Evidence Of Deuteronomy, Or Some Version Thereof, On The Brass Plates

[Robert F. Smith]

robuchan, on 24 August 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

When Nibley says

how early is he talking? Source?

This is the footnote to his discussion of the issue in "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" in The Prophetic Book of Mormon has this:

Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

Nibley's main point is that when Paul says something, you ought to be aware that he quotes a great deal, and that you should not assume that he was the first and only person to say something.. . . . . . .

Not only is that indicative, but the Roman Catholic New Jersualem Bible (Doubleday, 1985), 1907 n. e, says of I Corinthians 13:13 that "This association of the three theological virtues, which is found earlier in 1 Th 1:3 and which may well have been in use before Paul's time, recurs frequently in his letters: 13:7,13; Rm 5:1-5, 12:6-12; Ga 5:5seq.; Ep 1:15-18; 4:2-5; Col 1:4-5; 1 Th 5:8; 1 Tm 6:11; Tt 2:2; . . ."

Moreover, Paul constantly quotes from, or alludes to all manner of sources (apart from the OT):

I Corinthians

1:24 Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-25

2:6,8 Testament of Solomon 2:9, 3:5; DT, 22:24, 25:12, 26:15-16; PGM², IV, 387, etc. (Smith, Jesus the Magician, 126 n); cf. Mk 3:22, Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11

2:8 "Lord of Glory"; Enoch lit.; Jas 2:1

2:9 Apocalypse of Elijah (Origen), or Ascension of Isaiah 11:34; Ecclus 1:10; cf. Isa 52:15, 64:3-4, 65:17, Jer 3:16 (Stuhlmacher in Meurer, Apocrypha, 2)

2:9-10 1QS 11:5-8; cf. Dan 2:22 LXX

2:16 Wisdom of Solomon 9:13

4:6 unknown

4:14 Wisdom of Solomon 11:10

4:17 I Enoch 104:13

5:3-5 Institutes of Gaius, I:63; PGM², V, 334-335; DT, 155-156, 161, 163, 248, etc. (Smith, Jesus the Magician, 110); cf. Jn 13:26-27,30; I Tim 1:19-20

5:11 Aiqar Syr. 2:16

6:2 Wisdom of Solomon 3:8

6:11 I Enoch 48:7; cf. Acts 4:12

6:12 Ecclus 37:28; I Cor 10:23

6:13 Ecclus 36:23

6:18 Ecclus 23:17; Testament of Reuben 5:5

7 Haustafeln form, as in Seneca, Epistles, 94; cf. Col 3:18-25

7:19 Ecclus 32:23

9:10 Ecclus 6:19

9:24-27 Greek games (Horne, 491-492)

9:25 Wisdom of Solomon 4:2

10:1 Wisdom of Solomon 19:7-8

10:20 Baruch 4:7

10:23 see I Cor 6:12

10:28 II Macc 6:7 (Thomasson)

11:7 Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, Ecclus 17:3

11:23-25 see Mt 26:26-29; cf. TB Berakot 1:1, 6:5

11:24 Wisdom of Solomon 16:6

12:2 III Macc 4:16; Rom 1:28

12:12-30 synkrasis & homonia – Livy, II, 32, 8ff; Menenius Agrippa 12 (Clement, I Epista. ad Corinth, XX, XXXVII); cf. Euripides, Phoinissai, 535ff; Hippocrates, Peri trophes 23; Seneca, Epistulae, 95:52

13:13a I Esdras 4:38 (= III Ezra)

13:13b cf. Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

15:19 Apocalypse of Baruch 21:13 (II Baruch)

15:29 II Macc 12:40-45 (Barr, Holy Scripture, 42-43 n. 19); IV Macc 6:28, 17:21-22; cf. Lev 4:20, Isa 53, Acts 2:23, 4:28

15:32 Wisdom of Solomon 2:5-6; cf. Eccl 8:15, Isa 22:13

15:33b Euripides, frag. 1024; Menander, Thais, frag. 218, "evil communications corrupt good manners"; Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 502 (Clement, Stromata, I, 14)

