Nephi And His Asherah

[robuchan]

This sort of thing happens all the time. When Margaret Barker read the Book of Mormon she told me, "I was amazed at how much I recognized." Is the Joseph Smith Conference, she famously said:

Quote

The Tree of Life made one happy according to the Book of Proverbs, but for other detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the non-canonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruits like grapes. But a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruits like whitegrapes. I don’t know of any other source which describes the fruit as white grapes, so you can imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruits made one happy; and the interpretation of the vision, that the virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh.

This is the Heavenly Mother (represented by the Tree of Life), and then Mary and her son on the earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.

What's Margaret Barker's take on the origination of the BOM?

[Kevin Christensen]

What's Margaret Barker's take on the origination of the BOM?

Read the talk on the Book of Mormon that she gave at the Joseph Smith conference (find it at www.thinlyveiled.com, or a slightly longer version at BYU Studies) and count how many times the refers to "the revelation to Joseph Smith" and see if the context ever suggests she's just being polite.

And regarding the perceptivity of the average Mormon, I think history shows that those who stand on the shoulders of giants see a lot more than those who stand shoulder to shoulder with mediocity. Even a mediocrity like myself gets a much better view that way.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

Read the talk on the Book of Mormon that she gave at the Joseph Smith conference (find it at www.thinlyveiled.com, or a slightly longer version at BYU Studies) and count how many times the refers to "the revelation to Joseph Smith" and see if the context ever suggests she's just being polite.

And regarding the perceptivity of the average Mormon, I think history shows that those who stand on the shoulders of giants see a lot more than those who stand shoulder to shoulder with mediocity. Even a mediocrity like myself gets a much better view that way.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I'm genuinely curious about Margaret Barker. I read a few threads about her and saw the articles she co-wrote in FARMS. Interesting person.

For the second part, do you count the prophets, apostles, and general authorities as the mediocre, and you and the handful of apologists that see the temple in the BOM as the giants?

[Kevin Christensen]

Someone can be an excellent surgeon, and a mediocre plumber. Someone can be an excellent person, spiritual giant, and a mediocre scholar or even a down right lousy scholar. Just how important the distinction is depends one what is at stake in the context. Let's not put out bait for making misleading over-generalizations, alright?

In this context, I am talking about scholarship and insight. Spiritual gifts differ from person to person, and they are given to individuals to give to the community. If the community doesn't bother to come to the feast, who is to blame? The table is set with wonderful books and articles. We are encouraged to "seek out of the best books.. by study and by faith." I don't see that as mandate to skip the feast.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 3, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Nevo]

I certainly don't think we should worship idols, and I think Jeremiah is right to condemn the folks who perform insincere rituals. But that doesn't mean that the ritual itself is bad, only the use it has been put to. I mean really, what's wrong with baking little cakes to the Queen of Heaven?

I guess I read Jeremiah differently here. I don't think he is criticizing insincerity; I think he is criticizing the worship itself. People are turning to the Queen of Heaven instead of to YHWH for deliverance. (The Book of Mormon likewise urges the people of God to rely upon the Lord alone for their deliverance.)

So there's no shame in learning new things from new discoveries and recontextualizing our previous understanding. If a generation of LDS students was exposed to Dever and Barker, I think there'd be no qualms about revising the student manuals when they're the ones producing the next batch of lessons.

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with this. I have been exposed to Barker, and I most certainly have qualms about incorporating her views into future LDS curriculum materials. Barker's theories are, to put it kindly, well outside the mainstream. She's a maverick, and her reconstruction of Israelite history has not been accepted by the vast majority of biblical scholars. Look how often her work is cited in books and articles by other scholars—very, very seldom. Some think this fact inconsequential, but I don't.

I've got nothing against "misfits...rebels...troublemakers...the round pegs in the square holes." There is always a need for iconoclasts. But I would no sooner wish to see Barker's "insights" find their way into Church manuals than I would the "insights" of John Marco Allegro, Morton Smith, or Robert Eisenman.

