Peterson Parallelomani: The 'narrative Of Zosimus' And The Book Of Mormon (Psst... The Differences Are Greater Than The Similarities)

[canard78]

I was sent an article by a relative recently from Dan Peterson on DereretNews.com:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865626023/The-Narrative-of-Zosimus-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all

 

Do me a favour, read the article... then read the original source:

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IX/The_Narrative_of_Zosimus/The_Narrative_of_Zosimus_Concerning_the_Life_of_the_Blessed

 

Some of the language in Peterson's article (an Welch's) is very leading for a Mormon audience. "...land of promise..." / "...engraved upon soft stone plates..." Welch also talks about them being lead across an ocean. If you read the original text you'll see that these are leading phrases that are not in the actual text.

 

Instead the text has far more differences than similarities.

 

Peterson claims:

The similarities to the Book of Mormon — and there are more than are summarized here — will be obvious to anybody who’s read even 1 Nephi. They’re difficult to explain from either a faithful perspective or that of someone seeking to refute the claims of Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

 

Difficult? Difficult how?

 

Read the original and answer the following simple question:

- If the text had been available to Joseph Smith, would Peterson and Welch being saying it's a difficult text? Or would they instead notice the far greater number of significant differences.

 

This also leads to a bigger question? Do people like Peterson an Welch simply see what they want to see? Is their desire for the Book of Mormon to be true clouding their judgement to the point of seeing evidence where there isn't any?

[Robert F. Smith]

An even bigger question is how it is possible for serious non-Mormon scholars to share many of the same views which seem so silly to you, canard.  For example, non-Mormon scholar Willis Barnstone, ed., The Other Bible (1984), 537, was quite taken with the strong parallels he adduced in comparison of the Apocalypse of Paul and the story of Joseph’s obtaining the Book of Mormon (cited by Kevin Barney in FARMS Review of Books, 13/1 [2001]:16, in review of John Tvedtnes’ The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books [2000]:39,99-100, and Appendix I – in turn dependent upon an expanded analysis by Steven Booras).

 

Likewise, how is it that non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz makes the following statement about the LDS doctrine of apotheosis?

 

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  “Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326.

 

Then there is the vision of Kenaz or Zenez (= Zenos in Jacob 5) in Pseudo-Philo 28:4, which contains the following words:

 

my father . . . commanded me, saying, "These words you will say to the sons of Israel, ' . . . . "And I would plant a great vineyard, and from it I would choose a plant; and I would care for it and call it by my name, and it would be mine forever.  When I did all the things that I said, nevertheless my plant that was called by my name did not recognize me as its planter, but it destroyed its own fruit and did not yield up its fruit to me."'"

 

As for Zosimus (the Rechabites), there is a cornucopia of parallel material too rich to list here, but one might begin with the three visions of Zosimus (W. Shumaker, Occult Sciences in the Renaissance, 191-192,200 n. 99, citing Taylor and Bertholet), with which we not only compare Joseph Smith, but also I Nephi 8:2, "I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision," a phrase which comes straight out of an ancient Near Eastern and biblical context (Num 12:6, Job 4:13, 7:14, 33:14-15, Joel 2:28 [= Acts 2:17], Dan 4:9; Kirta Epic, tablet 1, VI:31-32; L. R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, I [1972], II:192).  We can then go on to list the specific parallels taken from careful reading of James Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, II:450-461, rather than the poor quality source you recommend.  Here are some examples:

 

7:2-3 Zosimus and holy ones eat fruit of trees and drink from the fountain at the root of the trees, as in the Paradise of God and Adam & Eve -- I Nephi 8:10-11,15-16, 11:25

[3:2-4 In the Greek version, Zosimus encounters an “unfathomable river of water covered by an impenetrable cloud of darkness” -- I Ne 8:13,23.]

8:1-2, 16:8 the sons of Rechab write their history on tablets of stone (like Moses), at the time when Jeremiah announced the destruction -- I Nephi 1:4,11,13,18-19, 3:3, 11:36, 19:1, 22:1

11:3-5, 12:4-5 God provides fruit trees and water from the roots, the cloud encircles them like a bulwark, they are nourished by fruit trees, and drink water from roots -- I Nephi 8:10-16,23, 11:25, 12:17

12:9 the angels of God announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God, from a holy virgin, the Mother of God (Mary*) -- I Nephi 11:14-24

 

* “Mary” in B & D (13th & 12th century Syriac) MSS, and in Mosiah 3:8, Alma 7:10.

