Dan Peterson's Nephi/Asherah Article is a Bunch of Bull

[David T]

In the thread on Satan and the Book of Mormon, Zerinus stated that the connections between the symbols of Nephi's Tree of Life vision and ANE culture were tenuous and silly. A link was provided to Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article. This was dismissed a poor scholarship, and was given this explanation:

I'd love to know your standard of 'Good Scholarship'.

It is easier to tell you what is wrong with that article, than to explain what is my standard of "good scholarship". I will quote from the article:

Quote

Nephi's vision of the tree of life, among the best-known passages in the Book of Mormon, expands upon the vision received earlier by his father, Lehi.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof. . . . (1 Nephi 11:8

[Brant Gardner]

Zerinus' argument strikes me as the kind you get when you interpret scripture backwards instead of historically. If you assume that your present understanding absolutely dictates past meaning, you can justify Zerinus' position.

However, if you actually try to understand the context, I have to with Peterson on this. The problem is the absolutely uncomfortable transition from tree to person in the vision. There is no reason for it and no connection. Without the understanding of the imagery of a tree in ancient Israel at that time there is no logical way to move from botany to biology.

As for the definition of condescension, I agree that there is no negative connotation. In spite of the citation of modern scripture, the textual use of the term refers to the Savior's change of location - from heavenly being to earthly being (which meaning flows through the other verses cited, but Zerinus seems to focus on a different aspect).

In historical context, Peterson is correct that there was an accepted association between a tree (and the tree of Lehi and Nephi's vision is different from the standard tree of life concept--necessitating the explanation) and a female mother/mother of deity figure. That cultural perception provides a very smooth and natural transition between the vision of the tree and the explanation of the virgin--a transition that is jarringly missing otherwise.

I confess that I am not certain of the nature of Zerinus' objection. His disputation of the Asherah information is a simple declaration--which evidence I have read clearly contradicts his opinion. His suggestion of the meaning of condescension doesn't alter what is going on in that part of the text. I just don't see anything of substance here.

(though I have to admit that saying that it is a "bunch of bull" tempts me to make other historical conclusions, such as the fact that if it really is symbolic bull, then perhaps he is saying that it is correct, the bull being a symbol of Yahweh).

[David T]

it that saying that it is a "bunch of bull" tempts me to make other historical conclusions, such as the fact that if it really is symbolic bull, then perhaps he is saying that it is correct, the bull being a symbol of Yahweh).

[bluebell]

I guess we are all entitled to our opinion.

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks for posting this here, so that the thread on Satan in the Book of Mormon won't get sidetracked by Dan's obsession with Canaanite fertility symbols.

I'm going to share a post I made on this topic a couple of months ago, because I feel it actually provides some clarity on Zerinus's concerns.

In 1998, Daniel Peterson published a fascinating proposal concerning a possible Book of Mormon allusion to the Northwest Semitic goddess Asherah. Peterson

[maklelan]

Zerinus has proved his points with clear and definitive statements attributed to himself that any kind of association of Old Testament texts and Ancient Near Eastern imagery is contrived, and that a Prophet of God would never re-apply Canaanite and other familiar and popular local myths and symbols to teach a message of the Great Jehovah.

But ancient Israel was Canaanite. The us vs. them dichotomy is entirely artificial and derives more from the elitist scribal culture of the Deuteronomic tradition than from any actual bifurcation of culture and religion. As an example, Psalm 29 is a direct and explicit borrowing from Baal's hymns of praise. If Zerinus could explain why this is without recognizing a shared ideological and theological matrix, then maybe he'd have my attention. But he can't.

Ouch. Forget Malevalent Stalker. I think Zerinus' definitive assertion alone has potential to expose and ruin Dan Peterson's career. Any thoughts? Rebuttals?

Zerinus has been getting on my case as well, calling aspects of the Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible tenuous and weak with no support. Unfortunately, I've not seen anything in the way of a real argument, just naked assertion, which is atrocious argumentation. The above is the same. This particular methodology is, of course, cumbersome to combat, since there's nothing to respond to. If someone takes a look at an argument and just says "Nu-uh!" the author can point again to the argument, which has not been addressed, or he can simply say "Yu-hu!" Providing additional argumentation is annoying because it's usually all included in the initial argument. If the author can't or won't produce additional lines of argument, the respondent feels like he's won, even though he's quite literally said nothing more than "Nu-uh!" Zerinus does not once actually engage Peterson's argument. He simply makes assertions, like the following:

The tree has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary.

He comes to a false and arbitrary conclusion that the tree in some sense must represent Mary, and then he puts together an elaborately constructed argument to prove it that is entirely contrived and baseless.