15:34 Wisdom of Solomon 13:1; Rom 1:21; Heb 11:10

16:2 Tobit 4:8; II Cor 8:12; cf. Didache 14:1; Ignatius, Magnesians, 9:1; Justin Martyr, Apology, 57; Acts 20:7, Rev 1:10

II Corinthians

4:6 unknown; cf. I Enoch 38:4

5:1-5 Wisdom of Solomon 9:15

6:14 1QS 3:19ff; 1QH 6:19

6:14 - 7:1 Qumran lit (Essene)

6:17 1QS 4:15

7:10 Ecclus 38:18

8:12 Tobit 4:8; I Cor 16:2

9:7a Tobit 4:7,16; cf. II Cor 9:7b; Prov 22:8 LXX

9:8-15 PGM², VIII, 2ff; cf. Jn 17:25, Gal 4:9, I Cor 13:12, II Cor 3:18, Philipp 2:6

11:14 CD 5:18; 1QS 3:20; Life of Adam and Eve 9:1

12:2 Testament of Levi 2:3 - 5:6, 8:1-17

12:12 Wisdom of Solomon 10:16; cf. Dt 7:19, Acts 5:12, Heb 2:4

Edited August 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[robuchan]

I disagree that Nibley's "main" point was that Paul was reflecting on previously written documents that may or not be ancient enough to be included in the Brass Plates. Nibley's very clear that his theory and the source he references suggests Paul and Moroni have a common, ancient source. You brought this up with me to make the same point.

We have had this discussion before, and as I recall it was demonstrated by others and accepted by you that there is no identifiable ancient source that the sermon on faith, hope, charity are borrowed from. There is a source from the Classical Greek period that could be possibly Paul's source.

I think this might be a case of where Nibley fakes his sources.

bump

[robuchan]

CFR on Paul's pre-600 BC ancient source for faith, hope, and charity.

[Robert F. Smith]

CFR on Paul's pre-600 BC ancient source for faith, hope, and charity.

I Cor 13:13b -- cf. Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

Nibley and the New Jerusalem Bible are merely suggesting that this was a triad of virtues which was already common in literature before Paul came on the scene. Since the vast majority of literature is gone from the ancient world (that we can recover), you are asking for documentation going back to a very early period, without even considering the citations which Nibley provided that the triad certainly predates Paul.

The call to perfection is a fallacy, robuchan.

[robuchan]

I Cor 13:13b -- cf. Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

Nibley and the New Jerusalem Bible are merely suggesting that this was a triad of virtues which was already common in literature before Paul came on the scene. Since the vast majority of literature is gone from the ancient world (that we can recover), you are asking for documentation going back to a very early period, without even considering the citations which Nibley provided that the triad certainly predates Paul.

The call to perfection is a fallacy, robuchan.

OK, CFR that Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208 demonstrates that Paul's faith, hope, and charity is based on something ancient pre-BC 600.

[Robert F. Smith]

OK, CFR that Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208 demonstrates that Paul's faith, hope, and charity is based on something ancient pre-BC 600.

Somehow you don't get the point, robuchan: Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung don't come out of Paul's mind. They predate him. By how long, we do not know, because most of ancient literature no longer exists. It should be enough for the reasonable mind to accept that it is not original with Paul. That may not be enough for you, but it satisfies most historians.

[robuchan]

Somehow you don't get the point, robuchan: Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung don't come out of Paul's mind. They predate him. By how long, we do not know, because most of ancient literature no longer exists. It should be enough for the reasonable mind to accept that it is not original with Paul. That may not be enough for you, but it satisfies most historians.

Nibley infers the material is in the Brass Plates. So does Kevin Christensen in this thread. My CFR is not that Paul might have been influenced by Classical Greek literature. That's well known and accepted by all. The CFR is that there is identifiable material with the faith, hope, and charity theme that is pre 600 BC that Paul and Moroni both might have borrowed from.

[robuchan]

That may not be enough for you, but it satisfies most historians.

CFR that most historians are satisfied that Paul and Moroni both had a common source on faith, hope, and charity.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nibley infers the material is in the Brass Plates. So does Kevin Christensen in this thread. My CFR is not that Paul might have been influenced by Classical Greek literature. That's well known and accepted by all. The CFR is that there is identifiable material with the faith, hope, and charity theme that is pre 600 BC that Paul and Moroni both might have borrowed from.