 

J. W. Welch provides a complete study in his “The Narrative of Zosimus (History of the Rechabites) and the Book of Mormon,” in N. B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited ( FARMS, 1985), 323-374, online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=16 .  If fault is to be found, it ought to be focused on the main article and case made, rather on impromtu notes on a blog.

 

Edited April 11, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

I'm not saying all parallels are pointless or silly. I've previously acknowledged the strength of some of Sorenson's convergences. I'm saying that a willingness on Peterson's part like this one undermines the credibility of others.

I read Welch's article too (linked by Peterson's blog). I don't find the full article any more compelling.

Thanks for the other references. I'll happily have a look.

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm not saying all parallels are pointless or silly. I've previously acknowledged the strength of some of Sorenson's convergences. I'm saying that a willingness on Peterson's part like this one undermines the credibility of others.

I read Welch's article too (linked by Peterson's blog). I don't find the full article any more compelling.

Thanks for the other references. I'll happily have a look.

I think if we are going to use analysis of perceived parallels as part of determining authenticity of the BOM then we can't ignore the parallels that go against our bias. A person who believes the BOM is 19th century fiction should not ignore ancient parallels. Likewise, a person believing the BOM to be ancient should not ignore parallels to 19th century cultural and religious attitudes. In other words, people on both sides of the debate should be vigilant against confirmation bias. But what do you think the chances are of the Deseret news publishing a piece on the parallels between the BOM and early 19th century American culture? Edited April 11, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[canard78]

I think if we are going to use analysis of perceived parallels as part of determining authenticity of the BOM then we can't ignore the parallels that go against our bias. A person who believes the BOM is 19th century fiction should not ignore ancient parallels. Likewise, a person believing the BOM to be ancient should not ignore parallels to 19th century cultural and religious attitudes. In other words, people on both sides of the debate should be vigilant against confirmation bias. But what do you think the chances are of the Deseret news publishing a piece on the parallels between the BOM and early 19th century American culture?

I completely agree. I'm willing to discuss both this and articles from the opposing perspective and those in the middle, like "A Nation Now Extinct..." (BYU, not a critical piece at all but useful context for a 19thC origin discussion).

[CCRW]

Isn't this the same guy that published in the Desert News the parallels of modern day IPad's, bright sun and the need for the hat?

[canard78]

Isn't this the same guy that published in the Desert News the parallels of modern day IPad's, bright sun and the need for the hat?

 

I seem to remember an article along those lines recently.

[Bernard Gui]

Isn't this the same guy that published in the Desert News the parallels of modern day IPad's, bright sun and the need for the hat?

Something worth considering....

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the Urim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

 

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

I think if we are going to use analysis of perceived parallels as part of determining authenticity of the BOM then we can't ignore the parallels that go against our bias. A person who believes the BOM is 19th century fiction should not ignore ancient parallels. Likewise, a person believing the BOM to be ancient should not ignore parallels to 19th century cultural and religious attitudes. In other words, people on both sides of the debate should be vigilant against confirmation bias. But what do you think the chances are of the Deseret news publishing a piece on the parallels between the BOM and early 19th century American culture?

Of course, you are right, McGee, but Deseret News is not the appropriate venue for scholarly appraisals, and we should not expect anything more than friendly summaries therein.  Neither do I expect Christianity Today to publish exposes on how Protestantism is alien to primitive Christianity.  Ain't gonna happen.

 

On the other hand, there is a very good reason why Talbot School of Theology students Mosser & Owen did publish a scholarly expose as to how evangelical polemicists had been so wrong about Mormonism, and how they had consistenly failed to measure up in the debate with Mormon apologists:

 

Mosser, Carl, and Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205.  First delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting.  Available online at  http://www.academia.edu/185247/_Mormon_Scholarship_Apologetics_and_Evangelical_Neglect_Losing_the_Battle_and_Not_Knowing_It_ , and at  http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html .

 

There is a very good reason why Methodist scholar Margaret Barker plainly stated of the Book of Mormon: “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.”  in her “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005 in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82.

 

Likewise, when frankly considering the possible 19th century A.D. parallels for the Book of Mormon, professional historian Richard Bushman (who just happens to be LDS) came up dry:  In his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (NY: Knopf, 2005), 87-105, he was able to discern only non-parallels:  

Bushman terms the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis.  Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc.  If that is simply confirmation bias, prove it through a professional analysis.

[CCRW]

Thanks Bernard ... very interesting read.

