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

[wenglund]

According to Rob's blog, "We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text [ORA?] dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the 'Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba' is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries.[6]"

However, according to the Wikipedia article on the ALphabet of Akiba ben Joseph, there are two versions (versions A and B), and "Version A shows more unity of plan, and, as Jellinek (B. H. vi. 40) has shown, is older. It is directly based upon, if not coeval with, Shab. 104a, according to which the school-children in the time of Joshua ben Levi (the beginning of the 3rd century) were taught in such mnemonic forms which at the same time suggested moral lessons. Jellinek even thinks that the Midrash was composed with the view of acquainting the children with the alphabet, while the Shabuot festival (Pentecost) furnished as themes God, Torah, Israel, and Moses.." (Emphasis mine)

"On the other hand, version B (which H. Grätz, Monatsschrift, viii. 70 et seq., considered as being the original, and the Hebrew "Enoch," and the "Shi'ur Komah" as sections of it) shows no inner unity of plan, but is simply a compilation of haggadic passages taken at random from these and other kabalistic and midrashic works without any other connection than the external order of the letters of the alphabet, but also based on Shab.[ 104a. Jellinek has shown the time of its composition to be comparatively modern, as is evidenced by the Arabic form of the letters and other indications of Arabic life."(ibid--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On his blog Rob also states; "If the quotation came from Aqiva, as Bickmore implies (without directly making that claim), that would be impressive indeed! Peterson’s description of this source as 'an early Jewish midrash' implies that it originates from the same era of history as Aqiva."

I don't know if Rob is correctly reading things into what Bickmore and Peterson have said, but it may be of interest to note that the writers of both versions (A and B) began their composition with "R. Akiba hath said."

This leaves open the question whether the authors were quoting and/or expounding upon what they understood R. Akiba to have said in his own day, or whether they were using it as a pseudonym for themselves. And, since this is an open question, it hardly seems reasonable to criticize Bickmore or Peterson for taking the document's opening clause at face value.

Even still, if one assumes the latter (that it is a pseudonym), and if one is going to charge anyone with misrepresentation, I would think it would be far more warranted towards the authors of the two versions, rather than Bickmore and Peterson.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

On his blog Rob also states; "If the quotation came from Aqiva, as Bickmore implies (without directly making that claim), that would be impressive indeed! Peterson’s description of this source as 'an early Jewish midrash' implies that it originates from the same era of history as Aqiva."

I don't know if Rob is correctly reading things into what Bickmore and Peterson have said, but it may be of interest to note that the writers of both versions (A and B) began their composition with "R. Akiba hath said."

This leaves open the question whether the authors were quoting and/or expounding upon what they understood R. Akiba to have said in his own day, or whether they were using it as a pseudonym for themselves. And, since this is an open question, it hardly seems reasonable to criticize Bickmore or Peterson for taking the document's opening clause at face value.

Even still, if one assumes the latter (that it is a pseudonym), and if one is going to charge anyone with misrepresentation, I would think it would be far more warranted towards the authors of the two versions, rather than Bickmore and Peterson.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is highly doubtful that these originated with R. Akiva. What seems likely though is that these traditions, following themes of immense interest to Akiva (or at least his image in the rabbinic and popular mind) were attributed to him.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

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."

This statement is about when Joseph first had the doctrine revealed to him, not that it predated him.

You wrote:

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."

Here is the complete statement Dan Peterson made:

"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. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call 'theosis.'"

His thesis in the article, then, is that Joseph Smith's doctrine was a return to an ancient Jewish and Christian doctrine of human deification that had been forgotten by Joseph's day. Any evidence for this claim, then, would need to come from the ancient world, and would need to pre-date the time when it was supposedly "forgotten." Since LDS doctrine maintains that the doctrines that have been restored were doctrines taught by the prophets and apostles of the biblical era, the evidence should also come from that era. Thus, any way you look at it, the evidence for Dan's statement should come from ancient sources.

You wrote:

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.

I would assume that Dan would argue that the truths taught before the Great Apostasy were not all forgotten immediately, but gradually were corrupted or lost over the next few centuries. Nevertheless, since Dan announced his intention of showing that the doctrine in question was held by "ancient" Christians and Jews, his evidence needed to come from ancient sources. The church fathers of the second through fifth centuries are on the late end of ancient history, so they can plausibly count in that regard (though there are other problems with that appeal). But a text dating from the seventh to ninth centuries does not.

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

Hopefully, I have explained why I don't think so.

