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

[Calm]

If Mr. Bowman is not able to answer at this time, I suggest reposting this in focused discussions so you don't have to do too many cricket imitations.

[volgadon]

Theosis was an early Jewish doctrine and certainly predates the ORA's compilation.

The so-called "Self-Glorification Hymn(s)" that was found at Qumran features the declarations of a teacher who has attained heavenly status.

[… is not like] my [instruct[ion [… who is like me] among the gods…

a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods above which none of the kings of the East shall sit, and their no[t...] silence (?) [...] my glory is in{comparable} and besides me no-one is exalted, nor comes to me, for I reside in [...], in the heaven, and there is no [...]... I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in the holy congregation; [my] des[ire] is not according to the flesh, [but][ all that is precious to me is in (the) glory (of) [...] the holy [dwel]ling. [W]ho has been considered despicable on my accopunt? And who is comparable to me in my glory?...

And who will attack me when

op[en my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips? And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgement? [... friend of the, companion of the holy ones ... incomparable , f]or among the gods is [my] posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king... [36]

There are many midrashim expounding Ps. 82 as God turning the children of Israel into gods at Sinai. This tradition is fairly early and widespread, being echoed in the Gospel of John.

They saw the counsel which the Lord decreed for them and straightaways ruined the counsel forty days, for it is said (Proverbs 1): Ye have set at nought all my counsel.

The Holy One, blessed be He said unto them: "I said that ye are not sinning and ye shall live and be as I am, as I liveth and am for Eternity and for Eternity of Eternities, for I decreed (Ps 82): gods are ye and sons of the Most High are ye all, and are as the ministering angels, which die not and yet after this great thing ye request to die, then die as man ye shall, even as the First Man (Adam) whom I commanded one commandment for to do and he should live and be for Eternity, as it is said (Gen 3): for the man was as one of us. And also: and created God the man in his own image, to live and be as he [God] is, but he [Adam] transgressed and nullified my decree, and ate from the tree, and I said unto him: for dust thou art.

So too are ye, as I said: gods are ye, yet have injured yourselves as man, so verily as man shall ye die.

Israel at Sinai had become holy and was rewarded immortality, equated here with being a god. When they sinned they lost that privilege, reverting back to the status of mere mortals. This mirrors the creation of Adam and his subsequent fall. The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23 makes clear the connection between being in the image of God and immortality.

God made man for incorruption

and made him in the image of his own eternity.

According to Jerome Neyrey,

at Sinai Israel received God's word of Torah ("all that the Lord hath spoken") and became holy and sinless ("...we will do and obey"), for which reason they are called gods. Although it is not explicitly stated here, this argument assumes that holiness leads to deathlessness, which is a godlike quality, for which reason Israel is called god. Yet with Israel's new sin comes death, the typical fate of sinful mortals ("ye shall die like men").

The basic lines of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7, then, are clear. When Israel at Sinai received God's Torah and obeyed, this led to genuine holiness which resulted in deathlessness; hence, Israel could be called god because deathless. But when disobedient and sinful, Israel deserved the wages of sin, that is, death; hence, Israel could be called man.

Yet this type of argument presumes some biblical understanding of death and deathlessness as well as of the nature of humanity and God. In short, the link between obedience-holiness-deathlessness lies back in the Genesis exposition of Adam in God's "image and likeness,"... The typical features of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7 are clearly evident: (a) Sinai and the giving of the Torah, (b) Israel's obedience ("cleaving unto the Lord"), © deathlessness or immortality ("freedom from the Angel of Death" .."live and endure for ever like Me"), and hence (d) Israel being called god (Ps 82:6). This midrash makes explicit the generally assumed doctrine of the relation of sin and death found primarily in Genesis 1-3, for it points out that God created Adam “in His image and likeness,” that is, deathless. Adam was deathless because holy and obedient (“I charged with one commandment which he was to perform and live and endure for ever”). Adam died precisely because he sinned and lost God's holiness and "image." This midrash also makes clear that interpreters of Ps 82:6-7 saw Sinai as a new creation, when the obedience, holiness, and deathlessness of Adam were restored to Israel, thus linking the Adam myth with the Sinai myth...[37]

In the Sifra, a halakhic midrash of R. Akiva' school, there is a parable.

To what may this be likened? To a king who went out to stroll in his orchard (pardes[!]) with his tenant farmer, and [out of respect] that tenant kept hiding himself from the presence of the king. So the king said to that tenant, “Why do you hide from me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike!”

Similarly in the Age to Come the Holy One, blessed be He, will stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden, but when the righteous see Him they will tremble before Him; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them, “Why is it that you tremble before me? Behold, I, you- we’re alike! Is this to say that you will no longer have fear/reverence of Me? The verse (Lev. 26:12) reads, ‘I will [still] be your God, and you shall be my people.”[38]

[36]Florentino García Martínez, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: Vol. II: 4Q274–11Q31." The first fragment (4Q427) is found on p. 897 and the second fragment (4Q491c) on p. 981. My thanks to Bill Hamblin for pointing me towards them.

[37]Neyrey, "'I Said: You are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10." The midrash I quoted is Numbers Rabbah 16:24, the translation mine.

[38]Sifra, Behuqotai 3:3-4. The translation is from Judah Goldin, "Studies in Midrash and Related Literature," pp. 369-370.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

**Chirp, chirp**

What does that mean?

