A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[maklelan]

Hahah, this is true of most of us who study in the ancient near east fields isn't it? The latching on to our personal areas of interest. Most are fairly nice. Although I do hear Ehrman (more Greek of course) is quite the scary professor if you take a class from him. Maybe it's a New vs Old Testament thing? Those young Greek people....

If anyone knows Dave Nielsen, he's reported that presenting to a packed house at SBL has nothing on presenting a paper in Ehrman's class.

[Thunderfire]

That is a fine article Dr. Peterson and I enjoyed reading it. Yet when I read this chapter a slightly different message emerges for me. Yes, Nephi had the same dream as his father and then has an angel come to share the interpretation. And yes, it is remarkable that immediately Nephi see's a virgin carrying a child as interpretation regarding the tree of life. Yet I also find other aspects of the dream which gave me a slightly different interpretation I would like to share. (Of course, the scripture references will be from the rlds versification-forgive me for that)

1) At first he is approached by the Spirit in the form of a man which he knew to be the Spirit of the Lord, speaking to him as a man speaks with a man. I have interpreted this as the same Jesus who appeared to others prior to his birth, sharing things which must come to pass including his own birth, crucifixion, and resurrection (visiting the brother of Jared, Gideon, Joshua, Moses, and others).

2) Then the Spirit of the Lord departs and another angel comes to complete the lesson. Nephi is shown Jerusalem (and other cities), the virgin Mary and how she is carried away by the Spirit, then how she holds the Holy child in her arms, with the angel proclaiming, "Behold, the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" So the dream no longer focuses on the virgin Mary, but on the Eternal Christ.

3) Then the angel asks, "Do you know the meaning of the tree which your father saw?" Where Nephi says, "It represents the love of God, which sheds itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men". Then the vision changed where Nephi saw Jesus going forth among the children of men, ministering to them, and how they fell at his feet and worshiped. The rest of the chapter speaks of the work Jesus would do.

So with this, I never saw this passage as pointing people to the importance of the virgin Mary. It is all about Jesus. She was not the love of God, Jesus is. Her "whiteness and beauty" was denoted by the closeness and favor she received in relationship to her closeness to the Lord.

I find the prospects interesting when comparing the tree of life in Nephi

[zerinus]

Some might find this of interest:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/17828/Daniel-Peterson-How-Nephi-understood-the-Tree-of-Life-and-why-the-Book-of-Mormon-is-an-ancient-record?s_cid=voices&utm_source=voices

I think that you have got your interpretation of 1 Nephi 11 wrong. I recall we had this discussion once before, so I am not sure if it would serve a useful purpose to go through it again; but I am willing to try if you really want.

I don't claim to have any expertise in Near Eastern studies. My expertise, if I have any, is in the Book of Mormon; and I think you have got that one wrong. And if you have got that one wrong, chances are you have had everything else wrong as well, because it will have a domino effect in knocking down the rest of your arguments. Your entire thesis hinges on the correct interpretation of 1 Nephi 11. If that is wrong, then everything else will be wrong too.

[volgadon]

As I recall, your arguments didn't hold water, Zerinus.

[zerinus]

As I recall, your arguments didn't hold water, Zerinus.

You should also recall that your opinion doesn't count a lot with me.

[ttribe]

You should also recall that your opinion doesn't count a lot with me.

Typical Zerinus response.

[zerinus]

Typical Zerinus response.

Hadn't expected better from ttribe.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Guys, don't ruin this thread with pointless blatherings.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I don't claim to have any expertise in Near Eastern studies. My expertise, if I have any, is in the Book of Mormon; and I think you have got that one wrong. And if you have got that one wrong, chances are you have had everything else wrong as well, because it will have a domino effect in knocking down the rest of your arguments. Your entire thesis hinges on the correct interpretation of 1 Nephi 11. If that is wrong, then everything else will be wrong too.

Let's look at a few points of proper interpretation:

1) Nephi lived in or around Jerusalem circa 600 BC.

2) The vision would have been recorded within no later than 80 years, but occurred close to 600 BC (we don't know when Nephi actually wrote the vision down in it's final form).

