InCognitus Posted October 17, 2023 Posted October 17, 2023 (edited) Regarding my statement that the timing of the introduction of monotheism into Judaism and Christianity was after the New Testament Period, you wrote: On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: I would tend to disagree with this - but its in the details (that is, I would put monotheism solidly in the pre-New Testament period). A part of our problem is the notion of monotheism itself. The word monotheism first enters use (at least in recorded literature) in 1660, in Henry More's The Grand Mystery of Godliness. So in one sense, our understanding of monotheism really begins in the mid-17th century. The question of the beginning of monotheism hinges around definitions - because it represents a historical progression. A better question is - what do we make of the worship of angels (something that occurs both within pre-Christian Judaism and within early Christianity)? This is something which isn't that much different from the veneration of saints within present-day Catholicism. An absolutely strict monotheism becomes problematic in the understanding of ancient religion because it usually must be defined in modern terms and only then investigated in the historical context. The desire to see absolute monotheism in the history is more of an apologetic agenda for strict monotheists today than it is for historians of religion, who have more tolerance for deviations from these strict definitions. More in a moment. What you say above about the precise definition of monotheism is the core of the matter and exactly the point. Dan is pretty clear about keeping the definition of monotheism precise and what the whole “package” of monotheism entails. I think he is also a little weary of people trying to read modern monotheism back into Christian and Jewish history (as you say regarding the apologetic agenda for strict monotheism), and I completely agree with his reasoning. And as it turns out, I don’t need to guess at what Dan thinks is the timing of the origin of monotheism, as he has also made that quite clear. In a recent Gospel Tangents interview, Dan directly answers the question of when “true monotheism” first came about (in his opinion), and he explains his reasoning. This is the video link: 757: The Book of Mormon's Isaiah Problem (3 of 4 Dan McClellan) Starting from about the 21:29 mark in the video Dan says: Quote But monotheism itself, I think, was a something that required quite complex philosophical frameworks to develop. And so I think that was something that was probably medieval in origin, something that didn't happen until you get into medieval Jewish, medieval Islamic philosophers. And then later Christian thinkers. And so a lot of this comes down to how you understand monotheism. Is it the belief that only one God exists? Is it the worship of only one God? Is it both? Is it something else entirely? When we look at the development of the word monotheism, and how it's used when it gets created, it's not just one deity. That's a bit of an etymological fallacy. That's what we see when it first shows up in dictionaries. There's this idea that monotheism just means belief in one deity. But when the word is created, and is developed, it's not just one deity. It's one deity who creates out of nothing. It's one deity who is immaterial. It's one deity who has all these other features associated with it. It's not reducible down to just the concept of one deity. And that's from the guy who came up with the term, Henry Moore. All the way through to today, monotheism is kind of a conceptual package that's pretty complex. So, when we want to go look in antiquity, you don't see the idea of creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, until the 2nd century CE, at the earliest. That's the academic consensus right now, is that it developed in the late 2nd century by Christians. You don't have the idea of the complete immateriality of deity until even after that. Third, fourth century is when the new pivot towards a deity that is not corporeal at all. And so it depends on how you want to understand the concept of monotheism. But, if we look at how people use the term, and try to suss out all of the stuff they mean by the term, that whole package is something that I would say doesn't really firm up until the medieval period. But there are aspects, there are constituent elements of it that I would agree are earlier than that. So go back to debates in the 2nd and the 3rd and the 4th century CE about one God and even debates about the materiality of deity and things like that that are 2nd, 3rd, 4th century CE. So, I don't think there's a clear line we can draw and say on one side is not monotheism, on the other side is monotheism. I think we have a whole constellation of features. And we can point to some that are kind of central to the idea, that are starting to crystallize, as we get from the 2nd into the 3rd and the 4th century CE. But, I would say the package, itself, we don't see until the medieval period, and it's Jewish and Muslim philosophers who are coming up with it first. I have more to say about this below. On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: The disagreement I would have with Dan (and others have) is that angel worship had already begun in Judaism in the Second Temple period - long before the New Testament period - and as long as you can hold a monotheism that doesn't exclude angel worship, Monotheism in the Second Temple period is often simply assumed (see, for example, Larry Hurtado). So we can have a monotheism in pre-Christian Judaism - but it isn't a strict monotheism of the sort that we often see described in present day Christianity. It is only when we see polemical discourse against the worship of angels in Judaism, that we could argue that we have the beginning of a strict monotheism - so its complicated. What you say above about the evolution of ideas is true, except that I disagree that we should call anything in that period as “monotheism”, since it is a miscommunication to others who may understand the word as referring to the whole “package” as it is understood today. It is indeed complicated because that period contains elements that led to the development of modern monotheism (as you say), but it is wrong to call any partial collection of those elements as “monotheism” in my opinion. And as the scholars go, Dan McClellen is far from alone in expressing this view. (See for example the closing chapter titled “How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’?”, by R.W.L. Moberly, University of Durham, in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Wendy North, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004., p. 233) As for Larry Hurtado’s books, he has been criticized by scholars for reading monotheism back into Judaism and early Christianity (see for example Paul Fredriksen’s respectful but “unenthusiastic” review of Larry Hurtado’s book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, found in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 12:4 (2004), pp. 537-550). I think using Hurtado as an example of how monotheism could be “assumed” in ancient Israel is similar your initial criticism of what you thought I was saying regarding Joseph Smith and the restoration, as I think he reads way too much of modern thinking back into an ancient context. Dan spoke specifically about Hurtado’s approach in this video: Larry Hurtado's View of Early Jewish Monotheism Dr. Daniel O. McClellan Summarizing what Dan says about him at two separate time-stamp marks in the video: 17:07 – He [Hurtado] wasn’t willing to abandon the concept of monotheism just because it didn’t fit our contemporary understanding of it, but he thought that it needed to be maintained. Dan thinks that was probably so that he could maintain that sense of ideological continuity with a community to which many people still feel they belong today. So, he qualified it, not just as monotheism, but specifically as “first century Jewish monotheism”, as a way to strike a balance that split that difference. But there are issues with that rhetorical balance. 