Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: Esoteric Jewish Theology

[altersteve]

I haven't formally studied these subjects either. So what.

I'm not saying that we all have to formally study something in order to be knowledgeable about it, or to challenge what others say. It was simply asked out of curiosity. I may have come off as harsh in my last post, but that was completely unintended.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

If you are speaking in terms of volume, I agree with you. Perhaps my statement reflects the fact that my studies tend to concentrate in the biblical studies area. I am willing to acknowledge that my comment about the usage of the term midrash reflects that limited perspective. Can you agree that citing The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, describing it as "an early Jewish midrash," and claiming that it documents that a particular belief is "ancient," without mentioning that it is a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text, is at least somewhat misleading?

I find it no more misleading than your own phrase. The term "medieval" is itself somewhat vague. Especially in a Jewish context qualifiers are important. I know the term has been used haphazardly in academic literature, indeed, applied to ORA too, but that doesn't mean that it is any less misleading. Personally, I prefer the term "Byzantine" as is used in reference to early piyyut, or "early post-Talmudic" though, again, both are somewhat ambiguous.

Your use of "proto-Kabbalistic" is also a little problematic in that it would be very hard to find an early Jewish esoteric work that wouldn't qualify for the term in one way or another.

I applaud your willingness to modify your statements on that blog, but I don't feel that the modification in this case changes much of the overall argument.

I am, BTW, working on a response which I plan on posting to my blog.

[Bill Hamblin]

It is also worth nothing that Akiba was associated with esoteric alphabet lore earlier than the Alphabet of R. Akiba.

Said R. Judah said Rab, “At the time that Moses went up on high, he found the Holy One in session, affixing crowns to the letters [of the words of the Torah]. He said to him, ‘Lord of the universe, who is stopping you [from regarding the document as perfect without these additional crowns on the letters]?’ “He said to him, ‘There is a man who is going to arrive at the end of many generations, and Aqiba b. Joseph is his name, who is going to interpret on the basis of each point of the crowns [of the letters] heaps and heaps of laws.’ [b. Talmud, Menahot, 29b]

Thus, Akiba was associated with esoteric alphabet lore by at least the fifth century.

[volgadon]

It is also worth nothing that Akiba was associated with esoteric alphabet lore earlier than the Alphabet of R. Akiba.

Thus, Akiba was associated with esoteric alphabet lore by at least the fifth century.

The sages attributed this exeggetical fascination with letters to the academy of R. Nahum of Gimzo, one of Akiva's main teachers.

[Bill Hamblin]

I find it no more misleading than your own phrase. The term "medieval" is itself somewhat vague. Especially in a Jewish context qualifiers are important. I know the term has been used haphazardly in academic literature, indeed, applied to ORA too, but that doesn't mean that it is any less misleading. Personally, I prefer the term "Byzantine" as is used in reference to early piyyut, or "early post-Talmudic" though, again, both are somewhat ambiguous.

Your use of "proto-Kabbalistic" is also a little problematic in that it would be very hard to find an early Jewish esoteric work that wouldn't qualify for the term in one way or another.

I applaud your willingness to modify your statements on that blog, but I don't feel that the modification in this case changes much of the overall argument.

I am, BTW, working on a response which I plan on posting to my blog.

In fact, applying chronological terms like "medieval" derived from Western European history to the Middle East is rather dubious, (ignoring the problem that there is no agreement among European historians as to what is or is not precisely the "medieval" period--a term invented by Renaissance scholars). Jewish history has developed it's own chronological periodization based on internal Jewish phenomena. (rough dates)

Zugot 515 BC - AD 70 = (Second Temple)

Tannaim (70-200) = Fall of the Temple to the completion of the Mishnah

Amoraim (200-500)

Savoraim (500-700)

Geonim (700-1000)

Rishonim (11C-15C)

Acharonim (16C-21C)

Note that "medieval" in the Western European sense doesn't match this pattern.

[Bill Hamblin]

It is also worth noting that when Bowman says the Alphabet of R Akiba is "a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah" he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting that idea.

The texts in question were pre-Kabbalistic Jewish esoteric texts that were read and interpreted by "medieval" Kabbalists in Kabbalistic ways. They were not written by medieval Kabbalists. Kabbalism is a Jewish religious mystical movement beginning in the 12th century in Europe (Scholen, Origins of Kabbalah). Earlier Jewish mystical and esoteric texts cannot properly be called Kabbalistic. Jewish mysticism and esotericism antedates the rise of Kabbalah by well over a thousand years (Schafer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism).