Inferring that something is on the Brass Plates is not the same as proof, and proof is not even necessary. Examples such as this are merely indicative. The problematic assumption which is frequently and erroneously made is "that Paul" could not "have been influenced by Classical Greek literature" or by Jewish literature. Another false assumption is that Joseph had to translate in a rigidly literal manner, taking dictation directly from God or an angel. No human factors (such as knowledge of the Scriptures) allowed. If you agree that these are unreasonable assumptions, then we have no dispute.

[volgadon]

CFR that most historians are satisfied that Paul and Moroni both had a common source on faith, hope, and charity.

Both had the Hebrew Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

CFR that most historians are satisfied that Paul and Moroni both had a common source on faith, hope, and charity.

I stated that it was not original with Paul. Most historians have never heard of Moroni, and I made no such assertion about him. Historians need only be shown precedent in order to agree that a literary trope is not original with the proclaimed user -- as Nibley did, and as the New Jerusalem Bible accepts. I could also cite the speculations about such a triad in pagan context in Michael Gagarin, ed., The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, I:94.

[robuchan]

I stated that it was not original with Paul. Most historians have never heard of Moroni, and I made no such assertion about him. Historians need only be shown precedent in order to agree that a literary trope is not original with the proclaimed user -- as Nibley did, and as the New Jerusalem Bible accepts. I could also cite the speculations about such a triad in pagan context in Michael Gagarin, ed., The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, I:94.

No, no, no.

Nibley and Kevin Christensen are being nothing short of dishonest and fraudulent if they imply Moroni and Paul have the same source, citing an obscure German article. And then when you investigate the obscure German article, there's no source even remotely closely ancient enough that could have influenced both.

CFR on the ancient source or take back the claim and stop using it each time Moroni's plagiarism of Paul comes up.

[Kevin Christensen]

No, no, no.

Nibley and Kevin Christensen are being nothing short of dishonest and fraudulent if they imply Moroni and Paul have the same source, citing an obscure German article. And then when you investigate the obscure German article, there's no source even remotely closely ancient enough that could have influenced both.

CFR on the ancient source or take back the claim and stop using it each time Moroni's plagiarism of Paul comes up.

It's quite possible that I can be mistaken. It is kind of you to leave the "if" escape hatch in what otherwise would be an uncharitable accusation that I'm a fraud and a liar. Thanks to your generous inclusion of that "if" I can see that Paul's call for people to behave with faith, hope and charity has sunk deep into your heart, and governs all of your actions, public and private. It makes it so much easier to have a meaningful discussion when such charges aren't used as battering rams or distractions.

I don't recall ever saying that Moroni's discourse on faith, hope, and charity necessarily depends on a Brass Plates source. I do think it is possible, but not necessary. We don't have the Brass Plates and cannot check. I have argued that the phrase and themes are not necessarily original with Paul. Robert F. Smith has given extensive documentation that Paul often quoted both Biblical and non-Biblical sources, and that the themes recurr in Paul's writings. Volgodon has suggested that the reaction of a one who had studied of the Hebrew Bible to Paul's discourse on faith, hope, and charity would not be, "What are you talking about? The Hebrew Bible never says anything about faith, or hope, or charity. Such notions are completely alien to our thinking and ideals." I've observed that Moroni post dates Paul, and that both Paul and Moroni have reported interviews and inspiration from the resurrected Jesus, which opens the possibility to me, if not to you, that Jesus could be the common source, rather than the Brass Plates. I cited my experience in reading John Douglass's Mindhunter, and recognizing in his last chapter what amounts to a spontaneous discourse on charity that strikes me as very much akin to the spirit of Moroni 7. I think that the appearance of such a sentiment from both authors comes naturally because both authors seem consistent with the Survivor Witness pattern discovered by Terence Des Pres, in his study of Survivors of Nazi and Soviet Death camps. That is, the inspiration can grow out a known pattern of human response to personal experience.

And I'm aware that the King James Bible is a clear influence on Joseph Smith's "language and understanding" and therefore, an unavoidable and valid influence on his translation of the Book of Mormon.

