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

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

As is your obtuseness. I'm not the one calling the people I disagree with liars because they use the word "early" in general rather than technical sense.

[Daniel Peterson]

"When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as 'an early Jewish midrash,'" says Rob Bowman, "this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

And yet, curiously, I didn't actually say any such thing, nor did I actually even think such a thing.

I haven't yet read through Mr. Bowman's already-lengthy and still-growing critique of my seven-hundred-word popular newspaper article, but I hope it's not all at this level.

[Bill Hamblin]

"When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as 'an early Jewish midrash,'" says Rob Bowman, "this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

And yet, curiously, I didn't actually say any such thing, nor did I actually even think such a thing.

I haven't yet read through Mr. Bowman's already-lengthy and still-growing critique of my seven-hundred-word popular newspaper article, but I hope it's not all at this level.

Dan, you're not using the word "early" or "ancient" in the sense Bowman thinks you should have. That's about it.

[volgadon]

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

I think you mean the Midrash Rabba group. The Midrash ha-Gadol is a Yemenite compilation which was virtually unknown outside of Yemen until the latter half of the 19th century. Even it, as Lieberman has shown, contains very old material despite being a later compilation and reworking.

Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, BTW, is dated by Strack to no earlier than 400 CE!

[Bill Hamblin]

I think you mean the Midrash Rabba group. The Midrash ha-Gadol is a Yemenite compilation which was virtually unknown outside of Yemen until the latter half of the 19th century. Even it, as Lieberman has shown, contains very old material despite being a later compilation and reworking.

Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, BTW, is dated by Strack to no earlier than 400 CE!

Whoops. You're right. I meant the Midrash Rabba. D'oh!

Edited August 19, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

Whoops. You're right. I meant the Midrash Rabba. D'oh!

Very easy mistake to make since both mean the sane thing- great, or big.

The Rabbah ones follow an earlier convention in which midrash titles were in Aramaic, whereas the Yemenite compilers were reknowned for their use of Hebrew.

[volgadon]

As I mentioned, I am working on a detailed response to Rob's blog post. It will address both the use of the term midrash, the central ideas in ORA- how they are older than the composition itself- and theosis as reflected in it.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

"When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as 'an early Jewish midrash,'" says Rob Bowman, "this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

And yet, curiously, I didn't actually say any such thing, nor did I actually even think such a thing.

I haven't yet read through Mr. Bowman's already-lengthy and still-growing critique of my seven-hundred-word popular newspaper article, but I hope it's not all at this level.

I've explained the basis for understanding what you said in context in this way. The issue is not what you were thinking; I don't claim to know that. The issue is what your article would reasonably lead people to understand. When you cite the NT (first century), the Book of Mormon (supposedly finished by the early fifth century), and church fathers from the second century to the early fifth century, and you sandwich among these quotations a quotation from what you call "an early Jewish midrash," and the conclusion is that all of these quotations document that a particular belief was "ancient," your readers will naturally be led to understand that the unidentified Jewish source was also from what is commonly called ancient history. While there is no magic date or universally accepted cut-off date for the end of ancient history, most historians use a date around 500 (the end of the last Roman emperor in 476 and the close of the Academy in Athens in 529 are two of the most common markers). Thus, the most plausible and natural way to understand your article is that the unidentified early Jewish source dates within the same general era of history as all of your other sources (fifth century AD and earlier). If they know anything about midrash, this conclusion will be reinforced, because it makes sense that "early" Jewish midrash would date from the first half-millennium or so of Jewish midrash, or roughly somewhere in the first through the fifth centuries. So there are a number of factors arising from your statements in the context of your whole article that lead to this understanding. Since the two Talmudic compilations were completed by about 500, and it makes sense to speak of pre-Talmudic midrash as "early," it is quite reasonable to infer from what you said that the quotation came from pre-Talmudic midrash.

There is a simple test to determine whether I am quibbling, as Bill insists, or whether there is something to my critique. Suppose you had simply been specific in identifying the source. Suppose you had introduced the quotation as coming from a pseudonymous work called The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva written somewhere in the seventh through the ninth centuries AD. Would this specific and utterly factual identification of the source of the quotation (a) strengthened your argument, (b) left your argument unaffected, or (c ) weakened your argument? The answer is obvious.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

As is your obtuseness. I'm not the one calling the people I disagree with liars because they use the word "early" in general rather than technical sense.

CFR.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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

No. I have a copy of the original post. It originally said pre-Talmudic.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

CFR.

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while (either implicitly or explicitly) misrepresenting its source is especially troubling. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to determine the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. Whether they fail to give this information from ignorance, neglect, or design may be difficult to determine or prove, but in the end it does not matter much.