Now I will admit that in a general sense the term "Kabbalah" is used to refer more broadly to all Jewish mysticism. But Bowman insists that we use such terms in the most exact and technical way, right? So does Bowman's apparent misunderstanding and misuse of the term Kabbalah permit us to say he is intentionally deceiving his readers? If not, then why does he make that accusation against Dan and other LDS writers? Why can Bowman insist that Dan use the terms "ancient" and "midrash" in a technical sense, when Rob is permitted to use the terms "medieval" and "Kabbalah" in a vague and general sense. What is the difference between Dan's supposed misuse of the terms "ancient" and "midrash" and Rob's misuse of the terms "medieval" and "Kabbalah"? If Dan is intentionally deceiving, isn't Rob doing precisely the same thing?

I would also note that modern historians tend to use the term "Late Antiquity" to refer to the Roman Empire from Constantine to Heraclius and the Arab Conquests. Thus, to the extent that parts of the earliest parts of the Alphabet of Akiba date to the seventh century, it can properly, and in the most technical sense, be called "ancient."

Edited August 18, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

In any case, you're entirely missing the point. The issue is not whether Akiva himself wrote The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva. The issue is whether it is even from the same era or in any way represents an "ancient" doctrine that Joseph Smith miraculously restored.

I make no claims about being anything other than an observer on this thread, but do you think that this arose out of nothing, and it was just made up out of whole cloth with no tradition behind it?

Do you really believe that?

So far just on this thread we have the Akiva statement, we have evidence from Qumran, and not mentioned yet, we have the evidence of such a tradition through various Eastern Orthodox churches- and even Catholic sainthood, though I understand it is significantly different- Catholic theosis itself is still evidence of a tradition which came from somewhere. Mary is now regarded as a "co-redemptrix" with Christ himself. If that is not "theosis" what is?

I suppose you think Joseph dreamed all this up himself out of nothing?

Besides being corrected by real scholars, it is clear that even the case you are trying to weakly prove is just a weak case to start with. Please explain where all these diverse traditions came from, if they are not of ancient origin.

Edited August 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To refer to a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text as "an early Jewish midrash" in the context of quoting the text as evidence for an "ancient" doctrine (sandwiched between quotations from the NT and the early church fathers, by the way), as Dan Peterson did, is surely misleading.

I will confess that I am not sure what Rob is trying to say by using equally vague language.

From my take it appears that Rob does not view this as an ancient Jewish midrash.

So for the sake of discussion what does "Medieval" mean?

What does "early" mean.

I do confess to being new to a lot of this stuff.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mfbukowski]

Rob you are essentially trying to prove that "Joseph did not restore theosis" in the face of the fact that it was an actual ancient belief.

We all know about "proving a negative".

Good luck with that!

Edited August 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

I just have to ask, what is your authority to speak on this subject? Have you formally studied these subjects? You are responding to scholars here, people who have studied these subjects extensively for many years and who probably do know what they're talking about; and while you may bring up some interesting points, you have yet to show (or, at least, I have yet to see) why we should treat your analysis of a scholar's work more seriously. If I'm wrong, then fair enough. I'm just wondering.

First, I haven't asked anyone to take my word for anything. I copiously documented my article with academic references supporting what I said.

Second, the Mormon scholars here have not disputed the central fact I presented, which is that the source Dan Peterson quoted is a proto-Kabbalistic text produced between the seventh and ninth centuries AD.

Third, I am a scholar. I have a Master's degree, am completing a PhD, have taught graduate level courses at accredited institutions, and have published articles in academic peer-reviewed journals. By any reasonable standard I am a scholar. I don't claim to be a scholar specializing in medieval Jewish texts, but none of the Mormons here can make that claim either (except perhaps Volgadon, whoever he is). I am, however, a religion scholar with a broad familiarity with Jewish literature of all eras. As I stated in my article, I knew enough to recognize immediately that the quotation Dan Peterson used was from a medieval esoteric text, even though he didn't identify it. When I checked, my first impression was proved correct. So I do know something about the subject matter.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

try reading my article. I was very specific. The text dates between the seventh and ninth centuries AD. "Early Jewish midrash" in the context Dan Peterson used this expression would most naturally be understood to refer to something dating from before the Talmud (i.e., before 400 AD).