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You wrote:

What does that mean?

A frivolous way of wondering out loud if you were going to respond.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

Your first installment was four weeks ago, and you're wondering if I'm going to respond to your recent posts after just two days?

The answer is yes.

A frivolous way of wondering out loud if you were going to respond.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Your first installment was four weeks ago, and you're wondering if I'm going to respond to your recent posts after just two days?

The answer is yes.

You know, until you wrote that bit about the month I had figured that you of all people would be understanding of others having constraints upon their time.

[Calm]

volgadon,

Your first installment was four weeks ago, and you're wondering if I'm going to respond to your recent posts after just two days?

The answer is yes.

I don't think volgadon was expecting a full dissertation, but rather simply an acknowledgement that you had seen his responses and were anticipating responding yourself.

[volgadon]

Though from 1939, Joshua Trachtenberg's "Jewish Magic and Superstition" is still an immensely valuable survey of Jewish beliefs and practices.

The essential character of things and of men resides in their names. Therefore to know a name is to be privy to the secret of its owner's being, and master of his fate... In highest antiquity and in our own day, among the most primitive and the most civilized peoples, the occult power that inheres in the name is recognized, and the name itself is known to be a mighty and awesome force in the hands of the magician.

To know the name of a man is to exercise power over him alone; to know the name of a higher, supernatural being is to dominate the entire province over which that being presides. The more such names a magician has garnered, the greater the number of spirits that are subject to his call and command. This simple theory is at the bottom of the magic which operates through the mystical names and words that are believed to control the forces which in turn control our world... The Name possesses an autonomous potency.[39]

Such a belief, that a person's name and being are inextricably linked, is alive and well in today's Judaism. As I've mentioned, there were radio shows with practical kabbalists who prognosticate the caller's near future and reveal the cause of their misfortunes based on the letters of their name. Changing a letter would change your fortune. That these Kabbalists also mix in a healthy does of psychology and common sense is besides the point.

In my own family there is a story illustrating the Jewish belief that a name and a person are one and the same. My grandfather told me that as an infant he fell very ill and would have died. His mother started calling him by a girl's name, indeed, behaved as though he were a girl until the danger passed. The reasoning behind this being that the angel of death/Lilith/generic malevolent spirit seeks a specific boy bearing a certain name, so he won't touch a girl with a different name. Your name is who you are. One of the worst things you could say in Hebrew was "yimah shimcha" (may your name be obliterated). This belief in the intrinsic relationship between a name and a person is nothing new. On the contrary, it is rather old, lying at the heart of belief in the efficacy of amulets. Control the name, control the power. There is an ancient Egyptian text relating how Isis deceitfully obtained Re's secret name of power. Isis knows everything but Re's secret name, so she devised a serpent which bit Re. He lay dying and called all the gods to attempt healing him.

Then said Isis to Re: "Say to me your name, my divine father, for a man lives when one recites in his name."

Re gives her a name, but not the name.

The poison was not repelled in its course; the great god was not comforted.

Then Isis said to Re: "Your name is not really among those that you have said to me. Say it to me so that the poison might go out, for a man lives when one pronounces his name."

As Robert Ritner indicates in "Scripture in Context,"

Felt to be an intrinsic element and source of power, the name did not simply identify but defined an individual. For hostile purposes, the destruction of a name could effect the death or misfortune of its owner, and this belief underlies both the prominent role of naming in execration texts... and the well attested expunging of royal names in dynastic feuds. Divinities were often said to have secret names guarded from devotees and other deities alike. The inherent power of such divine names is stated directly in the late Papyrus BM 10188, in which Re-Atum declares: "Magic is my name."[40]

As a result of Isis gaining access to Re's name, her power increased and her name was invoked for curing snakebites which otherwise would prove fatal. The so-called Greek Magical Papyri provide similar examples up til the Muslim conquest of Egypt.

Bear, Bear, you who rule the heaven, the stars, and the whole world; you who make the axis turn and control the whole cosmic system by force and compulsion; / I appeal to you, imploring and supplicating that you may do the NN thing, because I call upon you with your holy names at which your deity rejoices, names which you are not able to ignore...[41]

Similar concepts can be found even in the writings of the 18th c. rabbi Hayyim David Azulai.[42]

Shakespeare's celebrated observation would not have resonated with the ancient Meditteranean.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.[43]

Ephraim E. Urbach stated that the name and the power were synonyms. He cites Acts 4:7, in which the question the high priest and his circle asked the apostles was, “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”[44] Gershom Scholem was of the same opinion, and elaborates further.

The magic quality of the name relies on the fact that a close and substantial relation exists between the name and the name's bearer. The name is a real, non-fictitious quantity.

It contains a declaration about the nature of its bearer or at least something of the potency attaching to it; it is, further, identified with the nature and essence of what is named by it.[45]

There is a spell in the magical papyri showing that the source of power is the name.

You, therefore, arise, clothe yourself in white garments, and burn uncut frankincense in drops on an earthenware altar, saying as follows, "I have been united with thy sacred form. I have been empowered by thy sacred name. I have received the effluence of thy goodness, Lord, God of gods, King, Demon". . . When you have done this, descend, having attained that nature equal to the God's which is effected by this ritual union.[46]

The Mishnah relates how,

Each day they [the priests] made one circuit around the altar and they would say: "Please O Lord, save; Please O Lord, save us!" (Ps. 118:25). R. Yehudah states: [they would say] Ani wa-Ho, save us! Ani wa-Ho, save us!