19:15 – Larry was motivated to find monotheism in first century Judaism because he was a devoted Christian, and his scholarship was consumed by folks who were devoted Christians and who wanted to feel like a critical approach to the scholarship still validated their identification with that community (based on the engagement of the devotional crowd with that scholarship and how they deploy it). This creates distortions. Regarding the second bullet point above, that was the same criticism I offered for Michael Heiser’s book, The Unseen Realm. Both Hurtado and Heiser wrote books for a popular audience, and modern readers need a way to identify with the concepts they are trying to communicate. So, I understand their desire to bridge the gap for relating some of the ancient concepts to their target audience, but using words that convey a particular package of meaning to a modern reader is not the way to do it. I just wish there could be a way for that to happen without miscommunicating some core concepts. Heiser seems to have done a fairly decent job of not imposing "monotheism" on ancient Israel, but he does try to read creation ex-nihilo ontological differences into the past and hints at Trinitarian ideas. It’s quite unfortunate that both individuals have passed away in recent years, because they do at least reach a wide audience. I know Hurtado considers worship “as the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice” (he agrees with R. Bauckham on this point on p. 37 of One God, One Lord, I have the third edition where this appears on page 39), and in his summary for chapter 1 he says, “I have tried to show that postexilic Judaism, with all its variations, remained essentially monotheistic in belief and practice and that assertions to the contrary (e.g., that Jews worshiped angels) are not well substantiated.” But as Daniel McClellan points out: Quote The Hebrew words for “deity/ies” ( אל ,אלהים , and אלים ) appear repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Jewish literature in reference to subordinate deities, angels, and, in certain circumstances, even to living and dead humans, suggesting the category was internally graded and shared overlapping boundaries with other categories. Regarding worship as an identity marker of divinity, while the consensus in the literature is clearly that angels are not Yhwh (more on this confusion below), clearly there was disagreement about whether or not – or more accurately, to what degree – they were to be worshipped, and nowhere does the consensus actually suggest a rejection of their divinity*. Their lack of sovereignty and the inappropriateness of their worship establish purely functional/relational subordination, not ontological distinction. (“Cognitive Perspectives on Early Christology”, Biblical Interpretation 25 (2017), p 656) The asterisk I inserted in the quotation from Dan above corresponds to his footnote 37, referencing Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Angels’ and ‘God’: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism,” in Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (London: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 45-70. In that chapter Stuckenbruck interacts extensively with Hurtado’s arguments in One God, One Lord. He shows that there is “additional evidence in which worship language is applied to angelic beings, evidence which does not necessarily uphold the notion that 'worship' is itself a decisive criterion for divinity.” (p. 46) And, in his summary at the end of the chapter (p. 68), Stukenbruck says he is “convinced that Hurtado’s thesis is essentially correct that the sometimes exalted position of angels did not directly contribute to the inception of early Christian devotion to Christ alongside God”, but concludes “this is nowhere near the end of the matter”. He provides examples where some early Jewish sources “could tolerate language of prayer and praise as directed towards angels and, in addition, how resilient a monotheist framework could remain in such cases.” On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: What isn't so complicated is that early Jewish-Christians drew on these traditions of angel worship to produce the language used to describe early Jesus worship. And because of this, I can state with some certainty (and certainly in a way that I think Dan would agree) that Christianity evolves from that Jewish context and understanding of monotheism - which isn't so strict as the monotheism we see it compared to today. As noted in the quote I gave above from Dan, he definitely would agree that Christianity evolves in its understanding of these concepts. But I think the problem Dan would have is when the label of “monotheism” is imposed on any part of ancient Judaism or Christianity without it having the full package of what monotheism entails in the definition of the word today. Doesn’t it seem to you that modern Christians imposing that word on ancient Judaism or Christianity could be seen as another form of parallelomania? Regarding my quote about creation ex-nihilo from Hubler’s thesis, you said: On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: But it pops up quite noticeably in familiar Jewish texts, like 2 Maccabees - texts which were popularized in Christian contexts because of their attention to martyrs. Now, I realize that you will turn to Hubler's thesis, but we have a problem there that he doesn't acknowledge: Quote Some statements have been interpreted as teaching creatio ex nihilo (such as 2 Maccabees 7.28 and Bereshit Rabba 1.9, see discussion below), but closer examination reveals that they are not making that claim, and no one presents any argument to support the doctrine. No one in Early Judaism had the motivation to produce an argument for creatio ex nihilo. The philosophically minded writers would not have flown in the face of philosophical teaching without cause. The more biblically minded Rabbis even went so far as to disallow questions that went back before the beginning of the world. They expressly forbade treading where biblical texts did not lead. Therefore, they would not have made such a bold claim about what did or did not precede the heaven and earth, since scripture was silent therein. This is the summary. We can go into his later arguments in more detail if you want, but this is sufficient for my point here. We have two issues here. The first is that we don't (by Hubard's admission) have anything remotely resembling a non- creatio ex nihilo argument for creation. What this means is that if we were arguing the opposite position, we could say exactly the same thing as Hubard says here. This means that the argument is deeply flawed (arguing from absence). I’ll discuss 2 Maccabees 7:28 below. As for the rest of what you say above, I believe you are completely misreading Hubler’s argument (either that or I am misunderstanding your point). He is not saying that there is no evidence at all for creation from unformed matter, and therefore he is arguing from silence (he says quite the opposite). Rather, he’s saying that there was simply no reason (no motivation) to discuss the doctrine of creation other than what was already stated. It was not a controversy that needed clarification, and so there is no evidence of discussion (outside of the established texts where there is evidence to the contrary) about how things were created until the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was introduced. The ex-nihilo doctrine required a philosophical framework that didn’t exist until much later on. In the early parts of Hubler’s paper, he provides much evidence for the doctrine