One of Nibley's sources, "Richard Reitzenstein, (1861–1931), German classical philologist and historian of religions. In Poimandres (1904) he tried to show that NT phraseology and ideas were largely derived from Hermetic sources and that the Christian Churches were modelled on Hermetic communities." (from Answers.com) Reitrzenstein could be mistaken, and Nibley could be mistaken for depending on him, as I can be for depending on Nibley on that point. However, being mistaken not the same thing as being a liar, and a fraud and a faker.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-reitzenstein#ixzz24kUrdwjA

And finally, in dealing with the Book of Mormon, I think any claims regarding the nature of Joseoh Smith as participant in translation should be evaluated against broader contexts, and provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon as whole, in light of as many issues and as much scholarship as possible. Not in terms of explaning it away with as little effort and as few issues as are convenient from which to make sweeping claims. I see far too much in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explaned as plagiarism from sources available to Joseph Smith to be impressed by that kind of explanation of the Book of Mormon.

I have noticed that in other cases, for instance, David Wright's claims regarding Alma 13 on the Mechizedek material, that he overlooked evidence that directly contradicts his charges about anachronism. Wright had written of Hebrews on Mechizedek:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12—13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12—13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.

(See David Wright, "'In Plain Terms that We May Understand': Joseph Smith's Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12—13," in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 205.

Six years before Wright had published his essay, Margaret Barker had observed the following:

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church's association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.

See Margaret Barker, The Older Testament, 257.

In the Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament, I wrote:

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.⁵⁷

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,⁵⁸ we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker's books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),⁵⁹ his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),⁶⁰ the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),⁶¹ the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being "washed white through the blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11),⁶² angels being sent to "all nations" (Alma 13:22),⁶³ judgment (Alma 13:29—30),⁶⁴ hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29—30).⁶⁵ This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright's article.

In dealing with these and other claims of anachronism as evidence of plagiarism and a subsequent resolution in favor of Joseph Smith strikes me as a pattern that I can consider in dealing with the claims about Moroni and Paul. You've dismissed what Nibley offered, but have not dealt with what Robert provided.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

It's quite possible that I can be mistaken. It is kind of you to leave the "if" escape hatch in what otherwise would be an uncharitable accusation that I'm a fraud and a liar. Thanks to your generous inclusion of that "if" I can see that Paul's call for people to behave with faith, hope and charity has sunk deep into your heart, and governs all of your actions, public and private. It makes it so much easier to have a meaningful discussion when such charges aren't used as battering rams or distractions.

I don't recall ever saying that Moroni's discourse on faith, hope, and charity necessarily depends on a Brass Plates source. I do think it is possible, but not necessary. We don't have the Brass Plates and cannot check. I have argued that the phrase and themes are not necessarily original with Paul. Robert F. Smith has given extensive documentation that Paul often quoted both Biblical and non-Biblical sources, and that the themes recurr in Paul's writings. Volgodon has suggested that the reaction of a one who had studied of the Hebrew Bible to Paul's discourse on faith, hope, and charity would not be, "What are you talking about? The Hebrew Bible never says anything about faith, or hope, or charity. Such notions are completely alien to our thinking and ideals." I've observed that Moroni post dates Paul, and that both Paul and Moroni have reported interviews and inspiration from the resurrected Jesus, which opens the possibility to me, if not to you, that Jesus could be the common source, rather than the Brass Plates. I cited my experience in reading John Douglass's Mindhunter, and recognizing in his last chapter what amounts to a spontaneous discourse on charity that strikes me as very much akin to the spirit of Moroni 7. I think that the appearance of such a sentiment from both authors comes naturally because both authors seem consistent with the Survivor Witness pattern discovered by Terence Des Pres, in his study of Survivors of Nazi and Soviet Death camps. That is, the inspiration can grow out a known pattern of human response to personal experience.

And I'm aware that the King James Bible is a clear influence on Joseph Smith's "language and understanding" and therefore, an unavoidable and valid influence on his translation of the Book of Mormon.