Urbach surmised that this is a mumbled version of ana (please) and the Tetragammaton.[47] It was mumbled so that the unrighteous would not hear it because of the power inherent in it. The divine name could kill and destroy. In the Palestinian Talmud there is an account of a Persian cursing his child by the ineffable name, resulting in the child’s death.[48] The ineffable name does more than kill. It is also capable of reviving the dead. Even a smoked tuna.

And Peter turning around saw a smoked tuna fish hanging in a window. He took it, saying to the people, “When you see this swimming in water like a fish, will you be able to believe in him whom I preach?” And all said with one voice, “Indeed we shall believe you.” So he went to the pond nearby, saying, “In your name, O Jesus Christ, in whom they do not yet believe, I say, ‘Tuna, in the presence of all these, live and swim like a fish.’”And he cast the tuna into the pond, and it became alive and began to swim.

The multitude saw the swimming fish and he made it swim not only for that hour but, lest they said that it was a deception, he made it swim longer, thereby attracting crowds from all parts and showing that the smoked tuna had again become a living fish. The success was such that many threw pieces of bread into the water, seeing that the fish was whole.[49]

In the "Acts of John" there is an account of how John the Beloved revives, albeit reluctantly, an Ephesian leader and his wife.

I beseech you, Lord, let him not rejoice who delights in the sorrow of others. Let him not dance who always laughs at us! But let your holy name and your compassion come quickly! Waken the bodies of the two, who are against me!”[50]

[39]Joshua Trachtenberg, "Jewish Magic and Superstition," pp. 79-80.

[40]William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. "The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World," pp. 33-34.

[41]PGM VII, 686-702, ed. Betz.

[42]"Yosef ba-Seder 6."

http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/01/power-of-names.html

[43]Romeo and Juliet, act II, scene II.

[44]E. E. Urbach, "The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs," p. 124.

[45]Gershom Scholem, "The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala."

[46]PMG IV, 154-221, as found on p. 103 of Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God?"

This is not to say that I fully endorse Smith's provocative book. The source material and, indeed, many of Smith's observations, are very important for a view of the ancient world.

[47]Mishnah, t. Sukkah 4:5. See Urbach, pp. 127-128.

[48]Palestinian Talmud, t. Yoma 18b.

[49]"The Acts of Peter" 13. Translation from Bart Ehrman "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament."

[50]"The Acts of John" 21, Ehrman, "Lost Scriptures."

[volgadon]

I don't think volgadon was expecting a full dissertation, but rather simply an acknowledgement that you had seen his responses and were anticipating responding yourself.

Exactly.

[volgadon]

The divine name can also animate inanimate objects. Gehazi was Elisha's servant and was dismissed for dishonestly obtaining a gift from Naaman the Syrian. Midrash embellished Gehazi's unscrupulous character, attributing to him no end of nefarious deeds. In one of these accounts Gehazi uses the divine name in order to encourage people to follow Jeroboam's golden calf at Bethel.

He engraved a name upon her mouth so that she would say: "I am [the Lord thy God]" and "Thou shalt have no [other God beside me]."[51]

In a different midrash, Nebuchadnezzar wants Daniel to worship the image he set up. Daniel refuses.

What did that wicked man do? He took the

tzitz

of the high priest and placed it in [the image's] mouth and gathered together all the different types of musicians, who sang praises before the image while it declared: "I am the Lord thy God."

The high priest's tzitz was a golden plate attached to the mitre, with the phrase "Holiness to the Lord" engraved upon it. Daniel obtains permission to kiss the idol, and extracts the tzitz. Despite the musicians' best efforts, the statue is unable to speak anymore and is knocked down by a gust of wind.[52]

[51]Babylonian Talmud, t. Sotah 47a.

[52]Canticles Rabbah 7:9.

Edited September 27, 2011 by volgadon

[wenglund]

As Robert Ritner indicates in "Scripture in Context,"Felt to be an intrinsic element and source of power, the name did not simply identify but defined an individual. For hostile purposes, the destruction of a name could effect the death or misfortune of its owner, and this belief underlies both the prominent role of naming in execration texts... and the well attested expunging of royal names in dynastic feuds. Divinities were often said to have secret names guarded from devotees and other deities alike. The inherent power of such divine names is stated directly in the late Papyrus BM 10188, in which Re-Atum declares: "Magic is my name."[40]... It is also capable of reviving the dead....In the "Acts of John" there is an account of how John the Beloved revives, albeit reluctantly, an Ephesian leader and his wife.

I beseech you, Lord, let him not rejoice who delights in the sorrow of others. Let him not dance who always laughs at us! But let your holy name and your compassion come quickly! Waken the bodies of the two, who are against me!”[50]

[39]Joshua Trachtenberg, "Jewish Magic and Superstition," pp. 79-80.

This gives new meaning to the biblical phrase: "names are in the book of life." (

Philippians 4:3

;

Revelation 3:5

;

Revelation 13:8

;

Revelation 17:8

;

Revelation 20:12

;

Revelation 20:15

;

Revelation 21:27

;

Revelation 22:19

)

It is interesting that you should mention Isis and Re since they factor heavily in ancient Egyptian funerary manuscripts

like pyramid texts. "The purpose of the Pyramid Texts was to help the dead King take his place amongst the gods, in particular to reunite him with his divine father

Ra

." (

The Book of the Dead

)

And, in regards to what you wrote earlier about the creation of the first light, or hidden light of God, which is to be given unto the righteous, thereby making them as God, I find it of interest to note that "The original Egyptian name for the [funerary] text, transliterated

rw nw prt m hrw

[2]

is translated as 'Book of Coming Forth by Day'.

