First Vision and Asherah

[Kevin Christensen]

It happens that the late William Hamblin was the editor for my FARMS Occasional Paper, "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies".  In the introduction, he wrote "I have long believed that Barker's work deserved to be more widely read and known by Latter-Day Saints."   And the same issue of the Interpreter that contains his essay "Vindicating Josiah" also contains my response, "Prophets and Kings in Lehi's Jerusalem".

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/

And it happens that the things that King Josiah removed from temple worship as part of his violent overthrow of the temple priesthood were not only part of the religion of the Biblical patriarchs, but they also reappeared in Christianity.  They are also an important part of what critics have long said makes the Book of Mormon "too Christian before Christ."  For instance:

Quote

The combined list of items missing from the second temple is this: the anointing oil, the manna, the high priest’s almond rod that blossomed, the fire, the ark, the menorah, the spirit, the cherubim and the urim and thummim stones. The Christians, however, imagined a temple with these restored. The writer of Hebrews described a temple with four of the missing items: the ark, the manna, the rod that blossomed and the cherubim, but said they could not be spoken of in detail (Heb.9.3-5). In the book of Revelation, Jesus promised the hidden manna to his faithful followers (Rev.2.17); John saw the ark in the heavenly holy of holies (Rev.11.19); he saw the seven lamps of fire before the throne which were the the sevenfold Spirit (Rev.4.5), and he saw the cherubim of the heavenly throne, which he called the living creatures (Rev.4.6). [Ezekiel’s editor had said that the cherubim were the living creatures (Ezek. 10.20)]. He also saw the tree of life standing by the throne, which means that it was standing in the holy of holies. The Christians claimed that the Spirit and the fire had been given to them at Pentecost, and the title they gave to Jesus and then took themselves - Christ, Christians - shows they believed that the oil had returned. Of the missing temple items, only one is not here: the divination stones - urim and thummim. The Christians were restoring the first temple. Now of all these things, only the cherubim and the ark are mentioned by the Deuteronomist in 1 Kings, which is why the Christian ‘restoration’ of the first temple has been largely overlooked. The work of the Deuteronomistic history writer has effectively obscured this key aspect of Christian origins, and so the temple hidden in 1 Kings is of considerable interest.

...

Josiah must have removed a tree-like object from the temple, or rather, the Deuteronomists said he did or wished he had done so. Here, John’s vision of the restored temple tells us what this tree was. John saw the throne restored to the temple and the ark, and in his final vision, he saw the tree of life in the holy of holies by the throne. The only tree-like object in the temple had been the menorah shaped like an almond tree, and so it is likely that the menorah was not mentioned in descriptions of Solomon’s temple because it represented the tree of life. The story of Adam and Eve describes how they chose the forbidden tree and were then barred from the tree of life, a storythat encodes the loss of the original temple. When Jesus appeared to John in his temple vision, he promised his faithful followers that they would again have access to the tree of life (Rev.2.7), and in his final vision, John saw the servants of God and the Lamb standing by the throne and the tree of life. And what about the almond rod, the sign of true priesthood that had also been hidden away in the time of Josiah? It was a branch of the almond-tree menorah, and Zechariah used the title ‘the Branch’ to describe the Messiah who would rebuild the temple (Zech.6.12). We have an 9 eye-witness comment on the destruction of the menorah, in words of Jeremiah. He was a young priest at the time of Josiah’s purge, and he was called to speak out against ‘the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests and the people of the land’ (Jer.1.18). He was called to oppose the purges. In his first call-vision he saw an almond branch, and heard wordplay on the name for an almond tree: shaqed means almond tree and shoqed means ‘watcher’. The Lord said to him: ‘I am watching over my word to peform it’ (Jer.1.12). Jeremiah knew that the Lord was watching the changes to the almond tree. Other voices such as 1 Enoch said that the changes in the temple were its downfall: it was burned and the people were scattered (1 Enoch 93.9-10), but they named what the tree of life represented. It was Wisdom, the Lady of the original temple whom John also saw restored to her place in the holy of holies, and she gave birth to the Messiah (Rev.11.19-12.6). The first Christians knew the traditions of the original temple, but the Deuteronomists successfully concealed them in their accounts of the temple. These temple traditions did survive, for example in the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures which we call the Targums. This material is vital for understanding Christian origins but has not been recognised for what it is.

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Papers/2Jul11_TempleHiddenInKings.pdf

Overall, it is good practice to "Seek out of the best books, words of wisdom."  (D&C 88:118)   I notice that it doesn't say, "seek out of authorized books, words of orthodoxy,"  and "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further,"  which happens to be Joseph Smith's explanation of the problem with creeds, that they "set of stakes and bounds to the work of the Almighty."

Some disagree with me, of course, but since Joseph Smith prized freedom of the mind, in our church, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition."  So when Cardinal Fang comes to read the charges, I can be confident that he comes on his own authority, such as it is.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Islander]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so how do we know that the church's interpretation is true?

Moroni 10:4-5, James 1 and others= personal revelation.

Without personal revelation one cannot know what is true or false.

For this reason personal revelation trumps everything else.

I guess I was not explicit enough. What I tried to say was that the scripture means what the scripture means; what God intended to mean. It can not mean something to one person and another thing to a different person. There are prophets and apostles that not just reveal the will of God but also shed light into what the Lord has already said (scripture). Personal revelation is confirmation (at a personal level) of the truth and meaning of existing revelation. If Nephi said that the tree was a representation of the love of God, and we hold that to be the truth, whatever else some one believes to be can not be (e.g. a reference to a pagan deity) also the truth. Personal revelation is not license to interpret scripture however I want. That is just bad theology.

Now, personal application is different. That is in fact the twofold purpose of scripture study; to bring the insights of the revealed truth as a tool for the strengthening of our faith, to take on the challenges of mortality. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

That is just bad theology.

No, that is pretty much the direction of post modern theology and the documentary hypothesis etc.

The authors of many of the books now canonized as the Bible are unknown. Whether or not they are the word of the Lord is open to question.

This means we must be open to following the spirit and why we have a present prophet, and why we need to constantly ask the spirit if even our present Prophet is on the right track.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

So also obviously with the Book of Mormon. People question if Joseph wrote it which is in my opinion not possible however how much Joseph influenced the words he received is of course open to question.

And so I follow the words of Moroni, whom I accept as a prophet through my own personal revelation, to ask God if what we are reading is his word or not.