3) Those who were around at that period of time would likely best be able to interpret Nephi's writings. The next group would be those who study extensively both the language and the culture of that time period and people. We can follow that with familiarity in ancient symbolism in general, followed somewhere far in the back by American (or other Nationalities) who know little of the nuances of such cultures nor do they have any deep understanding of the linguistics of that culture.

4) Item 3 does not mean that you Zerinus, nor any other lay person cannot have powerful and new, refreshing insights, both by the power of logic on what you do have available and sometimes simply because you are not saddled with thinking a particular way. I mention this as point 4 because I want to be clear I am not saying your lack of training in this field prevents you from being right.

5) That said, I am fairly proficient in ancient Hebrew and have read I think every article I know of on the topic of Asherah published since the 1600's (maybe earlier?). Maklelan is definitely MUCH more proficient in Hebrew (and a few other dead languages) than I am and has a broader knowledge of the field of studies. I don't know what he currently focuses on. My focus in on linguistic evolution and the period of Kings. Dr. Peterson is the foremost scholar in the church on all things Islamic, and in the course of his studies has a very large knowledge of the middle east and ancient symbolism. Volgadon was raised a Jew. I think his Hebrew is pretty good, at least on a modern level (I can barely understand the modern stuff). By good, I mean he is fluent. David Bokovoy is also trained in the ancient near eastern field (I think he just finished or is finishing his doctorate). I recall previous threads on the topic where he mostly agrees with Dr. Peterson's thesis. Kerry Shirts, who is a self-taught genius, also agrees. I think you are seeing a trend here....

6) So what we see is that every single person with some (or a ton) or proficiency in the texts, language, symbolism, etc of that period of time see the connection clearly and read 1 Nephi 11 as such. You do not. I appreciate your interest in the topic and participation. If Dan was a man on his own or with only one or two supporters with others against him, I would look more at your views. However, he is not. We all pretty much agree with him on the primary thesis (even while disagreeing on a few tangential issues). Your reading is very valid for someone who isn't familiar with the language and culture of the time. Those who are simply read it differently, and most likely, more correctly.

[mercyngrace]

I think that you have got your interpretation of 1 Nephi 11 wrong. I recall we had this discussion once before, so I am not sure if it would serve a useful purpose to go through it again; but I am willing to try if you really want.

I don't claim to have any expertise in Near Eastern studies. My expertise, if I have any, is in the Book of Mormon; and I think you have got that one wrong. And if you have got that one wrong, chances are you have had everything else wrong as well, because it will have a domino effect in knocking down the rest of your arguments. Your entire thesis hinges on the correct interpretation of 1 Nephi 11. If that is wrong, then everything else will be wrong too.

Zerinus,

I'm interested in reading your alternative explanation of 1 Nephi 11. Did you blog on it or discuss it in a thread? Would you mind providing a link.

Thanks,

MnG

[Skylla]

Anyone throwing insults will be banned from the thread.

Skylla

[etana]

Strangely enough, I just ordered both Dever's and Smith's books yesterday. Glad to see this topic revisited.

Thanks for the discretion Dr Peterson, for not connecting all the dots. And you really do look like Ming the Merciless!

[etana]

Anyone throwing insults will be banned from the thread.

Skylla

Oops, what I meant to say was that Ming the Merciless is a fine looking gentleman and that Dr Peterson gives him a run for his money.

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

I hesitate to pick a fight in a field not my own but here goes nothing venture nothing gained . I always viewed the tree of life in Nephi 11 as referring to Christ as other posters above have mentioned. Nephi asks what the tree means and is taught in vision about the condescension of God and is shown Christ in the arms of his mother and told he is the son of God immediately after this the angel asks if he knows what the tree means. It is really not a huge leap to equate the tree with the "condescension of God" i.e.(Christ). In fact Nephi replies the tree represents the "love of God". God sending his son is explicitly described as the "love of God" in the Bible see 1 John 4 (9-10):

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

So Nephi is shown a vision of Christ in order to answer his question what the tree represents and then describes the tree exactly as Christ is described in the Bible. To me at least Christ equals the tree of life is not an unreasonable interpretation of this chapter. And I am not alone a FAIR author came to the exact same conclusion see:

"The Tree of Life, a Personification of Christ"

Abstract: Throughout history in many cultures, man has looked to the tree of life as a symbol of eternal life. It has been typified in varying forms according to the culture's perception of the universe. Many early Christians saw the tree of life as a personification of Jesus Christ. It may be that the tree of life vision in the Book of Mormon was presented to introduce the Savior and his ministry. We may learn much about the Lord's calling and personality by combining a study of various cultural ideas of the tree of life with the testimonies of the prophets contained in the scriptures.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=21

I am willing to concede the Asherah reading is also a reasonable interpretation of the text. As I said I am not trained in this area and accept the conclusions of those who are. But if Asherah is just one reasonable way to read the passage out of many it is difficult for me to see how the fact Asherah is a reasonable way to read this passage is strong evidence for antiquity. Sure if the Asherah reading was clearly the only valid and reasonable interpretation than I could see how this would be good evidence but since it's not who cares? A critic could respond that is just one reasonable interpretation out of many and other reasonable interpretations do not require an ancient near east connection. And simply conclude the alternate reasonable interpretations that don't require a near east connection are what Joseph Smith was shooting for when he wrote the BOM i.e.(the "tree" refers to Christ not Asherah).

Best,

Uncertain

[etana]

Hi All,

I hesitate to pick a fight in a field not my own but here goes nothing venture nothing gained . I always viewed the tree of life in Nephi 11 as referring to Christ as other posters above have mentioned. Nephi asks what the tree means and is taught in vision about the condescension of God and is shown Christ in the arms of his mother and told he is the son of God immediately after this angel asks if he knows what the tree means. It is really not a huge leap to equate the tree with the "condescension of God" i.e.(Christ). In fact Nephi replies the tree represents the "love of God". God sending his son is explicility described as the "love of God" in the Bible see 1 John 4 (9-10):

May i suggest that he is not the Tree, but the fruit. The fruit of the Love of God that when eaten pays the price of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge. The one brings suffering, death and exile from God, the other brings Joy, overcomes death and re-opens the way to paradise.

[Mike Reed]

Dan Peterson wrote: "The inclusion in 1 Nephi of an authentically pre-exilic religious symbol that could scarcely have been derived by a New York farm boy from his Bible strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is, indeed, an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition."

For the sake of argument, lets assume that your interpretation of the Tree is correct. Do you consider Adam Clarke's commentary on the Holy Bible (published in New York) to be a "scarcely" available source?

Second question: Compared to your ANE studies, Dan, how much time do you spend actually searching possible 19th century sources for parallels like these?

[Joseph Antley]

For the sake of argument, lets assume that your interpretation of the Tree is correct. Do you consider Adam Clarke's commentary on the Holy Bible (published in New York) to be a "scarcely" available source?

I don't see how Clarke's "asherah means a tree" affects this much; if Joseph Smith had been familiar with this and if the Book of Mormon was completely a product of Joseph Smith's mind, we should expect the word asherah, or some ancient goddess depiction, associated with the Tree of Life instead of the Virgin Mary. Clarke does not even mention that Asherah was a goddess, or that Asherah/the "grove" was feminine at all.

In other words, unless there are other available sources that I'm not familiar with, Dr. Peterson is correct in stating that such an ancient symbol could "scarcely" have been derived by Joseph Smith from contemporary sources.

[Uncertain]

May i suggest that he is not the Tree, but the fruit. The fruit of the Love of God that when eaten pays the price of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge. The one brings suffering, death and exile from God, the other brings Joy, overcomes death and re-opens the way to paradise.

Sure, I can see this. But as I mentioned to me there appears to be multiple legitimate ways to interpret the text. Hence I don't see why the interpretation that requires Asherah is strong evidence for antiquity. After all if the author(s) of the BOM were simply trying to use the tree of life as a symbol for Christ. This does not require any kind of deep connection with antiquity.