I think stuff like Barker's work is really helpful in seeing the Book of Mormon for what it is: a corrective to some of perspectives in the Old Testament, a continuation of the underlying good things there (such as the Melchizedek and Wisdom traditions), and another witness to the New Testament! Exciting stuff!

I am not convinced that the Book of Mormon "corrects" the Deuteronomist perspective. In fact, I tend to agree with David Rolph Seely that it actually shares this perspective:

[Josiah's] reforms are significant for Book of Mormon studies since Lehi grew up in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah and must have been influenced by the religious reforms that affected the lives of everyone living there and that did not go unnoticed. For example, Lehi's contemporary, Jeremiah, lamented the death of Josiah and praised him for his righteous reign (Jeremiah 22:15–16). Because the plates of brass contained the five books of Moses (1 Nephi 5:11), Lehi and his descendants must have been familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. The language and theology of the Book of Mormon are heavily dependent on Deuteronomy, perhaps more than any other biblical book. The very basis of the oft-repeated covenant in the Book of Mormon that "inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper" (1 Nephi 2:20) reflects the theology of Deuteronomy: "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" (Deuteronomy 29:9).

— David R. Seely, "Lehi's Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/l (2001); emphasis added.

Seely, by the way, knows whereof he speaks. He is currently completing a commentary on Deuteronomy for the Anchor Yale Bible series.

[Edit: Whoops, sorry, I didn't see you edit that last bit out. I type too slow! Lemme know if I should delete that last quote.]

No, there's no need to delete it. I did say it after all!

Edited July 3, 2012 by Nevo

[robuchan]

Somone can be an excellent surgeon, and a mediocre plumber. Someone can be an excellent person, spiritual giant, and a mediocre scholar or even a down right lousy scholar. Just how important the distinction is depends one what is at stake in the context. Let's not put out bait for making misleading over-generalizations, alright?

In this context, I am talking about scholarship and insight. Spiritual gifts differ from person to person, and they are given to individuals to give to the community. If the community doesn't bother to come to the feast, who is to blame? The table is set with wonderful books and articles. We are encouraged to "seek out of the best books.. by study and by faith." I don't see that as mandate to skip the feast.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

If the feast has been laid out for 40 years and no one has partaken, then it may be just that the food is not that good.

[Bob Crockett]

Somone can be an excellent surgeon, and a mediocre plumber. Someone can be an excellent person, spiritual giant, and a mediocre scholar or even a down right lousy scholar. Just how important the distinction is depends one what is at stake in the context. Let's not put out bait for making misleading over-generalizations, alright?

In this context, I am talking about scholarship and insight. Spiritual gifts differ from person to person, and they are given to individuals to give to the community. If the community doesn't bother to come to the feast, who is to blame? The table is set with wonderful books and articles. We are encouraged to "seek out of the best books.. by study and by faith." I don't see that as mandate to skip the feast.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I really find this view to be very problematic. The Church manuals are clear and I am required to teach them. I see a correlated view much more compelling than anything else. Is it so hard to see that the ordinary member of the Church when faced with what Kevin Barney and Bro. Orbe-Smith teach, and who further understands it, is likely to look at the manual and say -- whoa, that is way off base? I can't teach that!

I keep raising the practical issue about the correlated manuals and all I get is Bro. Orbe-Smith saying that he would ignore the manual. Would you find that acceptable if you were in my position? I'm just a lowly seminary teacher, not a High Priest instructor. I could not believe for a second that a stake president would leave me in my position if I had the view that the manual should be ignored because I believe it to be wrong. After all, I am called to teach the manual.

So, I return to my view that the connection between Asherah and Mother in Heaven is heretical and contrary to correlated teaching. Since, as we are given to understand, Sonia Johnson was excommunicated for her views of Mother in Heaven, we're treading on very dangerous ground here.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

If the feast has been laid out for 40 years and no one has partaken, then it may be just that the food is not that good.