Edit: In fact, read what Kevin says, just above your reply to me, and this post of mine. Now he is a very fine scholar and theologian and a faithful member.

Edited March 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And so I follow the words of Moroni, whom I accept as a prophet through my own personal revelation, to ask God if what we are reading is his word or not.

Edit: In fact, read what Kevin says, just above your reply to me, and this post of mine. Now he is a very fine scholar and theologian and a faithful member.

I agree with everything you are stating. My issue, rather, was with people "reading" something into the text that was not there because God's intent was explicitly stated in the revelation. The case in point was, as in the posts above, relating the tree of life in Nephi's vision to Ashera, a pagan deity. 

We are called to test and receive by personal revelation a confirmation of that which is true and previously attested by the prophets. When Nephi says:

"And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the etree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God." 1Ne 11:25...... That is exactly what the vision/revelation means. You may pray so that the Spirit may confirm to you, personally, that it is indeed revelation from God, which we all affirm it is. But extrapolating from the text that it relates to some pagan deity is just reading something that is not there. 

I hope it makes sense? 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Islander said:

I agree with everything you are stating. My issue, rather, was with people "reading" something into the text that was not there because God's intent was explicitly stated in the revelation. The case in point was, as in the posts above, relating the tree of life in Nephi's vision to Ashera, a pagan deity. 

We are called to test and receive by personal revelation a confirmation of that which is true and previously attested by the prophets. When Nephi says:

"And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the etree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God." 1Ne 11:25...... That is exactly what the vision/revelation means. You may pray so that the Spirit may confirm to you, personally, that it is indeed revelation from God, which we all affirm it is. But extrapolating from the text that it relates to some pagan deity is just reading something that is not there. 

I hope it makes sense? 

It makes sense that it REPRESENTS that the human being Nephi, if he existed, SAID that he BELIEVED that is what HIS FATHER'S vision, insofar as Nephi could know the content of another's mind, AND that those words were  "translated correctly" INTO JOSEPH'S MIND, IF Joseph was in fact a prophet, and CORRECTLY interpreted within each reader's mind individually, yes.

 But when the Lord tells me something, that is straight and direct.

Big difference.

I take that as the word of God.

"In God we trust, all others, .... not so much"

 

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Overall, it is good practice to "Seek out of the best books, words of wisdom."  (D&C 88:118)   I notice that it doesn't say, "seek out of authorized books, words of orthodoxy,"  and "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further,"  which happens to be Joseph Smith's explanation of the problem with creeds, that they "set of stakes and bounds to the work of the Almighty."

Some disagree with me, of course, but since Joseph Smith prized freedom of the mind, in our church, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition."  So when Cardinal Fang comes to read the charges, I can be confident that he comes on his own authority, such as it is.

These generalized assertions about learning and wisdom do not address the merits, really.  When I'm in court arguing a case, I don't simply beat the drum for truth.  

Margaret Barker:

  1  Does not a hold  a true doctorate.  An honorary doctorate does not involve years of research and the defense of a dissertation.  Masters are a dime a dozen.

  2.  Relies upon the evidence of archeology to assert the truth of Canaanite worship rather than of apostasy.  FIve hundred years from now archeologists could conclude that the Apple Iphone was the true object of worship. The Asherah figurines in the excavation of households could well support either theory. I suppose she could advance the theory of truth, but a true scholar would then dispense with the other argument.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It happens that the late William Hamblin was the editor for my FARMS Occasional Paper, "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies".  In the introduction, he wrote "I have long believed that Barker's work deserved to be more widely read and known by Latter-Day Saints."   And the same issue of the Interpreter that contains his essay "Vindicating Josiah" also contains my response, "Prophets and Kings in Lehi's Jerusalem".

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/

And it happens that the things that King Josiah removed from temple worship as part of his violent overthrow of the temple priesthood were not only part of the religion of the Biblical patriarchs, but they also reappeared in Christianity.  They are also an important part of what critics have long said makes the Book of Mormon "too Christian before Christ."  For instance:

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Papers/2Jul11_TempleHiddenInKings.pdf

Overall, it is good practice to "Seek out of the best books, words of wisdom."  (D&C 88:118)   I notice that it doesn't say, "seek out of authorized books, words of orthodoxy,"  and "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further,"  which happens to be Joseph Smith's explanation of the problem with creeds, that they "set of stakes and bounds to the work of the Almighty."

Some disagree with me, of course, but since Joseph Smith prized freedom of the mind, in our church, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition."  So when Cardinal Fang comes to read the charges, I can be confident that he comes on his own authority, such as it is.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

The almond shape itself of course is a powerful symbol in Hinduism and represents the Divine Feminine.  It is interesting that the rod which bloomed is itself a powerful symbol of generation and related to the lingam and yoni, Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva paralleling in many ways the "Trinity" with various symbols for Wisdom representing, arguably Shiva. 

Brahma and Vishu were two competing gods not unlike the competing various cults dedicated to El and Yahweh in Canaan, and it is said that Shiva, Wisdom, brought the two together.

Then we have the vesica piscis - an almond shape representing "the fish"- an early Christian symbol for Christ of course, with the tail of the fish detailing the two unified circles from which the shape is geometrically derived.  And then in the New Testament we have the number of fish in the miraculous draught of fishes being 153, which the gnostics taught symbolized the ratio of the length to the width of the vesica piscis, or in other words, the almond symbol, unifying two circles.

Repeatedly we see these shapes representing the same sort of relationships between the gods.

It is interesting to me that the vesica piscis in the form of chains of unified circles is a prominent symbol found in the LA temple, especially the baptismal area.

For those not aware of these parallels it is definitely a fruitful direction for study.

Edit:

Edited March 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The almond shape itself of course is a powerful symbol in Hinduism and represents the Divine Feminine.  It is interesting that the rod which bloomed is itself a powerful symbol of generation and related to the lingam and yoni, Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva paralleling in many ways the "Trinity" with various symbols for Wisdom representing, arguably Shiva. 

Brahma and Vishu were two competing gods not unlike the competing various cults dedicated to El and Yahweh in Canaan, and it is said that Shiva, Wisdom, brought the two together.

Then we have the vesica piscis - an almond shape representing "the fish"- an early Christian symbol for Christ of course, with the tail of the fish detailing the two unified circles from which the shape is geometrically derived.  And then in the New Testament we have the number of fish in the miraculous draught of fishes being 153, which the gnostics taught symbolized the ratio of the length to the width of the vesica piscis, or in other words, the almond symbol, unifying two circles.