Best,

Uncertain

[Mike Reed]

I don't see how Clarke's "asherah means a tree" affects this much; if Joseph Smith had been familiar with this and if the Book of Mormon was completely a product of Joseph Smith's mind, we should expect the word asherah, or some ancient goddess depiction, associated with the Tree of Life instead of the Virgin Mary. Clarke does not even mention that Asherah was a goddess, or that Asherah/the "grove" was feminine at all.

In other words, unless there are other available sources that I'm not familiar with, Dr. Peterson is correct in stating that such an ancient symbol could "scarcely" have been derived by Joseph Smith from contemporary sources.

I am not sure why Asherah as a name is important, since it isn't used as a name in the BoM either. Anyhow... read the paragraph that follows: Goddesses Astarte and Venus are both mentioned.

[ebeddoulos]

For the sake of argument, lets assume that your interpretation of the Tree is correct. Do you consider Adam Clarke's commentary on the Holy Bible (published in New York) to be a "scarcely" available source?

Second question: Compared to your ANE studies, Dan, how much time do you spend actually searching possible 19th century sources for parallels like these?

Just for grins and giggles, Mr. Reed, please inform us where in Adam Clarke's Commentary do you believe Joseph Smith might have found his inspiration for the Goddess as illustrated by Professor Daniel Peterson. To help you along, I'll even provide the Biblical verses which Adam Clarke found relevant for comments on Asherah. You may also wish to peruse his comments at the end of 1 Kings 21 as he goes into some detail concerning his understanding Asherah.

Jdg 6:26; 1Ki 16:31; 1Ki 16:33; 1Ki 18:19; 1Ki 22:6; 2Ki 13:6; 2Ki 21:3; 2Ki 21:7; 2Ki 21:26; 2Ki 23:6; 2Ki 23:7; Eze 13:20.

Second Question: Did you actually read Adam Clarke or did you just think that us poor, ignorant, knuckle draggin', sloped foreheaded Mormons would not be acquainted with his works so you could get away with just tossing it out without recourse? And yes, this is a call for references.

[Daniel Peterson]

For the sake of argument, lets assume that your interpretation of the Tree is correct. Do you consider Adam Clarke's commentary on the Holy Bible (published in New York) to be a "scarcely" available source?

No. I have no idea how accessible it was.

Nor do I consider it particularly significant.

I don't believe that I've said anything about "'scarcely' available sources."

That there were asherah poles in the ancient Levant is something that I had known for many years before the thesis of "Nephi and His Asherah" occurred to me -- a thesis that goes considerably beyond that fact.

Second question: Compared to your ANE studies, Dan, how much time do you spend actually searching possible 19th century sources for parallels like these?

I read some nineteenth-century sources, but certainly don't claim a specialist's knowledge of them. On the whole, I rely upon ardent critics of Mormonism, who are deeply invested in locating possible nineteenth-century sources for Mormon scripture and theology, to do that kind of work. They put a great deal of effort into the project, and, on the whole, I'm satisfied with their labors.

[Joseph Antley]

I am not sure why Asherah as a name is important, since it isn't used as a name in the BoM either. Anyhow... read the paragraph that follows: Goddesses Astarte and Venus are both mentioned.

True, but the text doesn't associate a tree, least of all the Tree of Life, with the goddesses.

If Clarke's text was indeed the inspiration for this part of the Book of Mormon text, then Joseph Smith was much more intelligent and creative and the Book of Mormon text much more complex than even the most generous critic has ever contended.

[John Larsen]

Let me help you John. The statement - "...they can't even fathom..." might have something to do with the reaction you received.

Okay, ttribe, Protector of Truth and Fairness on Internet Mormon boards, which accusation was more over the top, mine or Peterson's?

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, ttribe, Protector of Truth and Fairness on Internet Mormon boards, which accusation was more over the top, mine or Peterson's?

What "accusation"?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I read some nineteenth-century sources, but certainly don't claim a specialist's knowledge of them. On the whole, I rely upon ardent critics of Mormonism, who are deeply invested in locating possible nineteenth-century sources for Mormon scripture and theology, to do that kind of work. They put a great deal of effort into the project, and, on the whole, I'm satisfied with their labors.

That may be one of the greatest responses on MADB ever.