[3]

Another translation would be 'Book of emerging forth into the Light'." (ibid)

Coincidence?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2011 by wenglund

[volgadon]

The ineffable name is what was used to create the world.

In the Book of Jubilees, Isaac gathers his sons before his death and binds them to the love and worship of God through an oath,

by the praiseworthy, illustrious, and great, splendid, marvelous, powerful, and great name which made the heavens and the earth and everything together.[53]

In this life, even the most righteous are unable to utilise the full power of the divine name, since none are completely free of sin.

Rava said: If the righteous wished, they could create a world, for it is written (Isa. 59:1): "Your iniquities have been a barrier between you and your God." For Rava created a man and sent him to R. Zeira. The Rabbi spoke to him but he did not answer. Then he said: "You are [coming] from the pietists: Return to your dust."[54]

At the heart of this talmudic discussion lies the verse from Isaiah. Iniquities separate man from God. Creating a world and creating a man are acts characteristic of God. As Moshe Idel notes, succeeding in those endeavours would mean he passed the test of his religious perfection.[55]

Joseph Dan connects the mysticism of letters with that of names.

The concept of the divine name, its meaning and powers, cannot be separated from the concept of divine language, which is a basic, nonmystical constituent of Judaism. The world was created by the word of God, by his utterances; therefore language evidently preceded the creation, and certainly existed before human beings and their communicative needs existed. The blueprint for the creation, according to Jewish tradition, was scriptures, the Torah, which existed before creation, and God "was looking at it and creating the world." Language, formulated into a text, thus guided God in that process...

In the concept of the holy name of God, language stops being a means and becomes an independent divine essence, in which language and divinity are united. The holy name of God is not an expression of the divine: It is the essence of divinity itself. It is not revelation, it is the Revealer. It is not an instrument of creation, but the Creator.[56]

Bowman states regarding the ORA, that,

It is far from clear that this text means that the pious will become Gods of the same nature and power as “the Holy One.” They apparently will not be creating their new worlds by their own divine power as new deities but rather as rewards given to them and obtained by invoking or using the divine Name.

This simply is untenable in light of the understanding prevalent in the ancient world that the divine name equalled the deity's power and nature. The examples provided show that this was the case for Judaism as well. One of the Hechalot texts shows how deep the connection was between the name and its bearer when that bearer was God.

He is His name and His name is Him.[57]

The concept of the name isn't foreign to LDS teachings.

The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power He redeems and exalts His children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). God gives priesthood authority to worthy male members of the Church so they can act in His name for the salvation of His children.[58]

For us, priesthood ordinances must be done in the proper name to be valid. Were a priesthood holder to, say, baptise someone in the name of the Father, ommiting the names of the Son and the Holy Ghost, the ordinance would have to be redone.

[53]James C. VanderKam, "The Book of Jubilees," vol. 2, 1989, 36:7.

[54]Babylonian Talmud, t. Sanhedrin 65b.

[55]Moshe Idel, "Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid," pp. 27-28,31.

[56]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," vol. 3, pp. 131-132.

[57]Peter Schafer, "Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur," §588.

[58]http://lds.org/study/topics/priesthood?lang=eng&query=priesthood

[volgadon]

Coincidence?

Of course not. Light and sight have always had deep religious significance.

[wenglund]

I have long wondered about the significance of names in ancient religions but haven't come across anything substantial about it, and so I thank you for what you have posted here. What sparked my interest is seeing that many biblical names include the letters "el".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

You know, until you wrote that bit about the month I had figured that you of all people would be understanding of others having constraints upon their time.

I do. That's why I was surprised that you felt it necessary to "chirp" when two days went by without me acknowledging your post.

[volgadon]

So understanding, in fact, that long before I had done a cricket impression you felt it necessary to post on your blogpost that jibe about it being a month.

[volgadon]

I have long wondered about the significance of names in ancient religions but haven't come across anything substantial about it, and so I thank you for what you have posted here. What sparked my interest is seeing that many biblical names include the letters "el".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're welcome.

It is a fascinating topic. As it is, I've only scratched the surface when it comes to the significance of names.

[volgadon]

I am producing the relevant portion of the ORA in greater detail than is found in Patai's "Messiah Texts." The translation is mine

.

[The letter]

Yod

, don't read it as

yod

but read it as

yad

(hand), which teaches that this means the

yad

(hand) and

shem tov

(good name) which in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will give the righteous in the world to come in Jerusalem and in the temple, as it is said (Isa. 56:5): "And unto them will I give in My house and within My walls a monument (

yad

) and a name (

shem

), etc."

"My house" is nothing but the temple, as it is said (Isa. 56:6): "For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."

"My walls" is nothing but Jerusalem, as it is said (Isa. 62:6): "Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, etc."

"Hand" is nothing but portions, as it is said(Gen. 43:34): "And portions were taken unto them from before him; but Benjamin's portion was five

yadot

as much as any of theirs.