That's what the fox said about the grapes he couldn't reach, according to Aesop. I've been the to feast, and I know. As Alma said, it expands the mind, enlarges the soul, grows, is delicious and desirable, and I both want more, and want to share.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[J Green]

I really find this view to be very problematic. The Church manuals are clear and I am required to teach them. I see a correlated view much more compelling than anything else. Is it so hard to see that the ordinary member of the Church when faced with what Kevin Barney and Bro. Orbe-Smith teach, and who further understands it, is likely to look at the manual and say -- whoa, that is way off base? I can't teach that!

I keep raising the practical issue about the correlated manuals and all I get is Bro. Orbe-Smith saying that he would ignore the manual. Would you find that acceptable if you were in my position? I'm just a lowly seminary teacher, not a High Priest instructor. I could not believe for a second that a stake president would leave me in my position if I had the view that the manual should be ignored because I believe it to be wrong. After all, I am called to teach the manual.

So, I return to my view that the connection between Asherah and Mother in Heaven is heretical and contrary to correlated teaching. Since, as we are given to understand, Sonia Johnson was excommunicated for her views of Mother in Heaven, we're treading on very dangerous ground here.

Bob,

FWIW, I think as a Seminary teacher you should stick to the curriculum approved by the Church and CES. I agree with your assessment that to date correlated material have the reform as inspired. And I too find value in the story of King Josiah. I've noted throughout the years as GD teacher, HP Group Leader, etc. that the narrative as documented in 2 Kings 22-23 bears a nice superficial resemblance to Joseph and the Restoration: after a period of apostasy, a young man becomes the driving force behind the coming forth of a lost book of scripture, the restoration of the temple, and the making of covenants in the temple, etc.

Where we may differ is in our assumptions about how the correlated material has been produced, what it is supposed to do, and how we approach it outside these official venues. I think it worthwhile for us as Latter-day Saints to engage good scholarship and see where it leads us. Like Nevo, I realize that Barker and Eisenman are outside the scholarly consensus, but that is precisely where I find value in their work. I like someone who tests my assumptions and challenges my paradigms vis-a-vis that scholarly consensus, and I like a lot of what they have to say. Doesn't mean that I buy everything or think that it should automatically be correlated, but I like that we have good minds pursuing it and seeing what fruit it bears. Test all things, hold fast to the good stuff!

Regards

[Kevin Christensen]

I really find this view to be very problematic. The Church manuals are clear and I am required to teach them. I see a correlated view much more compelling than anything else. Is it so hard to see that the ordinary member of the Church when faced with what Kevin Barney and Bro. Orbe-Smith teach, and who further understands it, is likely to look at the manual and say -- whoa, that is way off base? I can't teach that!

I keep raising the practical issue about the correlated manuals and all I get is Bro. Orbe-Smith saying that he would ignore the manual. Would you find that acceptable if you were in my position? I'm just a lowly seminary teacher, not a High Priest instructor. I could not believe for a second that a stake president would leave me in my position if I had the view that the manual should be ignored because I believe it to be wrong. After all, I am called to teach the manual.

I'm quite confident that you do what you think is right and that God knows your heart. I've enjoyed your essays Mountain Meadows, finding them enlightening and instructive, even if they did not appear in an Institute Manual, nor gone through corrolation, and have not been set to music for use in Primary. If anyone comes to me with questions, I count your work as among the most helpful sources. Not just for the data, but for the thought about what counts as important, and how context matters. When I'm asked to speak or teach I'm asked by people who know me as well as Brigham Young knew Orson Pratt. They were at loggerheads on a few topics, but not the essentials of the gospel. They don't have to believe everything I say. When I'm called to a position, I assume I've been asked to consecrate all of my talent to the task. All of it. Sometimes that means sticking to the manuals, if we have a good one. Some are very good, some, alas would not make the cut of the "best books" depending, of course, on the particular need they were designed to fill as compared to the particular needs at hand. If I see something amis, I don't have a problem with mentioning it as my own opinion. If someone teaches something I think is amis, depending who is listening, and how serious the issue is, I may say something. Somethings, I let go, and some I make sure to raise, whether in class, or in private. I'm not teaching the manual. it's just a book. I teaching living breathing people, boys or girls, men or women, single or married, and I take the manual as one resource among many available, to fill their needs.