I will confess that I am not sure what Rob is trying to say by using equally vague language.

From my take it appears that Rob does not view this as an ancient Jewish midrash.

So for the sake of discussion what does "Medieval" mean?

What does "early" mean.

I do confess to being new to a lot of this stuff.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

try reading my article. I was very specific. The text dates between the seventh and ninth centuries AD. "Early Jewish midrash" in the context Dan Peterson used this expression would most naturally be understood to refer to something dating from before the Talmud (i.e., before 400 AD).

OK so early to you before 400 ad.

Thanks for clarifying. I need to finish reading your series. I ma just going to get some corn and watch.

BTW Volgadon is a member of the church that grew up and lives in Israel. He brings a really interesting perspective to the board and he seems quite familiar, as one would expect, with all things Jewish.

[volgadon]

Second, the Mormon scholars here have not disputed the central fact I presented, which is that the source Dan Peterson quoted is a proto-Kabbalistic text produced between the seventh and ninth centuries AD.

That term isn't a particularly useful one. I'll post the sources later, but both Scholem and Dan have stated that although compiled in the Geonic era, the ORA contains older material.

Third, I am a scholar. I have a Master's degree, am completing a PhD, have taught graduate level courses at accredited institutions, and have published articles in academic peer-reviewed journals. By any reasonable standard I am a scholar. I don't claim to be a scholar specializing in medieval Jewish texts, but none of the Mormons here can make that claim either (except perhaps Volgadon, whoever he is). I am, however, a religion scholar with a broad familiarity with Jewish literature of all eras. As I stated in my article, I knew enough to recognize immediately that the quotation Dan Peterson used was from a medieval esoteric text, even though he didn't identify it. When I checked, my first impression was proved correct. So I do know something about the subject matter.

If a scholar is taken to mean someone with university degrees, then by no stretch of the imagination could I be considered such. I'm an autodidact. Jewish texts form a good deal of my reading, though I confess a dislike for Rashi script. I was born and grew up in Israel, in a very Jewish environment, one of our classes even happened to be midrashic studies. If someone has a good grasp of a topic I don't care how many degrees they have.

[Bill Hamblin]

Second, the Mormon scholars here have not disputed the central fact I presented, which is that the source Dan Peterson quoted is a proto-Kabbalistic text produced between the seventh and ninth centuries AD.

I have disputed it. The Alphabet of Akiba is not a "proto-Kabbalistic text." It is a Jewish esoteric text written about 3-4 centuries before the beginning of Kabbalism. It is a text read and used by Kabbalists, but that does not make it a Kabbalistic text any more than the fact that the Bible being read by New Agers makes it a New Age text.

I also dispute your dates. Although the Alphabet itself dates from 7-9C, there is evidence that ideas in the Alphabet are earlier. I provided lots of evidence for this.

Please pay attention.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mola,

try reading my article. I was very specific. The text dates between the seventh and ninth centuries AD. "Early Jewish midrash" in the context Dan Peterson used this expression would most naturally be understood to refer to something dating from before the Talmud (i.e., before 400 AD).

That's preposterous. How can you possibly make such a claim. (And note your original claim was before the Mishnah in 200 AD).

[Bill Hamblin]

That term isn't a particularly useful one. I'll post the sources later, but both Scholem and Dan have stated that although compiled in the Geonic era, the ORA contains older material.

That's precisely the point I've been making. It's in the nature of the way these texts were complied, written, edited, transmitted and preserved.

[volgadon]

That's preposterous. How can you possibly make such a claim. (And note your original claim was before the Mishnah in 200 AD).

He seems to be conflating "early midrash" with "earliest midrash."

[Bill Hamblin]

He seems to be conflating "early midrash" with "earliest midrash."

Yup. We've tried to explain it.

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

First, I haven't asked anyone to take my word for anything. I copiously documented my article with academic references supporting what I said.

Second, the Mormon scholars here have not disputed the central fact I presented, which is that the source Dan Peterson quoted is a proto-Kabbalistic text produced between the seventh and ninth centuries AD.