What does

yad

teach? That in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will call each of the righteous by name and by his own hand give them a cup of the elixir of life that they may live and be established for eternity and for eternities of eternities.

What does "and a name" teach? In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal the

Shem Ha-Meforash

(Ineffable Name) to each of the righteous for the world to come, as the new heavens and the new earth are created by it, in order for them all to be able to create the new world, as it is said (Isa. 56:5): "I will give him an everlasting name (

shem olam

), that shall not be cut off."

How do we know that this is the

Shem Ha-Meforash

? It is said here

shem olam

and it is said there (Exo. 3:15): "This is My name for ever (

shemi le-olam

)" What is the

Shem Ha-Meforash

there is the

Shem Ha-Meforash

here too.

Another interpretation of "I will give him an everlasting name." Their name will never cease from the world. As the new heavens and the new earth live and are established for eternity and for eternities of eternities, so too the names of the righteous and their seed and the seed of their seed are destined to stand forever, as it is said (Isa. 66:22): "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."

Another interpretation of "everlasting name (

shem olam

)." This teaches that three hundred and forty worlds (

olamim

) will be given as an inheritance to each righteous by the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world to come, as that is the numerical value of

shem

in gematria.

Another interpretation of "everlasting name." It is said at the beginning of that verse "unto them will I give in My house and within My walls" yet at the end of the verse it says "I will give him." If it says "him" then why does it say "unto them will I give"? But if it says "unto them will I give" then why does it say "I will give him"? This is to teach that in the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to every single righteous a

yad

; a portion of a goodly reward; an everlasting name; glory; greatness; praise; and a complete crown of holiness and sovereignty.

"Yad"

is the cup of the elixir of life which [the Holy One, blessed be He,] serves the Messiah and the righteous in the pending future.

"A portion of a goodly reward" is the three hundred and forty worlds which each righteous takes as his portion, each according to the reward for his deeds which is given in the world to come.

"Everlasting name" is the

Shem Ha-Meforash

, by which the world to come is called. "Glory and greatness" are the light which illuminates the eyes, as they use them to see from one end of the world to the next in a single glance. "Praise" is an upright stature such as Adam had. "A complete crown" is the sovereignty and purple robes kings use. "Holiness" because the angels recite the Trishagion (Holy, Holy, Holy) before them after the manner in which they recite it before the Holy One, blessed be He, in the heavens above our world.

"Sovereignty" as even the weakest (

ha-nechshal

) among the righteous will have kingship, honour, blessings, and government like David, the king of Israel had, as it is said (Zech. 12:8 ): "And he that stumbleth (

ha-nechshal

) among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a god, as the angel of the LORD."

Edited September 28, 2011 by volgadon

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

So understanding, in fact, that long before I had done a cricket impression you felt it necessary to post on your blogpost that jibe about it being a month.

Excuse me, but "that jibe" was in reply to your comment criticizing my blogpost without giving any substance to support your criticism.

You: "SF, if I were you I would read a little more on this topic before making such a statement. Rob Bowman has overlooked several significant aspects which put a different light on things."

Me: "'Calba Savua' has been saying for over a month that he was going to refute this article. So far all he has done is quibble over the meaning of 'midrash' and promise a blog post in which he is going to cite numerous other sources that show that the ideas in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva are earlier than that text. Such an argument is irrelevant to the critique of Dan Peterson’s use of the Alphabet text. If earlier texts exist that show the ideas dated from before the supposed Great Apostasy, those are the ones that should have been cited, not a text dating from at least half a millennium after the Great Apostasy is said to have begun."

As I will explain in my reply to your recent posts here, I'm still waiting for you to engage the substantive point I made in that comment. There's no hurry at all--but my reference to the passing of a month was made in the context of pointing out that you were declaring my article inadequate before offering any rebuttal to its central point.

[volgadon]

Let's see, the text is an anthology using earlier texts and traditions, and it teaches theosis. You have yet to show what in it is new or represents a "medieval" theology.

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

You have presented a lot of good and interesting information in your posts. What you have not done, however, is to engage the argument I presented. Instead, you are trying to pull very hard on a couple of threads on the fringes of the argument in the belief, apparently, that doing so will make the whole argument unravel. It does not.

You state at the beginning of your recent series of replies that previously you had critiqued my assumption “that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature.” This summary is inaccurate, because I clearly stated that it did not always have this meaning and that in any case Peterson’s reference to the unnamed source as “an early midrash,” in the context of his argument, clearly implied that it was a pre-Talmudic midrash. You also omitted to mention that in my revision to my blog post I further clarified this point to avoid the misunderstanding you attempted to exploit.

You appear to concede that the Alphabet dates from the seventh to the ninth centuries. However, you expend a great deal of effort calling into question my description of the work as “proto-Kabbalistic.” In support of this criticism, you point out “that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.” But I didn’t say it was Kabbalistic; I said that it contributed to the development of what can later be called Kabbalah. That was what I meant by “proto-Kabbalistic.” When you say, “Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy,” I can agree with you, but again, I didn’t say that the Alphabet was a work of Kabbalah.

You then argue at length that the qualified term proto-Kabbalistic is “meaningless” because, you say, “I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic.” Even writings like 4 Ezra and those of Aristobulus—even Ezekiel—have ideas and motifs that play a significant role in Kabbalah. “Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless.” This is a more subtle argument than simply pointing out that the Alphabet is not itself a work of Kabbalah, but your objection here is an instance of the fallacy of the beard. Granted that Kabbalists drew from ideas that go back in Jewish literature more than a thousand years earlier than the Alphabet, it does not follow that we cannot describe Jewish mystical, esoteric writings of the late first millennium AD as significantly closer and more directly relevant to the development of what would emerge as Kabbalah a few centuries later. You comment,

“The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters.”