Your implication that Dan is "explicitly misrepresenting" his sources "by design" clearly implies that you think he is lying.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

That quote from my post calls no one a liar. "Misrepresentation" can be deliberate, careless, negligent, or simply ignorant...and I even pointed that out. I stated that it is difficult to determine or prove what the reason or cause was for the misleading statements

Edited August 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

That quote from my post calls no one a liar. "Misrepresentation" can be deliberate, careless, negligent, or simply ignorant...and I even pointed that out. I stated that it is difficult to determine or prove what the reason or cause was for the misleading statements

So why mention that Dan is "explicitly misrepresenting" his source and "fails to give information by design"? That is obviously what you think Dan did. You believe Dan knew the date of the Akiba Midrash, and misrepresented it intentionally.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

That quote from my post calls no one a liar. "Misrepresentation" can be deliberate, careless, negligent, or simply ignorant...and I even pointed that out. I stated that it is difficult to determine or prove what the reason or cause was for the misleading statements

Some more:

Dan engages in "patent misrepresentation of the source of the quotation". Patent, of course means easily recognizable or obvious.

"My guess is that Tvedtnes knows full well what sort of text he is quoting."

[Zakuska]

"When Peterson refers to the source of his quotation as 'an early Jewish midrash,'" says Rob Bowman, "this context of pre-Talmudic Jewish teaching is clearly indicated."

And yet, curiously, I didn't actually say any such thing, nor did I actually even think such a thing.

I haven't yet read through Mr. Bowman's already-lengthy and still-growing critique of my seven-hundred-word popular newspaper article, but I hope it's not all at this level.

Do I detect some gloating there Dr. Petersen? One should never mention that word in conjunction with your name... the trailer park will implode!

PS. Loved it... shared it with my BIL who says he comes and takes your classes during education week and loves them too.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I haven't yet called anyone in this discussion a liar, but I'm tempted.

You wrote:

So why mention that Dan is "explicitly misrepresenting" his source and "fails to give information by design"?

I didn't say or "mention" that Dan was "explicitly misrepresenting" or that he "fails to give information by design." That is a misquotation. What I said was this:

"The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while (either implicitly or explicitly) misrepresenting its source is especially troubling. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to determine the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. Whether they fail to give this information from ignorance, neglect, or design may be difficult to determine or prove, but in the end it does not matter much."

It's probably hopeless to expect any acknowledgment from you of this misquotation, but it's there for all to see.

You wrote:

That is obviously what you think Dan did.

Ah, the obvious fallacy. I stated in my article that it is difficult to determine or prove in the case of any of the Mormon apologists I quoted whether the information was omitted by design or not, but Bill Hamblin says it is obvious that I think Peterson did omit the information by design. In other words, it is supposedly obvious that I didn't mean what I said -- so obvious that you felt free to misquote me so as to make clear what I "obviously" think. And in any case the issue is not what I think, but what I said. You accused me of calling Dan and the other Mormon apologists I quoted "liars." You didn't accuse me of merely thinking that they were liars but of calling them liars. I did no such thing.

You wrote:

Dan engages in "patent misrepresentation of the source of the quotation". Patent, of course means easily recognizable or obvious.

Easily recognizable or obvious to me, not necessarily to others, though it becomes easily recognizable (I do not say easily recognized) to anyone familiarized with the facts.

Your next example of me supposedly accusing someone of lying:

"My guess is that Tvedtnes knows full well what sort of text he is quoting."

You're getting desperate. Since I point out that Tvedtnes does not say what sort of text he is quoting, I can hardly be accusing him of lying about it!

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I haven't yet called anyone in this discussion a liar, but I'm tempted.

You wrote:

I didn't say or "mention" that Dan was "explicitly misrepresenting" or that he "fails to give information by design." That is a misquotation. What I said was this:

"The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while (either implicitly or explicitly) misrepresenting its source is especially troubling. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to determine the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. Whether they fail to give this information from ignorance, neglect, or design may be difficult to determine or prove, but in the end it does not matter much."

It's probably hopeless to expect any acknowledgment from you of this misquotation, but it's there for all to see.

You wrote:

Ah, the obvious fallacy. I stated in my article that it is difficult to determine or prove in the case of any of the Mormon apologists I quoted whether the information was omitted by design or not, but Bill Hamblin says it is obvious that I think Peterson did omit the information by design. In other words, it is supposedly obvious that I didn't mean what I said -- so obvious that you felt free to misquote me so as to make clear what I "obviously" think. And in any case the issue is not what I think, but what I said. You accused me of calling Dan and the other Mormon apologists I quoted "liars." You didn't accuse me of merely thinking that they were liars but of calling them liars. I did no such thing.

You wrote:

Easily recognizable or obvious to me, not necessarily to others, though it becomes easily recognizable (I do not say easily recognized) to anyone familiarized with the facts.

Your next example of me supposedly accusing someone of lying:

You're getting desperate. Since I point out that Tvedtnes does not say what sort of text he is quoting, I can hardly be accusing him of lying about it!

I accurately quoted your entire passage in #61. I then paraphrased the key phrases thereafter. I did not misquote you. It's there for everyone to see. Please pay attention.

OK, so you insist that we accept your clarification of your statements. Fine. Will YOU accept the clarifications of we have given of the meaning of the Akiba Midrash? Can you see that you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the issue? I suspect not.

[Bill Hamblin]

You're getting desperate. Since I point out that Tvedtnes does not say what sort of text he is quoting, I can hardly be accusing him of lying about it!

