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

[Jaydes]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Joseph only changed eight verses in the entire book of Deuteronomy in the JST.  See:  http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv2kjv/deuteronomy.htm   (That website shows nine verses, but the one shown for Chapter 18:4 is identical to the KJV).

I wouldn't take those few verses as a seal of approval that everything else in Deuteronomy didn't need an update. 

If it needed an update, it either would have been updated, or the Lord would not have allowed it to be pronounced as finished and complete.

 

On 5/9/2023 at 6:31 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

 

How about Psalm 82?

1. God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

6.  I say, “You are gods,
    sons of the Most High, all of you;
7. nevertheless, you shall die like men,
    and fall like any prince.”

Just curious, is that the same thing as the Joseph Smith translation?

Yes, it is the JST. 

 

Psalm 82 appears to refer to magistrates human and angelic. If it was referring to actual gods, it doesn't seem congruent that a major plot point is that they will die and fall. Jesus quoted this in reference to the pharisees. He was obviously not implying them to literally be literal gods.

[InCognitus]

36 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

If it needed an update, it either would have been updated, or the Lord would not have allowed it to be pronounced as finished and complete.

The JST was primarily for the Prophet's benefit, because it prepared him for revelations (such as section 76 and the vision of the degrees of glory).  We also benefit from it too. 

But Joseph Smith kept making revisions to the manuscript even after he said he was "finished translating", so if the "Lord would not have allowed it to be pronounced as finished and complete" (as you said) then he would not have "allowed" Joseph to keep making changes to it after he pronounced it "finished".

[Hamilton Porter]

4 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Psalm 82 appears to refer to magistrates human and angelic. If it was referring to actual gods, it doesn't seem congruent that a major plot point is that they will die and fall. Jesus quoted this in reference to the pharisees. He was obviously not implying them to literally be literal gods.

So you agree that some angels are given magistrate functions mentioned in the Psalm, like administering justice?

[Hamilton Porter]

Another quote from Bloom:

Quote

“Smith’s insights could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. …So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith’s radical sense of the theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return to J, or the Yahwist, the Bible’s first author.”

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/7/2023 at 3:30 PM, Navidad said:

2. How many Bible scholars form an overwhelming majority?

Since you asked me twice about this, I will provide an example. I sense that you want an example, but don't want to pick a fight. So I will offer an example of how I got what majority opinion is, gratuitously.

Quote

A generation ago, when I was a graduate student, biblical scholars were nearly unanimous in thinking that monotheism had been predominant in ancient Israelite religion from the beginning—not just as an “ideal,” but as the reality. Today all that has changed. Virtually all mainstream scholars (and even a few conservatives) acknowledge that true monotheism emerged only in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century b.c., as the canon of the Hebrew Bible was taking shape. . . . I have suggested, along with most scholars, that the emergence of monotheism—of exclusive Yahwism—was largely a response to the tragic experience of the exile.

William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 294–95, 297.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Since you asked me twice about this, I will provide an example. I sense that you want an example, but don't want to pick a fight. So I will offer an example of how I got what majority opinion is, gratuitously.

William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 294–95, 297.

Thanks so much. And you are correct - I have no desire to pick a fight. Dever and I have something in common. We both studied at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. He got a B.D. there and I took a few classes there to fill in some gaps in what I thought I ought to know. Dever went to a small Christian Church (denomination - same as the seminary) college Milligan College in Tennessee. I am uncertain that it was ever Fundamentalist, but he personally had quite a theological migration/journey in his life.

Eerdmans is a fascinating press. Located in the epicenter of Christian publishing, it has managed to be considered conservative, moderate, and mainstream by leading pundits of each. That is not an easy thing to accomplish.  If I see a book is published by Eerdmans, I am inclined to believe I will find something thoughtful and intellectually stimulating whether conservative, moderate, or mainstream. I am pretty sure I won't find anything Fundamentalist, at least not in the past fifty years. 