One of the most influential manuals I have read was Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon. You will recall that the committee rejected every chapter, saying it was over the heads of the people. Then President McKay intervened and said, "Let them reach for it." That manual changed my life when I read it in 1975. But it's scholarship, and scholarship can go out of date.

By temperament, I'm an INFP, which means, I'm in relative minority, and my brain works differently than, say, an ESTJ, who might be a far better manager or administrator than I'll ever be. I can live with that. If we're all the same, we'd all be interchangable parts with nothing to contribute. I bring something different and I consecrate that.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[J Green]

Kevin,

I don't say this enough, but I appreciate what you share with the rest of us, both here and in print. Keep thinking the way you do. It's working.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, great posts,Kevin and Green although the acronyms are mystifying.

I am a big fan of Eisenmann and Ehrman, even though I don't agree with them, because they bring insights to the NT I wouldn't otherwise have. I am not a fan of Barker but I imagine she does the same for others.

But this Asherah business is too much for me, but I will press on.

[Nevo]

Nevo,

I think your questions here make a good case study for a larger issue:

1. Do you think what we have in the Church curriculum re Josiah's reform represents divine guidance through prophets about the textual and historical accuracy of these pericopes?

2. Should we assume as a rule of thumb that every pericope used to illustrate a principle in official curriculum is through its use thereby divinely authenticated in terms of its textual and historical accuracy?

3. Acknowledging the complex editing process of the Hebrew Bible, are there any pericopes that you feel are historically or textually questionable that are used to illustrate good principles in official curriculum?

4. Do you think there is an exact correspondence between theology, terminology, and ritual between the disparate texts in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon? If not, does there need to be? And if there isn't a correspondence, what does it mean that both are part of the Standard Works?

Hi J Green,

It's good to see you contributing to this thread. Obviously, the thread has moved on since you posted this, but I will offer a few thoughts anyway.

You ask if I think what we have in the Church curriculum regarding Josiah's reform represent divine confirmation of "the textual and historical accuracy of these pericopes." No, not really. But I don't think textual or historical accuracy is the main concern here. I think it is reasonable to believe that the reform occurred and that it occurred more or less the way it is presented in the Bible. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the reform was a "good thing" or a "bad thing." The Law and the Prophets present it as a good thing (including Jeremiah and Ezekiel), and modern prophets seem to concur. It may be that they are all wrong and Margaret Barker is right, but I rather doubt it.

You ask whether we should assume "as a rule of thumb that every pericope used to illustrate a principle in official curriculum is ...divinely authenticated in terms of its textual and historical accuracy?" Again, probably not. I think the curriculum can get trivial things wrong, but presumably it gets the big things right—at least most of the time. Or so one modern apostle would have us believe:

“Those called by the prophet to assure the correctness of doctrine taught in the Church review every word, every picture, every diagram in that curriculum which you receive. We can unlock the power of the curriculum simply by acting on our faith that it is inspired of God.” (“The Lord Will Multiply the Harvest” [an evening with Elder Henry B. Eyring, Feb. 6, 1998], 4).

You ask if there are "any pericopes that you feel are historically or textually questionable that are used to illustrate good principles in official curriculum?" Sure. The story of Job, the story of Jonah, the story of Esther, etc. But again, I don't think Josiah's reform is historically questionable, so I'm not sure how this relates to our subject. I readily grant that a great deal of the Bible is not historically accurate.

Finally, you asked if I think "there is an exact correspondence between theology, terminology, and ritual between the disparate texts in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon?" No, of course not. Nor does there need to be. The four Gospels don't match in all their particulars, yet all have their value. Joseph Smith described them as "testimonies." Walter Brueggemann has suggested that Old Testament be understood in terms of "testimony" as well. I think that's a good way to look at it. Like a mosaic or intricate tapestry (choose your cliche), each piece contributes something to the whole.

