth's bounds by His resurrection.

I don't see evidence of an ascension until the Mount of Transfiguration, but I'm willing to learn.