 

The Jews are really big on the various names of G-d, having one of his divine names written on a parchment and tucked into the garment to enable it is pretty cool.

So is it not believed that this exact breastplate (or one like it), which came down from the Mnt with Moses, not created by human hands was with the plates?

 

Interesting final statement

"The Talmud (BT Yoma 73:B) also indicates that the message which was received was called tummim, "perfect," because it was immutable"

[Robert F. Smith]

Something worth considering....

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Even more to the point is Rabbi Nissim Wernick's BYU doctoral dissertation:  “A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings,” doctoral dissertation (Provo: BYU, Aug 1968), online at  http://web.archive.org/web/20090829234905/http://geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/WERNICK.html .  A good deal of what he had to say is also applicable to the Book of Mormon.

[CCRW]

At one point, during my quest to learn and grown in personal revelation I became fascinated with meditative Kabbalah.  I'm not so sure about getting started over here ... I'll have to start reading again.  I will check out that dissertation, thanks 

[SmileyMcGee]

Of course, you are right, McGee, but Deseret News is not the appropriate venue for scholarly appraisals, and we should not expect anything more than friendly summaries therein. Neither do I expect Christianity Today to publish exposes on how Protestantism is alien to primitive Christianity. Ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, there is a very good reason why Talbot School of Theology students Mosser & Owen did publish a scholarly expose as to how evangelical polemicists had been so wrong about Mormonism, and how they had consistenly failed to measure up in the debate with Mormon apologists:

Mosser, Carl, and Paul Owen, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205. First delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting. Available online at http://www.academia.edu/185247/_Mormon_Scholarship_Apologetics_and_Evangelical_Neglect_Losing_the_Battle_and_Not_Knowing_It_ , and at http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html .

There is a very good reason why Methodist scholar Margaret Barker plainly stated of the Book of Mormon: “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.” in her “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005 in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82.

Likewise, when frankly considering the possible 19th century A.D. parallels for the Book of Mormon, professional historian Richard Bushman (who just happens to be LDS) came up dry: In his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (NY: Knopf, 2005), 87-105, he was able to discern only non-parallels:

Bushman terms the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis. Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not control the narrative” (101); the BofM “does not plant seeds of democracy in the primeval history of the nation” (102), etc. If that is simply confirmation bias, prove it through a professional analysis.

Well stated. Thank you for the references.

[CCRW]

Even more to the point is Rabbi Nissim Wernick's BYU doctoral dissertation:  “A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings,” doctoral dissertation (Provo: BYU, Aug 1968), online at  http://web.archive.org/web/20090829234905/http://geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/WERNICK.html .  A good deal of what he had to say is also applicable to the Book of Mormon.

Interesting read.  A bit dated (1968), but the creations sections quoted my friend Hyrum Andrus a lot. I'm also surprised the creation sections did not utilize Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation).  It seemed pretty clear to me that JS had access to these teachings (i.e. 2.5 billion years per eternal round).  As far as the urim thummim parallels of the 12 stones to the 2 stones (set in a bow), I suppose if JS was using those exact two stones in the hat Dan's IPad parallel might not seem so silly.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting read.  A bit dated (1968), but the creations sections quoted my friend Hyrum Andrus a lot. I'm also surprised the creation sections did not utilize Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation).  It seemed pretty clear to me that JS had access to these teachings (i.e. 2.5 billion years per eternal round).  As far as the urim thummim parallels of the 12 stones to the 2 stones (set in a bow), I suppose if JS was using those exact two stones in the hat Dan's IPad parallel might not seem so silly.

When it came to the hat, Joseph clearly used a single seer stone he had acquired locally.  The two stones set in a bow (like spectacles) were much too large to fit into the hat, and had been removed by the angel following the Martin Harris MS fiasco.  The biblical term "Urim & Thummim" is a latecomer to the Mormon scene and is often applied recklessly to single or double seer stones.

 

Back in the 1980s, I began referring to the single seer stone as a solid state virtual transducer with an LED screen in an effort to capture the essence of its actual function within known science and technology -- since I do not believe that God ever violates natural law, but is master of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

As far as the urim thummim parallels of the 12 stones to the 2 stones (set in a bow), I suppose if JS was using those exact two stones in the hat Dan's IPad parallel might not seem so silly.

It is not self-evident -- or even clear to a reasonable mind --that his parallel is "silly," or that there is any substantial difference between using seer stones set into a bow as an instrument of divine revelation and a single seer stone separate from a bow.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CCRW]

and had been removed by the angel following the Martin Harris MS fiasco.

hmm, I did not realize this.  For some reason I figured he had them all (sword of labon and other stuff?) until the angel took the plates as well.

