The Texts Among the Dead Sea Scrolls

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, it was partly perverted then. Luckily, Jesus knew which ones to use, and which ones not to use.

This is very interesting information.

As I said, the Reorganized Saints teach that the Great & Abominable Church

goes back to Cain and Lucifer.

But Mormons I have spoken to read 1st Nephi to mean that the "Gentile"

spoken of there, in the Church of the Devil, came AFTER John the Revelator.

Do the current LDS General Authorities teach that the biblical texts

preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls already have many covenants and

other plain and precious parts of the Christian Gospel removed from them?

If so, I'd appreciate reading the 1st Presidency message or apostolic

counsel which clarifies this issue.

UD

[Kevin Christensen]

Dale,

So much would be clear if you would read the essays I linked. It has to do with the princicple of "Seek and ye shall find..."

For record, Barker's "Text and Context" paper is not concerned with Josiah and the Deuteronmists, nor is 1 Nephi 13. Jacob 4:13 provides a contempory assessment of their efforts, the "blindness" and "looking beyond the mark". 1 Nephi 13 concerns what happened to the Hebrew scriptures after the NT apostles, and Barker tells the story about how the Hebrew canon was both determined and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and how the Christians then adopted that edited Hebrew canon. She also describes how newly found records, including the DDS, illustrate that the scriptures used by the Christians was different than the Masoretic Hebrew, later adopted by the Christians.

There is evidence of 20 copies of 1 Enoch at Qumran, compared to 21 copies of Isaiah, and 5 of Jeremiah. Both the Jews and the Christians abandoned 1 Enoch, despite 1 Enoch being the single most influencial non-canonical text for our current New Testament. 1 Enoch is a repository of High Priestly traditions. An important dimension of Barker's case is how the life and mission of Jesus must be approached in terms of Temple theology, and how the scholarship of the past several hundred years has systematically neglected the temple and priesthood. Not co-incidentally, the "plain and precious things" lost in the early second century, and recovered since the publication of the Book of Mormon help restore temple perspectives.

For textual losses from the Masoretic Hebrew, and restoration in the DDS, here is one example, among several from Barker's essay:

In Deuteronomy 32 the Qumran texts are significantly different from the MT. The Qumran text of

Deuteronomy 32.8 says that the Most High divided out the nations of the earth according to

[Tribunal]

Dale,

So much would be clear if you would read the essays I linked. It has to do with the princicple of "Seek and ye shall find..."

For record, Barker's "Text and Context" paper is not concerned with Josiah and the Deuteronmists, nor is 1 Nephi 13. Jacob 4:13 provides a contempory assessment of their efforts, the "blindness" and "looking beyond the mark". 1 Nephi 13 concerns what happened to the Hebrew scriptures after the NT apostles, and Barker tells the story about how the Hebrew canon was both determined and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and how the Christians then adopted that edited Hebrew canon. She also describes how newly found records, including the DDS, illustrate that the scriptures used by the Christians was different than the Masoretic Hebrew, later adopted by the Christians.

There is evidence of 20 copies of 1 Enoch at Qumran, compared to 21 copies of Isaiah, and 5 of Jeremiah. Both the Jews and the Christians abandoned 1 Enoch, despite 1 Enoch being the single most influencial non-canonical text for our current New Testament. 1 Enoch is a repository of High Priestly traditions. An important dimension of Barker's case is how the life and mission of Jesus must be approached in terms of Temple theology, and how the scholarship of the past several hundred years has systematically neglected the temple and priesthood. Not co-incidentally, the "plain and precious things" lost in the early second century, and recovered since the publication of the Book of Mormon help restore temple perspectives.

For textual losses from the Masoretic Hebrew, and restoration in the DDS, here is one example, among several from Barker's essay:

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Don't mean to derail this, but, where does Genesis 6:1 come into play? Is Jesus of the same class of being as the sons of God mentioned in Genesis? Did the other 'sons of God' fall because they took the 'daughters of men' as wives?

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

So much would be clear if you would read the essays I linked. It has to do with the princicple of "Seek and ye shall find..."