This leaves us with the rather trite matter of whether the phrase "early Jewish midrash" is accurate or not in relation to the ORA.

Not in the context of arguing that a modern doctrine is a restoration of an "ancient" doctrine, no.

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"?

See above. I don't accept the conditions or assumptions of your question. A house dating from the 1500s could be described as "early colonial" without anyone thinking it was from the ancient world. Context, context, context.

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

See above.

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)

Uh, oh, Volgadon won't like that definition.

[volgadon]

According to Rob's blog, "We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text [ORA?] dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the 'Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba' is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries.[6]"

However, according to the Wikipedia article on the ALphabet of Akiba ben Joseph, there are two versions (versions A and B), and "Version A shows more unity of plan, and, as Jellinek (B. H. vi. 40) has shown, is older. It is directly based upon, if not coeval with, Shab. 104a, according to which the school-children in the time of Joshua ben Levi (the beginning of the 3rd century) were taught in such mnemonic forms which at the same time suggested moral lessons. Jellinek even thinks that the Midrash was composed with the view of acquainting the children with the alphabet, while the Shabuot festival (Pentecost) furnished as themes God, Torah, Israel, and Moses.." (Emphasis mine)

"On the other hand, version B (which H. Grätz, Monatsschrift, viii. 70 et seq., considered as being the original, and the Hebrew "Enoch," and the "Shi'ur Komah" as sections of it) shows no inner unity of plan, but is simply a compilation of haggadic passages taken at random from these and other kabalistic and midrashic works without any other connection than the external order of the letters of the alphabet, but also based on Shab.[ 104a. Jellinek has shown the time of its composition to be comparatively modern, as is evidenced by the Arabic form of the letters and other indications of Arabic life."(ibid--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hertz Imber's school model unfortunately has very little supporting it.

[volgadon]

Uh, oh, Volgadon won't like that definition.

You are right, I wouldn't. As midrashim are found outside midrashic compilations, even in decidedly halakhic texts, such as the Mishnah, predating the earliest midrashic collections it seems odd that the term would primarily refer to a collection. That being said, Zahavy wasn't using that definition in order to insist that Petersen must have meant Tannaitic or pre-Talmudic.

[Vance]

"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. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call 'theosis.'"

His thesis in the article, then, is that Joseph Smith's doctrine was a return to an ancient Jewish and Christian doctrine of human deification that had been forgotten by Joseph's day. Any evidence for this claim, then, would need to come from the ancient world, and would need to pre-date the time when it was supposedly "forgotten." Since LDS doctrine maintains that the doctrines that have been restored were doctrines taught by the prophets and apostles of the biblical era, the evidence should also come from that era. Thus, any way you look at it, the evidence for Dan's statement should come from ancient sources.

Apparently, Bowman missed this part of Dan's piece.

The Christian saint Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 163) taught that "All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and of having power to become sons of the Highest."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) declared that "We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods. … (Jesus Christ) became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

Clement of Alexandria (d. A.D. 215) believed that in the "future life" we will be among "gods … those who have become perfect … and become pure in heart … They are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior."

Tertullian, the first great Latin Christian author (d. A.D. 225), wrote that, through divine grace, the saved "shall be even gods."

Origen of Alexandria (d. A.D. 251) believed in "the Father as the one true God," but acknowledged "other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God."

And the translator of the enormously influential Latin Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome (d. A.D. 419), insisted that "God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. … They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High."

Those look like ancient sources to me.

[wenglund]

For those interested in reading online a translations of the "Letters of Akiba", as it is called (a copy of ORA version A and/or B?), you may do so here:

http://www.archive.org/stream/lettersofrabbiak00unitiala/lettersofrabbiak00unitiala_djvu.txt

Note the anthropomorphism of both angels and the Lord, particularly in Part 3.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It is highly doubtful that these originated with R. Akiva. What seems likely though is that these traditions, following themes of immense interest to Akiva (or at least his image in the rabbinic and popular mind) were attributed to him.

I can accept that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

For those interested in reading online a translations of the "Letters of Akiba", as it is called (a copy of ORA version A and/or B?), you may do so here:

http://www.archive.o...itiala_djvu.txt

Note the anthropomorphism of both angels and the Lord, particularly in Part 3.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The same terms used of the righteous in the quote are also used in describing the process of Enoch become a divine being.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote, referring to Dan Peterson's quotations from the church fathers:

Apparently, Bowman missed this part of Dan's piece.... Those look like ancient sources to me.

