Harold Bloom: What Joseph Smith restored was "truly a Biblical religion."

[Hamilton Porter]

https://andrewmbailey.com/trinity/Joseph Smith and Trinity.pdf

Harold Bloom was a secular Jew and a literature professor at Yale. Should we teach children that most of what's been revealed to Joseph Smith (or his successor) has now been confirmed by the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars to be what the Bible teaches?

1. God of the OT had a body.
2. There are a plurality of gods who met in a council.
3. Jehovah is El's son. (revealed through Talmage).
4. God created the cosmos out of existing matter, not ex nihilo.

I know "majority opinion" can lead you down a dangerous path, but perhaps wait until children can recognize nuance?

Edited May 7, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

revealed through Talmage

Revealed or explained through scholarship?

[Hamilton Porter]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Revealed or explained through scholarship?

Scholarship was non-existent at the time. It wasn't until the Ugaritica was unearthed in the mid 1900s.

[Eschaton]

32 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

https://andrewmbailey.com/trinity/Joseph Smith and Trinity.pdf

Harold Bloom was a secular Jew and a literature professor at Yale. Should we teach children that most of what's been revealed to Joseph Smith (or his successor) has now been confirmed by the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars to be what the Bible teaches?

1. God of the OT had a body.
2. There are a plurality of gods who met in a council.
3. Jehovah is El's son. (revealed through Talmage).
4. God created the cosmos out of existing matter, not ex nihilo.

I know "majority opinion" can lead you down a dangerous path, but perhaps wait until children can recognize nuance?

As Dr. McClellan likes to say, the Bible doesn't possess univocality, so a truly "Biblical' religion is an impossibility. 

Genesis doesn't speak of God creating the "cosmos" but it does speak of God creating the earth and the material immediately surrounding the earth (the dome upon which the lights in the heavens were thought to hang. 

God of the Hebrew Bible having a body? Yes. 

A plurality of Gods meeting in a council? Yes, in very early Israelite religion, when it was still polytheistic and closer to its Canaanite roots. 

Yahweh (Jehovah) as El's son? It's complicated. Yahweh wasn't in the original Israelite pantheon, but borrowed from Israel's neighbors. When Yahweh worship was first introduced, he took the place of Baal, one of the many sons of El. That's why Yahweh is depicted as a storm God in many places - what was previously said about Baal was said about Yahweh. Eventually Yahweh was conflated with El, and those two gods were merged together. Other gods were phased out, or reimagined as angels or demons. 

The Jehovah's witnesses hit upon some forgotten Biblical doctrines too, like the idea that there is no consciousness in death, or the idea that Jesus was a kind of archangel. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

https://andrewmbailey.com/trinity/Joseph Smith and Trinity.pdf

Harold Bloom was a secular Jew and a literature professor at Yale. Should we teach children that most of what's been revealed to Joseph Smith (or his successor) has now been confirmed by the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars to be what the Bible teaches?

1. God of the OT had a body.
2. There are a plurality of gods who met in a council.
3. Jehovah is El's son. (revealed through Talmage).
4. God created the cosmos out of existing matter, not ex nihilo.

I know "majority opinion" can lead you down a dangerous path, but perhaps wait until children can recognize nuance?

How about some data to back up your conclusion? Here is what I need to evaluate your conclusion:

1. How many Bible scholars are there?

2. How many Bible scholars form an overwhelming majority?

3. How many Bible scholars confirm that what's been revealed to Joseph Smith to be what the Bible teaches?

4. This isn't a data question, but an information question . . . How do you define a Bible scholar? What specific credentials, experience, knowledge are necessary for one to meet your qualifications to serve as a Bible scholar? Does the person need to be irreligious? Or better yet, is there anything the person needs not to be?

Thanks.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Navidad

[Hamilton Porter]

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

As Dr. McClellan likes to say, the Bible doesn't possess univocality, so a truly "Biblical' religion is an impossibility. 

Doesn't mean you can't determine which religion fits the whole of the Bible better than any others.

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Genesis doesn't speak of God creating the "cosmos" but it does speak of God creating the earth and the material immediately surrounding the earth (the dome upon which the lights in the heavens were thought to hang. 

The Hebrew worldview still holds the elements to be eternal. You can find this even in conservative commentaries. (Reference available upon request)

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

God of the Hebrew Bible having a body? Yes. 

A plurality of Gods meeting in a council? Yes, in very early Israelite religion, when it was still polytheistic and closer to its Canaanite roots. 