And this "Asherah" thing he has put together is a load of rubbish basically.

He has wrested the scriptures and does not understand them.

Zerinus' own exegesis is also methodologically weak. He tries to answer the question "What is there in the vision of the virgin mother and child that causes Nephi to realize the meaning of the tree?" He does so basically by showing that the condescension of God is the primary focus of the text and then simply asserting that the tree is a representation of God's love, manifested in his condescending:

That is what the vision of the "virgin mother and child" was intended to convey to Nephi. That was the condescension of God. And that is where the tree of life comes into it. It is a representation of that "love" manifested by God in the coming of Christ into the world to humble Himself as the common man, and die to redeem all mankind. Mary basically has nothing, or very little to do with it; and "Asherah" is a load of bull. That hopefully should explain to you why that article is not good scholarship.

Of course, this is simply repeating what Nephi said and doesn't actually show any connection between the tree and the love of God. His argument is a form of tautology (like "I'll get there when I get there"). He responds to the question "how does the tree symbolize the love of God?" by stating, essentially, "the tree is a symbol of the love of God." Let's examine the passages anew.

Nephi wants to know what the tree means. He is asked, "do you know the condescension of God?" He responds that he does not know the meaning of all things. No connection is yet made by Nephi. His question hasn't been answered, so there's obviously no preexisting symbolic association in Nephi's mind between the tree and the condescension of God. Zerinus' explanation fails to account for how Nephi came to the realization that the tree represented the love of God. It must have taken place between the question mentioned above and the repetition of the question, or within vv. 18-20. The exclusive object of those three verses is Mary. The first verse mentions her virginity, the second mentions that she was taken away by the spirit, and the third mentions her virginity and her bearing a child. At some point in these three verses it clicks in Nephi's mind.

A connection to Asherah is in no sense contrived, baseless, false, arbitrary, rubbish, or bull. Asherah (and most generic mother-goddesses) is represented in ancient Near Eastern iconography as a fruitful tree (emphasizing divine fertility). Here are some examples. The following shows a king/deity nursing at a tree representing the mother goddess:

The Taanah cult stand represents Yhwh and Asherah. The first and third registers (from the bottom) show Asherah, first as a woman and then as a tree:

A similar scene, with the same two ibexes is found in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, which mention "Yhwh of Samaria and his asherah":

This tree is also known as the tree of life. The abundance of the fruit (generally from the date palm) makes life possible in the harsh climate of the Near East. Asherah is also considered the mother of the gods. At Ugarit she is qnyt 'lm, or "Progenitress of the Gods." The gods of the Divine Council (the bn 'il, "sons of El") are known as the "seventy sons of Athirat" (the Ugaritic rendering of Asherah). The connection to Mary is quite easy to make. Zerinus' assertions fail because he hasn't engaged a single word of Peterson's article. He hasn't engaged them because he cannot. He doesn't have the skill set or the resources to deal with this kind of argumentation, and so he must rely on simple naked assertion.

[David Bokovoy]

But ancient Israel was Canaanite. The us vs. them dichotomy is entirely artificial and derives more from the elitist scribal culture of the Deteronomic tradition than from any actual bifurcation of culture and religion. As an example, Psalm 29 is a direct and explicit borrowing from Baal's hymns of praise. If Zerinus could explain why this is without recognizing a shared ideological and theological matrix, then maybe he'd have my attention. But he can't.

That's exactly correct. I'm going to repost my comment on this issue from another thread that Zerinus has yet to acknowledge:

There's a reason why you frequently find yourself in greater harmony with Rob than with the LDS posters using this forum. Your approach to scripture is more Evangelical than it is LDS. By rejecting the fact that Old Testament texts have been influenced by other Near Eastern sources, you maintain the exact same philosophical approach to scripture that Rob's IRR organization puts forth in their criticism of the Book of Abraham. Note how their approach to scripture precisely parallels the ideology you embrace:

[scooby]

I cannot speak for DCP, but I don't know that he has anywhere stated that the tree cannot, or does not, represent Jesus Christ, or even that Asherah imagery cannot itself bolster or enrich a Son of God reading of the text

[LifeOnaPlate]

Srsly, you guys rule.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dan Peterson's Nephi/Asherah Article is a Bunch of Bull

Which end of the Bull...

This one

Or this one

[Olavarria]

I once took an Egyptian Religion class at UCLA and I grinned to myself when the professor showed us this picture.

[David T]

Srsly, you guys rule.