For record, Barker's "Text and Context" paper is not concerned with Josiah and the Deuteronmists, nor is 1 Nephi 13. Jacob 4:13 provides a contempory assessment of their efforts, the "blindness" and "looking beyond the mark". 1 Nephi 13 concerns what happened to the Hebrew scriptures after the NT apostles, and Barker tells the story about how the Hebrew canon was both determined and edited in response to the rise of Christianity, and how the Christians then adopted that edited Hebrew canon. She also describes how newly found records, including the DDS, illustrate that the scriptures used by the Christians was different than the Masoretic Hebrew, later adopted by the Christians.

There is evidence of 20 copies of 1 Enoch at Qumran, compared to 21 copies of Isaiah, and 5 of Jeremiah. Both the Jews and the Christians abandoned 1 Enoch, despite 1 Enoch being the single most influencial non-canonical text for our current New Testament. 1 Enoch is a repository of High Priestly traditions. An important dimension of Barker's case is how the life and mission of Jesus must be approached in terms of Temple theology, and how the scholarship of the past several hundred years has systematically neglected the temple and priesthood. Not co-incidentally, the "plain and precious things" lost in the early second century, and recovered since the publication of the Book of Mormon help restore temple perspectives.

For textual losses from the Masoretic Hebrew, and restoration in the DDS, here is one example, among several from Barker's essay:

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I appreciate your reply -- and I will look more deeply into the matter.

Do you agree with TAO, that the scriptures available to Jesus and his

first disciples were "partly perverted then" by the Gentile G&A Church;

but "Luckily, Jesus knew which ones to use, and which ones not to use?"

If this is current LDS teaching, then how are we today to know "which ones

to use, and which ones not to use?"

I agree that texts like Enoch were much upon the minds of some of the

NT writers -- and that "temple theology" will be helpful in understanding

how the Judaism of Jesus' day different from that of a later period.

But it is the Book of Mormon itself that is supposed to restore the

"fulness of the gospel" in supplying the covenants and "plain and

precious parts" of the Christian Gospel excised from the Bible.

So, I will not be going so far as to study modern LDS temple endowments,

in order to discover those texts closest to the "purity" that Nephi

says once existed. Nephi does not quote any significant passages from

Enoch -- although his vision itself might be compared to Enoch material.

What would be particularly useful is a commentary upon the DSS biblical

texts, documenting what "plain and precious parts" are missing from

them ---- or, if the excision of such Gospel fulness came by the hand

of the Gentile AFTER the time of John the Revelator, then that demonstrated.

I remain interested, but would rather see you quote General Authorities

than non-LDS writers, when it comes to articulating Mormon doctrine.

UD

.

[Zakuska]

If I'm not mistaken, the book of enoch is found among the DSS, is quoted by NT authors, and was removed from the cannon by the Greek speaking gentile church in Rome. I believe this would fit all of Nephis descriptions.

[Uncle Dale]

If I'm not mistaken, the book of enoch is found among the DSS, is quoted by NT authors, and was removed from the cannon by the Greek speaking gentile church in Rome. I believe this would fit all of Nephis descriptions.

The Book of Mormon itself is supposed to contain

the fulness of the Gospel. Once Nephi makes his

"small plates,"he says that the "plain and precious"

material (same words as what was excised from the Bible)

will indeed be included upon them, and upon the plates

filled out by his Nephite successors.

Therefore, we need not look to exterior texts in order

to test Nephi. Such examinations can be relegated to

footnote status, because the are not the main focus of

what Nephi himself is saying.

If exterior texts interest you, then a search might be

made for Zenock, Neum and Zenos -- who knew the passion

story at least 600 years in advance, but are not found

in the canonical scriptures nor the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However, nobody in this forum (other than TAO) seems

prepared to talk about my initial question -- whether

or not the biblical texts discovered among the Dead

Sea Scrolls were LATER corrupted by the hand of the

Gentile, in the period AFTER John the Revelator.

The traditional RLDS position is that the "Gentile"

spoken of in 1st Nephi goes back to Cain -- and that

the Bible was corrupted by the Mother of Harlots BEFORE

Jesus ever read the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue.

TAO, so far, is the only poster here who agrees with

the Reorganized LDS position.

So far as I can determine, Mormons are generally

implying that the "Gentile" Church of the Devil began

alteration of the Bible AFTER John the Revelator.