[cinepro]

Well, great posts,Kevin and Green although the acronyms are mystifying.

http://en.wikipedia...._Type_Indicator

Edited July 3, 2012 by cinepro

[Calm]

Josiah ordered all the altars be removed, except in Jerusalem, thereby making that city the only sanctuary in all Judah.

Have we not in essence contradicted that reform by having multiple temples/sanctuaries available in modern times? If so and modern prophets have reversed one of the reforms of Josiah, why should we be insistent on accepting all of Josiah's reforms as somehow authoritative on our beliefs and behaviour?

(actual question, not rhetorical)

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

(I wonder if I should admit that my interest in Jeremiah stems in part from our shared moniker; I've felt a bit of a kinship with the guy ever since I was a kid

Ha! I was just wondering about that very thing....

[volgadon]

But I would no sooner wish to see Barker's "insights" find their way into Church manuals than I would the "insights" of John Marco Allegro, Morton Smith, or Robert Eisenman.

As strange as it may sound, there is actually a quote from Jesus the Magician that I would love to see in a Sunday School manual.

[Calm]

Now you have to share...what is this wonderful quote?

[volgadon]

Now you have to share...what is this wonderful quote?

On pp. 9-10 of "Jesus the Magician" there is a vivid, powerful description of why Christ's healings attracted the masses, why it was what they focused on more than anything. Indeed, why Christ made it a central part of his earthly mission.

To understand their importance, we must remember that ancient Palestine had no hospitals or insane asylums. The sick and insane had to be cared for by their families, in their homes. The burden of caring for them was often severe and sometimes, especially in cases of violent insanity, more than the family could bear—the afflicted were turned out of doors and left to wander like animals.

This practice continued to the present century; I shall never forget my first experience in the "old city" of Jerusalem in 1940.

The first thing I saw as I came through the Jaffa Gate was a lunatic, a filthy creature wearing an old burlap bag with neck and armholes cut through the bottom and sides. He was having a fit. It seemed to involve a conversation with some imaginary being in the air in front of him. He was pouring out a flood of gibberish while raising his hands as if in supplication.

Soon he began to make gestures, as if trying to protect himself from blows, and howled as if being beaten. Frothing at the mouth, he fell to the ground on his face, lay there moaning and writhing, vomited, and had an attack of diarrhea. Afterwards he was calmer,but lay in his puddles of filth, whimpering gently.

I stood where I had stopped when I first saw him, some fifty feet away, rooted to the spot, but nobody eise paid any attention.

There were lots of people in the street, but those who came up to him merely skirted the mess and walked by. He was lying on the sidewalk in front of a drugstore. After a few minutes a clerk came out with a box of sawdust, poured it on the puddles, and treated the patient with a couple of kicks in the small of the back.

This brought him to his senses and he got up and staggered off, still whimpering, rubbing his mouth with one hand and his back with the other. When I came to live in the "old city" I found that he, and half a dozen like him, were familiar figures.

Such was ancient psychotherapy. Those not willing to put their insane relatives into the street, had to endure them at home.

Also, since rational medicine (except for surgery) was rudimentary, lingering and debilitating diseases must have been common, and the victims of these, too, had to be cared for at home. Accordingly, many people eagerly sought cures, not only for themselves, but also for their relatives.

Doctors were inefficient, rare, and expensive. When a healer appeared—a man who could perform miraculous cures, and who did so for nothing!—he was sure to be mobbed. In the crowds that swarmed around him desperate for cures, cures were sure to occur. With each cure, the reputation of his powers, the expectations and speculations of the crowd, and the legends and rumors about him would grow. Such crowds and their needs, not the later Christian communities, were the earliest matrices of gospel stories and continue, even now, to produce similar stories, for example, see the New York Times (Oct. 10, 1977, p. 31, col. 1):

A Lebanese monk was proclaimed a saint by Pope Paul VI.

Sharbel Makhlouf, a hermit who died in 1898 at the age of 70, thus became the first Lebanese to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. . . .

