Jump to content

David Bokovoy on Deutero and Trito Isaiah in the Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm curious, though. How do you interpret Psalm 2:2's reference to YHWH and YHWH's anointed?

I've always understood the language concept in that verse the same way as I do Revelation 22:16: 

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."   

But that was the angel speaking in that verse delivering the words of Jesus in the first person, because just a few verses earlier (verses 7-9), the angel reprimands John for worshiping him right after speaking in the first person for another statement from Jesus ("Behold, I come quickly").  So the angel speaks the words of Jesus in the first person and is talking about himself in the third person.

I believe this same concept applies to Psalm 2:2 and other places like Psalm 110:1 ("The LORD said unto my Lord").  It's quite common in prophetic literature.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Nevo commented:

There is this:

Which leads me to ponder and write this:

The Dead Sea Scrolls came as a shock because they revealed an unexpected Judaism, something that the existing Old Testament and Post-Christian Jewish commentaries, the Talmuds, the Mishnah, and such, did not anticipate and did not prepare the scholars to expect.  The LiDar survey came as shock because they revealed unexpected complexity beneath the junglesof Mesoamerica.   And Joseph Smith's book came as a shock to Alexander Campbell, because it was not the way he would have arranged things if he were God.  "Applying Post-Enlightement Rationalism to the existing scriptures is quite sufficient, thank you very much.  Angels with more books are neither required nor desired."  And one of the things that goes on in scholarship is that scholars who have been trained to use specific critical tools and to ask specific questions in the service of specific ideological streams will tend to see things in a particular secular way, and will dismiss those who do not swim in the same school, thinking the same thoughts, as deficient on those grounds. "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?"   The tricky part not only being unable to predict the unknown, but in being able to be self-critical in ways that are not completely ideologically determined.  There is a huge difference between dismissing Joseph Smith, or Margaret Barker for not being "one of us" for not using our methods, sources, problem fields, and ideology, and in asking "Why us?"  Which paradigm is better?  Which problems are more significant to have solved?  What paradigm should we adopt to approach the problems that no one has yet solved?

I think of the difference between Joseph Campbell seeing Jesus as just another dying and rising God, and C. S. Lewis as seeing Jesus as the reality that all the others pointed to, as though "All things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of [Christ]." (2 Nephi 11:4).    I like Campbell, find him useful and insightful, and have actually read more of him than I have of Lewis.  But which problem is the most important to have solved?  And when you ask the question, are you filling out plans for the weekend, or pondering your tithing envelope, or are you filling out an admittance form to enter a hospital and facing the looming possibility that the end is nigh, even at the gates? Are you remembering the unanswered questions, or the most profound personal connections?

Such things make a difference.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Wow, great insight! 

Sorry to do this, because your post wasn't about this, but how do you feel about the dead sea scrolls being a scam, or fake? Does it change things I wonder.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, great insight! 

Sorry to do this, because your post wasn't about this, but how do you feel about the dead sea scrolls being a scam, or fake? Does it change things I wonder.

Do you mean all the scrolls or just certain ones having been discovered to be forgeries?

This may help with context of the difference between what is viewed as authentic and what are forgeries:

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-after-dead-sea-forgeries-exposed-how-do-we-know-the-scrolls-in-israel-are-real-1.8679396

Quote

As for the most famous and complete scrolls, namely the seven that are displayed at the Shrine of the Book in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, there is “no reasons to suspect” that they are forgeries, Justnes adds.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you mean all the scrolls or just certain ones having been discovered to be forgeries?

This may help with context of the difference between what is viewed as authentic and what are forgeries:

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-after-dead-sea-forgeries-exposed-how-do-we-know-the-scrolls-in-israel-are-real-1.8679396

That's a good article.  

I noticed that the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls has been updated to include information on the forgeries.