of creation from unformed matter in various ancient contexts. And on page 71, referring to Greek philosophers from the time of Plato and Aristotle and into Late Antiquity, he wrote: Quote Each school also recognized a moral crisis for the human trapped in matter. Matter explained the potential for change in the world and was corruptible in its manifestations although eternal in itself and in these ways acted as the limit to the goodness of the world and the human condition. The material limitation was either to be accepted and endured or escaped. The Christian teaching of creatio ex nihilo violated two of these basic metaphysical beliefs. It taught that change had a specific beginning, and it taught that no being in the realm of change was eternal. It is easy to see why the teaching of creatio ex nihilo was the object of scorn by the educated Hellenist. It is much more difficult to see why the Christians adopted such a radical position. This is especially true because one does not find the origin of the teaching where one would expect. If one looks to the Jewish, biblical, and Near Eastern background to Christian teachings, one does not find creatio ex nihilo expressly taught. On the contrary, one can only find expressions of the opposite. Early Jews and Christians both expressly state that God formed the world from formless matter. Philo, Justin Martyr and Hermogenes all make that point, the last making a strong exegetical case for his position from the opening of Genesis. So Hubler definitely is not arguing from silence regarding the teaching of creation from unformed matter. On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: The second thing is that Hubard never mentions the LXX translation of Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew could be interpreted either way. But the LXX translation can't. It does not keep the Hebrew view of a non-absolute "in the beginning of ..." which is where the rabbinic texts start. And when we get to 2 Maccabees in particular, this is a problem because the original language of 2 Maccabees is Greek, and so starts from the LXX and not the Hebrew text. That Hubler doesn't mention the LXX translation of Genesis 1:1 is a fair point. Regarding the LXX translation of Genesis 1:1, it would help me to know where you are getting your information. My exposure to that argument comes primarily from those who claim that the Greek word Ἀρχὴ (archē, beginning) refers to an absolute beginning, while the Hebrew word (רֵאשִׁית) does not. But that strikes me as similar to those who have argued that the Hebrew word bara really means creation ex-nihilo. Gary A. Anderson, in “Creatio ex nihilo and the Bible” (chapter 1 of Creation ex nihilo – Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges) writes that the appeal to the Greek translation of Genesis 1:1 is “one way out” of the “impasse” that the Hebrew text presents to the argument for creation ex-nihilo. He says, “The Septuagint renders Genesis 1:1 as an independent sentence and thus portrays the making of the heavens and the earth as the first act of creation and the subsequent description of the chaotic nature of the earth, heaven, and waters as a description of how they appeared after this first creative act.” (p. 17). Ian A. McFarland, in From Nothing – A Theology of Creation, makes a similar observation (p. 3), but also connects Genesis 1:1 to John 1:1. He writes, “What exactly does John 1 say about God’s creating? The first thing to note is that the ‘beginning’ in John 1:1 does not refer to the time ‘when God began to create’ (which does not come into view until v. 3), but to the logically prior conditions that form the context of God’s creative work. In describing these conditions, the evangelist makes no mention of any formless waste, water, or swirling deep alongside God; even darkness comes into play only after ‘all things’ have already come into existence.” (p.22) But in all of these appeals to the Greek text of Genesis there is a sense of a desire to find a way to read the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo back into the biblical texts, and these appeals come after the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was already developed. Furthermore, the absence of a “formless waste, water, or swirling deep alongside God” in one passage of scripture does not prove that it did not exist in another passage. I suspect Hubler would have seen these arguments in the same way I describe them above. Even though Hubler did not directly comment on the LXX of Genesis 1:1, he also never mentions at least one early source that would completely support the idea that creation from eternal unformed matter. He makes no reference to perhaps the earliest Christian understanding of creation as expressed by Clement of Rome: “For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth.” (Clement of Rome – First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 60:1, see also here). Furthermore, Hubler does address the Greek text of Genesis 1:1 in a very indirect way. He quotes from Justin Martyr’s First Apology 59:1-5 on page 112 of his paper, where Justin Martyr directly quotes and utilizes the Greek text of Genesis 1:1-2 in support of the idea that God created all things from formless matter. If Justin Martyr, who wrote in Greek and quoted from the Greek scriptures, saw the Genesis text as a support for creation from preexisting unformed matter, I’m not sure how anyone who tries to claim the same text as an early support of creation ex-nihilo could sustain such an argument. On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: I note in passing that Dan himself accepted the likelihood of the 2 Maccabees text referring to ex nihilo creation in his published material. I’m curious about what reference you have in mind for the above. I’m aware that Dan has argued that 2 Maccabees 7 was a second century CE composition (see for example Dan's blog article on “Judaism” and 2 Maccabees), and if that dating is true it puts the creation of the text squarely in the time and environment where the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo was first implemented into Christianity and perhaps Judaism as well. As for Dan saying that 2 Maccabees 7 was referring to creation ex-nihilo, I find him saying the exact opposite of that in the comments section of a different blog article, here: Quote On 2 Maccabees 7, I have actually argued elsewhere that the chapter is indeed a second century CE composition (on multiple grounds), but several others have argued for reading the reference in light of Platonic notions of unformed matter. For instance, Markus Bockmuehl recently wrote, “2 Maccabees 7:28, for example, affirms not that God made the heavens and the earth out of ‘nothing,’ merely that he made them ‘not out of existing things’ (ουκ εξ οντων). The writer applies this principle to human conception in the womb, which is clearly a case of God making human beings out of what is not a human being. Other examples could be multiplied. If God makes ‘out of non-being the things that are’ this need not be ex nihilo, but merely his making out of shapelessness the things which have shape” (Bockmuehl, “Creatio ex nihilo in Palestinian Judaism and Early Christianity,” SJT 65.3 [2012]: 257–58). Quoting you again: On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: But this goes back to my earlier discussion. Ex nihilo creation isn't something you can simply point to a moment in time and say, here is where it begins. It is a process. And 2 Maccabees represents a point on that progression that is clearly far closer to modern thoughts of ex nihilo creation than it does to the creation from chaos myth we find in ancient Judaism and other ancient cultures. If what Dan says above about the dating of 2 Maccabees 7 is correct (that it is a second century CE composition), then appealing to this text doesn’t do anything