It would be helpful if somebody could quote the

current LDS leadership in regard to this issue.

UD

.

[Kevin Christensen]

Don't mean to derail this, but, where does Genesis 6:1 come into play? Is Jesus of the same class of being as the sons of God mentioned in Genesis? Did the other 'sons of God' fall because they took the 'daughters of men' as wives?

Without going into a huge derail, the Bible texts distinguish between the sons of El Elyon, all heavenly beings, including Yahweh (the Qumran Deut. 32:8-9), and the sons of Yahweh, all earthly beings in covenant relationships with him. (See Barker, The Great Angel, Chapter 1, "The Sons of God.") In the New Testament, Jesus is always a son of El Elyon, never a son of Yahweh. Rather, he was acknowledged as Yahweh incarnate. If you've read Nibley's Enoch the Prophet discussion of the Fallen Angel account in Genesis 6:1, the text is cryptic, and the interpretation have varied throughout history (pages 179-180). 1 Enoch as we have it sees them as heavenly beings who have fallen. Our Moses account describes human beings violating covenants (Moses 8:21). 1 Enoch describes fallen angels. The problem of interpretation comes when different situations (like the fall of angels in the war in heaven) becomes entangled with human history as prototype and metaphor. For example, the account of Amulon's wicked priests in Mosiah contains several allusions to the fallen angel accounts, making Amulon's priests into earthly counterparts of the fallen angels. I think that sort of mixed description leads to complicated interpretations of cryptic and abbreviated passages like Gen. 6:1.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[TAO]

If this is current LDS teaching, then how are we today to know "which ones

to use, and which ones not to use?"

Through the spirit. And also using the JST among other things.

[TAO]

TAO, so far, is the only poster here who agrees with

the Reorganized LDS position.

Lol, the LDS position is the same XD.

[Uncle Dale]

Through the spirit. And also using the JST among other things.

Can't argue with that -- especially the "other things" part.

Are you slyly trying to get on my good side, or something?

UD

[TAO]

Can't argue with that -- especially the "other things" part.

Are you slyly trying to get on my good side, or something?

UD

Na, it's just the truth lol. I didn't even know I was getting on your good side XD. You must be good at disguising such, because it wasn't even reflected in your tone 0.o.

[Kevin Christensen]

The Book of Mormon itself is supposed to contain

the fulness of the Gospel. Once Nephi makes his

"small plates,"he says that the "plain and precious"

material (same words as what was excised from the Bible)

will indeed be included upon them, and upon the plates

filled out by his Nephite successors.

I don't think restoring the plain and precious things necessarily means the same words. Rather, the same information and covenants.

[

Therefore, we need not look to exterior texts in order

to test Nephi. Such examinations can be relegated to

footnote status, because the are not the main focus of

what Nephi himself is saying.

Nevertheless Nephi says that after the appearance of the Book of Mormon other texts will come forth from the Gentiles and will restore those plain and precious things. One interestingly specific item is Nephi's 600 BCE understanding that "the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world." (1 Nephi 13:40).

Barker's work, which notes the importance of the Qumran Deut. 32:8-9, on Yahweh as a Son of El Elyon, the identification of the Lamb and Isaiah's Servant, the symbolism of the High Priest and of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, etc., makes exactly the same identification that 1 Nephi 13:40 predicts, and therefore, literally fulfills the prophesy. She used the exterior texts that came forth after the Book of Mormon to come to this understanding.

However, nobody in this forum (other than TAO) seems

prepared to talk about my initial question -- whether

or not the biblical texts discovered among the Dead

Sea Scrolls were LATER corrupted by the hand of the

Gentile, in the period AFTER John the Revelator.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden during the Roman Wars, which is exactly when John recieved his commission to write down the traditions that became our Book of Revelation. It is by comparing the Qumran texts with MT and other texts that Barker can observe the significance of the differences, which are not random, she observes, but occur in passages important to the Christians.

The traditional RLDS position is that the "Gentile"

spoken of in 1st Nephi goes back to Cain -- and that

the Bible was corrupted by the Mother of Harlots BEFORE

Jesus ever read the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue.