Repeatedly we see these shapes representing the same sort of relationships between the gods.

It is interesting to me that the vesica piscis in the form of chains of unified circles is a prominent symbol found in the LA temple, especially the baptismal area.

For those not aware of these parallels it is definitely a fruitful direction for study.

Edit:

Quoting myself here, but here also you see the beginning of Gothic architecture. 

Here you symbolically have blown up the  Almond Divine Feminine to cathedral size and re-enter the Feminine to be born again 

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Doctor Barker's degree, given by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury :  

Quote

The Lambeth Degree is a real academic award. The candidates are exempted from the requirement to sit an examination: the awards are made on merit in recognition of their contribution to religious, academic and public life.

Lambeth degrees can be awarded in Divinity, Law, Arts, Literature, Medicine and Music.

The Archbishop will preside over a ceremony at Lambeth Palace on Tuesday 1^st July when the degrees will be awarded.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's right to grant degrees is derived from Peter's Pence Act of 1533 which empowered the Archbishop to grant dispensations previously granted by the Pope. The practice began during the time when attendance at Oxford and Cambridge, the only universities at that time in England, was frequently disrupted by the difficulty of travel or outbreaks of the plague. The Archbishop was empowered to grant exemption from the residential requirements necessary for a degree.

Those to be awarded degrees are:

Mrs Margaret Barker   

DD: In recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian liturgy which has made a significant new contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and opened up important fields for research.

http://aoc2013.brix.fatbeehive.com/articles.php/1241/archbishop-of-canterbury-awards-lambeth-degrees

Barker has, to this point, published 17 books.  All of them are in print because many people who read one go on to read all of the rest.  How many dissertations are worth publishing?  One of the first books on Josiah that I located in the K.U. Library after I read Barker's The Great Angel turned out to be completely useless to me.  It had been a disseration.  The author attempted to show how various edits and insertions and modifications had been done in the Bible accounts of Josiah.  It went on for hundreds of pages, agonizing over trivia and unprovable supposition about grammar and sentence rhythms and letter order and managed to say exactly nothing significant, let alone anything worth exploring at that length.  I should think that Barker's achievements, and efforts, and the increasing respect that she has earned ought to be mentioned. For instance,  N. T. Wright gave the Gifford Lectures in 2018, and Louis Midgley informs me, refers to her Temple Theology at length.  She gets more invitations to speak than she could possibly accept.  People with Doctrates in the field have noticed that she has something to offer worth exploring.  And there is a reason that she did not stay on to get her Doctorate in the usual way.  She tells the story in the Mormonism and the Temple proceedings that I linked earlier.  (See pages 11 to 14.)  Speaking of her three years at Cambridge, "I was left with a feeling not of elation but of disappointment; I didn't stay to do postgraduate work because I felt somehow that everything we had done had missed the point. Now this is a terrible thing to say because I had some wonderful teachers, but it wasn't what I was looking for."  What she wanted to find was a link between the Old and New Testaments.  As she put it in The Risen Lord, "how do you get from the sacrifice of animals to the sacrifice of one said to the Son of God?"  What she was being taught was literary criticism, about the Documentary Hypothesis, and sources of the New Testament.  So she left and went off to "do her own thing."  

Regarding sources of information:  In her essay on "Wisdom: The Queen of Heaven" in The Great High Priest, she says:

"It is an interesting exercise to try to recover the Lost Lady using the same methods as are used to reconstruct the male aspect of the God of Israel:

1. By giving priority to the evidence of the Hebrew texts, including inscriptions. There is no exact parallel to the phrasing of the Kuntillet 'Arjur inscriptions, which shows that the biblical traditions are not representative of everything about Hebrew language and religion.

2. By allowing for singular and plural forms, and for a variety of names for one figure, and the undoubted practice of using a singular verb with a plural form for a divinity.

3. By admitting that if conceptions of the male aspect of diety have moved away from anthropomorphism, then the female must have had the same fate. There are unlikely to have been simultaneous movements away from anthropomorphism for the male but towards personification of the female.

"It is also necessary to recognize that the texts that have been treated as 'history were often a highly subjective and selective account of what happened. What the Deuteronomists presented as history was not the only 'history' of the monarchy, exile and restoration, and had the fathers of Old Testament theology and history not been latter day Deuteronomists, other voices might have been heard, and other texts read."

"Finally there are questions of paradigms and context. If we have inherited the Deuteronomists' way of reading the Hebrew text, there is unlikely to be much progress in recovering what thy sought to suppress, if their model is retained and further refined. A new paradigm alters everything, and its value cannot be assessed by the extent to which it agrees with, and is compatable with,  the paradigm it seeks to supercede. It has to be judged to the extent to which it offers and explanation of the evidence. A hypothesis, even one that has been much used, is not transformed into fact merely by repetition.  Context is another major consideration: the context within which the text, within the versions, wihtin related traditions, and within the beliefs of the heirs of those traditions, whom we cannot simply assume to have been mistaken about their own cultural heritage. "  Barker, The Great High Priest, 233-234.

It is one thing to plant the seed, and to take the time to perform the experiement, and to have one's mind expanded and soul enlarged over time and in consequence of personally performed the experiments on the available data.  It is another thing selectively cherry pick and misrepresent the bulk of the evidence, and to dismissively label the opposition as a source of fake news, while never actually confronting the evidence and performing the experiments.  It is one thing to simply ask if a source agrees with one's favored orthodoxy, automatically deferring to authority, and quite another to seek for greater light and knowledge.   

I have often noted that D&C 1 bluntly states what the LDS should expect from our own authorities:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

We are not infallible, and do not have all truth securely placed on the shelf in an authorized Big Book of What to Think, and especially not in uncannonized Sunday School manuals, written by who, and what sources and inquiries?  The answers we have came because someone sought and asked, and if no one thinks to ask, we have no right to assume we have nothing more to learn.  In 3 Nephi ,  Jesus mentions that his Old world disciples in cases "supposed that that they understood, and did not ask."  And even if we did have Jesus present with us, he could not resolve all of our questions in a single moment, not due to his weakness, but to ours.  In 3 Nephi 17:2-3, "I perceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot understand all my words... prepare your minds for the morrow..."  And the prophecy in 1 Nephi 13 about plain and precious things being lost from the Bible, and then being restored through texts that expressly come through the Gentiles after the publication of the Book of Mormon shows that we ought to be willing to look outside our own mental borders as part of preparing our minds for what he has for us.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 20, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

The Lambeth award is awarded by "dispensation" (meaning, under the authority of the Church for spiritual reasons) without regard to "residence" (meaning, attending the university, sitting in classes, and working as a graduate assist teaching or researching for others) and "examination" (meaning, one doesn't have to write a dissertation, nor defend it.)  This is from the archbishop's website.  All the hallmarks of academia are missing.  The award isn't granted by Oxford of Cambridge, but the archbishop. 