Apparently, you didn't bother to finish reading the post you are criticizing, since later in that same post I wrote:

"The church fathers of the second through fifth centuries are on the late end of ancient history, so they can plausibly count in that regard (though there are other problems with that appeal). But a text dating from the seventh to ninth centuries does not."

Oops.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob,

Your entire argument is based on quibbling.

1- What is a midrash?

2- What is early midrash?

3- What is "ancient"?

4- What is the date of the Great Apostasy? (The is none; it is a process, not an event.)

You are, quite simply, quibbling everyone to death. Booooring.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote, referring to Dan Peterson's quotations from the church fathers:

Apparently, you didn't bother to finish reading the post you are criticizing, since later in that same post I wrote:

"The church fathers of the second through fifth centuries are on the late end of ancient history, so they can plausibly count in that regard (though there are other problems with that appeal). But a text dating from the seventh to ninth centuries does not."

Oops.

So, you ended up contradicting yourself then didn't you.

What? Second century isn't ancient for Christian stuff?

You really are quibbling aren't you!

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Rob,

Your entire argument is based on quibbling.

1- What is a midrash?

2- What is early midrash?

3- What is "ancient"?

4- What is the date of the Great Apostasy? (The is none; it is a process, not an event.)

You are, quite simply, quibbling everyone to death. Booooring.

Hmm. Apparently you decided to turn my use of the term quibbling around and use it against me. Creative!

I'd like to introduce myself to you, Bill. I am an ancient prophet and the author of an early Jewish midrash on the Gospel of John.

(Ancient is a relative term, don'tcha know; from the point of view of a junior-high kid, I am indeed ancient. As for prophet, well, anyone who engages in "forth telling" is a prophet, according to a very popular definition. Early is another relative term. Midrash, according to a source quoted by Volgadon, "is a process and a product" and "is a method of study and interpretation of the Bible and it is the name given to the literary works that emerge from that study." My book is a literary work based on a method of study and interpretation of the Bible. Ergo, it is midrash. And I am something like one-sixteenth Jewish by blood, and besides, as a Christian I consider myself a true Jew, Romans 2:28-29.)

And if you try to argue that I'm not, well, Bill, by your own standard, you're just quibbling.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, you ended up contradicting yourself then didn't you.

No! I didn't say the church fathers were not ancient. I said they were ancient. What I said was that if Peterson wants to establish that a doctrine is ancient he should use ancient sources, and the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is not ancient!

[Vance]

No! I didn't say the church fathers were not ancient. I said they were ancient. What I said was that if Peterson wants to establish that a doctrine is ancient he should use ancient sources, and the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva is not ancient!

Yes, you did!

First you said,

"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. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call 'theosis.'"

His thesis in the article, then, is that Joseph Smith's doctrine was a return to an ancient Jewish and Christian doctrine of human deification that had been forgotten by Joseph's day. Any evidence for this claim, then, would need to come from the ancient world, and would need to pre-date the time when it was supposedly "forgotten." Since LDS doctrine maintains that the doctrines that have been restored were doctrines taught by the prophets and apostles of the biblical era, the evidence should also come from that era. Thus, any way you look at it, the evidence for Dan's statement should come from ancient sources.

And then you said,

"The church fathers of the second through fifth centuries are on the late end of ancient history, so they can plausibly count in that regard (though there are other problems with that appeal). But a text dating from the seventh to ninth centuries does not."

Sorry, but second century is the EARLY end of "ancient Christian history".

Ancient:

1: having had an existence of many years

2: of or relating to a remote period, to a time early in history, or to those living in such a period or time; especially : of or relating to the historical period beginning with the earliest known civilizations and extending to the fall of the western Roman Empire in a.d. 476

3: having the qualities of age or long existence:

OOPS!!!!