One of Nibley's sources, "Richard Reitzenstein, (1861–1931), German classical philologist and historian of religions. In Poimandres (1904) he tried to show that NT phraseology and ideas were largely derived from Hermetic sources and that the Christian Churches were modelled on Hermetic communities." (from Answers.com) Reitrzenstein could be mistaken, and Nibley could be mistaken for depending on him, as I can be for depending on Nibley on that point. However, being mistaken not the same thing as being a liar, and a fraud and a faker.

Read more: http://www.answers.c...n#ixzz24kUrdwjA

And finally, in dealing with the Book of Mormon, I think any claims regarding the nature of Joseoh Smith as participant in translation should be evaluated against broader contexts, and provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the Book of Mormon as whole, in light of as many issues and as much scholarship as possible. Not in terms of explaning it away with as little effort and as few issues as are convenient from which to make sweeping claims. I see far too much in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explaned as plagiarism from sources available to Joseph Smith to be impressed by that kind of explanation of the Book of Mormon.

I have noticed that in other cases, for instance, David Wright's claims regarding Alma 13 on the Mechizedek material, that he overlooked evidence that directly contradicts his charges about anachronism. Wright had written of Hebrews on Mechizedek:

(See David Wright, "'In Plain Terms that We May Understand': Joseph Smith's Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12—13," in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 205.

Six years before Wright had published his essay, Margaret Barker had observed the following:

See Margaret Barker, The Older Testament, 257.

In the Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament, I wrote:

In dealing with these and other claims of anachronism as evidence of plagiarism and a subsequent resolution in favor of Joseph Smith strikes me as a pattern that I can consider in dealing with the claims about Moroni and Paul. You've dismissed what Nibley offered, but have not dealt with what Robert provided.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I dismiss what Nibley and you offered because it was intentionally deceitful. The logic was that they had a common source and the reference was from Classic Greece.

I'm sorry if you think my accusation was too strong, but we've had this exact same discussion before on this board. You know the source is not something that would be common to Moroni and Paul, both, yet you used the logic and the false reference to support your logic.

All the other points you make defending Moroni's plagiarism of Paul are fine. I don't think they're very strong points, but I don't challenge them.

I'm challenging the source related to the theory that they had a common pre 600 BC source.

You are out of the thread for calling another poster deceitful because you disagree with him.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think this might be a case of where Nibley fakes his sources.

Nibley and Kevin Christensen are being nothing short of dishonest and fraudulent.

I dismiss what Nibley and you offered because it was intentionally deceitful.

Folks can disagree about what the evidence shows without being lying fakers, yo.

[USU78]

I dismiss what Nibley and you offered because it was intentionally deceitful. The logic was that they had a common source and the reference was from Classic Greece.

I'm sorry if you think my accusation was too strong, but we've had this exact same discussion before on this board. You know the source is not something that would be common to Moroni and Paul, both, yet you used the logic and the false reference to support your logic.

All the other points you make defending Moroni's plagiarism of Paul are fine. I don't think they're very strong points, but I don't challenge them.

I'm challenging the source related to the theory that they had a common pre 600 BC source.

If you aren't up to playing nicely, robuchan, please stay out of my thread. I don't mind the straying from Mormon to Moroni, and from Deuteronomy to Hebrews so much, but if you're going to say that somebody is lying when, at most, he may be mistaken, you have stepped across a line.

And you might look up some of the terms used . . . Hermetics aren't just Greek . . . just so ya know.

Oh, and if you'd like to chime in on the possibility of a pre-Exilic *Proto-Deutero-Isaiah, I'd love to hear about it.

Edited August 27, 2012 by USU78

[Hamilton Porter]

I dismiss what Nibley and you offered because it was intentionally deceitful. The logic was that they had a common source and the reference was from Classic Greece.

I'm sorry if you think my accusation was too strong, but we've had this exact same discussion before on this board. You know the source is not something that would be common to Moroni and Paul, both, yet you used the logic and the false reference to support your logic.

All the other points you make defending Moroni's plagiarism of Paul are fine. I don't think they're very strong points, but I don't challenge them.

I'm challenging the source related to the theory that they had a common pre 600 BC source.

For the one billionth time they don't need to demonstrate a common source, just the possibility of one. Someone teach anti's the difference.