The wiki article gives the history and itemizes the types of scrolls that were discovered in 1946, 1947, and 1956.  Those scrolls have been carbon dated and tested and are ancient.  But then the article gets into past ownership of those scrolls, current ownership, ownership disputes, and copyright disputes, and it says, "Since 2002, forgeries of alleged Dead Sea Scrolls have appeared on black markets".   So it's the well known discovery and study of the original scrolls (which are not fake) that has stirred up the desire for ownership or the draw of having them be part of a museum collection, creating the market for forgers to make a buck (or hundreds of thousands) by making documents that are claimed to have been among the original scrolls.  There wouldn't be such a market if it were not for the originals.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 8/14/2020 at 12:43 PM, Rivers said:

 

 

On 8/14/2020 at 1:13 PM, Robert J Anderson said:

 

 

On 8/14/2020 at 1:33 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

 

 

On 8/14/2020 at 2:09 PM, OGHoosier said:

 

 

On 8/14/2020 at 2:45 PM, champatsch said:

 

 

On 8/14/2020 at 2:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

To each of you. I do not understand the more than one Isiah issue, what little I think I do understand is that the "voice" and "tense" of Isiah changes at certain points, therefore it must be two or three different people.  In that limited understanding, it seems that one needs to deny prophetic revelation to support the notion of 2 or 3 three different people. Why is Isiah as introduced of the first whatever number of chapters limited to only the voice and tense of those chapters?

Edited by provoman
Link to post
7 minutes ago, provoman said:

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

To each of you. I do not understand the more than one Isiah issue, what little I think I do understand is that the "voice" and "tense" of Isiah changes at certain points, therefore it must be two or three different people.  In that limited understanding, it seems that one needs to deny prophetic revelation to support the notion of 2 or 3 three different people. Why is Isiah as introduced of the first whatever number of chapters limited to only the voice and tense of those chapters?

The tense and voice are not crucial.  What is true is that Holy Writ is typically compiled by a variety of prophetic figures, some of whom do editorial work, which includes commentary on previous prophets.  The Bible,, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants are each carefully edited documents, not original compositions.  Each has been edited and reedited.  The Joseph Smith Papers Project shows that particularly well for the D&C.  The Documentary Hypothesis is clearly applicable to both Bible and BofM.

  • Like 2
Link to post
21 hours ago, Nevo said:

Well, as you know, I disagree. We've gone over all this before in detail (in this epic thread and elsewhere). I'm fine with believers "finding Christ in the Old Testament" by taking a sensus plenior approach. But I don't think we can assert that the Hebrew Bible is, in fact, Christian, and that Jesus of Nazareth is in view whenever it talks about an anointed one (and that all this would be obvious if the King James translators had only done a better job).

Against Margaret Barker, I think the earliest Christians read Old Testament texts in new ways, not in old(er) ways. The religion of pre-exilic Israel was not Christianity. Nor was the religion of Jesus himself, for that matter.

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

On the contrary, as Walter Weaver pointed out, "the Christian community could not even make its most special affirmation [the resurrection of Jesus] apart from antecedent roots in Judaism."  in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 17.

The Jew Claude G. Montefiore, for example,  saw Jesus as "a sort of eighth-century prophet born out of season,"[1] and as a man who "occupies the remarkable position of resuming the work and role of the prophets.  He is in genuine succession to Amos and Isaiah."[2]

[1] Montefiore, "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33 (1934-1935):516.

[2] Montefiore, The Old Testament and After (London: Macmillan, 1923), 229.

10 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

The Dead Sea Scrolls came as a shock because they revealed an unexpected Judaism, something that the existing Old Testament and Post-Christian Jewish commentaries, the Talmuds, the Mishnah, and such, did not anticipate and did not prepare the scholars to expect. .........................................

More importantly, explicit messianism was already present in the Qumran scrolls, and the Isaianic Servant Songs were given an explicitly messianic interpretation by the Essenes.  Eminent Jewish scholars are the most vocal in saying so.

Quote

I think of the difference between Joseph Campbell seeing Jesus as just another dying and rising God, and C. S. Lewis as seeing Jesus as the reality that all the others pointed to, as though "All things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of [Christ]." (2 Nephi 11:4)........................

Jesus himself saw the OT speaking constantly of him.  At least that is what the NT says repeatedly. 