I am more inclined to value trust and faith more than "correct" beliefs. It is simply too hard to define as potentially "correct" any beliefs outside of one's own worldview at any given time. I add "at any given time" because like Dever many folks migrate in their religious perspective. That is one reason I am not a big fan of the word "convert." Migration is better because that implies a journey. I find those who have never journeyed anywhere from the exact expression of their parents somewhat too certain for me. Ditto for those who are exclusivistic in their insistence on "correct" beliefs and testimonies. Thanks again for the example. I appreciate it.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Navidad

[Hamilton Porter]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks so much. And you are correct - I have no desire to pick a fight. Dever and I have something in common. We both studied at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. He got a B.D. there and I took a few classes there to fill in some gaps in what I thought I ought to know. Dever went to a small Christian Church (denomination - same as the seminary) college Milligan College in Tennessee. I am uncertain that it was ever Fundamentalist, but he personally had quite a theological migration/journey in his life.

Eerdmans is a fascinating press. Located in the epicenter of Christian publishing, it has managed to be considered conservative, moderate, and mainstream by leading pundits of each. That is not an easy thing to accomplish.  If I see a book is published by Eerdmans, I am inclined to believe I will find something thoughtful and intellectually stimulating whether conservative, moderate, or mainstream. I am pretty sure I won't find anything Fundamentalist, at least not in the past fifty years. 

I am more inclined to value trust and faith more than "correct" beliefs. It is simply too hard to define as potentially "correct" any beliefs outside of one's own worldview at any given time. I add "at any given time" because like Dever many folks migrate in their religious perspective. That is one reason I am not a big fan of the word "convert." Migration is better because that implies a journey. I find those who have never journeyed anywhere from the exact expression of their parents somewhat too certain for me. Ditto for those who are exclusivistic in their insistence on "correct" beliefs and testimonies. Thanks again for the example. I appreciate it.

 

Was Dever ever a fundamentalist?

Thanks for the history on Eerdmans. They've allowed Latter-day Saints like Dan Peterson and Terryl Givens to publish even.

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Was Dever ever a fundamentalist?

Thanks for the history on Eerdmans. They've allowed Latter-day Saints like Dan Peterson and Terryl Givens to publish even.

I don't know if he was ever a Fundamentalist. He comes out of the restorationist movement as evidenced by being connected with Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and their affiliated groups as a child, student, pastor, and early adult. Clearly the schools he attended are not Fundamentalist and were not in the early eighties. I just read his Wikipedia bio and would guess that since he is described as a boy minister or something like that, that his father and home church was probably Fundamentalist. In some ways that restorationist movement jumped over Evangelicalism and went right to mainline, probably in the sixties and seventies. However I know of Evangelicals from those groups and I am sure there are still Fundamentalists in certain cultural enclaves.

What tickles me is the apparent debates and disagreements he has with certain mainstream Biblical scholars. It shows that the field is complex, complicated, and rife with minimalist/maximalist debates rather than the traditional conservative/progressive debates. Nothing is easy or clear cut in religious debates. The debates in his field may not be by nature theological, but they are certainly are "how far do you tow the party line" type of debates. How much historicity do you tolerate in the Biblical records. "I don't like you, so I will defame you as a literalist!" Take that! Sorry I can't be more specific about Dever. I did just read however that he has published an autobiography. That should answer your question.  Best.

[Jaydes]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:56 PM, InCognitus said:

The JST was primarily for the Prophet's benefit, because it prepared him for revelations (such as section 76 and the vision of the degrees of glory).  We also benefit from it too. 

But Joseph Smith kept making revisions to the manuscript even after he said he was "finished translating", so if the "Lord would not have allowed it to be pronounced as finished and complete" (as you said) then he would not have "allowed" Joseph to keep making changes to it after he pronounced it "finished".

Did Joseph make any changes or additions to the New Testament translation after 02/02/1833, when he pronounced "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833 and sealed it up no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion."?

Did you make any changes or additions after July of the same year, when he stated “We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father, and sat immediately down to answer your letters.”?

The same period when God ceased commanding further translation and started commanding that the translation be printed. 

Sincere question, perhaps there is something I missed.

 

On 5/11/2023 at 2:03 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

So you agree that some angels are given magistrate functions mentioned in the Psalm, like administering justice?