Third, I am a scholar. I have a Master's degree, am completing a PhD, have taught graduate level courses at accredited institutions, and have published articles in academic peer-reviewed journals. By any reasonable standard I am a scholar. I don't claim to be a scholar specializing in medieval Jewish texts, but none of the Mormons here can make that claim either (except perhaps Volgadon, whoever he is). I am, however, a religion scholar with a broad familiarity with Jewish literature of all eras. As I stated in my article, I knew enough to recognize immediately that the quotation Dan Peterson used was from a medieval esoteric text, even though he didn't identify it. When I checked, my first impression was proved correct. So I do know something about the subject matter.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you aren't a scholar, or that you don't know what you're talking about. If it came out that way, I apologize. I was simply curious.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I have disputed it. The Alphabet of Akiba is not a "proto-Kabbalistic text." It is a Jewish esoteric text written about 3-4 centuries before the beginning of Kabbalism. It is a text read and used by Kabbalists, but that does not make it a Kabbalistic text any more than the fact that the Bible being read by New Agers makes it a New Age text.

You ignored the documentation from academic reference works that agree with what I said (and in some cases state the connection even more strongly than I did). I used the term "proto-Kabbalistic" for precisely the chronological reason you state here. But your analogy with New Agers and the Bible is, to use a word you used elsewhere, preposterous.

You wrote:

I also dispute your dates. Although the Alphabet itself dates from 7-9C, there is evidence that ideas in the Alphabet are earlier. I provided lots of evidence for this.

Every text has ideas that date earlier than that text. I didn't date the ideas in the text, which we probably cannot date with anything close to certainty, but the text itself. So you have not disputed my dates. But if Peterson and other Mormon scholars want to argue for the presence of the salient ideas they are defending as ideas dating from much earlier, and if there is "lots of evidence" from earlier texts, why not cite the earlier texts? Why cite a later text and tiptoe around its actual origin?

[Bill Hamblin]

You ignored the documentation from academic reference works that agree with what I said (and in some cases state the connection even more strongly than I did). I used the term "proto-Kabbalistic" for precisely the chronological reason you state here. But your analogy with New Agers and the Bible is, to use a word you used elsewhere, preposterous.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Too bad.

[Rob Bowman]

That's preposterous. How can you possibly make such a claim. (And note your original claim was before the Mishnah in 200 AD).

No, my original claim was stated as follows:

When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated.

As you put it, "Please pay attention."

Edited August 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Every text has ideas that date earlier than that text. I didn't date the ideas in the text, which we probably cannot date with anything close to certainty, but the text itself. So you have not disputed my dates. But if Peterson and other Mormon scholars want to argue for the presence of the salient ideas they are defending as ideas dating from much earlier, and if there is "lots of evidence" from earlier texts, why not cite the earlier texts? Why cite a later text and tiptoe around its actual origin?

I did precisely this in post #21 (which only contains a portion of the available evidence.) Read it at your leisure.

Are you trying to tell me that Dan, in a few hundred word newspaper article, should be expected to cite every single source relating to theosis? Can we not expect some selectivity?

Dan did not tiptoe around its actually origin. He said it was an "early midrash." That is a vague, but perfectly accurate. It is an early midrash.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

You obviously don't understand the issue. Too bad.

Your condescension is wearying. I respect your abilities and your knowledge, though I often vigorously disagree with your arguments and conclusions. I regret that your attitude stands in the way of a fruitful discussion.

[Bill Hamblin]

No, my original claim was stated as follows:

When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as “an early Jewish midrash,” this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated.

As you put it, "Please pay attention."

First, note, that originally said pre-Mishnaic, not pre-Talmudic.

For the record, take a look at the list of Midrashim on the Goggle web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash).

Note that there are five pre-Talmudic midrashim, and over 22 post-Talmudic midrash. THE midrash in the Jewish tradition is the ten books of the Midrash ha-Gadol, most of which dates from the 10th-12th century. By that standard a 7-8C midrash could be called "early," no? Especially when considering that midrashim are still being written in the 21st century.

Be that as it may, there is nothing in the phrase "early Jewish midrash" that "clearly indicates" pre-Talmudic. You are simply inventing a non-existent issue you claim Dan is making. This is cosmic quibbling. So, I'm done with this stupid quibbling. If you want to engage the actual evidence instead of inventing a supposed lie of the deceptive Mormon apologists, feel free.