 

One thing that struck me was the note of other instances of stones, that after touched of God, glowed for the purpose of light.

 

I assume we agree God must have touched the single stone (sometime after the money digging days) to remain consistent with these other parallels?

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................  

 

I assume we agree God must have touched the single stone (sometime after the money digging days) to remain consistent with these other parallels?

Jewish traditions aside, I have imagined that God (as with any advanced sentient being) could enable a solid-state device to function as a transducer.

[CCRW]

Jewish traditions aside, I have imagined that God (as with any advanced sentient being) could enable a solid-state device to function as a transducer.

Do you know Tobin? just kidding.

 

Was it not Skousen years ago that had a talk (it was popular on cassette tape) on the Atonement and he spoke of how God worked miracles, that it was based on the honor that all matter and intelligence gave to God that at molecular levels they would obey his voice and recombine into whatever God desired.  The example was given of mosses? (sorry someone) putting their hand into the clothing of their chest and pulling it out leprous, putting it back and pulling it out again to normal.

 

In other words I have a hard time visualizing God as Captain Kurt with high tech gadgets but working more at a natural level.  But hey that's just my simplistic worldview of it.  

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL.

 

I just came across this thread.

 

I stand by both columns.

 

But please recall that my newspaper columns are invariably between 736 and 739 words in length, and that there's very little room in so few words for all the nuances or responses to objections that some critics might desire.

 

Incidentally, I was only reminded of Jack Welch's work on the Narrative of Zosimus because it came up, and was rather extensively discussed, at a recent dinner with Professors Stephen Robinson, Eric Huntsman, and John Welch of BYU and James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary.  (The claimed parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Narrative of Zosimus were first noticed by Welch and Robinson when they were students in a graduate seminar that Charlesworth was teaching, many years ago, at Duke University, and he invited Welch to present his findings to that seminar.)  It isn't evident to me that Professor Charlesworth, one of the most prominent scholars of New Testament and intertestamental Judaism in the world, regards the parallels to which Professor Robinson and especially Professor Welch point as transparently silly and meaningless.  He certainly didn't indicate such during our dinner the other night, which was friendly and full of good conversation.

[CCRW]

Hey Dan, good to see you, hope all is well .... I see things have not changed much in your posting style

[Antoni]

Just wanted to say a big thank you to the links and posts on this topic. It has opened up a new vista of study for me

Edited April 18, 2015 by Antoni

[canard78]

LOL.

I just came across this thread.

I stand by both columns.

But please recall that my newspaper columns are invariably between 736 and 739 words in length, and that there's very little room in so few words for all the nuances or responses to objections that some critics might desire.

Incidentally, I was only reminded of Jack Welch's work on the Narrative of Zosimus because it came up, and was rather extensively discussed, at a recent dinner with Professors Stephen Robinson, Eric Huntsman, and John Welch of BYU and James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary. (The claimed parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Narrative of Zosimus were first noticed by Welch and Robinson when they were students in a graduate seminar that Charlesworth was teaching, many years ago, at Duke University, and he invited Welch to present his findings to that seminar.) It isn't evident to me that Professor Charlesworth, one of the most prominent scholars of New Testament and intertestamental Judaism in the world, regards the parallels to which Professor Robinson and especially Professor Welch point as transparently silly and meaningless. He certainly didn't indicate such during our dinner the other night, which was friendly and full of good conversation.

Hi Dan,

Out of interest, was there any reason particular reason why you linked to two additional articles on the document but didn't link directly to the many online copies of the actual original source.

Having read the whole thing I'm a little bemused what the fuss is about. The parallels you/Welch have drawn seem a stretch and often you (and he) use Mormon buzz phrases to imply significant content that aren't actually in the original text. Is that also intentional?

What are your real conclusions Dan? Do you think this is a shadow or whisper of Nephi's actual journey? Or is this an old myth that has no direct link to the Book of Mormon but stands as (another) example of ancient people making a record of the journeys?

[CCRW]

deleted

Edited April 18, 2015 by CCRW

[canard78]

I just had a message from my friend who originally sent me the link to the DN article. I'd replied to them by suggesting they read the original source to see whether they felt the conclusions were still valid.

They got back to me today and said that having read the actual source material that they were surprised at the excitement around it and could understand my frustration with the article in question.

Dan, how many people who read your article do you think would have bothered to look up the source?