[volgadon]

I've observed that Moroni post dates Paul, and that both Paul and Moroni have reported interviews and inspiration from the resurrected Jesus, which opens the possibility to me, if not to you, that Jesus could be the common source, rather than the Brass Plates.

To me, that is the likeliest source, but as I hinted, there are other possibilities. It is not at all a stretch to suppose that one could reach the triad independently, faith, charity, and hope are three concepts central to covenant theology, as well as the kind of worship described in the book of Psalms. Grouping them together is both logical and to a great degree, intuitive.

[volgadon]

Oh, and if you'd like to chime in on the possibility of a pre-Exilic *Proto-Deutero-Isaiah, I'd love to hear about it.

Have you seen this? http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2010/10/15/what-did-the-authors-of-isaiah-40-55-really-know-about-babylon-dr-lena-sophia-tiemeyer/ "For the Comfort of Zion" is an important book for studying the Isaiah portions of the BoM, as it lays out a reasoned case for why most of Deutero-Isaiah predates the Babylonian Captivity.

[robuchan]

I wonder if there is also a Greek source and maybe even an ancient Hebrew precedent where someone prayed to God over a weakness and was told by God his "grace is sufficient" and that "weakness become strength"?

[volgadon]

I wonder if there is also a Greek source and maybe even an ancient Hebrew precedent where someone prayed to God over a weakness and was told by God his "grace is sufficient" and that "weakness become strength"?

That God's grace is sufficient is a fundamental assumption of covenant, or kinship, theology. Check out the first chapter of Frank Moore Cross' "From Epic to Canon." That the weak can be made strong is also a frequent motif, Abraham, Moses, the children of Israel, Gideon, Saul, David, Jeremiah, even Samson's last days, all these come to mind.

[Nevo]

I hate to make common cause with robuchan, but Nibley's claim that "'the Hymn to Charity,' was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reitzenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source" is simply not true.

This has not been "shown." I have yet to find a critical commentary that even mentions this theory let alone one that regards it as a serious possibility. As far as I can tell, Harnack and Weiss never claimed that Paul was quoting an ancient source. If Reitzenstein did, then his claim has been completely ignored. Virtually all scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 13 originated with Paul. And the handful of scholars who dissent from this view theorize that 1 Corinthians 13 is a later (Christian) interpolation—not a quotation from an unknown ancient source.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Nevo

[robuchan]

That God's grace is sufficient is a fundamental assumption of covenant, or kinship, theology. Check out the first chapter of Frank Moore Cross' "From Epic to Canon." That the weak can be made strong is also a frequent motif, Abraham, Moses, the children of Israel, Gideon, Saul, David, Jeremiah, even Samson's last days, all these come to mind.

Yet the exact phrase "grace is sufficient" appears only once in the KJV and once in the BOM.

And a proximity search of variations of the words weakness/strength will give you seven in the KJV and two in the BOM.

[USU78]

Have you seen this? http://www.heavenlya...ophia-tiemeyer/ "For the Comfort of Zion" is an important book for studying the Isaiah portions of the BoM, as it lays out a reasoned case for why most of Deutero-Isaiah predates the Babylonian Captivity.

No, I had not. Brilliant find, vd!

I have questioned the strength of the linguistic argument, but never had anybody tell me why the presence of the loan-words/cognates were anything beyond instructive. I think we have to grant instructive. I never thought we had to grant compulsory power to place Deutero-Isaiah in the Captivity or the Restoration periods.

I hope the presenters at that conference (now 2 years in our rear-view mirrors) will publish soon. Did a quick search and couldn't find anything, but I'm not the sharpest tool in that there drawer.

Gileadi saw great unity between the 3 Isaiah sections . . . and so do the Jerusalem rabbis, according to him.

What did your teachers think about the German theory?

[Nevo]

Have you seen this? http://www.heavenlya...ophia-tiemeyer/ "For the Comfort of Zion" is an important book for studying the Isaiah portions of the BoM, as it lays out a reasoned case for why most of Deutero-Isaiah predates the Babylonian Captivity.

It should probably be noted, though, that Prof. Tiemeyer herself believes that Isaiah 40–55 was composed between 539 and 520 BCE, some 60 to 75 years after Lehi's party left Jerusalem.