Thousands of fhe faithful went to the rocky peak of Annaya on Mount Lebanon to pay homage to the peasant monk who was canonized in Rome.

Many thousands had trudged the steep 17-miIe road ftom the ancient port of Byblos.

Religious fervor reached a peak when onlookers said they had seen the bronze statue of Saint Sharbel bless the crowd, after which several paralytics had risen and walked and a blind girl had regained her vision.

From this social and medical background of the Near East we can understand why the gospeIs represent Jesus as attracting attention primarily as a miracle worker, and winning his followers by miracles.

The gospels do so because he did so. These facts have been neglected as unedifying by liberal exegesis; we must look at the evidence.

[J Green]

Nevo,

As always, a thoughtful and reasoned response.

The issue, as I see it, is whether or not the reform was a "good thing" or a "bad thing." The Law and the Prophets present it as a good thing (including Jeremiah and Ezekiel), and modern prophets seem to concur. It may be that they are all wrong and Margaret Barker is right, but I rather doubt it.

Well articulated. My perspective may differ a little. I look at the struggles in Ancient Israel to consistently understand over periods of centuries the star prophecy, the suffering servant imagery, the fallen angel pericope, and other portions of previous texts. And I see the Savior having to battle against different interpretations and expectations from his apostles and disciples during his mortal ministry about basic subjects that included the nature of his sacrifice, the nature of his ministry, his eschatological return, etc. Many of the leaders he taught patiently in person for years didn't understand some of these concepts until long after they'd been endowed with power, sent on missions, and had been running the Church after his death and ascension. After the restoration, one of the clearest patterns I see is Joseph approaching God with questions about interpreting past scripture and applying it to the restoration. The D&C largely conforms to this pattern, and I see the JST as a related exercise to understand and apply the scriptures of the past. In our current era, I've seen evidence of great discussions by the brethren on these subjects once they are raised to their level, such as those concerning evolution, blacks and the priesthood, and others. BRM's eloquent essay on interpration of scripture in the context of priesthood eligibility is a classic on this subject. And aside from all of this is the ancient and (I believe) inspired practice of recontextualizing texts to a different time and place.

Given this landscape, I usually don't assume that scriptural stories used to illustrate principles in correlated material are by default validated as historically or textually accurate through revelation. When one of the brethren gives a talk about faith and adversity and illustrates it with the story of David and Goliath, I understand their intent is not (as you point out) to discuss or authenticate the textual history of the pericope but to illustrate the principle with a story. And I have a fondness for this story, having walked this very field as a young boy with my homemade sling trying to pick smooth stones for my pouch. But I also realize that the person giving the sermon isn't likely to know that there are textual issues as well as other versions to the story where someone else slays Goliath. I don't take the many, many correlated instances of the brethren referencing this story as an authentication that there has been divine revelation that it was indeed David who slew Goliath (as opposed to El Hanan) or that Goliath even existed. Because there is usually more evidence for this struggle and reception of the revelation. I simply see it for what I believe it is -- a reinforcement of the principle. And sometimes a likely inspired recontextualization despite a different original textual environment. And to the extent it passes a review by brethren in correlation, I don't understand these individuals to be asking for inspiration to validate the narrative history but rather to authorize the appropriateness of the principles being taught and how they are taught.

So I likely don't share the same assumption that since many leaders have referenced the reform in a faith-inspiring light this demonstrates that the narratives must be generally correct (as opposed to inspired recontextualization along the lines of how I compared Josiah in his reform to Joseph in the restoration). I'm open to Barker's arguments and willing to evaluate them on their own merits and then look for how they do or do not apply to other aspects of restored scripture. And in the exploration, I'm not sure I have to buy the good/bad dichotomy about either the reform or the cultic system it replaced. Are there other options? For example, isn't it possible that as we approach the cliff of apostasy and destruction that is 600 BC in Jerusalem that we have competing systems that both preserve elements of former truth? Is it possible that Seely's observations about Nephite Deuteronomist connections and Barker's observations about Nephite Deuteronomist rejections are both correct? What do multiple temple complexes in the new world say about their connection to the reform? On the other hand, does Nephite obessession about land-covenant promises give a different impression about their connection to the Deuteronomists?