to push back the origin of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo. Furthermore, even if we assume the text is of an earlier date, the appeal to 2 Maccabees 7:28 to support creation ex-nihilo is quite weak, in my opinion, for several reasons. Gerhard May explains some of these reasons on pages 6-8 of Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, 2004 edition. And, the theology of Hellenistic Judaism on the doctrine of creation must also include a mention of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17: "For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears, or bold lions" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17). May discusses the verse above in the context of 2 Maccabees 7:28. I will not recount all the details of his argument, but the basic idea is that the context of the Maccabees verse just doesn’t support the idea of creation ex-nihilo. But this is not simply an assertion without support. May explains: Quote That the formulation found in the second book of Maccabees in no way necessitates the thought of the absolute unconditionality of the creation, is also clear from an informative parallel in Xenophon. He says in one place in his Memorabilia that parents 'bring forth their children out of nonbeing'. Naturally that does not mean that the children come to be out of nothing, and it will occur to no one to understand the statement in terms of a creatio ex nihilo. For the philosophical thought of the Greeks the axiom was valid from Parmenides onwards that 'ex nihilo nihil fit’. Clearly what we have in Xenophon is an unphilosophical everyday turn of phrase, which tells us that something new, something that was not there before, comes into being; whether this something new comes through a change in something that was already there, or whether it is something absolutely new, is beside the question. The statements of hellenistic-Jewish theology about God creating 'out of non-being’ are also to be understood in the sense of this usage. (Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, pp. 7-8) May’s reference to Xenophon’s Memorabilia is II, 2.3. This is the same argument Dan McClellan was alluding to in the quote from him I gave above, where he talks about the Greek writer referring to humans giving birth using the same terminology, and obviously this is not implying anything like creation ex-nihilo. Finally, I believe 2 Maccabees 7:28 is really teaching the opposite of creation ex-nihilo. The verse says: "I implore you, my child, look at the earth and sky and everything in them, and consider how God made them out of what did not exist, and that human beings come into being in the same way." This verse is saying that God made all things out of something, "out of what did not exist". It's a relative term (from non-being into being). And of course Genesis teaches us that human beings were created from unformed matter: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7), and the Maccabees verse says that God created the earth and sky and everything in them in the same way that God created humans. Why must this be a creation from absolutely nothing when we already have other verses, like the Wisdom of Solomon verse mentioned earlier, saying that creation was from "formless matter"? On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: But isn't this what I just said? The challenge we have, though, is that Mormonism (speaking collectively), in its attempt to make itself a restoration tends to try to match these principles and doctrines to the oldest examples they can find rather than the most recent examples they can find. There is a deliberate attempt to try and avoid describing Mormonism as a reformation (of sorts) of more recent Christianity as opposed to a restoration of something ancient. And this is an effort that fails more often than not - it creates misunderstanding of both modern religion (including Mormonism) as well as ancient religion. You are right about this "challenge", and I agree that we need to be careful about what we read back into the ancient world. But can you not also see the same problem going on with those who try to impose modern words like "monotheism" back into Judaism of the Second Temple period? Or do you see a difference? On 10/8/2023 at 6:50 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: And I just want to make it clear that Joseph Smith cannot 're-open' the door unless it is previously closed. And what that means is that Mormonism owes a greater debt to modern Christianity than we like to generally concede. He doesn't take Mormonism and build it out of an older religion where that door had not closed. And this is a good thing - because our view of eternity might be quite different if it had. I have no issues with your other points. Joseph Smith's greatest contribution was creating a system where revelation can continue to flow, where religion can continue to evolve, and where we have the capacity of removing old traditions that have lost their meaning in the light of current understanding. I agree with this point. Edited October 17, 2023 by InCognitus 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 17, 2023 Posted October 17, 2023 Look, this is getting bogged down in the details. The original point is being lost - which was very simple. Christianity, at least in part, evolves out of Judaism. Mormonism comes out of Christianity. Mormonism's views on the nature of creation and the nature of God are dependent on Christianity - they are not a return to some ancient Semitic religious views evidenced in the Biblical text. Now a couple of very brief comments - and you can have the last word - First, your language is all over the place on the terms monotheism and ex nihilo creation. There is no question that second temple Judaism did not have anything that resembles a modern understanding of monotheism, creation ex nihilo. It also didn't have anything that resembles our modern cosmology or our notion of what the boundaries of our universe are (along with the sense of its origins as a singularity, the notion of time, and so on). So, if we are only going to understand the terms monotheism and ex nihilo creation with this modern understanding, then these ideas are completely absent in early Judaism and second temple Judaism. But to say that second temple Judaism hadn't already moved a long distance towards that modern understanding is way off the mark. You seem to be missing one of my major points (one that I note that Gerhard May recognizes in footnote 24). Genesis 1 in the Hebrew text can be read in terms of pre-existing matter. Genesis 1 in the LXX does not have the same degree of freedom of interpretation (ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν) it isn't actively present in the text. When we get to Maccabees, I have no illusion that there is a reference to a fully formed philosophical perspective of ex nihilo creation. But there isn't just an absence in contemporary literature of a discussion of creation from nothing, there is also this absence of any developed discussion on creation from something - especially from something as defined in the LXX Genesis text of a multistage creation in which the chaos is created first. The same arguments that Hubler uses can be used for the opposing argument. Which means that Hubler's arguments aren't convincing. The argument from silence is a problematic argument - especially in a context like this. And you don't seem to be recognizing the challenge that comes with such an argument. You can argue that there isn't silence, but we run into a challenge in that nothing that Hubler presents argues for what you seem to be arguing for. We can argue that there is a creation from something - but the argument has to be that this something is something that is external to, or apart from God (or God's creation). This is the significance of the LXX. There God