Here's your full statement:

Tvedtnes later used part of this quotation in a 2004 FAIR Conference. Unlike these other scholars, he says nothing about the origins of the quotation although he also gives the reference (“Midrash Aleph Bet di Rabbi Akiba”) and cites Patai as his source.[4] Tvedtnes presents this quotation in a mix of quotations from medieval Jewish texts, the Talmud, and the church fathers. My guess is that Tvedtnes knows full well what sort of text he is quoting.

When you say Tvedtnes "says nothing about the origins" of the Akiba Alphabet--which in your view is a crucial issue--while "knowing full well what sort of text he is quoting" it seems obvious that you are accusing him of intentionally misrepresenting the source. What other conclusion am I to draw from the passage?

[Bill Hamblin]

Easily recognizable or obvious to me, not necessarily to others, though it becomes easily recognizable (I do not say easily recognized) to anyone familiarized with the facts.

You said "What surprised me was the patent misrepresentation of the source of the quotation" by Dan. You are clearly saying that Dan is patently misrepresenting the sources. Now either Dan is intentionally "patently representing the source," or unintentionally doing so. Which is it? Do you really think Dan doesn't know what a midrash is, and the rough dates of the midrash, or that he is intentionally "patently misrepresenting the source." Quit equivocating. Tell us plainly.

[Bill Hamblin]

My point has been made. I'm done quibbling. I think you believe that Dan is intentionally misrepresenting his source. If I'm wrong, please correct me clearly and plainly.

I also note that you have provided absolutely no response to the several substantive arguments I made and evidence I provided regarding deification themes in early Judaism.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[mfbukowski]

I also note that you have provided absolutely no response to the several substantive arguments I made and evidence I provided regarding deification themes in early Judaism.

And that's also what I am waiting for. Lowly little me even threw in a few examples of these- no reply.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I accurately quoted your entire passage in #61. I then paraphrased the key phrases thereafter. I did not misquote you. It's there for everyone to see. Please pay attention.

You put "key phrases" together in a way that made me affirm what I was explicitly saying I could not affirm. I have no more patience for such shenanigans.

You wrote:

OK, so you insist that we accept your clarification of your statements. Fine. Will YOU accept the clarifications of we have given of the meaning of the Akiba Midrash? Can you see that you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the issue? I suspect not.

This is a complete distortion of the facts. You misquoted me by taking a few of my words here and there out of context, putting them together in a way that negated what I explicitly denied saying, and concluded that I affirmed something I didn't. My response was not a "clarification" but a correction of your misrepresentation of what I had written. On the other hand, what I said about the way Dan Peterson and other Mormon apologists represented the quotation from The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva did not contradict their explicit claims, and I showed why my understanding of what they had written made perfectly good sense in context. No one can point to anything in the writings of these Mormon apologists that contradicts or conflicts with how I have understood their statements.

[Rob Bowman]

Let’s address some things that are really not debatable. Here is a little pop quiz for the Mormon apologists and scholars here. Open book, open notes.

TRUE OR FALSE

1. Dan McClellan was incorrect when he claimed that the text of the quotation “is part of the Jerusalem Talmud, which was completed around 380 CE.”

2. Hannah Rebekah was incorrect when she claimed that “Rabbi Akiba...a second century Jewish Rabbi,” was the author of the quotation.

3. No Mormon apologist or scholar ever corrected those incorrect statements by McClellan or Rebekah.

4. At least five scholarly Mormon apologists—Dan McClellan, Dan Peterson, Charles Pyle, Barry Bickmore, and John Tvedtnes—have used this quotation without stating that it dated from the seventh through the ninth centuries.

5. Not one Mormon scholar or apologist had given the correct date for the work as the seventh through the ninth centuries prior to my bringing up this fact.

6. A scholar should check the date of his source before using it in an argument, and he should disclose that date if it has any bearing on the relevance of the source to his argument.

MULTIPLE CHOICE: EXTRA CREDIT

7. Suppose a Mormon apologist were to present this quotation as precedent for the claim that the Mormon doctrine of deification was a restoration of a doctrine taught prior to the onset of the Great Apostasy (i.e., before the second century AD). If in the course of making this argument the Mormon were to note that the quotation comes from a text dating to the seventh through the ninth centuries AD, what would be the effect of providing this date?

a. It would weaken his argument.

b. It would strengthen his argument.

c. It would not affect the strength of his argument.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I also note that you have provided absolutely no response to the several substantive arguments I made and evidence I provided regarding deification themes in early Judaism.

I am not going to debate additional quotations or arguments with you as long as you continue to misrepresent what I have already said and to try to divert attention away from the issue that I raised. See the pop quiz I just posted for the questions that need to be faced fairly and squarely.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[mfbukowski]

Bill,

You wrote:

I am not going to debate additional quotations or arguments with you as long as you continue to misrepresent what I have already said and to try to divert attention away from the issue that I raised. See the pop quiz I just posted for the questions that need to be faced fairly and squarely.

Fine. Dodge the question yet again with Bill.

What am I then, chopped liver?

You have no trouble responding to me on other threads- and quite vociferously at that. What excuse do you have for dodging my questions here?