Yes.

[Eschaton]

On 5/9/2023 at 12:47 AM, Jaydes said:

"Sons of God" would be a good translation, and "Sons of God" would, in my view, refer to said tribal peoples. If it was talking about "Gods" it would say "Elohim" not "Bene Elohim".

Furthermore, we can refer to the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, to which both the Lord and the Prophets Joseph, Hyrum, and Sidney gave their seal of approval and we see the following:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

I cannot think of a single time in scripture when "Children of Israel" referred to a plurality of Gods.

"Sons of God" is the most ancient version, based on texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

https://www.logos.com/grow/sons-of-israel-or-sons-of-god-in-deuteronomy-32-8-9/

"Sons of Israel" was a change made by later scribes to remove the old systems of Israelite henotheism and polytheism.

See also:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=3703

And: Smith, Mark S., Early History of God: Yahweh and other Deities in Ancient Israel.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Eschaton

[Hamilton Porter]

10 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Did Joseph make any changes or additions to the New Testament translation after 02/02/1833, when he pronounced "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833 and sealed it up no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion."?

Did you make any changes or additions after July of the same year, when he stated “We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father, and sat immediately down to answer your letters.”?

The same period when God ceased commanding further translation and started commanding that the translation be printed. 

Sincere question, perhaps there is something I missed.

 

Yes.

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, called a duck by the Bible...

Edited May 13, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

39 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

See also:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=3703

Is that the same Jason Olson who wrote The burning book? The Jewish convert?

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Did Joseph make any changes or additions to the New Testament translation after 02/02/1833, when he pronounced "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833 and sealed it up no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion."?

Did you make any changes or additions after July of the same year, when he stated “We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father, and sat immediately down to answer your letters.”?

The same period when God ceased commanding further translation and started commanding that the translation be printed. 

Sincere question, perhaps there is something I missed.

He continued to work on "arranging" or preparing the translation for publication, and there are vague references to working on the translation in general, up until the time of his death.  There are several historical references in Times and Seasons and other places (for example, Times and Seasons, January 15, 1842).

And remember, the Old Testament book brought up in question in this thread is Deuteronomy. 

Joseph started the translation of the Bible sometime in the summer of 1830 and he began in Genesis.  Then on March 7, 1831, Joseph was told in a revelation (D&C 45 in our scriptures) to start working next on the New Testament, and at this point he hadn't even completed Genesis.  Note also in this revelation that we see probably the most important reason for Joseph doing the translation, which was for the prophet's education.  The Lord said:  "Now behold I say unto you it shall not be given unto you to know any farther than this until the New Testament be translated & in it all these things shall be made known.  Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it [the New Testament], that ye may be prepared for the things to come.  For verily I say unto you, that great things await you..."  (Doctrine and Covenants 45:61)

Then, as you noted, on February 2, 1833, Joseph indicated that he had completed translation of the New Testament.  On March 8, 1833 (a little over one month later) a revelation given to Joseph Smith indicates that he was then likely working on a translation of the prophets in the Old Testament.  This is from Doctrine and Covenants 90:13 in our scriptures:  "And when you have finished the translation of the prophets, you shall from thenceforth preside over the affairs of the church and the school.."  

On March 9, 1833, Joseph recorded in his journal that he had come to some books of the Apocrypha, and received the revelation for what we have now as Doctrine and Covenants section 91.  

On May 6, 1833, Joseph was told in revelation to "hasten to translate my scriptures".  (Now Doctrine and Covenants section 93).

And finally, on July 2, 1833, Joseph indicated in a letter:  "We are exceedingly fatigued owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the scriptures".  

So from the summer of 1830 until March 7, 1831, Joseph worked only on Genesis (roughly six or seven months).  Then it took him from March of 1831 until February 1833 to translate the New Testament, which is nearly two years.  Then, starting back on the Old Testament in February 1833, he was already into the prophets by March 8, 1833 (one month), and in May of the same year he was told to "hasten" his work on the translation.   