Edited September 28, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

<p>

This is because the <em>Alphabet</em> is a medieval, proto-Kabbalistic text dating from at least half a millennium after that Great Apostasy would have begun

</p>

<p> </p>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">You have yet to indicate what in it is late or proto-Kabbalistic. Unless you define precisely what you mean by "proto-Kabbalistic" and provide examples of such, it will remain a worthless definition and unsubstantiated opinion. You are also operating under the assumption that "medieval" marks a break with "ancient" when it comes to Judaism. </span></p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">So far, your many posts critiquing my article have yet to address any of these points adequately:</span></p>

<ul class="bbc">

<li><span style="font-size: 14px">You have quibbled over my use of the term midrash, a quibble that has nothing to do with any of the above points.</span></li>

</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It was certainly relevant when you insisted that Petersen must have meant A because midrash is A, even though B is really the default assumption.</p>

</div>

<p> </p>

<ul class="bbc">

<li>

<div>

<span style="font-size: 14px">You have argued that the <em>Alphabet</em> is not a work of Kabbalah, which is not what I said</span>

</div>

</li>

</ul>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">I have argued that the ORA is not proto-Kabbalistic in any meaningful sense.</span></p>

<p> </p>

<p>

</p>

<ul>

<li><span style="font-size: 14px">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.</span></li>

</ul>

<div> </div>

<div>It seems you have misunderstood my point. I stated that it was important for the developement of the Kabbalah not because of any markedly Kabbalistic tendencies but because it gathers explanations on the letters into one place in an orderly fashion. These can be found elsewhere for the most part, but in disparate texts which are not primarily concerned with expounding the alphabet.</div>

<p> </p>

<p>

</p>

<ul>

<li><span style="font-size: 14px">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.</span></li>

</ul>

<div>The very nature of this composite text is such that the date of compilation has very little bearing on the contents. You, however, wish to focus on the date rather than the contents.</div>

<div>

<div> </div>

<ul class="bbc">

<li><span style="font-size: 14px">You documented that many of the ideas in the <em>Alphabet</em> did predate it; however, most of these ideas are something other than deification of man.</span></li>

</ul>

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>All tie into deification. Alphabet mysticism is the focus of the ORA. It is closely connected with the creation and with God's interaction with the world. Names likewise, as well as being God's power. Immortality is one of the defining characteristics of God. Holiness is another. As the account with Rava indicates, what separates man from God (and fully utilising his power) is the inevitability of sin.</p>

<ul class="bbc">

<li>

<div>

<ul>

<li><span style="font-size: 14px">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.</span></li>

</ul>

</div>

</li>

</ul>

<div>You are going to have a hard time arguing that the figure wasn't a human being. Angels were believed to have been created exalted, pure and holy. Why would an angel need to emphasise becoming that unless he wasn't originally an angel?</div>

[wenglund]

You wrote: This statement is about when Joseph first had the doctrine revealed to him, not that it predated him.

Yes and no. In context, Dr. Peterson is here working backwards from the late Nauvoo period when "Joseph Smith began to teach that humans, being children of God, can become like their Father," back through to "ancient" times. The first step in that backwards travel was the year 1832 ("nearly eight years before the Saints settled in Illinois"), when D&C 76 was revealed. Peterson then moved backward to 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, in which was revealed 3 Nephi 28:10. From here, Peterson began to look at even more "ancient" instances of the notion.

The point being, the notion of "deification" predate Joseph's late Nauvoo period declarations about man becoming like God.

Here is the complete statement Dan Peterson made: "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. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call 'theosis.'" His thesis in the article, then, is that Joseph Smith's doctrine was a return to an ancient Jewish and Christian doctrine of human deification that had been forgotten by Joseph's day. Any evidence for this claim, then, would need to come from the ancient world, and would need to pre-date the time when it was supposedly "forgotten." Since LDS doctrine maintains that the doctrines that have been restored were doctrines taught by the prophets and apostles of the biblical era, the evidence should also come from that era. Thus, any way you look at it, the evidence for Dan's statement should come from ancient sources.

It depends upon when one assumes things were forgotten. If one assumes that the things were forgotten in more modern times (around the 1800's or somewhat before) in relation to Joseph Smith (this is how I interpret Dr. Peterson), then citing instances of the notion prior to or more "ancient" than then, would suffice--which is what Dr. Peterson did.

The fact that Peterson cited early Church fathers and the ORA, who he reasonably considered as "ancient" sources, clearly indicates that he didn't think the notion had been forgotten as late as 419 C.E or even the 9th century. Were you more adept at exegesis/textual analysis, you may have determined this. As it is, you are imposing your own preconception about when things were forgetting onto what Dr. Peterson has said. In short, you are ironically misrepresenting him.

Granted, you did suggest that Dr. Peterson could argue for the ECF being ancient, though you had some reservations with him doing so. However, again, the point isn't what you think he could argue or what you may have reservations about, but rather what he meant. Clearly, he reasonably and legitimately saw as ancient the ECF's as well as the ORA, and he implicitly and legitimately viewed the forgetting as post-dating those sources.