That is why Wiki says it is an honorary degree.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_degree

One thing I do in my professional practice is represent universities in accreditation issues and, in particular, religious universities.  The issues arise as to whether credits granted by one university are real academic credits, or fake or honorary.   Typically I am called upon to defend credits earned at religious universities against assaults from secular sources.

One measure is to test how the credits are accepted by real universities.  If they are accepted as transfer credits or credit for graduate school, then they tend to be real.

Here, one must ask if Dr Barker's degree can lead to tenure at a real university -- on its own merits.  I haven't conducted a survey of holders of the degree, so I must confess that I don't really know. But she doesn't work at a major university using her "doctorate."

I continue to believe that she is the wrong one to follow to understand true Canaanite worship.  I have certain read Dever's works in detail and, like Dr. Michael Coe, would tend to acknowledge his findings as those of true research.   I think Dr. Barker's work is merely derivative. 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Lambeth award is awarded by "dispensation" (meaning, under the authority of the Church for spiritual reasons) without regard to "residence" (meaning, attending the university, sitting in classes, and working as a graduate assist teaching or researching for others) and "examination" (meaning, one doesn't have to write a dissertation, nor defend it.)  This is from the archbishop's website.  All the hallmarks of academia are missing.  The award isn't granted by Oxford of Cambridge, but the archbishop. 

That is why Wiki says it is an honorary degree.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_degree

One thing I do in my professional practice is represent universities in accreditation issues and, in particular, religious universities.  The issues arise as to whether credits granted by one university are real academic credits, or fake or honorary.   Typically I am called upon to defend credits earned at religious universities against assaults from secular sources.

One measure is to test how the credits are accepted by real universities.  If they are accepted as transfer credits or credit for graduate school, then they tend to be real.

Here, one must ask if Dr Barker's degree can lead to tenure at a real university -- on its own merits.  I haven't conducted a survey of holders of the degree, so I must confess that I don't really know. But she doesn't work at a major university using her "doctorate."

I continue to believe that she is the wrong one to follow to understand true Canaanite worship.  I have certain read Dever's works in detail and, like Dr. Michael Coe, would tend to acknowledge his findings as those of true research.   I think Dr. Barker's work is merely derivative. 

 

Did you actually read Kevin's post?

You missed the entire point.

Wittgenstein's education was in engineering, and he led two revolutions in philosophy and dominated the  twentieth century in that discipline.

I believe it was his lack of "academic training" in that area that allowed him to do that.

He simply walked into Bertrand Russell's office and Russell saw his genius

[Bob Crockett]

How illogical.  The exception does not make the rule.  One of the most illogical arguments there is.  Wittgenstein has nothing to do with Caananite theology. 

You fellows go ahead and worship at Barker's feet.  There are many LDS thinkers who disagree with you and for good reason.  You can't make the shoe fit here.  

Edited March 21, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

On 3/20/2020 at 5:23 PM, Bob Crockett said:

How illogical.  The exception does not make the rule.  One of the most illogical arguments there is.  Wittgenstein has nothing to do with Caananite theology. 

You fellows go ahead and worship at Barker's feet.  There are many LDS thinkers who disagree with you and for good reason.  You can't make the shoe fit here.  

You missed the point entirely.

My point was that Wittgenstein was not part of the academic world of philosophy, at all, and yet was renowned as one of the greatest philosophers of all time by the time of his death.

It was an analogy to Barker, whom you suggested, in your opinion, might not be academically"qualified" in her field.

That of course is highly debatable 

My point was that even if one concedes that she was not qualified, that is not relevant to a person's ability to influence any intellectual area.

Of course there are many counter-examples to your argument where people who ARE "academically qualified" have absolutely no impact on their fields.

Of course Wittgenstein had "nothing to do with Caananite theology" !!

I never asserted that he did.

Please show me how that is an "illogical argument."

Edited March 22, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

Barker's conclusions are contrary to revealed word. I am not saying she is right or wrong and revealed word is right or wrong, but one must be consistent. 

What is a "paradigm?"

Edited March 22, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Barker's conclusions are contrary to revealed word. I am not saying she is right or wrong and revealed word is right or wrong, but one must be consistent. 

What is a "paradigm?"

"Consistent"?

Is Ptolemy "consistent" with Copernicus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

I am kind of shocked actually that you are not familiar with Kuhn, though that hypothesis explains a lot.

See below

Quote

 Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

In this context a "paradigm" would be a new way of describing the world, or a new academic field.  Each academic field has its own internal paradigms- assumptions upon which the discipline is founded.

Edited March 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

I very well know what is a paradigm. 

It ain't what you say it is. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I very well know what is a paradigm. 

It ain't what you say it is. 

Perhaps you could define what it is then. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Opinions differ.  That is life.  The question is how we deal with it, how we navigate the differences.  We can keep the debate simple by labeling everything that does not come through our preferred Tribal Authorities as "Fake News."  The problem with that approach is that it assumes without question that whatever one's Tribe happens to embrace at present is Beyond Repentence because it is one's Tribe, and One's Tribe Knows All things, because, it stands to reason that one could not have been misinformed by anyone in one's own tribe.  That approach,  while simple, lacks the essential quality of being self-reflective, of first considering the possibility of beams in our own eyes that obscure our vision.  It is necessary, Jesus says, to first remove the beam from our own eyes. "Then shall ye see clearly."  And since one of the messages of the First Vision is that we all need to repent, I am personally reluctant to settle for arguments based on Tribal Afficiation or Credentials, or Titles or one person's opinion.  When Barker was invited to BYU in 2003, Wilfred Griggs (who has a Ph.D. from UC Berkley), while in attendance was heard to say, "She puts our scholarship to shame."  Now, that is just one man's opinion, but the man does have credentials that set him apart from the herd.  He seems to have an informed opinion at least.  Is that enough?  Or should I dismiss his positive assessment in favor of yours?  On what grounds?  Noel Reynolds (Harvard Ph. D.) told me that the Dean of Religion at BYU sent copies of "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies" to the teachers in his department, that is another man's opinion. Reynolds also told me that me writing the book had saved him the trouble of doing so.  If we went to get past titles and opinions and on to substance, and how well that substance answers our questions, and how we measure how well that substance answers questions, that is another thing.  