Vestiges of it are still all over the Bible.

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Yahweh (Jehovah) as El's son? It's complicated. Yahweh wasn't in the original Israelite pantheon, but borrowed from Israel's neighbors. When Yahweh worship was first introduced, he took the place of Baal, one of the many sons of El. That's why Yahweh is depicted as a storm God in many places - what was previously said about Baal was said about Yahweh. Eventually Yahweh was conflated with El, and those two gods were merged together. Other gods were phased out, or reimagined as angels or demons. 

Agreed, and this can be found in the Bible (Deut. 32:8-9)

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

The Jehovah's witnesses hit upon some forgotten Biblical doctrines too, like the idea that there is no consciousness in death, or the idea that Jesus was a kind of archangel. 

Agreed. Furthermore John 1:1 in the New World Translation is a correct translation of the Greek.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Jaydes]

I believe  what Joseph taught is confirmed by the Bible, and so that is what I will teach my children. I do not believe that he taught any of these save for 4 and about a divine council. But the divine council was not regarding a plurality of God, but of angels, which were sometimes called or translated as Gods in the old testament texts. 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

How about some data to back up your conclusion? Here is what I need to evaluate your conclusion:

1. How many Bible scholars are there?

2. How many Bible scholars form an overwhelming majority?

3. How many Bible scholars confirm that what's been revealed to Joseph Smith to be what the Bible teaches?

Hi, good questions. I base it off quotes that summarize scholarly opinion. For example, in Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, he said 80% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote Ephesians or something like that. I can provide them if you wish.

 

No, the person doesn't have to be irreligious. As for all your other questions, those are good questions and I don't know. Maybe they should survey members of the Society for Biblical Literature. Also, would someone with a PhD in Hebrew or Northwest Semitics be considered a Bible scholar?

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

4. This isn't a data question, but an information question . . . How do you define a Bible scholar? What specific credentials, experience, knowledge are necessary for one to meet your qualifications to serve as a Bible scholar? Does the person need to be irreligious?

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

I believe  what Joseph taught is confirmed by the Bible, and so that is what I will teach my children. I do not believe that he taught any of these save for 4 and about a divine council. But the divine council was not regarding a plurality of God, but of angels, which were sometimes called or translated as Gods in the old testament texts. 

It's the exact opposite of that.  The original word was elohim (gods), and that got translated into angels in the Septuagint and other places.

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

 I do not believe that he taught any of these save for 4 and about a divine council.

I'd be interested in how you reached that conclusion. He argued that bara in Genesis 1:1 doesn't mean creation ex nihilo. And it's in the D&C.

4 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

 

But the divine council was not regarding a plurality of God, but of angels, which were sometimes called or translated as Gods in the old testament texts. 

There was a three-tiered pantheon. At the top was the Most High. Second tier was the sons of God, who were given some governing capacity. Third tier was angels, who just sent messages. The D&C recognized this distinction.

[Eschaton]

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Doesn't mean you can't determine which religion fits the whole of the Bible better than any others.

The Bible doesn't have a unified view on practically any topic. So really no religion can fit the Bible very well. I you wanted to narrow it down to just a book or two in the Bible, then yes, it would be possible to align closely with individual books (depending on how many layers of redaction and interpolation there are). 

 

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The Hebrew worldview still holds the elements to be eternal. You can find this even in conservative commentaries. (Reference available upon request)

Well, if you mean the view in Genesis was that God organized matter, yes. But there is no idea that God organized something like a universe or a galaxy. 

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Vestiges of it are still all over the Bible.

Certainly there are some remnants in the Hebrew Bible, made especially clear in the oldest extant texts. 

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Agreed, and this can be found in the Bible (Deut. 32:8-9)

Agreed. Furthermore John 1:1 in the New World Translation is a correct translation of the Greek.

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Eschaton

[Hamilton Porter]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

It's the exact opposite of that.  The original word was elohim (gods), and that got translated into angels in the Septuagint and other places.

Yes. Although elohim can refer to any supernatural being.

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

The Bible doesn't have a unified view on practically any topic. So really no religious can fit the Bible very well.

Some of the Bible's views are more dominant than others.

[Eschaton]

Just now, Hamilton Porter said:

Some of the Bible's views are more dominant than others.

Which views are you thinking of? 

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Certainly there are some remnants in the Hebrew Bible, made especially clear in the oldest extant texts. 

They can be found throughout the Bible, but their function may have been demoted over time.