I would assume that Dan would argue that the truths taught before the Great Apostasy were not all forgotten immediately, but gradually were corrupted or lost over the next few centuries. Nevertheless, since Dan announced his intention of showing that the doctrine in question was held by "ancient" Christians and Jews, his evidence needed to come from ancient sources. The church fathers of the second through fifth centuries are on the late end of ancient history, so they can plausibly count in that regard (though there are other problems with that appeal). But a text dating from the seventh to ninth centuries does not. Hopefully, I have explained why I don't think so.

That's the problem. YOU have explained why YOU don't think so; whereas, what you ought to have been attempting, exegetically/textual critically, is to understand what Dr. Peterson meant by "ancient."

The term "ancient" (which means, among other things, "having had an existence of many years"), is relative and subjective, particularly when used informally in newspaper articles. It can reasonably and legitimately refer to anything from about 10 years past to the beginning of recorded history. The quotes from the early church fathers and the OCR (even if dated to the 9th century A.D.), fit well within that reasonable and legitimate range, and give us clear indication of what Dr. Peterson reasonably and legitimately meant by "ancient".

In short, YOU are mistakenly imposing YOUR meaning of "ancient" on to Dr. Peterson. YOU are errantly putting YOUR words into his mouth.

Not in the context of arguing that a modern doctrine is a restoration of an "ancient" doctrine, no.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, it is not your opinion that counts in this case. You are critiquing what Dr. Peterson said and meant, and not what you believe. So, it is his meaning that counts, not yours. Else, you end up, as you often have, putting words into his and other people's mouths.

Doing so doesn't bode well for your claims to adeptness in exegesis and textual analysis. Such quibbling, and making a man an offender for a word, works against your credibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The same terms used of the righteous in the quote are also used in describing the process of Enoch become a divine being.

Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Were you more adept at exegesis/textual analysis, you may have determined this. As it is, you are imposing your own preconception about the forgetting onto what Dr. Peterson has said. In short, you are ironically misrepresenting him.

. . .

Doing so doesn't bode well for your claims to adeptness in exegesis and textual analysis. Such quibbling works against your credibility.

Hitting the nail on the head.

[volgadon]

<ul>

<li>

<div>

<span style="font-size: 14px">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.</span>

</div>

</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">

You presented just one quotation to illustrate the claim that the idea of humans making world predated the <em class="bbc">Alphabet</em> (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.

</span></p>

<p> </p>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">You missed one. Bezalel knowing the combination of letters used for creation. Granted, it does not say that he did create a world, but the knowledge to do so was indeed there. What he did do was create a microcosmos. If you look at the Rava text, the point is that the only reason why people can't do exactly what God does is because they aren't completely free from sin. That is what separates them from being divine. Obviously, being holy had considerable implications.</span></p>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">You keep repeating that bit about only acting as God's authorised agents. The <em>only </em>difference here is that you don't accept LDS as God's authorised agents. Deification is achieved through adhering to covenants with God and receiving priesthood, which we define as God's power and authority. All of this is acheived by God's will and thanks to the Atonement. So for LDS being a god means being God's authorised agent, deriving our power only from his power. </span></p>

<p> </p>

<div>

<p><span style="font-size: 14px">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 <em class="bbc">Alphabet</em>.</span></p>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You don't think that being in the image of God (that is holiness and immortality), where the only barrier between God's powers and ours is holiness, comes even close to gods in embryo? You don't think that being redeemed and given God's power, repeating God's acts, and being praised in the same way comes even close to being exalted to the power and status of gods? </p>

</div>

[wenglund]

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.

It is an instance of deification nevertheless. Therefore, it supports the point that the notion of deification is ancient--your attempt to minimize and dismiss it notwithstanding.

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.

Interesting. So, the notion that God's people will become gods (the word explicitly used in the quoted text), was in no respect ever lost or forgotten? Do you believe this?

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."

In other words, the word "alike" or "like", as with the word "ancient," are matters of interpretation. Dr. Peterson, or anyone else for that matter, can legitimately interpret these words in the quoted material to mean "the same' or "even what he is himself" (i.e. become gods, deified), just as you are free to legitimately interpret them otherwise.

And, since we are providing the supporting material as we interpret them, and not as you may interpret them, then our interpretation is what counts in relation to our reasoning, not yours. Sorry. And, as demonstrated earlier on other threads, because exegesis is somewhat subjective, it doesn't change this.