Exactly. “Proto-Kabbalistic” means “important to the development of the Kabbalah.” My claim was not that the Alphabet was Kabbalistic but that it played a significant role in the run-up of developing Jewish esotericism and mysticism that would soon lead to what is known as Kabbalah.

Your next major point is that, while you appear to concede that the Alphabet dates from the late first millennium, you argue that it is an “anthology” which, by definition, includes materials dating from prior to the text itself. Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that this is a correct description of the work. Does the anthology identify the earlier material that it is “anthologizing”? Apparently not. Does it indicate the date or time period from which its contents originate? Again no. The Alphabet is hardly what we normally mean by the term “anthology” (a collection of discrete literary works, such as essays or poems). I am here not disputing Joseph Dan’s description but simply suggesting that he used the term loosely or analogically; or, if you prefer, that we should not assume by Dan’s use of the term that the Alphabet corresponds in form to what the term anthology typically denotes in modern literature. Dan himself states, in your own quotation from him, “But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty.” Scholem’s statement that the Alphabet “preserved a great deal of the old Merkavah material” confirms my point here.

On the issue of the dating of the text, you argue, “Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance.” Frankly, this is not only false, it is absurdly false. In my blog post, I explicitly anticipated and discussed your line of rebuttal:

“One may suppose that some Mormon apologists, upon learning that the source of this quotation is a medieval proto-Kabbalistic text, will argue that even if the text is medieval the idea it expresses may be ancient. Obviously, no text appears in a vacuum; all texts draw on ideas that predate them. However, the point of the quotation is supposedly to provide evidence that a particular idea is ancient, and a medieval text of checkered textual history is not good evidence for that claim. A Jewish text dating from about the eighth century cannot provide evidence that Joseph Smith was restoring a doctrine supposedly lost or suppressed in a second-century apostasy. If Mormon apologists wish to defend that claim, they will need to use earlier, different texts.”

Up to now, you have not engaged this point, which is the central point of my whole argument. Thus, you have not yet really engaged my argument at all.

Continuing on this problem, you wrote:

Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman’s argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's “Tales from Shakespear” without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Your line of reasoning here—which dominates much of your critique—misplaces the burden of proof. The burden of proof was not on me to prove that some idea in Dan Peterson’s unnamed source dates from before the alleged Great Apostasy of the second century. No, Peterson was the one trying to make a case for Joseph Smith’s doctrine being a restoration of truth supposedly lost in that Great Apostasy, and so the burden of proof is on him. That simply means that it was up to him to show that his quotations provided reasonably good evidence that the doctrine they (supposedly) exemplify dated from before the Great Apostasy would have begun. In pointing out that the unsourced document he quoted dated from half a millennium or more after the Great Apostasy supposedly began, I raised a valid objection that called into question the evidential value of his quotation.

Now, of course, if the quotation in the Alphabet was demonstrably itself a quotation from, say, a first-century AD text, pointing this out would be adequate to meet that burden of proof. But you don’t make that claim. Instead, you argue that there is some “continuity” between the “concepts” in Peterson’s quote from the Alphabet and concepts that can be documented “from earlier times.” If so, fine; but this would not be a valid defense of Peterson’s argument, since he offered the quotation from the Alphabet as evidence, not the earlier statements you have in mind.

Turn your line of reasoning around and see how the shoe fits. Suppose I claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity originated during the time of the New Testament apostles and in support of that claim I quoted the Nicene Creed. You would immediately point out that the Nicene Creed was written in the fourth century, wouldn’t you? I would, if I were in your place. Such a rebuttal to my citation of the Nicene Creed in that context would be perfectly valid. I could, of course, reply that many of the concepts of the Nicene Creed can be found in the New Testament itself, which is quite true, but this would still not validate my citation of the Nicene Creed as evidence for the Trinity as a first-century doctrine.

Recall Joseph Dan’s statement, which you quoted and I repeated above, that “what parts of this vast collection [in the Alphabet] were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty.” If he’s right, then once again the burden of proof is on Peterson to show that he was quoting an ancient statement, not on me to show that the idea it expressed cannot have ancient precedent.

You wrote:

The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas.

These are all good questions to ask, but the person who should have addressed them in the context of using the text was Dan Peterson. All of your criticism of what my blog article failed to do with regard to the Alphabet text ignores the fact that Peterson failed to do anything to support his use of the text. Again, he was the one who cited the text, as several other noted Mormon apologists have also done, as support for the claim that the LDS doctrine of exaltation was a lost doctrinal truth that God restored through Joseph Smith. The burden of proof was on him to give some reason why this text should be regarded as evidence for his claim, not on me to address every conceivable issue about the text.

(To be continued in the next post.)

Edited September 28, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

Next, you try to establish that the ideas in the Alphabet text are ancient. Of course, some of them are, such as the promise of eternal life. On the other hand, I would dispute your claim that its alphabetic esotericism is rooted in Genesis:

The roots of letter esotericism, which is what the ORA is mainly concerned with, go back as far as the book of Genesis itself. God commands, things obey. This is accomplished by the medium of speech. As speech consists of sounds represented by letters, it is logical to conclude that letters have power and intrinsic meaning.