Alma urges us to perform experiments on the seed.  Test the word in good soil.  Give it nurture and time, and protection from predation and drought, and see what grows.  See whether it is real, whether it grows, whether it expands my mind, and enlarges my soul, is fruitful, delicious, and promising.  I've been doing that with Barker's work for over 20 years now.  And by Alma's criteria, which happen to be the same as Thomas Kuhn's, the seed is a good seed.  In my view, her work literally fulfills the prophesy in 1 Nephi 13 on the restoration of plain and precious things.  If I look at the arguments against Barker's scholarship that I have seen in this thread thus far,  how much substance is there really?   How much actual content has been carefully and accurately reported and tested?  

Robert says that Barker's work is derivative of Devers.  Well, if I hadn't read both The Mother of the Lord and 16 other books by Barker, as well as Dever's Did God Have a Wife?, I could take his word for it.  But having read them both, I simply cannot do so.  The content does not match the description.  I spotted one reference to Dever in The Mother of the Lord, where she gives a different take on an important artifact with evidence of a Hebrew Goddess.  She made the case that the artifact represents exactly what Ezekiel saw in his vision.  His test does not deal with seed and fruit directly, but rather, paints a picture that does not account for what I have seen in my own experiments.

Where is the Josiah Revelation?  Kings and Chronicles aren't revelations, but histories, and they have important differences.  Kings suppresses information about the Temple.  Chronicles includes much about the temple.  Chronicles often sites books as sources that do not appear in the Bible, and they are often associated with visions and seers and prophets (such as Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet and Gad the seer, 1 Chron 29:29). A version of Deuteronomy  has been associated with Josiah's reform, but it is clear that there are specific places where Deuteronomy contradicts Exodus and other Biblical accounts.  Deuteronomy 19:12 rejects visions. Deut. 4:10-20 rejects the Hosts of Heaven.  Deut. 29:29 tells Israel not to "enquire after the secret things which belonged only to the Lord.  Deut. 30:11 says just obey the written commandments and don't seek someone like Lehi or Jeremiah or Ezekiel or Nephi or Joseph Smith who might "ascend to heaven for them and discover remote and hidden things."  The Book of Mormon contradicts Deuteronomy on those issues, as does Jeremiah, despite the fact that both quote Deuteromony many times.  Given the notable agreement, I think the points of difference are important.  Where is the formal revealed word that validates the account in of Josiah 2 Kings?  The Book of Mormon includes Mormon's second Epistle to Pahoran.  (Alma 59).  Notice that despite the epistle being from an inspired leader with an official office, published in a divinely transmitted and translated account,  it shows that Mormon turned out to be dead wrong on his suppositions as to who was responsible for the problems he faced.  He supposed he understood, and did not know.  He was willing to learn better and be corrected.  A great example, I think.   How many of the direct arguments that Barker made about Josiah's reform in her talk at BYU in 2003, and published by FARMS and BYU in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, are addressed in LDS manuals or scripture?

What does the Book of Mormon say directly about Josiah?  No one in the Book of Mormon names Josiah, and no one is named Josiah.  Josiah was not a prophet, but was a king.  On his own authority, he removed the Tree of Life, the great symbol of wisdom from the temple.  This was a part of his violent overthrow of the Temple priesthood.   See 2 Kings 23:20, and consider whether there is any other account of conspicuous public violence that can explain Jeremiah's observation that "your own sword hath devoured your prophets like a lion" (Jer. 2:30) and "also in thy skirts is found the blood of poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these" (Jer. 2:34).    Barker pointed out that the same Hebrew consonants in 2 Kings 23:7 that seem to refer to "male cult prostitutes" are "the same as those for holy ones, angels qdsm, and given what is known about the censorship methods of the ancient scribes, reading the letters in this way could have been deliberate. Josiah's breaking down down the houses of the holy ones could have been his suppression of the cult of the heavely host. These two elements alone indicate that what Josiah abolished what is recognizable as the veneration of Wisdom and her seventy sons, the angels."  (Barker, The Great High Priest, 149.)  She continues saying that "Almost all that Josiah swept away can be matched to elements in the older religion, not in the cults of Canaan, but in the religion of the patriarchs and prophets."

I checked the Institute Manual on the OT to see who said what about Josiah.  It has one sentence quoted from the late Sidney Sperry, claiming that "“With the exception of Josiah, all of the kings of Judah during Jeremiah’s ministry were unworthy men under whom the country suffered severely."  And that is it.  Did Sperry anticipate and address any of the aguments that Barker has published?  Would you make the case that Sperry, (who died in 1977,  long before Barker's first book was published in 1987) as a BYU Professor must be infallible, or had received revelation on the topic, and then talk about Sperry's scriptural case that the Book of Mormon Cumorah could not be in New York?  (See JBMS 4:1).   Do you think Sperry would have been dismissive of Barker, or would he, like Professor Griggs, be willing to learn further light and knowledge?

Josiah acting as King, not as prophet or even priest, overthrew practices that were part of the religion of the Biblical patriarchs, and that reappear as part of Christianity.  He removed the notion of visions,  of the idea that God could be seen, the heavenly hosts, the notion of Yahweh as the Lord of Hosts, the association of God with stars, and Heavenly Ascent, and the Annointed Messiah/High Priest, the Day of Atonement Ritual... And these things happen to appear in the Book of Mormon, many in the very first chapter.  Josiah has more in common with Sherem than Lehi.  Sherem argues for the importance of the Law of Moses, and rejects prophets and visions and the atonement, as does Josiah.  What does that imply?  Lehi's first public discourse reports that there would be a Messiah and the Redemption of the world.  The reformers had changed the role of the High Priest and had removed the Day of Atonement from the calendar (Deuteronomy 16 does not include the Day of Atonement).  The Day of Atonement is the ritual dramatization of the redemption of the world.  The prophets in the Book of Mormon have visions of the Tree of Life despite the report that Josiah took it from the temple burned it and scattered its ashes.   Jacob reports that the Jews in Lehi's Jerusalem sought beyond the mark, and became blind.  Jacob's mark was the same as Ezekiel's, and was the anointing of the High Priest with the Name.  