To underscore what I am suggesting, according to a Wikipedia article on Recapitulation theory of atonement, it says: "For Irenaeus, the ultimate goal of Christ's work of solidarity with humankind is to make humankind divine. Of Jesus he says, he 'became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself'.^[16] This idea 'has been highly influential in the Greek Orthodox Church',^[17] having been taken on by many other Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine and Clement of Alexandria.^[17] This Eastern Orthodox theological development out of the recapitulation view of the atonement is called theosis."

An online article on Athanasius's Doctrine of Divinisation quotes Athanasius as stating: "The Word 'was made man so that we might be made God' (De Inc 54.3; Robertson 65). What did Athanasius mean when he used the word theopoie_? Literally, this word means 'to make God' or, more politely, `to make divine.'''

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 29, 2011 by wenglund

[volgadon]

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:

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.

Hmm, for all the times that you've thrown it at me you ought to know what "quibble" means. The roots of the idea are found in Genesis. That is the starting point of alphabet speculation in Judaism. We can start another thread on that if you like.

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.

That was not my only argument. It was, however, necessary to establish some things about the text and the ideas found in it. Using an anthology of earlier texts and ideas in a non-scholarly editorial is hardly the grievous misrepresentation that you make it out to be.

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.

The Michael theory has been discredited. The Messiah and Teacher of Righteousness are both human figures. One can argue about the scope, but it is clear that the idea of a man being exalted to the status of a god is what these texts present.

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.

I posted this as an example of theosis in ancient Judaism. The repeated attempts you make to soften the implications makes one wonder if these examples do indeed fall short of supporting the restorationist claim. A holy, immortal being was a god. The midrashim do not place any limitations on it. As shown elsewhere, holiness had implications for succesfully using God's power and repeating his acts.

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.

If you would take another look at the text you would find that it has to state that God will be their God. That reminder wouldn't need to be there if the likeness didn't extend to any of the power or roles of God.

More than half a dozen posts later,

You are more than welcome to quibble about my compositional style, but I don't see how that furthers anything. Does it matter if it comes in the beginning, in the middle, or towards the end?

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:

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 also posted on Bezalel. You are the only one here arguing that all truth was lost at the beginning (or, indeed, even the end) of the Great Apostasy. But if the idea appears in the Talmud, probably from the 4th c. then that hardly makes it medieval, does it.

“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 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.

We believe that our status as deified beings is delegated.You keeep neglecting that point. In this text the righteous are holy. They are immortal. They are given God's power, they repeat his acts, and are praised and glorified in the same terms used for praising and glorifying God. These are deified men.

Edited September 29, 2011 by volgadon

[volgadon]

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.

You are the one proclaiming that it is a medieval text and medieval theology. If you level the accusation it surely isn't to much to expect you to have actually asked those questions first.

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

I think we've both made our respective positions reasonably clear. I will make a few comments on your recent posts, though.

As I think I've already said, I am not particular about the description of the Alphabet as "proto-Kabbalistic." My point was and remains that the text itself is not an ancient text but a medieval one and therefore not, in an evidential sense, a witness to an ancient belief, even though it may preserve some ancient beliefs. Saying this does not assume, as you claimed, that there is some decisive transitional break between ancient Judaism and medieval Judaism. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to assume that there is no difference at all, that any statement from any Jewish text from any period of history can be used as evidence for what ancient Jews believed. The date of the text is crucial because the claim that is supposedly being evidenced is a claim about the period of time in which the doctrine is found.

You seem to be interpreting the LDS doctrine of deification as purely functional, i.e., that when a person is deified this will simply mean that he will be able to act as God's functionary agent without restriction. Sin, you argue, is the only thing preventing man from doing this now. By that reasoning, Adam and Eve need never have become mortal; as long as they remained sinless, they could have been "gods" in this functional sense. I am not going to try to tell you how to interpret your religion's doctrine of deification, but I do see problems with such a purely functional explanation. It seems to me that the usual LDS understanding is that human beings will be transformed into beings that are inherently omnipotent and omniscient. I also wonder if you think that Heavenly Father's divine power is also purely functional and delegated from some other deity. I feel reasonably confident you won't find that idea in any ancient or medieval Jewish text.

I understand that in LDS thinking the Great Apostasy did not result in an immediate loss of all of the truths that needed to be restored. However, if these ideas were never lost, then the idea of a restoration falls. Furthermore, if the best examples of the supposedly lost doctrine show up in texts dating well after the Great Apostasy was supposedly under way, that would seem to be curious, to say the least.