One could hardly ask for a better example of the fallacy of composition, i.e., your argument reasons that if a word spoken by God has intrinsic meaning and power then each letter does as well. And your argument also assumes a very literalistic understanding of Genesis, according to which God literally vocalized Hebrew words (and they would have to be Hebrew, to make the argument work) in order to create. No doubt such assumptions and reasoning guided the writer(s) of the Alphabet, but I wouldn’t trace such thinking back to the Bible itself. I agree, though, that gematria and other forms of esoteric speculation about the letters of the Torah have ancient origins. This shows that much of the speculation in the Alphabet has roots in ancient Jewish thought. It does not, however, show that the material Peterson quoted was ancient; nor does it show that the specific idea for which he cited it (the idea that the glorified saints will create worlds) was ancient. And again, if it was an ancient idea, this should be demonstrated by citing an ancient source, not a medieval one.

In a more recent post, you cite some genuinely ancient texts to show that “theosis” was “an early Jewish doctrine.” In two fragmentary texts from Qumran (4Q427 and 4Q491c), a mysterious, unidentified figure proclaims himself to be “counted among the gods” and to be incomparably exalted and glorified. The identity of the unnamed figure is a matter of scholarly controversy (Michael the archangel? the Messiah? the Suffering Servant? the Qumran “Teacher of Righteousness”?), but what does seem clear enough is that this figure’s “deification” is presented as unique to him; it is not expressing a hope of such deification for all of God’s faithful people.

You also cite the midrashic tradition that God made Israel, or the Israelites, at Mount Sinai to be “gods”—a tradition some scholars think lurks in the background of John 10:34-36. Jerome Neyrey’s explanation of this tradition, which you quote with approval, is that Israel at Mount Sinai was holy and deathless, and would have remained so had Israel not rebelled against the Lord and committed idolatry in the wilderness. I certainly agree that both Jews and Christians in the biblical period believed that God’s intention was for human beings to become holy, immortal beings. If this is what one means by “theosis,” I’m all for it. However, the issue here is whether Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation restored some lost or forgotten doctrine of ancient Jewish and Christian belief. Since the idea that God’s people will become holy, immortal beings was in no respect ever lost or forgotten, this example falls short of supporting the restorationist claim.

Next, you cite the Sifra (ca. AD 200), in which God is quoted as saying that he and man in the age to come will be “alike” so that man will no longer need to tremble in or hide from God’s presence. This is a wonderful story that, again, expresses a hope that Christians have never lost. We do not deny and have not forgotten that the redeemed will be like God in the age to come; we simply disagree with Mormonism as to what that likeness will mean.

More than half a dozen posts later, you finally offer a quotation to show that the actual idea expressed in Dan Peterson’s quote from the Alphabet—the idea that the glorified saints will be able to make new worlds—predated that text:

Rava said: If the righteous wished, they could create a world, for it is written (Isa. 59:1): “Your iniquities have been a barrier between you and your God.” For Rava created a man and sent him to R. Zeira. The Rabbi spoke to him but he did not answer. Then he said: “You are [coming] from the pietists: Return to your dust.”

This quote comes from the Babylonian Talmud (t. Sanhedrin 65b). If we accept the story as really coming from Rava, this pushes the story’s origin back to the first half of the fourth century AD—better than the eighth century, but still well after the Great Apostasy supposedly began. Of course, there is some reason for skepticism that Rava created a man; this story appears to be a legend about Rava, suggesting that it originated sometime later than the time of Rava himself. But perhaps the idea that human beings could create a world does originate in Judaism at least that far back, and perhaps even farther. As I pointed out in my blog article (that you are supposedly critiquing), this does very little to support the LDS claim that Joseph Smith’s theology was a restoration of ancient truth:

“There is no hint in this passage {in Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva} of Joseph Smith’s doctrine that God was once a man who became God by a process of exaltation that we are to imitate. Nor does the passage suggest that human beings preexisted as God’s spirit children prior to their mortal lives on earth. It does affirm that pious people will be “exalted” in some significant ways: they will have immortality, renown, glory, greatness, praise, holiness, and royalty. Depending on exactly how these are understood, all orthodox Christians would agree (though we have a different understanding as to the basis on which these blessings will be received).”

I then stated:

“The one element that sounds similar to Mormon theology is the reference to the glorified pious ones ‘being able to create new worlds.’ Even here, though, the context is very different: the pious will be able to do this because they will know ‘the Ineffable Name,’ and the worlds they will have will be given to them by ‘the Holy One’ and are limited to a certain number. It is far from clear that this text means that the pious will become Gods of the same nature and power as ‘the Holy One.’ They apparently will not be creating their new worlds by their own divine power as new deities but rather as rewards given to them and obtained by invoking or using the divine Name.”

You did comment on the last two sentences quoted above:

This simply is untenable in light of the understanding prevalent in the ancient world that the divine name equalled the deity's power and nature. The examples provided show that this was the case for Judaism as well. One of the Hechalot texts shows how deep the connection was between the name and its bearer when that bearer was God.

This comment confuses the issue, in my estimation. Yes, in ancient Jewish thought God’s name was equivalent to God’s power and nature. This does not mean, however, that human beings who were given authority to act in God’s name became Gods of equal power and nature. A man’s use of the divine name is an act of delegated authority, not the action of a deified man.