Quote

The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and renewed study,  since World War II, of the Jewish pseudepigraphic writings have given new impetus to the study of the NT in its Jewish setting.  W. D. Davies' studies on Paul and Palestinian Judaism provided an early model for using rabbinic sources. . . .  Descriptions of diverse types of prerabbinic Judaism witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls and renewed study of the Pseudepigrapha have only gradually eroded the uncritical acceptance of the rabbinic reconstruction of the Second Temple period and provided a more variegated foundation for understanding the NT in its Palestinian context.  Anthony J. Saldarini, "Rabbinic Literature and the NT," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), V:602.

Even so, no source speaks the language of Jesus more clearly than the rabbis in the Talmud.  For Jesus was a rabbi, a Pharisaic rabbi of Beth Hillel (as was Paul).
 

Quote

"A Christian Jesus is a parochial, self-serving myth and an Aryan Jesus a perverse one.  But why then have Christians so persistently thought of Jesus as a Christian and resisted admitting the obvious, that Jesus was a Jew?  Answer: the pervasive problem of uniqueness."

". . . many Christian scholars, . . seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set."

    [Ferdinand] "Baur argued successfully that early Christianity had originated historically within Judaism . . . ."  His enduring, basic point was "the Jewish matrix of Christianity" . . . .

    "A Jesus who taught like a Jew and an early Christian community that looked like a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars, who preferred to envision a Jesus who taught a new and unique doctrine that overthrew the established tradition."

    "To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings.  Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role.  If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church.  They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness."  Anthony J. Saldarini, "What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?" Bible Review, XV/3 (June 1999):17, subheading/teaser: "To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity."

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, as Walter Weaver pointed out, "the Christian community could not even make its most special affirmation [the resurrection of Jesus] apart from antecedent roots in Judaism."  in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 17.

The Jew Claude G. Montefiore, for example,  saw Jesus as "a sort of eighth-century prophet born out of season,"[1] and as a man who "occupies the remarkable position of resuming the work and role of the prophets.  He is in genuine succession to Amos and Isaiah."[2]

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Certainly there is. But there's also change.

For example, Raymond Brown notes that "although the Jewish hope of the Messiah was highly idealized, there was no expectation of a divine Messiah in the sense in which Jesus is professed as Son of God. Moreover, a nationalistic coloring was never absent from any stage of the preChristian development of messianic thought, any more than the OT concept of salvation itself was devoid of earthly and nationalistic aspects. It is inaccurate and unjust to say that the Jews of Jesus' time had corrupted the idea of the Messiah as spiritual savior by making it secular and nationalistic and that Jesus restored the concept to its pristine meaning. The Christian understanding of a spiritual Messiah with a kingdom not of this world represented a change rather than a restoration — a change that Christians believe brought the development of the messianic expectation to a rich fruition, but a change nevertheless" (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology [New York: Paulist Press, 1994], 160–161).

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Nevo said:

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Certainly there is. But there's also change.

For example, Raymond Brown notes that "although the Jewish hope of the Messiah was highly idealized, there was no expectation of a divine Messiah in the sense in which Jesus is professed as Son of God. Moreover, a nationalistic coloring was never absent from any stage of the preChristian development of messianic thought, any more than the OT concept of salvation itself was devoid of earthly and nationalistic aspects. It is inaccurate and unjust to say that the Jews of Jesus' time had corrupted the idea of the Messiah as spiritual savior by making it secular and nationalistic and that Jesus restored the concept to its pristine meaning. The Christian understanding of a spiritual Messiah with a kingdom not of this world represented a change rather than a restoration — a change that Christians believe brought the development of the messianic expectation to a rich fruition, but a change nevertheless" (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology [New York: Paulist Press, 1994], 160–161).