creates the unformed matter, from which everything else is created (back to May on that one). One of the things that May also discusses is the interpretation of Maccabees 7:28 that you refer to - "Here it says, in the setting of a paraphrase of the creation story, that God created the soul of mankind from nothing, but his body from the 'four bodies', i.e. the four elements. We have here an echo of Genesis 2:7: the breathing in of the breath of life is understood as the creation of the soul 'out of nothing' and, with the omission of the making of the body from the four elements, this creative act assumes the unambiguous meaning of a creatio ex nihilo" (21-22). In any case, I am already going down the rabbit hole I wanted to avoid. My point remains. We have points of reference that show a steady change in beliefs. The more narrowly we define our terms, the more we lose sight of the process - and it is a process that is well underway in second temple Judaism as it re-understands itself in light of its exposure to other religious belief systems and philosophies. So, I'll bow out - this discussion is getting lost in the weeds. If all you are arguing is that we see the final form of ex nihilo creation and monotheism in modern Christianity, I don't have any argument against that. To argue that Second Temple Judaism wasn't monotheistic in any sense is a claim that is much more problematic. To argue that there was no notion of ex nihilo creation in second temple Judaism is also a problematic position - unless, as I noted, you are referring primarily to our modern technical understanding only, in which case, there is no disagreement. 1
InCognitus Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 (edited) On 10/17/2023 at 9:18 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: Look, this is getting bogged down in the details. The original point is being lost - which was very simple. Christianity, at least in part, evolves out of Judaism. Mormonism comes out of Christianity. Mormonism's views on the nature of creation and the nature of God are dependent on Christianity - they are not a return to some ancient Semitic religious views evidenced in the Biblical text. First let me just say that I am not trying to debate you or directly refute what I understand you to be saying. I’m mainly trying to understand your points and how they relate to some of the things that I think seem contrary to what I understand you to be saying. I realize that I dumped out a lot of information in my last post, but that was mainly to try to explain some of the things that I can’t seem to be able to say concisely. And I agree with what you say above, although I would qualify part of it to say that Joseph Smith’s views on creation from unformed eternal matter would have come out of first and early second century Christianity (and not some ancient Semitic religious views or modern Christian views). I can’t find anything in the modern Christian view of creation that even remotely relates to Joseph Smith’s view of creation. On 10/17/2023 at 9:18 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: First, your language is all over the place on the terms monotheism and ex nihilo creation. There is no question that second temple Judaism did not have anything that resembles a modern understanding of monotheism, creation ex nihilo. It also didn't have anything that resembles our modern cosmology or our notion of what the boundaries of our universe are (along with the sense of its origins as a singularity, the notion of time, and so on). So, if we are only going to understand the terms monotheism and ex nihilo creation with this modern understanding, then these ideas are completely absent in early Judaism and second temple Judaism. But to say that second temple Judaism hadn't already moved a long distance towards that modern understanding is way off the mark. I agree with the above, and I was never trying to imply that there were not any changes made along the way in ancient Judaism and later Christianity that were steps toward monotheistic ideas, or made it easier for later theologians to justify the modern doctrine of monotheism. And the introduction of creation ex-nihilo also highly influenced the path to modern monotheism. On 10/17/2023 at 9:18 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: You seem to be missing one of my major points (one that I note that Gerhard May recognizes in footnote 24). Genesis 1 in the Hebrew text can be read in terms of pre-existing matter. Genesis 1 in the LXX does not have the same degree of freedom of interpretation (ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν) it isn't actively present in the text. When we get to Maccabees, I have no illusion that there is a reference to a fully formed philosophical perspective of ex nihilo creation. But there isn't just an absence in contemporary literature of a discussion of creation from nothing, there is also this absence of any developed discussion on creation from something - especially from something as defined in the LXX Genesis text of a multistage creation in which the chaos is created first. The same arguments that Hubler uses can be used for the opposing argument. Which means that Hubler's arguments aren't convincing. The argument from silence is a problematic argument - especially in a context like this. And you don't seem to be recognizing the challenge that comes with such an argument. You can argue that there isn't silence, but we run into a challenge in that nothing that Hubler presents argues for what you seem to be arguing for. We can argue that there is a creation from something - but the argument has to be that this something is something that is external to, or apart from God (or God's creation). This is the significance of the LXX. There God creates the unformed matter, from which everything else is created (back to May on that one). One of the things that May also discusses is the interpretation of Maccabees 7:28 that you refer to - "Here it says, in the setting of a paraphrase of the creation story, that God created the soul of mankind from nothing, but his body from the 'four bodies', i.e. the four elements. We have here an echo of Genesis 2:7: the breathing in of the breath of life is understood as the creation of the soul 'out of nothing' and, with the omission of the making of the body from the four elements, this creative act assumes the unambiguous meaning of a creatio ex nihilo" (21-22). I think I’m finally understanding which argument you had in mind for the LXX of Genesis 1, although it’s not confined to verse 1 alone as I thought you were saying in my previous post. But the LXX interpretation of Genesis 1 (where creation ex-nihilo supporters will say that the unformed matter was first created by God) is obviously not as clear cut as you make it sound, or otherwise we wouldn’t have both those who favor creation ex-nihilo and those who don’t using the same LXX verses in support of their views (i.e. Justin Martyr used the LXX of Genesis 1:1-3 to teach that God created all things from unformed matter, while a later Christian philosopher, Theophilus, used the same verses to assert creation ex-nihilo). It seems that Gerhard May’s footnote 24 is a prime example of this problem. The footnote is first about Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 (which supports God creating the cosmos out of formless matter), and then he adds, “That the Septuagint with the translation of Genesis 1:2a ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, is thinking of matter, has often been suggested” (emphasis mine). I don’t have access to his German sources, so I can’t say for sure, but given that on page 23 May says (referring to the midrash Genesis rabba) that Gamaliel “denies that Genesis 1:2 refers to unformed matter and thereby implicitly asserts creatio ex nihilo”, I’m pretty sure that in footnote 24, May is saying that