To sum it up, it took six or seven months to do the first part of Genesis, then nearly two years to do the New Testament, and then finally only five months to finish the entire Old Testament, where he was told by the Lord, in essence, to "hurry it up" (in the hastening revelation).

Since the primary objective of this translation project was for the Prophet's education (based on the revelation quoted above), and since time was of the essence, it appears to me that the book of Deuteronomy was seen as having little benefit to him and it was skimmed over, wherein only a handful of verses were considered.  Consequently, I wouldn't be making the claim that the verses that were NOT translated in the book of Deuteronomy were approved by the Lord in their current wording.

[Eschaton]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Is that the same Jason Olson who wrote The burning book? The Jewish convert?

I'm not sure

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 5/11/2023 at 3:52 PM, Navidad said:

Eerdmans is a fascinating press. Located in the epicenter of Christian publishing, it has managed to be considered conservative, moderate, and mainstream by leading pundits of each. That is not an easy thing to accomplish.  If I see a book is published by Eerdmans, I am inclined to believe I will find something thoughtful and intellectually stimulating whether conservative, moderate, or mainstream. I am pretty sure I won't find anything Fundamentalist, at least not in the past fifty years. 

Since Eerdmans Press is getting some love (the emphasis is mine):

Quote

 

The major interpretative problem which has engaged the attention of researchers for many years and which has not been resolved with any certainty is the question what the word ʾelohim in 82:1b and 6 refers to. While one group of scholars is of the opinion that the word refers to people, in particular to human judges, another group contends that the reference here is to gods. The view expressed here supports the latter belief, namely, that the poet is referring to gods. Through the use of metaphorical and mythological language the poet is attempting to persuade his readers of the greatness of God. In contrast to this, the gods are portrayed as insignificant and impotent beings. To this end the poet uses the judge metaphor.
There is a notable inclusio in the psalm in that it is introduced by key concepts such as “God” and “judgment/judge” (cf. 82:1) and concluded by the same concepts (cf. v. 8). We can deduce from this that the principal theme of the psalm is the representation of God as a “judge.” V. 1 may be regarded as the introduction to the psalm since in this verse God is represented in anthropomorphic terms as judge in the midst of the divine council, an image which is frequently used in the OT (cf., e.g., Ps 29:1). God’s acts as judge are spelled out in greater detail in vv. 2–4. God accuses the judges of failing to fulfill their responsibilities (cf. v. 2) because they favor the wicked. In vv. 3–4 God admonishes the gods in four successive imperatives to exercise their judicial function faithfully. The first two imperatives are purely judicial terms, whereas the last two have more to do with the concrete rendering of assistance. The people to whom assistance should be rendered are the marginal figures of society; those who have no support base and who are usually exploited: “the weak,” “the orphan,” “the lowly,” “the needy,” “the destitute.”
82:5 states emphatically that the gods have no insight, and that in consequence they cannot be judges. Instead of allowing justice to prevail, they behave in such a way that there is total chaos. Any remaining doubt as to who is under discussion here is removed by v. 7, where the gods are designated as mortal. In contrast to this is v. 8, which harks back to v. 1 and forms the climax of the whole psalm: because the ʾelohim are powerless and incompetent to act as judges, the only true ʾelohim (God) is now performing this function. In contrast to the gods who have fallen, God is called upon to rise up as judge. God is both ruler and judge. He alone is mighty.
The psalm was probably written at a time when the people were suffering distress of one kind or another, when the poet had to deliver an apology of some sort to convince his readers that the LORD was the only true God. Thus, the psalm must have had a comforting effect on the people of God.
For the title “Asaph,” cf. the note to Psalm 50.

Willem S. Prinsloo, “The Psalms,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 404.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

Oops

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting.

I suppose this shows it can go either way.

I believe that these things take a very long time to be settled. I think it's cool that anyone is interested in these things, reads about them, and posts about them--that's all good.

At the same time, there are so many competing interests and perspectives in the arenas of research and interpretation: Psalms specialists, Jewish studies scholars, literary and poetic interpreters, archaeologists and anthropologists, theologians, philosophers, textual critics, linguists, experts in the Greek and Hebrew cultural contexts, rhetoricians, historians, seminarians, Middle-Eastern studies folks....it never ends.