Interestingly Barker notes in The Revelation of Jesus Christ that the DDS Isaiah 53 is the only Hebrew scripture that speaks of a suffering anointed one, and therefore must be the version referred to by the resurrected Jesus in Luke 24:26, and that the Qumran Melchizdek text is crucial for understanding the significance of Jesus quote Isaiah 61 at the start of his ministry?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[urroner]

Through the spirit. And also using the JST among other things.

D&C 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha

[volgadon]

OK -- now that we have resolved that matter,

let's get back to 1st Nephi and the claims of

scriptural purity when still in the hands of the Jew.

Can we at least assume that Jesus and his first

disciples were accessing "pure" scripture? -- or had

the Gentile Church of the Devil already corrupted

even the scriptures that Jesus advised be "searched?"

I know that some scholars believe that the first

Christians were using the LXX -- but I simply want

to know what scrolls Nephi was citing as "pure."

UD

You seem to assume that the issue is a textual one. I recommend Martin S. Jaffe's Torah in the Mouth, which explores the relationship of written teaching to oral ones. Scriptures were read out loud, thus interpretation is a bigger issue than text. When Jesus advised the crowd to search the scriptures, they were to read them midrashicaly. I'm with Joseph Antley on this one.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Barker's work, which notes the importance of the Qumran Deut. 32:8-9, on Yahweh as a Son of El Elyon, the identification of the Lamb and Isaiah's Servant, the symbolism of the High Priest and of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, etc., makes exactly the same identification that 1 Nephi 13:40 predicts, and therefore, literally fulfills the prophesy. She used the exterior texts that came forth after the Book of Mormon to come to this understanding.

...

Yes -- but I am speaking of what was supposedly on the "plates of brass,"

--- wherein there was reportedly documentation that "surely did shew unto

the prophets of old, all things concerning" the advent of Jesus, his name,

his mother's name, all the details of his passion, etc.

If the "plates of brass" contained all of this proto-Christianity, and

the biblical texts of the DSS do NOT contain such information, then does

Barker cite Zenock, Neum, Zenos, etc. as proof that such details were

excised from the early Bible?

UD

[Kevin Christensen]

But it is the Book of Mormon itself that is supposed to restore the

"fulness of the gospel" in supplying the covenants and "plain and

precious parts" of the Christian Gospel excised from the Bible.

Ever since I read John Welch's first notice of the temple context of 3 Nephi 11-27, that restoration or plain and precious things has become increasingly obvious to me.

So, I will not be going so far as to study modern LDS temple endowments,

in order to discover those texts closest to the "purity" that Nephi

says once existed.

I sent Margaret Barker a copy of John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, and she was so impressed that he recently published a newer version of the same approach, The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple. And she insisted that he retain mention that he came to this understanding by way of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi does not quote any significant passages from

Enoch -- although his vision itself might be compared to Enoch material.

I think that Nephi did have Enoch material, though not necessarily the same that we have now.

What would be particularly useful is a commentary upon the DSS biblical

texts, documenting what "plain and precious parts" are missing from

them ----

Start with Deut. 32:8-9 and the Melchizedek text. Margaret builds on those in The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, which in turn, converges beautifully with D&C 93. Not the text, but the ideas expressed in the text, and the context most illuminates their meaning.

or, if the excision of such Gospel fulness came by the hand

of the Gentile AFTER the time of John the Revelator, then that demonstrated.

See her essay, "The Secret Tradition."

I remain interested, but would rather see you quote General Authorities

than non-LDS writers, when it comes to articulating Mormon doctrine.

UD

They are "General" Authorities, not "Only" Authorities. And the doctrine that they are specifically auhtorized to spread is spelled out in 3 Nephi 11:31-35

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

You seem to assume that the issue is a textual one

...

Nephi repeatedly uses the words "write," "writing," "written,"

etc., when speaking of the "things" which the Nephite Records

would contain.

He speaks of writing prophets whose supposed contributions

to the plates of brass predicted numerous details of Jesus'

lifetime/acts.

If this has nothing to do with "texts," then I do not think

I'm the only reader/writer who has been fooled into thinking

that it is a textual problem being addressed, and by Nephi,

given a textual solution.

But, I'm willing to listen to Bro. Antley's views, that it

is not excised writings we should think about, but rather,

excised interpretations.