One must take a look at 4Q246 (4QpsDan Aa, 4QSon of God) Aramaic I "[He] shall be great upon the earth.... and all shall serve [him]...the [g]reat..," II "and by his name shall he be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High."[1]  And 1Q28a/1QSa 2:11-12 "when [God] has fa[th]ered the Messiah," i.e., God Afathered, begat@ (Hebrew yôlîd) the Messiah of Israel.[2]  Brown is a great scholar, but more recent Jewish scholarship has frankly admitted that the Essenes interpreted the Servant Songs in Isaiah to refer to the messiah to come.[3]  

[1] G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed., 275; 4th ed. (332); H. Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, 203-204; J. J. Collins in BAR, Mar/Apr 1990; Eisenman & Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 68-71.  See also Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God; Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism.

[2]  Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 147; G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed., 121 and note.

[3] Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000); Michael Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999); J. J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian 'Son of God' Among the Dead Sea Scrolls," Bible Review, 9/3 (June 1993):34-38,57.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One must take a look at 4Q246 (4QpsDan Aa, 4QSon of God)

You twice mention John J. Collins in your footnotes. Collins examines that text at length in his book The Scepter and the Star and makes the following comments:

  • "The designation 'Son of God' reflects the status rather than the nature of the messiah. He is the son of God in the same sense that the king of Israel was begotten by God according to Psalm 2. There is no implication of virgin birth and no metaphysical speculation is presupposed. He may still be regarded as a human being, born of human beings, but one who stands in a special relationship to God" (167–68).
     
  • "One need not subscribe to all aspects of Bultmann's theories to grant that the title 'Son of God' took on a new and more exalted meaning in Hellenistic Christianity" (168).
     
  • "The notion of a messiah who was in some sense divine had its roots in Judaism, in the interpretation of such passages as Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 in an apocalyptic context. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ. But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources" (168–69)

The Book of Mormon, of course, presupposes the "the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ" in its presentation of the Messiah from start to finish.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Nevo said:

You twice mention John J. Collins in your footnotes. Collins examines that text at length in his book The Scepter and the Star and makes the following comments:

  • "The designation 'Son of God' reflects the status rather than the nature of the messiah. He is the son of God in the same sense that the king of Israel was begotten by God according to Psalm 2. There is no implication of virgin birth and no metaphysical speculation is presupposed. He may still be regarded as a human being, born of human beings, but one who stands in a special relationship to God" (167–68).
     
  • "One need not subscribe to all aspects of Bultmann's theories to grant that the title 'Son of God' took on a new and more exalted meaning in Hellenistic Christianity" (168).
     
  • "The notion of a messiah who was in some sense divine had its roots in Judaism, in the interpretation of such passages as Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 in an apocalyptic context. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ. But the notion that the messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism, and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radically from its Jewish sources" (168–69)

The Book of Mormon, of course, presupposes the "the later Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ" in its presentation of the Messiah from start to finish.

Abinadi makes the same comparison in Mosiah 15:13-15 as we find in 11Q13/11QMelchizedek II:15-19, interpreting the mountains and messenger of Isaiah 52:7 as the prophets and the Messiah.[1]

4Q541 (4QAaronA/4QAhA) (24 [25] frags dated to ca 100 B.C.; a second copy in 3 frags is 4QTestLevic) frag 9 "He will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of his [pe]ople. His word is like a word of heaven, and his teaching is in accordance with the will of God. His eternal sun will shine, and his light will be kindled in all the corners of the earth, and it will shine on the darkness... They will speak many words against him, and they will invent many [lie]s and fictions against him and speak shameful things about him. Evil will overthrow his generation..."; frag 24 "Do [not] grieve for [him]...God will set many things right...many revealed things...Ex­amine and seek and know what the dove (Jonah) sought and do not afflict the weak by wasting or hanging [crucifixion].... [Let] not the nail approach him. So you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers a proven foundation.... You will see and rejoice in the eternal light, and you will not be an enemy"[2]; cf. Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 (4th Suffering Servant poem), 1 Corinthians 15:13; J. Starcky and E. Puech consider this to feature a Suffering Servant or Suffering Messiah theme (Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 - 4th Suffering Servant poem; 1 Corinthians 15:13); J. J. Collins disagrees and sees no more than an Eschatological Priest modeled on the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness.