I'll be honest, I set up this thread just to get, at the very least, David and Mak the opportunity to come over and do their thing. As a complete amateur, I've been trying to research as much ancient Israelite / ANE history/culture/religion as my time and budget allows, from translations of primary texts. My own observations match the experts - that entire world was completely interconnected.

[Mars]

Heck of a thread. I don't have any Homestar Runner-esque praise for you

[zerinus]

In the thread on Satan and the Book of Mormon, Zerinus stated that the connections between the symbols of Nephi's Tree of Life vision and ANE culture were tenuous and silly. A link was provided to Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article. This was dismissed a poor scholarship, and was given this explanation:

Zerinus has proved his points with clear and definitive statements attributed to himself that any kind of association of Old Testament texts and Ancient Near Eastern imagery is contrived, and that a Prophet of God would never re-apply Canaanite and other familiar and popular local myths and symbols to teach a message of the Great Jehovah.

If you are going to copy and paste my posts, at least you could do a more decent job of formatting it like I had done. Those who are interested can read my original post here.

Ouch. Forget Malevalent Stalker. I think Zerinus' definitive assertion alone has potential to expose and ruin Dan Peterson's career. Any thoughts? Rebuttals?

That just exposes your idiocy. Nothing was further from my mind. And by the way, you are not doing Daniel any favors by starting this thread. He knows that I am right a lot better than any of you guys do. Nothing is worse than having a fool for a friend.

[maklelan]

If you are going to copy and paste my posts, at least you could do a more decent job of formatting it like I had done. Those who are interested can read my original post here.

That just exposes your idiocy. Nothing was further from my mind. And by the way, you are not doing Daniel any favors by starting this thread. He knows that I am right a lot better than any of you guys do. Nothing is worse than having a fool for a friend.

I don't think "idiocy" or "fool" are appropriate responses to anything in this thread. We can criticize each others methodologies and conclusions without getting personal.

[Daniel Peterson]

And by the way, you are not doing Daniel any favors by starting this thread. He knows that I am right a lot better than any of you guys do.

If I may be permitted to speak for myself: I don't believe you to be right, and I don't see that you've actually even made an argument.

I stand by the article. Especially in its longer form.

[consiglieri]

Nothing is worse than having a fool for a friend.

I can think of one worse thing . . .

[zerinus]

If I may be permitted to speak for myself: I don't believe you to be right, and I don't see that you've actually even made an argument.

I stand by the article. Especially in its longer form.

Thank you Daniel. We agree to disagree.

[zerinus]

I can think of one worse thing . . .

I do too.

[Brant Gardner]

Especially in its longer form.

Yes, I liked that one better as well.

[volgadon]

Thank you Daniel. We agree to disagree.

One of the more arrogant statements I've come across in ages.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thank you Daniel. We agree to disagree.

heh, no apologies for the idiot remark, I suppose?

True story: As a new missionary in Wisconsin a few elders alerted me to the old offer of a free trial copy of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I sent in for mine, got a nice little membership card too. After reading the first few pages of the Asherah article I wondered to myself, who is this Peterson apostate?

But times and minds change, it seems. I'm glad I hung onto the journal now.

*as a clarifier: I don't believe DCP is an apostate, my point is that as a young missionary I had no clue what sort of argument he was trying to make. I've since revisited the article and enjoyed it quite a bit. Lest anyone try to use my comment out of context.

[zerinus]

heh, no apologies for the idiot remark, I suppose?

I have no apologies to make. I stand by what I have said, just like he does I suppose.

[Zakuska]

In the thread on Satan and the Book of Mormon, Zerinus stated that the connections between the symbols of Nephi's Tree of Life vision and ANE culture were tenuous and silly. A link was provided to Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article. This was dismissed a poor scholarship, and was given this explanation:

Zerinus has proved his points with clear and definitive statements attributed to himself that any kind of association of Old Testament texts and Ancient Near Eastern imagery is contrived, and that a Prophet of God would never re-apply Canaanite and other familiar and popular local myths and symbols to teach a message of the Great Jehovah.

Ouch. Forget Malevalent Stalker. I think Zerinus' definitive assertion alone has potential to expose and ruin Dan Peterson's career. Any thoughts? Rebuttals?

So much for our modern Light on th true canaaniteish Background of Pslam 82 and the council of the gods.

Forget the fact that Paul (a prophet) quoted and relied upon pagan writings to support his gospel. :palmface:

[maklelan]

I have no apologies to make. I stand by what I have said, just like he does I suppose.

The difference is that people have directly engaged your argument and have pointed out serious methodological and logical flaws in it. You've not responded to those, so saying "I stand by what I have said" doesn't really get the job done.