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 23, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

I urge all to follow Bill Hamblin's discussion, where he disagrees with Barker and Kevin.  I am certainly not the first to disagree with Barker.  Dr. Hamblin made a number of comments about Dr. Barker in 2012, in a thread entitled "Vindicating Josiah."  His comments were based upon a paper he wrote challenging Kevin's conclusions about Dr. Barker, which is now published at https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/vindicating-josiah/. Kevin refers to this article above as an endorsement of Barker when in fact it disagrees with her.

Dr. Hamblin's essential thesis is that the vast majority of Israelite scholars say that the temple reform of Josiah is one contemplated and supported by the God of Israel (at least from a sociological perspective), and that "Dr." Barker's opinion to the contrary is a "small minority opinion."  

Dr. Hamblin says:  "Jeremiah's critique is against the sons [of Josiah], because they failed to maintain the reforms of Josiah, not because they followed the reforms. Jeremiah is explicitly clear in his condemnation of tree veneration (3:6), idols (10:5-14, etc.), and the Queen of Heaven (7:18, 44:17-25), Asherah (17:2), and worshipping "other gods" (1:16, 5:7, 7:9, 18; 18 total examples), and cultic child sacrifice (7:31, 19:5)."  He says:  " there is ample evidence of what Jeremiah thinks the people are doing wrong, and it is not following Deuteronomy." He says:   "Note that Jeremiah's problem here is that "they [the scribes] have rejected the word of the YHWH." The rejection of the "word of YHWH" is what makes them unwise. This could just as easily be understood to mean that they/scribes think they are wise because they have the Law/Torah, which is the Book of the Law of YHWH discovered in the temple (2 Kgs. 22:8, 11; 2 Chr. 34:14) which begins Josiah's reforms, in other words Deuteronomy. But they are unwise because they reject the "word of YHWH" = the prophecies of Jeremiah. The problem is not that they like Deuteronomy. The problem is that they reject Jeremiah."

Dr. Hamblin notes:  "I think it is worth noting here that Nephi discusses the brass plates containing “the five books of Moses” 1 Ne 5:11. He treats them as authoritative scripture, and presumably one of these five was (some form of?) Deuteronomy. Why, if he rejected Deuteronomy, does he speak of five instead of four books of Moses." Dr. Hamblin remarks:  " I think Barker is a great scholar. I disagree with her interpretation about the nature and significance of Josiah's reforms." He further says:  "Well, she is a Bible scholar; but I don't think that makes her a Bible!"

In this 2012 thread, I pointed out to Kevin (as to which he never responded or commented) several items from the Church.  From a Church editorial, "Josiah Follows Book of the Law, Walks 'In the Way of the Lord,", Church News 07/28/90, we read that "Josiah was among Judah's few 'godly kings,' those who reigned in righteousness." "Although he was but a boy, Josiah "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David . . . and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." (2 Kgs. 22:2.) . . . Because of what he heard read from the book of the law, Josiah instituted a reform program. He ordered the destruction of idols and groves (places where idols of nature were worshipped)."  The Church treated the reforms positively in the OT Student Guide, 213-17. Josiah's reforms are used as lesson material in Primary. (Lesson 37 in Old Testament.) In September 1976, the Ensign published as a First Presidency Message an article authored by Pres. Kimball, entitled "How Rare a Possession." He began his discussion with: "[T]he story of King Josiah in the Old Testament is a most profitable one to “liken … unto [our]selves.” (1 Ne. 19:24.) To me, it is one of the finest stories in all of the scriptures." President Kimball then proceeds to give a very laudatory account of Josiah's reforms.

I think we can all agree that there are committees of General Authorities who think about these things, and they rely upon professional exegesis to inform them.

I particularly object to Kevin's characterization of my position, which is less polite than his response to Dr. Hamblin.  (Having said this, I only have the greatest respect for Kevin and know him to be well-regarded by ex-FARMS types.  I remind the reader that I was once Jack Welch's research assistant.  Having published twice in FARMS, I consider myself an ex-FARMS type.)  He refers to my position as deriving from "Fake News" as if citing to the Brethren instantly makes me some sort of advocate of false political correctness.  He refers to anecdotal conversations with Wilford Griggs ("who has a Ph.D from Berkeley"), Noel Reynolds ("Harvard Ph.D"), as if that is somehow vindication of his views.  It isn't.  This isn't accepted methodology for any peer-reviewed article. Do Griggs and Reynold actually quote from Barker in published articles? 

Turning now to Kevin's defense of "Dr." Barker about 12 years ago at https://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2007/11/my-margaret-barker-experience/#disqus_thread  

TT (the author or the thread's opening post) says:   "Kevin, I appreciate your enthusiasm about Barker's work, but it strikes me that you are a little too confident given that she holds a very small minority opinion. That said, I don't really see you offering any substantive answers to my arguments here, which are primarily methodological. Why exactly are you convinced of her argument given the historiographical problems?"  In this response to TT's criticism, Kevin expressly rejects much of Jeremiah's teachings.  He says:  "Now, granted, this is not the majority view."  

TT thus discussed the "very small minority" view of ""Dr." Barker.  Kevin responded by saying he does not "take a straw poll to find an apparent majority view on a given topic."  Dear Reader, I ask you to contemplate Kevin's response.  Is is appropriate for the author of a scholarly argument to refuse to consider whether or not his opinion is accepted, consensus or minority?  To put on blinders?  After all, the scientific method among other things requires a showing that the subject of the inquiry is one accepted be a reasonable amount of other scholars.  Even so, is Kevin's comment an implied admission that Dr. Barker's view is of a small minority? 

Finally, I do not believe that "Dr." Barker has the necessary credentials to publish her theory in the first place about the temple reforms.  I can see why the Anglican Church would honor her with a degree, as its theological liberalism borders on outright rejection of the Bible.   One can be an atheist and still hold a position in the Anglican Church.  

Edited March 25, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

I was invited to respond to the late Bill Hamblin's essay on "Vindicating Josiah."  

Bill did not respond to my arguments in his response to Barker essay.  Rather he encourages readers to read two of my essays.

Quote

 For more details, and exploration of the implications for Mormons, see Kevin Christensen, “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers 2 (2001), online at: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6; and Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 59–90, online at: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547))

Notice that despite reservations on some issues, Hamblin has an overall favorable impression of her work.