Some of us who have been around a good while have seen the Dead Sea Scrolls research run this gauntlet. People write dissertations, everyone needs to publish, there's more heat than light, and then some of the scholarship, even a few decades later, is threadbare.

I try to learn and grow. I don't worry too much about finding the absolute "right" place to hang my hat. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Since Eerdmans Press is getting some love (the emphasis is mine):

 

What is the main point from the Eerdmans entry you'd like to get across? That the gods are impotent?

I don't think the "human" interpretation of the gods is tenable. The "council" mentioned in 82:1 is in the clouds (see Ps 89). The only ones holding onto the "humans" reading are conservatives.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/7/2023 at 3:18 PM, Eschaton said:

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

It'd be more precise to say, Joseph Smith restored the "Yahwist" religion.

“Smith’s insights could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. …So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith’s radical sense of the theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return to J, or the Yahwist, the Bible’s first author."

-Harold Bloom 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I try to learn and grow. I don't worry too much about finding the absolute "right" place to hang my hat. 

My inclination is that we just need to follow our own hearts to find what the Lord has in mind for each of us.

It's more like finding your own vocation or niche than finding "universal truth".

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

It'd be more precise to say, Joseph Smith restored the "Yahwist" religion.

I think that's a pretty big overstatement. Not even Bloom went that far.

First of all, we can only partially reconstruct ancient Israelite religion from the Bible and from archaeological remains, but I think it's safe to say that it was a lot different than what we have in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the temple endowment. Joseph Smith didn't, after all, teach us to offer animal (or child) sacrifices or pour out libations or burn incense to the deity. We don't worship at high places or plant sacred poles or pillars. We don't bury our kin with pottery vessels for food and drink. We don't envision God's heavenly entourage as consisting of winged sphinxes and lions.

I don't think any of the Articles of Faith would have made a lick of sense to an Iron Age Israelite.

So, no, I won't be teaching this to my children  

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I think that's a pretty big overstatement. Not even Bloom went that far.

First of all, we can only partially reconstruct ancient Israelite religion from the Bible and from archaeological remains, but I think it's safe to say that it was a lot different than what we have in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the temple endowment. Joseph Smith didn't, after all, teach us to offer animal (or child) sacrifices or pour out libations or burn incense to the deity. We don't worship at high places or plant sacred poles or pillars. We don't bury our kin with pottery vessels for food and drink. We don't envision God's heavenly entourage as consisting of winged sphinxes and lions.

I don't think any of the Articles of Faith would have made a lick of sense to an Iron Age Israelite.

So, no, I won't be teaching this to my children  

By religion Bloom meant theology, not cultic practices.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

By religion Bloom meant theology, not cultic practices.

Okay, but again I think there are significant differences. Did Joseph Smith think of YHWH as having a giant body? As literally needing to be fed and housed? As manifesting in stone pillars and other objects? Did he think non-Israelite nations were governed by their own gods? Did his pantheon include chaos monsters and goat-demons?

If we're going to play up and trade on the similarities, we also ought to acknowledge the differences.

[Hamilton Porter]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

Okay, but again I think there are significant differences. Did Joseph Smith think of YHWH as having a giant body? As literally needing to be fed and housed? As manifesting in stone pillars and other objects? Did he think non-Israelite nations were governed by their own gods? Did his pantheon include chaos monsters and goat-demons?

If we're going to play up and trade on the similarities, we also ought to acknowledge the differences.

J-source reference that Yahweh needs to be fed and housed?

Edited May 15, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Saint Bonaventure]

11 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What is the main point from the Eerdmans entry you'd like to get across? That the gods are impotent?

I'm not trying to get across a point. I'm just sharing perspective from Eerdmans' commentary.

11 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't think the "human" interpretation of the gods is tenable. The "council" mentioned in 82:1 is in the clouds (see Ps 89). The only ones holding onto the "humans" reading are conservatives.

You and I look at these situations through very different lenses.