4Q252 (Jacob's Blessing, Midrash on Gen 49:10) Jacob prophesied the coming of the righteous Messiah of David[3]; cf. 4Q175 (Testimonia)[4]; cf. 2 Nephi 1:6 - 3:25, 4:3-11 (Blessing of Lehi).[5]     

4Q285 (4QPierced Messiah/4QMessianic Leader-Nasi/4QWar Scrollg/4QMilama frag 5, Midrash Isaiah, Aramaic)[6] "the staff" ǁ"the scepter," "shoot, root of Jesse" ǁ"branch of David" ("Prince of the Congrega­tion"), "piercings" ǁ"wo­unds," etc., specifically quoting "Isaiah the Prophet"; cf. 2 Nephi 21:1-2,10 (= Isaiah 11:1-2,10), Jacob 2:25, Mosiah 14:2-12 (= Isaiah 53:2-12, Suffering Servant, Son).  G. Vermes insists that, as in Isaiah 11:1-4, it is the Messiah who does the judging and slaying, not the other way around, and that it is the Davidic Messiah figure who is triumphant, as in 4Q161, 4Q521, and 1QSb.[7]  Thus John Collins translates frag 5 line 4 as "the Prince of the Congrega­tion, the Branch of David, will kill him",[8] against Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise's primary reading of "they will put to death the Leader of the Communi­ty, the Bran[ch of David]," though they offer the alternative favored by Gaster and Martinez.[9]

AGabriel=s Revelation@ written in ink on stone (87-line, 3' x 1' tablet, with late 1st century B.C. or early 1st century A.D., apocalyptic-messianic Hebrew and English text at BAS website http://bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp), 16-21 AMy servant David, ask of Ephraim [that he p]lace the sign; this I ask of you. For thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, my gardens are ripe. My holy thing for Israel.  By three days you shall know that thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the evil has been broken by righteousness.@ 80-81 Ain three days you shall be resurrected, I Gabriel com[mand] yo, prince of princes.@[10] 

And, of course, it has long been known that Job, the ABabylonian Theodicy,@ and Ludlul bel nemeqi deal with the suffering of the righteous one, and they may be related to the figure of the suffering servant in Isaiah and the NT.[11]


[1] D. M. Pike, AThe Imagery of Isaiah 52:7-10,@ in D. W. Parry, ed., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, 261-265, cited in J. A. Tvedtn­es in Parry, Peterson, and Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences, 240-241.

[2] J. J. Collins, "The Suffering Servant at Qumran?" Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):25-27,63.

[3] Wacholder & Abegg, Preliminary Edition, fasc. 2.

[4] Both are translated in Gaster, Dead Sea Scriptures, 3rd ed., 443-446.

[5] See Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism; James Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity; Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in Reflections on Mormonism (reprinted by FARMS CHA-78); Donald H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Augsburg Fortress, 1998).

[6] BAR, 18/4 (July-Aug 1992):80-82.

[7] So Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 124, frag. 5, line 4; see recent debate in BAR, 18/4 (Jul-Aug 1992):80-82; James Tabor in 18/6 (Nov-Dec 1992):58-59; Robert Holst in 19/1 (Jan-Feb 1993):66-67; Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):14.

[8] James Charlesworth & Walter Weaver, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith.

[9] Eisenman & Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 29, frag. 7, line 4.

[10] Ada Yardeni & Binyamin Elitzur, AGabriel=s Revelation,@ Cathedra, 123 (Nisan 5767):155-166 (Hebrew); Ada Yardeni, AA New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?@ Biblical Archaeology Review, 34/1 (Jan-Feb 2008):60-61; Israel Knohl, AThe Messiah Son of Joseph,@ BAR, 34/5 (Sep-Oct 2008):58-62,78; cf. Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls; cf. "Hazon Gabriel,@ Journal of Religion, 88/2 (April 2008):147-158; G. H. Dix, AThe Messiah Ben Joseph,@ Journal of Theological Studies, 27 (1926):130-143; cf. Magnus Zetterholm, ed., The Messiah in Early Judaism and Christianity, which errs in suggesting that Judaism did not already have a tradition of a dying Messiah.

[11] A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient  Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, rev. ed., 272-273, citing W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 70-89.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...