Quote

Although I accept much of her broader thesis, I disagree with Barker on several key issues, which I do not think are fundamental to the validity of her broader perspective. 

The only key issue that really matters is Josiah.  One thing I noticed is that Hamblin's response relies entirely on the Bible and Biblical scholarship that itself endorses Josiah and the Old Testament as we have it through the reformers and their sympathetic editors and interpreters, using the texts they edited and transmitted.  He does not respond to her detailed discussion of what happened to the OT in transmission, concerning Plain and Precious things being lost, and restored through other manuscripts that come via the gentles after the appearance of the Book of Mormon Lehi and Nephi as relevant voices do not appear.   Compare this Barker essay with 1 Nephi 13.  And consider that she has a lot more to say on the topic in her subsequent books and essays.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Consider this from Hamblin.

Quote

The first thing to note is that no biblical prophet ever opposed or criticized Josiah’s reforms. 

The point of my response was to argue that Jeremiah was in fact called to oppose the reforms.  This was not my own starting position.  Raised in the LDS church in Utah, I have no memory of any detailed discussion of Josiah in Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute.  The first notable thing I read that mentioned his importance was Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?  From my essay:

Quote

My starting point for approaching Jeremiah and Lehi in relation to Josiah was Friedman’s comment that Jeremiah agrees with the Deuteronomic history on “practically every important point” ((Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987), 146.)) and agrees with Deuteronomy “on virtually every major point.” ((Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 209.)) Such statements contain a hidden assumption that we do not have to think any further about what is most important. I expected to see extensive harmony. The extensive harmony that Professor Hamblin sees between Jeremiah and Josiah in his “Vindicating Josiah” and elsewhere really exists. ((See pp. 165-76 in this volume.)) The issue for me is what those harmonies mean in light of everything else I see?

Hamblin cited Marvin Sweeney's King Josiah of Judah: Lost Messiah of Israel.  Sweeney sees Jeremiah as a court propagandist working in support of the reform.  "Court propagandist" does not sound to me like a real prophet.  In the ediiton of Who Wrote the Bible? that I have, Friedman suggested that Jeremiah, or perhaps Baruch, was the Deuteronomist.  I've also read several other books that focus on the reform.  Neither Sweeney nor Friedman nor Hamblin  discuss any of the passages where Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy.  While the points of agreement are numerous and real, I notice that Jeremiah and Lehi and Nephi contradict Deuteronomy on exactly the issues that Barker sees as key to the reform.  The idea of prophecy, seeing God face to face, the Hosts of Heaven (Deuteronomy rejects them: Jeremiah uses the title Lord of Hosts 80 times), and much much more.  I find all that striking in light of Friedman's claim that Jeremiah agrees with Deuteronomy on "virtually every important point."   That just tells me what Friedman considers important enough to notice and discuss, and what he completely overlooks.  And neither Hamblin nor Sweeney nor Friedman discuss Jer. 1:19.

Quote

For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land.

 Jeremiah's call came the year after Josiah's reform began (in the 13th year, Jer 1:2) .  The only positive mention of Josiah in Jeremiah is that compared to Jehoiakim, he was just to the poor.  And compare that list of social groups with Ezekiel 22:6-31.  

Hamblin has this:

Quote

No biblical prophet ever endorsed the worship of any god other than Yhwh. 

Who then, is El Elyon, the Father of Yahweh?  Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God goes into this in more detail across a wider range of crucial sources than anything else I have read.  It turns out to be the best defence of LDS theology that I have ever seen, though she wrote it before encountering us.  It is literally part of the fulfillment of the prophesy on the restoration of Plain and Precious things in 1 Nephi 13.  And is there a difference between acknowledging the existence of Wisdom, Asheratah, and her worship? I think so.  Who is speaking in Proverbs 1:20-33?  Who is discussed in Proverbs 3:13-19, and Proverbs 8?  And for that matter, Mosiah 8:20.   And even D&C 1:26.

TT was the one who sometime years back commented that he didn't take Barker seriously because "No one I know takes her seriously."  Since then, Rowan Williams, His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew, and in 2018 at the Gifford Lectures, N. T. Wright have championed her voice.  With TT , I think the main issue is really the paradigm of scholarship in which a person works, and consequently, the methods, problem field, and standards of their controlling paradigms.  Barker is offering an alternative.  If you want to offer TT as a more authoritative voice, read more of what he says about the Bible, Jesus, and the Book of Mormon, and consider whether you would want him deciding what gets taught in our LDS manuals.

An interview with Barker:

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/20-january/features/interviews/interview-margaret-barker-theologian

Quote

When I preach at Good Friday services, I find that people are much more able to relate to this Temple understanding of atonement, where Jesus’s self-sacrifice is not substitutionary — it’s the real thing. For practical reasons in the Temple, animals represented the high priest; so the symbolism was that the covenant bonds were healed and restored by self-sacrifice, not by other people doing it for you — which people rightly see as unjust. Romans 12.1, “offer yourselves as a living sacrifice”, is the basis of Christian ethics. We’ve simply lost that. The natural order is maintained by self-sacrifice.

What is the first temple covenant we make?  And what is the last?  And Barker on the importance of Paradigms and being an independent scholar.

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/search/label/Barker%3A 'Being an Independent Scholar'

And her take on the problems of Biblical Studies in the 20th Century"

Quote

There is a major crisis in biblical studies of which the churches seem unaware, and there is need for urgent action to ensure that at least in theological colleges something is taught that does not simply rely on university departments and replicate their syllabus and interests. Theological colleges and university departments now have very different agendas....

The general feeling was that the links between academy and church had been severely strained by modern movements in scholarship. The agreement between church and academy, made a century earlier, had indeed been a Faustian pact. Prof. Philip Davies from Sheffield, who has a completely secular approach to Biblical studies, read a paper entitled ‘Ownership? Responsibility? What is the Guild to do with the Bible?’ He looked at the various disciplines which now have some sort of interest in biblical studies: cultural studies, literary theory, feminist issues, sociology and such like, and hailed this as a great liberation for biblical studies. When asked about the Church he was nonplussed. This implies that there is a need for university departments to make biblical studies relevant to all these latest trends in academe, and therefore, by implication, give it some sort of respectability, but no need to make it relevant to those who are the major users of the texts.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

What Barker does very well is that she makes the scriptures relevant to those who actually believe and use those texts in a covenant setting of faith and action.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 26, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
Calm's apt correction, Thanks

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Sweeney sees Josiah as a court propagandist

Jeremiah?  Josiah is king, but could be propagandist...just don’t think of kings in that way, someone does it for them. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jeremiah?  Josiah is king, but could be propagandist...just don’t think of kings in that way, someone does it for them. 