[Hamilton Porter]

5 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Well, if you mean the view in Genesis was that God organized matter, yes. But there is no idea that God organized something like a universe or a galaxy. 

My point is, you can't find creation ex nihilo anywhere. And the Hebrews believed matter is eternal.

[Hamilton Porter]

42 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Genesis doesn't speak of God creating the "cosmos" but it does speak of God creating the earth and the material immediately surrounding the earth (the dome upon which the lights in the heavens were thought to hang. 

Heaven & earth = EVERYTHING. It's a merismus.

[Jaydes]

56 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I'd be interested in how you reached that conclusion. He argued that bara in Genesis 1:1 doesn't mean creation ex nihilo. And it's in the D&C.

There was a three-tiered pantheon. At the top was the Most High. Second tier was the sons of God, who were given some governing capacity. Third tier was angels, who just sent messages. The D&C recognized this distinction.

No, I agree that he taught Number 4 "God created the cosmos out of existing matter, not ex nihilo." and I believe that is Biblical.

I do not believe however that he taught that "God of the OT had a body, There are a plurality of gods (in the sense we tend to think of it), or Jehovah is El's son". If he did, well those ones would be unscriptural entirely and I would say it is his own opinion, not revealed truth.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Jaydes

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

do not believe however that he taught that "God of the OT had a body, There are a plurality of gods (in the sense we tend to think of it), or Jehovah is El's son". If he did, well those ones would be unscriptural entirely and I would say it is his own opinion, not revealed truth.

What tradition are you of? RLDS or Communities of Christ?

[Saint Bonaventure]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Hi, good questions. I base it off quotes that summarize scholarly opinion. For example, in Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, he said 80% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote Ephesians or something like that. I can provide them if you wish.

Father Brown was referring to 80% of critical scholarship (articles, books, professional presentations?), which isn't even an accounting of critical scholars (people), let alone of other forms of scholarship or scholars. He believed that Ephesians was scripture, and didn't think that Paul needed to write it for it to be scripture. And he certainly valued the views of scholars whose approaches were not "critical." 

Here's what he wrote:

Quote

 

Among the Pauline writings only Rom can match Eph as a candidate for exercising the most influence on Christian thought and spirituality. Indeed Eph, which has been called the “crown of Paulinism” (C. H. Dodd), is more attractive to many because it spares them the complex argumentation of Rom. Especially appealing to an ecumenical age is the magnificent Eph view of the church universal and of unity among Christians. The writer has been called the supreme interpreter of the apostle (before the appearance of Martin Luther, some Protestants would add) and “Paul’s best disciple.”

Who is this writer? Already in the 16th century Erasmus, noting that the style of Eph with its ponderous sentences is quite different from that of Paul’s main letters, thought that Eph could be by someone else. In 1792 E. Evanson queried Paul’s authorship; and throughout the 19th century arguments against Paul as a writer were presented with increasing systematicization. Yet even in the 20th century there have been major defenses of Paul as the writer (E. Percy in German in 1946; M. Barth and A. van Roon in 1974). A fair estimate might be that at the present moment about 80 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write Eph. After the General Analysis treats the basic message of the letter as it comes to us (in which Paul is presented as the sender), subsections will be devoted to: Ecclesiology of Eph and “Early Catholicism,” To whom and by whom, What genre, Background of the ideas, Issues for reflection, and Bibliography.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 620.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

 

No, the person doesn't have to be irreligious. As for all your other questions, those are good questions and I don't know. Maybe they should survey members of the Society for Biblical Literature. Also, would someone with a PhD in Hebrew or Northwest Semitics be considered a Bible scholar?

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What tradition are you of? RLDS or Communities of Christ?

I thought she'd answer by now, but elsewhere she said this:

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Father Brown

I loved his TV series, by the way.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I loved his TV series, by the way.

Not me.  It seem quite different from the original Father Brown and felt less Catholic and more nondenominational to me.  The original Father Brown never compromised his Catholic principles.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not me.  It seem quite different from the original Father Brown and felt less Catholic and more nondenominational to me.  The original Father Brown never compromised his Catholic principles.

I know what you mean (I had similar thoughts when I watched the series), but I'm also smiling at the idea of a Latter-day Saint discriminating based on Catholic principles . 

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Doesn't mean you can't determine which religion fits the whole of the Bible better than any others.

I think that is exactly what Dan means.

And, I think the point is, exegesis vs eisegesis. We all tout those parts of the Bible that we think supports our own belief and ignore the rest.