the LXX of Genesis 1:2 has been used to support the doctrine of creation from unformed eternally existing matter, not creation ex-nihilo. I could be wrong about this, but May’s reference to Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata book V in the same footnote also supports that view (the common reference is Stromata, Book V, chapter XIV – Greek Plagiarism From the Hebrews). The Brenton translation of LXX Genesis 1:2a is “But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished”. Others have translated this as “unseen and unready”, “desolate and empty”, or “invisible and unformed”. The “invisible” (ἀόρατος) has been used in favor of creation ex-nihilo, but as Blake Ostler has pointed out, “This same word invisible is similar to Hebrews 11:3 μὴ ἐκ ϕαινομένων (mē ek phainomenōn), meaning ‘out of unseen things’ the world was created. However, just as in LXX Genesis the unformed and lifeless world that is invisible or unseen is not ‘nothing at all’ but, rather, chaotic and unformed matter that cannot be seen because it does not yet have form impressed upon it by God” (Blake Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought, p.261). Consequently, the LXX of Genesis 1:1-2 is not a clear affirmation of creation ex-nihilo. So I’m really trying hard to see how the Greek translation of Genesis 1:1-2, in and of itself, is an indicator that the translators were leaning toward the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo. Perhaps it doesn’t matter to your main point, but I have a lot harder time finding indicators of any kind for the trend toward creation ex-nihilo in the ancient writings in the same way we do with monotheism. With regard to Hubler’s argument from silence, I think I see your point if we focus only on the idea of defining the separate eternal existence of unformed matter (apart from God) as it connects with Judaism and Christianity. Hubler does show that there was a belief in the eternal nature of the cosmos (and the unformed matter) in ancient Greek thought (pp. 57-58, 61), and even of the eternal nature of both matter and soul (p.59-60), and he summarizes these views on page 70. But in connecting the dots to Christian and Jewish thinking, he quotes Justin Martyr who says Plato got his ideas about creation [and presumably the eternal nature of matter] from Moses (pp. 111-112). That Hubler recognizes that Justin Martyr doesn’t explicitly say whether matter was eternal or not is noted in his footnote 21 on page 111, where he says: “Given that the alternative to eternal matter had not yet been formulated, it seems strange to consider it an unspoken option for Justin. His claim that God created from formless matter should therefore be taken as clear enough evidence that he believed in the common Platonist formula of creation from eternal matter”. Perhaps this is true, or perhaps not, but Hubler’s argument could have been strengthened and solidified (and thus avoided the argument from silence) if only he had included a reference to Clement of Rome’s early (first century?) and untainted by Greek philosophy statement about God having made manifest the “eternal fabric of the world” (referenced in my prior post). This seems clear enough and early enough to completely dismiss the idea (in Christian thinking at least) that the unformed matter, from which God made the earth, was created from absolutely nothing. On 10/17/2023 at 9:18 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: I am already going down the rabbit hole I wanted to avoid. My point remains. We have points of reference that show a steady change in beliefs. The more narrowly we define our terms, the more we lose sight of the process - and it is a process that is well underway in second temple Judaism as it re-understands itself in light of its exposure to other religious belief systems and philosophies. So, I'll bow out - this discussion is getting lost in the weeds. If all you are arguing is that we see the final form of ex nihilo creation and monotheism in modern Christianity, I don't have any argument against that. To argue that Second Temple Judaism wasn't monotheistic in any sense is a claim that is much more problematic. To argue that there was no notion of ex nihilo creation in second temple Judaism is also a problematic position - unless, as I noted, you are referring primarily to our modern technical understanding only, in which case, there is no disagreement. I very much appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Your last post helped me understand your arguments better. Although I still don't see any clear indication of an intentional move toward creation ex-nihilo in second temple Judaism (it only seems like the later proponents of the doctrine were exploiting loopholes in the texts from that period), I understand your point that features of the texts produced during that timeframe could be used to support the doctrine later on. I just don't see any of those features as clear contemporary intentional movements toward creation ex-nihilo in the same way we see in some of the steps that were made toward monotheism during the same period. Edited October 23, 2023 by InCognitus
mfbukowski Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 (edited) 18 hours ago, InCognitus said: And I agree with what you say above, although I would qualify part of it to say that Joseph Smith’s views on creation from unformed eternal matter would have come out of first and early second century Christianity (and not some ancient Semitic religious views or modern Christian views). I can’t find anything in the modern Christian view of creation that even remotely relates to Joseph Smith’s view of creation. Interestingly, (to me) Joseph's "philosophy" turns out to be VERY similar in many ways to that of Spinoza, not sure if that has been studied much. S. believed that all things, including God were all one Substance, in contrast to Scholasticism which postulated many substances, enabling belief in doctrines like "tranSUBSTANtiation and even ex-nihilo-creation. Ex-nihilo can only be reasonable if Spirit is seen to be a substance OTHER THAN matter, hence dualism is built into the paradigm from day one; it is simply incorporated without question. It begs the question, also called "circular reasoning" The inferior nature of matter MUST follow if God is Spirit; matter is simply what is created by God, hence also is the superiority of the "uncreated" =Spirit vs Matter. If spirit creates matter, matter is seen as imperfect = unfinished, while spirit is "finished"= "perfect". Then along comes Joseph with his notion that Spirit IS matter, " more refined" One Substance! God himself IS made of Matter! So where did Spinoza get this idea? I believe partially because he was raised Jewish, I believe. And the Jews of course believed in a material God. One substance! But we are still stuck with the dualism of (Science=Matter) vs (Religion= Pure Fantasy) because science begs the question that Religion cannot be examined "Empirically" The answer to that is, I am convinced, is the application of W.James' Radical Empiricism- the full study of human experience empirically, to religious experience. The facts ARE that people DO have spiritual experiences; what causes those experiences? My belief is that they are qualia, as my tired analogy of the "color red" perhaps may indicate. IF religious experiences are qualia were built by God or evolved- doesn't matter which, or both - the split between science and empiricism disappear. Dualism disappears and science and religion become one study of human experience. More: https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/ Edited October 23, 2023 by mfbukowski 2
MiserereNobis Posted October 24, 2023 Posted October 24, 2023 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Then along comes Joseph with his notion that Spirit IS matter, " more refined" What does the bold mean?