Yep.  Jeremiah.  Sweeney sees him as a court propagandist, rather than as a real prophet.  I fixed it.  Thanks.  As Rosanna Rosanna Hadannah says, "It's always something."

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Raised in the LDS church in Utah, I have no memory of any detailed discussion of Josiah in Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute. 

That isn't a real response -- I didn't hear it when I was a kid?  

Bill was being polite to you when he complimented Barker for being a great scholar.  He, rather, came out pretty strongly against your paper, her work and her theories.  

Still, I don't take a position as to who is right and who is wrong.  

Edited March 25, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

Clearly there is a lot in Deuteronomy that is correct.  That is not the problem.  Nor should I be amazed that Jeremiah and Deuteronomy and Josiah encourage people to keep the commandments and practice social justice and kindness and reject idolotry.   Points of agreement can be the common ground upon which people stand while emphasizing their points of disagreement.  Jeremiah and Josiah can have much in common and still have issues.  Indeed the commonality is what brings them together to have issues.  You and I both believe in Christ, the divine authority of the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, etc.  If we didn't have that in common, we wouldn't be brought together here to occasionally disagree about Sorenson and Barker.  That the reformers wanted people to behave themselves and keep the commandments and not misbehave economically or sexually or fall into idolotry would not put them at odds with Jeremiah.  The points of agreement that Hamblin lists and that you cite are real, but not, I think, the whole story.  Why does Jeremiah disgree with the reformers and Deuteronomy on the points that Barker sees as key and that scholars like Sweeney and Friedman overlook?   From my essay:

Quote

Start with the key passage from the preface to Deuteronomy: “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).

Barker points out that the Law here is put forward as a substitute for wisdom. She points out several places where poems in praise of wisdom have been changed to become praises of the law. ((Margaret Barker, The Mother of the Lord: Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 73–74.)) She discusses how often the texts that refer to this period lament the loss of Wisdom in terms of characteristic teachings as well as the female personification of Wisdom, whose great symbol was the tree of life. Jeremiah seems here 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).

Friedman and Bright both offer a stronger translation. “How can you say, ‘Why we are the wise, For we have the law of Yahweh’? Now do but see—the deception it’s wrought, the deceiving pen of the scribes.” ((John Bright, The Anchor Bible Jeremiah (Garden City: Doubleday and Co. 1965), 60. Compare Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 209.)) With respect to the law and those who had charge of it, Jeremiah comments that “they that handle the law knew me not” (Jeremiah 2:8). “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbor” (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).

Somebody was up to something in Jeremiah's day.  Jacob looks back:

Quote

But behold, the Jews [whom Lehi knew in Jerusalem in the period before the destruction] were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things which they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken his plainness away from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand because they desired it. And because they desired it, God hath done it that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14. cf. 1 Nephi 13:32 also on the blindness, and Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob as those who have seen and heard, 1 Nephi 9:1, 1 Nephi 11:3, and Jacob 7:12)

The reference to "plainness" ties this to Lehi's experiences and first public statements. He read from a heavenly book in which the Messiah and redemption of the world were “manifested plainly,” which points to Jacob’s description of those in Jerusalem who “despised words of plainness.”  

And Lehi disagrees with Deuteronomy on the same points.  And since the Book of Moromon refer to Jeremiah's prophesy that "the son of God should come?" and our Book of Jeremiah does not contain that prophesy (see Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book, has a chapter on this, and later writings that connect Jeremiah to this sort of thing.), and there is evidence that Jeremiah has undergone editing of various kinds, should we not admit that plain in precious things may have been lost?  That Ostler's inspired expansion theory may not be the best way to handle what otherwise seems too Christian before Christ in the Book of Mormon?

Has Griggs ever referred to Barker's work in a peer reviewed essay?  I don't know but I doubt it.  I've not read that much of his work.  A few essays, 30 years old.   I have referred to her work in peer reviewed essays, but that doesn't count, I know.  Even it was just places like Oxford University Press.  Has Reynolds?  I don't think so.  I have read more of his work.  But I think it matters that it was Reynolds who contacted me after he read the Great Angel, and then was directed to Paradigms Regained by Lou Midgley.  He asked if I had been in touch with Margaret, and I put them in contact, and helped them get together at her home in Derbyshire.  He had a three hour conversation that led to her being invited to come to BYU in 2003.  So whether Reynolds has cited her work is not the whole story, I think.  If you look at the subject matter he writes about, there is not as much reason to do so.  But he is clearly very impressed.

Many top LDS scholars, and more and more non-LDS scholars enjoy Barker's work.  There are reasons why the appreciation happens more on the believing side than the secular side of Biblical studies.  Different paradigms, different assumptions, different methods, tools, and standards of solution.  

Quote

Third, remember that your ideas may not be well received by established people; this does not mean that your ideas are wrong. They may be, but then so may be the ideas of the established person and s/he will not welcome any really serious threats. This is the problem with peer-reviewed journals; the ‘peers’ can often be the establishment perpetuating itself. There does, however, have to be a way of ensuring that the quality of independent scholarship is maintained. This is something that needs to be worked out. Being published is not necessarily an indication of the quality of your scholarship; a publisher is running a business and s/he publishes what will sell. 

Fourth, never compromise your standards or integrity for the sake of any perceived immediate advantage – such as getting published. You will regret it. Stick with your vision until you yourself find the need to modify it.

Fifth, do not be put off by a bad review, unless it is from someone whose scholarship you know and respect. When you have taken the considerable time and trouble that is needed to write a book or paper, you will know a lot more about that subject than many of those who will review it. No one should review books who has not actually published one.

Personally I got my saving testimony of Christ, not from esoterica, but on my third reading of the Book of Mormon, just before my mission.  Ether 12:39.

Quote

And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

It was later, on reading Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, that I experienced the kind understanding being enlightened, and mind exanding, fruitful experiments carried out, and soul enlarging and deliciousness that Alma 32 talks about, fruit that is delicious to me, and worth sharing because it is directly linked to my original testimony, that I persist.  It's why I love scholarship, and what prepared me, eventually to recognize and appreciate what I found in The Great Angel.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 25, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

I just don't see it.  At all.  But I plainly have not done the work you've done.