But for the record, I enjoy Barker quite a bit, as she opens up many avenues for fruitful exploration. You are correct that she isn't referenced widely, but where there is collaboration, there is some really good resonance. I think Gabriele Boccacini's work is a good example. In Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, he argues that the Essene movement has its origins in the groups behind the Enoch literature that are described in similar ways to how Barker describes her groups using the strands of Enoch to develop her theory of the earlier faith. Where Barker creates possibilities and describes groups, Boccacini names specific groups and plots out their development, isolation, and literature through the second temple period into nascent Christianity.

In any case, I'm interested in how others approach issues like textual accuracy and correlation, so I appreciate the discussion. As always, you give me a lot to think about.

Cheers

[Calm]

On pp. 9-10 of "Jesus the Magician" there is a vivid, powerful description of why Christ's healings attracted the masses, why it was what they focused on more than anything. Indeed, why Christ made it a central part of his earthly mission.

Thank you. Very interesting and useful and I can see why you would want to include it. This one and the shepherd story...I would accept it if I was in charge of curriculum.

Such was ancient psychotherapy.

Thank God for blessing us so it is not the way so widely anymore even if callousness is still as strong a part of human nature (abandoning people--and I don't mean placing a loved one into needed care, I mean shoving the responsibility of all care onto others and forgetting about the sufferer----into institutions instead of on the street is still abandonment when it happens, but thankfully they are at least more comfortable and safer.) Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

And I see the Savior having to battle against different interpretations and expectations from his apostles and disciples during his mortal ministry about basic subjects that included the nature of his sacrifice, the nature of his ministry, his eschatological return, etc. Many of the leaders he taught patiently in person for years didn't understand some of these concepts until long after they'd been endowed with power, sent on missions, and had been running the Church after his death and ascension.

I hadn't thought of the apostles and disciples' experience in this way. Got the line upon line, but not really that one of the reasons for Christ having to take baby steps with them was they were well versed in religious thought, it wasn't that they were ignorant and hadn't ever considered such things (which wasn't what I thought of them, I just hadn't even really addressed the source of their problem in understanding).

Adds another dimension to the calling of a young and inexperienced boy to restore the Faith and authority. Thank you.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Thank you. Very interesting and useful and I can see why you would want to include it. This one and the shepherd story...I would accept it if I was in charge of curriculum.

I think it helps place things in perspective. 1940 was not too long ago.

Thank God for blessing us so it is not the way so widely anymore even if callousness is still as strong a part of human nature (abandoning people--and I don't mean placeing a loved one into needed care, I mean shoving the responsibility of all care onto others and forgetting about the sufferer----into institutions instead of on the street is still abandonment when it happens, but thankfully they are at least more comfortable and safer.)

I agree. If you would abandon someone, at least make it comfortable for them. Psalm 71 was set to musc in the 80s, becoming very popular not only with Jews, but with Arabs too. There is a great fear of being abandoned in old age.

[Calm]

There is a great fear of being abandoned in old age.

All those who decide not to have children better have good retirement plans.....

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for the nice comment J Green.

Regarding Seely and the Deuterononmists, I remember that he was one of the editors for my long essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem. In that essay I started asking more questions. I agree that the many points of agreement between Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon are significant, and that it makes sense in light of Lehi living through the Reform. When I started, I assumed that Josiah was one of the Good Guys, and that the Reform was as depicted. There are lots of points of agreement between the LDS and other Christian and Jewish and other denominations as well. But the points of agreement don't tell the whole story. As I mentioned before, I noticed that Margaret had not made much use of Jeremiah in her essay on What King Josiah Reformed. So I took to Jeremiah as a control. And Jeremiah disagreed with Deuteronomy on the exact points that Margaret identified as key to the reform.