Which LDS General Authorities have spoken against the textual

excisions? Should we assume that the PGP JST passages were NOT

included in the "five books of Moses" on the brass plates?

UD

[smordecai]

Just a comment concerning Judaism today vs. 2000 years ago. Read Maimonides' 13 articles of Faith. For this he was excommunicated by several Rabbinic schools. He is responsible for introducing the god of the philosophers into modern Judaism.

[Uncle Dale]

Just a comment concerning Judaism today vs. 2000 years ago. Read Maimonides' 13 articles of Faith. For this he was excommunicated by several Rabbinic schools. He is responsible for introducing the god of the philosophers into modern Judaism.

I have several dozen books on Judaism in my library --

and they all seem to say pretty much the same -- that

the modern religion developed out of the ancient religion,

with some changes along the way, various divisions, etc.

I am not so much interested in cataloging those changes,

as I'm interested in knowing what the religion of Elizabeth

and Mary was 2000 years ago.

The Christian Bible depicts these two Jews as orthodox --

so, if we can roughly determine what their religious

practices and professions consisted of, we can at least

nail down what normative Judaism was for Christian writers

at the end of the first century.

Working backwards (or forwards) from that determination,

perhaps we might ask ourselves when was the very last

time YHWH sanctified a Day of Atonement, by making His

presence available to the High Priest in the Holy of Holies.

One Christian commentator I happened upon stated that

"at the crucifixion" the veil of the temple "was rent,"

and thereafter God never answered a Jewish prayer.

I doubt most Mormons would go so far as to agree to

that sort of statement --- but, on the other hand,

the LDS must believe that Judaism became "apostate"

at about that point in history.

I'd like to hear more on the subject.

UD

[Joseph Antley]

I doubt most Mormons would go so far as to agree to

that sort of statement --- but, on the other hand,

the LDS must believe that Judaism became "apostate"

at about that point in history.

Israelite religion had reached the road of apostasy long before the days of Jesus.

[Uncle Dale]

Israelite religion had reached the road of apostasy long before the days of Jesus.

Thus my question regarding Elizabeth and Mary.

Supposing they were living an apostate religion at the times

of their conceptions, are we also to believe that they raised

their sons in that same abomination -- disobeying God's commandments?

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

When the High Priest annually went into the holy of holies,

was Israel's sin held against her, with no remission?

Going back from Mary and Elizabeth, how far must we backtrack

before finding an Israelite who obeyed the commandments? Lehi?

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Thus my question regarding Elizabeth and Mary.

Supposing they were living an apostate religion at the times

of their conceptions, are we also to believe that they raised

their sons in that same abomination -- disobeying God's commandments?

Do you think that that is how Latter-day Saints think, or that that is how we believe that God thinks?

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

My educated guess is that no, he did not.

When the High Priest annually went into the holy of holies,

was Israel's sin held against her, with no remission?

I can't begin to guess the specifics of how God viewed Israel as a whole.

Going back from Mary and Elizabeth, how far must we backtrack

before finding an Israelite who obeyed the commandments? Lehi?

Obedience to the commandments? There were always Jews who obeyed the commandments from Moses to Peter, as best they understood them. The rich man whom Jesus asks to follow him, for example. Apostasy does not mean that people are completely disobedient to the commandments.

The understanding I've come to is that there were inevitably always apostate strands in ancient religion -- the question must then be, how apostate were they?

[Uncle Dale]

...the question must then be, how apostate were they?

For Nephi, 0.00% -- he had the brass plates, with all

the commandments on them. All he had to do was to obey

them. He had the perfect doctrine, and once he completed

the temple, he had the perfect institution by which to

obey the entire Levitical law.

It is still a bit disconcerting to think that John and

Jesus were raised in an apostate religion.

On the other hand, if the God of Israel was able to

forgive the Covenent People's transgressions, it seems

to me that they were without sin for at least one day

out of the year. If so, then the LDS leaders must be

able to provide at least an approximate date by which

God no longer provided them that annual remission.

UD

[TAO]

When they took sacrifices to the temple, did God reject them?

God doesn't fault those who make ignorant mistakes, so no, he didn't reject it.

[Joseph Antley]

If so, then the LDS leaders must be

able to provide at least an approximate date by which

God no longer provided them that annual remission.

Why?