mfbukowski Posted October 24, 2023 Posted October 24, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: What does the bold mean? Good question- of course we can only speculate the fullness of the implications. Section 131: "7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." This of course came long before Einstein and E=mc2, but it seems related. Furthermore, we have the notion that the "LIGHT" of Christ" (ie: energy) fills the universe enabling him to communicate and BE everywhere- I think of this perhaps not unlike how using modern energy broadcasts allow us to, in a sense, "be" anywhere, as in zoom conferences etc. Our "intelligence/spirit" is projected anywhere, and also we are "there" during wars etc. I remember an early TV news show called "YOU ARE THERE" and indeed we were! It was an amazing thing to be watching live TV "by satellite" from Europe, say, or anywhere in the world- or later, even the moon, instantaneously AS IT HAPPENED! Even a simple campfire turns matter into "more refined" energy! Fission and fusion are similar examples. God can turn a prayer into "reality". So that is about all I can say about it. I think it is a brilliant insight! Edited October 24, 2023 by mfbukowski 2
provoman Posted October 24, 2023 Posted October 24, 2023 (edited) In watching a segment, with JD, Dan is too knowledgable for so many, including JD. JD asks about whether Jesus knew He would be resurrected in 3 days. Dan's response is the "historical Jesus" did not know, JD then appears to use to prove LDS Theology wrong. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8kXbtFV/ Edited October 24, 2023 by provoman
smac97 Posted December 7, 2024 Posted December 7, 2024 (edited) On 9/1/2023 at 6:33 PM, smac97 said: ... My original comment was pretty darn milquetoast and qualified: Quote Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this. I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best. Everything he has said has been in the public sphere. Meant for public consumption and discussion and debate. Dan is a pretty smart guy. He's gone on both Mormonism Live! and Mormon Stories, two of the most patently anti-Mormon presences on the Internet at present. And he said a bunch of things that his hosts are thrilled about and are repeating all over the place. He has even publicly described his efforts as influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, in his words, a "sweet spot." Meanwhile, several days ago I asked: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it." Dan is becoming pretty prolific in creating and posting content, but so far the response I have received is . . . crickets. Including from you. Again, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. ... Why is critiquing Dan's commentary about the Church (and about the Gospel, the scriptures, Jesus Christ, etc.) off-limits? I have previously explained my perspective: I am concerned that Dan is setting himself up as "a voice of influence and authority that is {intended to be} alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." I am concerned that Dan is attempting to use his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his personal opinions (on sociopolitical issues). I am concerned that Dan is publicly bragging/gloating that his efforts include "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - in his view - a "sweet spot." I am concerned that nobody seems able to point to any recent effort by Dan to create or provide faith-affirming content / commentary / messaging to the community of faith of which he is a member. I am concerned that Dan seems to be following the same general progression we've seen taken by Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, and so on. I have no stewardship over Dan, nor any personal acquaintance with him. ... As I have said before: Quote I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." I am not condemning him. I am not disparaging his character. But I think he has given strong indications - similar to indicia we've seen from past "influencers" like those noted above (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel) - of taking an incrementally-antagonistic approach that leads to estrangement from the Restored Gospel. If I am wrong in this assessment, I will happily eat crow. But if I'm correct, then a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate. If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, -Smac I posted the above well over a year ago. Just saw this now (responding to comments made in a video from a pastor directed at Dan) : An excerpt (starting at about 1:35) : Quote The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas. And I've repeatedly responded to questions about that. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement. And at about 2:52: Quote It is official Mormon doctrine that Jesus is the 'Jehovah' of the Old Testament. And I have repeatedly pointed out that {} I have maintained the exact same position the entire time that Jesus is not ever presented in the New Testament as the 'Adonai'/YWHW of the Hebrew Bible. I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine. And at about 8:56: Quote I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the date do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism. The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith. The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon. I've repeatedly clarified that. And so your entire argument rests on the assumption that that on this channel I actually defend Mormon dogmas. And I don't. The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas. I wonder if Dan has ever explained what he means by "Mormon dogmas," or whether this is just a synonym for Latter-day Saint doctrines. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 8, 2024 by smac97
Devobah Posted December 8, 2024 Posted December 8, 2024 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I posted the above well over a year ago. Just saw this now (responding to comments made in a video from a pastor directed at Dan) : An excerpt (starting at about 1:35) : And at about 2:52: And at about 8:56: I wonder if Dan has ever explained what he means by "Mormon dogmas," or whether this is just a synonym for Latter-day Saint doctrines. Thanks, -Smac I think that’s what he’s getting at. I respect Dan a lot. He’s not going to pretend. He’s not really bound to please us with his answers based on his studies.