(To be concluded in the next post.)

Edited September 28, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon:

Let’s review.

My claim in the blog article you are critiquing is that Dan Peterson’s unsourced quotation from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva does not do what the quotation is supposed to do, specifically, to illustrate his contention that Joseph Smith’s theology of exaltation or deification was a return to, or restoration of, ancient doctrines predating the supposed Great Apostasy. This is because the Alphabet is a medieval, proto-Kabbalistic text dating from at least half a millennium after that Great Apostasy would have begun. I acknowledged that some of the ideas in the Alphabet no doubt predated the text, but as a matter of evidence Peterson’s use of this quotation does not provide evidential support for his claim. I also pointed out that the quotation at best provides a partial parallel to only one of the six key elements of Joseph’s doctrine, and even that parallel (man creating worlds) is framed in a way that differentiates it from Joseph’s view that man will literally become deities of the same inherent nature as God.

So far, your many posts critiquing my article have yet to address any of these points adequately:

• You have quibbled over my use of the term midrash, a quibble that has nothing to do with any of the above points.
  
• You have argued that the Alphabet is not a work of Kabbalah, which is not what I said.
  
• You disputed that the term “proto-Kabbalistic” was meaningful, but then stated yourself that it was important for the development of Kabbalah, which was my point.
  
• You implicitly conceded that the text dated from the late first millennium, but complained that this date tells us nothing about how old the ideas in the text might be. Yet you ignored my comments in the article that anticipated this specific objection.
  
• You documented that many of the ideas in the Alphabet did predate it; however, most of these ideas are something other than deification of man.
  
• You cited two fragmentary Qumran texts, which speak of the divine status of one mysterious, unidentified figure, who might not even be a human being—hardly evidence for “theosis,” let alone Mormon deification theology.
  
• You cited traditions from early Jewish extrabiblical texts that imply that God intends for his people to become “gods” in the sense of becoming holy, immortal beings, “like” God in a way that will free them from needing to hide from or tremble at God’s presence. These ideas were never lost or forgotten in Christianity and so are not relevant to establish Peterson’s restorationist claim.
  
• You presented just one quotation to illustrate the claim that the idea of humans making world predated the Alphabet (the point of Peterson’s quotation): a tradition about Rava creating a (mute) man and asserting that the righteous could make a world. This tradition dates no earlier than the fourth century and assumes that such creative acts would be possible only by acting as God’s authorized agents.
  
• The substance of Joseph Smith’s “restored” doctrine of deification or exaltation—that human beings are preexistent Gods in embryo who can become exalted to the status and power of Gods just as God the Father did before us—finds no support in Peterson’s quotation from the Alphabet.
  

I think I have covered just about everything of possible relevance in your responses. I hope I have expressed my disagreements with your arguments clearly and fairly.

[wenglund]

My claim in the blog article you are critiquing is that Dan Peterson’s unsourced quotation from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva does not do what the quotation is supposed to do, specifically, to illustrate his contention that Joseph Smith’s theology of exaltation or deification was a return to, or restoration of, ancient doctrines predating the supposed Great Apostasy.

I view Dr. Peterson's contention quite differently, as saying that the notion of deification predates Joseph Smith. More specifically: "But the doctrine of exaltation was revealed much earlier than the late, Nauvoo period of Joseph's life." And, that this notion, while "moving further and further away from mainstream Christendom," "Joseph Smith wasn't actually moving away from Judeo-Christian tradition. He was returning to a forgotten strand of it." "For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call "theosis."

The realization that all of his non-bibical "ancient" sources post-date the Great Apostasy, clearly suggests to me that he wasn't arguing that the notion "predat[es] the supposed Great Apostasy," as you suggests, quite the opposite, though he may suppose that it does.

Ironically, then, you have misrepresented Dr. Peterson's contention.

This leaves us with the rather trite matter of whether the phrase "early Jewish midrash" is accurate or not in relation to the ORA. Let me ask you if, were space constraints such that you could only choose between "early" or "late" from a range of first century CE until the present, would you consider the 3rd or even 9th centuries CE to be "early" or "late"?

Would you describe it as "ancient" or "modern"?

I ask because, Tzvee Zahavy, in an article on Biblical Criticism: Midrash and Midieval Commentary, describes: "The Hebrew word "midrash" means interpretation. It most commonly refers to (1) classic compilations of Bible interpretation in early rabbinism (first to sixth centuries C.E.), (2) some of the major interpretive styles associated with those compilations, and (3) some types of contemporary interpretations of texts (of Scripture or of fiction) that bear resemblances to the classic rabbinic modes." (emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 28, 2011 by wenglund

[Vance]

My claim in the blog article you are critiquing is that Dan Peterson’s unsourced quotation from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva does not do what the quotation is supposed to do, specifically, to illustrate his contention that Joseph Smith’s theology of exaltation or deification was a return to, or restoration of, ancient doctrines predating the supposed Great Apostasy.

Nice strawman you have constructed there Bowman.

Shall we look at what Dan ACTUALLY wrote?

With this doctrine of exaltation or human deification, though, Joseph Smith wasn't actually moving away from Judeo-Christian tradition. He was returning to a forgotten strand of it.

He never even mentioned "the Great Apostasy", nor did he make a claim about when the doctrine was forgotten.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Vance