Deuteronomy itself is not a unitary text, but one with layers and versions. (Friedman Who Wrote the Bible? and Doorly, "Obesssion with Justice: The Story of the Deuteronomists" illustrate the notion.) Ben McGuire has an ongoing project exploring the idea that all of the references to Deuteronomy on the Book of Mormon point to a proto-Deuteronomy. My reading is based on the identification specific telling differences. For instance, in the 1 Nephi 1:6, the Spirit tells says "Blessed art thou Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the Most High God."

That verse implies that Nephi's Deuteronomy was like the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deut. 32:8-9, in which the Most High, El Elyon, has Yahweh as a son. What else might be different?

The keynote of the Deuteronomists is their regard for written law. Deuteronomy 4 depicts Moses as informing Israel: "Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law]; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deuteronomy 4:6).

Jeremiah seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them? (Jeremiah 8:8—9)

19

With respect to the law and those who had charge of it, Jeremiah comments that "they that handle the law knew me not" (Jeremiah 2: .

Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. (Jeremiah 23:30)

And the burden of the Lord shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God. (Jeremiah 23:36)

Deuteronomy relates the following: "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:12). Barker notes the direct contradiction with the account in Exodus 24:9—11, which reports that Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders of Israel "saw the God of Israel." Jeremiah speaks as one who has seen:

For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (Jeremiah 23:18; compare theophanies in Isaiah 6 and 1 Enoch)

But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:22)

Deuteronomy says that "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Further, it explains that "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?" (Deuteronomy 30:11—12).

Against this, Jeremiah speaks as one who has been invited to learn and declare the secret things: "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not" (Jeremiah 33:3).

Jeremiah, like Lehi, shows a thorough knowledge of Deuteronomy, citing it over two hundred times.²⁰ Therefore, Jeremiah's points of direct contradiction to the current form of Deuteronomy should be telling, particularly when considering his conflicts with the institutions and people who implemented the reforms. Like Lehi, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on issues that Barker describes as defining the reform.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=547

I also think it telling that the Deuteronomist texts reject the hosts, and avoid the title Lord of Hosts, which appears 81 times in Jeremiah.

Margaret Barker seems to be to expanding her influence. When I started reading her books, she had been made President of the Society for Old Testament Study. A few years later, she was invited to head up a project at Cambridge. She was awarded a doctrate by the Archbishop of Canterbury for Temple Themes in Christian Worship. I saw her speak at the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary in New York, with the head of the Orthodox Church in American in attendance. She's not languishing in obscurity. And there may be reasons besides competence that lead others to neglect her work. In 2000, she spoke on the Biblical Studies in the 20th Century:

The whole issue of the place and use of the Bible is crucial, but the

way the Bible is currently being studied in universities seems not to produce what the

churches need. Need, not want. A few lines from the Doctrine Commission report published

in 1995 The Mystery of Salvation, illustrates this point. ‘This message [of the atoning death

of Christ] which lies at the heart of the gospel, raises numerous consequential questions. The

most obvious of these is why the death of Christ should have this astonishing result’ (p.97).

What this is saying is that the Doctrine Commission, drawing on what is taught in the

universities, could not answer the first question about the Christian faith. This concerns me.

After discussing a range of current trends and developments, she concludes:

Biblical studies should to serve the needs of the Churches; there are other goals, too, but if

the needs of the churches are not even considered, something has to be amiss. Perhaps the

time has come to break free from the Faustian pact between Church and Academy. We are

unlikely to solve the problems currently facing biblical studies using the methods which

created them. What we need is an approach, soundly based in scholarship, which enables us

to stand where they stood, look where they looked, read what they wrote and glimpse what

they saw. A modified history of religions approach would be the best starting point. There is

so much in the Scrolls and the Targums, for example, or the Gospel of Thomas, that is

important for understanding Christian origins, and the whole question of the ‘history’ of

Israel cannot be kept quiet for ever. And yes, this approach does enable us to answer the

question that the Doctrine Commission found so difficult.

It seems to me that those who do appreciate Margaret's approach do so because she gives them a Jesus that they can believe as scholars and have faith in as believers. Not everyone wants what she offers.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 5, 2012 by Kevin Christensen