Popular Post sunstoned Posted December 8, 2024 Popular Post Posted December 8, 2024 Quote Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. From the podcasts that I have listened to including the one linked above, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that Dan is on his way out of the church. The only thing that Dan claims is that he follows the data, and what he presents is well-researched and presented well. He did say that the data conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas and that the data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith. This should be no big shock to members because they have been told many times that the answer to doctrinal issues is to simply exercise faith. Maybe that's what Dan does. 6
Popular Post Devobah Posted December 8, 2024 Popular Post Posted December 8, 2024 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: From the podcasts that I have listened to including the one linked above, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that Dan is on his way out of the church. The only thing that Dan claims is that he follows the data, and what he presents is well-researched and presented well. He did say that the data conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas and that the data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith. This should be no big shock to members because they have been told many times that the answer to doctrinal issues is to simply exercise faith. Maybe that's what Dan does. Dan chooses to keep his reasons for his activity to the church to himself. That’s his right. If one can balance reason and faith, then who am I to judge? 7
sunstoned Posted December 8, 2024 Posted December 8, 2024 4 minutes ago, Devobah said: Dan chooses to keep his reasons for his activity to the church to himself. That’s his right. If one can balance reason and faith, then who am I to judge? Well said. 1
Popular Post InCognitus Posted December 8, 2024 Popular Post Posted December 8, 2024 51 minutes ago, sunstoned said: From the podcasts that I have listened to including the one linked above, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that Dan is on his way out of the church. The only thing that Dan claims is that he follows the data, and what he presents is well-researched and presented well. He did say that the data conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas and that the data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith. This should be no big shock to members because they have been told many times that the answer to doctrinal issues is to simply exercise faith. Maybe that's what Dan does. "Faith", yes, that is precisely how Dan described it in his interview on the "Mormon Stories" podcast that I commented on in my post on 09/05/2023, specifically this part (quoted below): "2:24:48 - Dan comments on what faith is - We are not being asked to historically prove anything, we are asked to have a testimony. Brigham Young said a testimony is not about the data or the facts, a testimony is something different from that. " It's best to listen to his actual comments in the podcast starting at that timestamp. Some things are taken on faith. 6
smac97 Posted December 9, 2024 Posted December 9, 2024 (edited) On 12/7/2024 at 7:39 PM, sunstoned said: Quote Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. From the podcasts that I have listened to including the one linked above, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that Dan is on his way out of the church. First, I am not assuming, I am inferring. Second, I hope that the inference is incorrect. Third, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. From his most recent public offering: "The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement." "I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine." "I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism." "The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith." "The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon." "The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas." As he says, he's been pretty consistent in this. His interview with John Dehlin sure was an eye-opener, and that was a while back. I have no stewardship over Dan, but I would not use him as a resource for someone hoping to develop a testimony of Jesus Christ and of the Restored Gospel. Quite the contrary, I think Dan's commentary is - by his own reckoning - a pretty stark alternative to listening to and following the counsel of prophets and apostles. Fourth, Dan's preferred terminology, particularly his "data" and "dogma" references, deserves some attention. I am still curious as to whether Dan has ever explained what he means by "Mormon dogmas," or whether this is - as I suspect - just a synonym for Latter-day Saint doctrines. Also, his use of "the data" is interesting to me. I get the feeling that he is passing off his personal opinions and preferences, sociopolitical views and conclusions, etc. as "data," as he can then privilege those things. Either that, or he is heavily intermingling these things with "the data" so as to use the latter to unjustifiably bolster the former. It seems that Dan wants to pass himself off as a just a purveyor of unvarnished, undiluted fact ("data"), such that to disagree with Dan is to disagree with "the data." Fifth, I think Dan diminishes himself by limiting his "data > dogma" schtick to fish-in-a-barrel responses to TikTok and YouTube videos posted by enthusiastic but untrained amateurs and neophytes, people who are not equipped to address biblical issues on Dan's level, using the tools of formal scholarly training (or at least more experience in debating the particulars of biblical issues), etc. I am reminded of Jake Paul's boxing schtick, which involves him going up against what looks like a carefully curated slate of opponents who are notably older (Askren (12 year difference), Woodley (15 year difference), Silva (22 year difference), Tyson (31 years)), past their prime, have limited boxing experience, etc. I think Paul's competency as a boxer would be more apparent and fairly-established if he were to go up against opponents closer to his own age, with a comparable weight class and professional record. The same goes for Dan re: discussing matters pertaining to The Bible. I think he picks both opponents and venues that are carefully curated and vetted so as to give himself a notable advantage when publishing social media content. Instead of endlessly dunking on amateurs, he and his opinions would start to look more credible if he were to have such things tested by opponents who, metaphorically, have "a comparable weight class and professional record." Sixth, I still watch some of Dan's content, but his social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. Seventh, notwithstanding the foregoing, I hope Dan stays in the Church. Meanwhile, however, a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 9, 2024 by smac97 1
smac97 Posted December 9, 2024 Posted December 9, 2024 On 12/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, Devobah said: Quote I wonder if Dan has ever explained what he means by "Mormon dogmas," or whether this is just a synonym for Latter-day Saint doctrines. I think that’s what he’s getting at. I agree. I think it would be better for him, being a scholar and all, to be more clear about such things. On 12/7/2024 at 7:27 PM, Devobah said: I respect Dan a lot. I respect his intellect and training. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted December 9, 2024 Posted December 9, 2024 (edited) On 12/7/2024 at 8:59 PM, Devobah said: Dan chooses to keep his reasons for his activity to the church to himself. But he's not keeping to himself his views which contradict the Church's doctrines and leaders. Instead, he is publishing those views to the world. I think that's the point. He is setting himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. He is creating an either/or choice for members of the Church. On 12/7/2024 at 8:59 PM, Devobah said: That’s his right. I don't think anyone disputes this. Free Speech is a wonderful thing. For my part, as regarding Latter-day Saints listening to Dan McClellan, I think that a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is warranted. I mean, he's saying this stuff out loud. In public. He openly admits that he is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot." He said this to John Dehlin, who thereafter said: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on," to which Dan responded: "Well, thank you so much." On 12/7/2024 at 8:59 PM, Devobah said: If one can balance reason and faith, then who am I to judge? I also incorporate both reason and faith into my assessment of the Restored Gospel. I do so without publicly speaking against the doctrines of the Church and against the Brethren. I know many, many other Latter-day Saints who do the same. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 10, 2024 by smac97 3
Popular Post sunstoned Posted December 10, 2024 Popular Post Posted December 10, 2024 We should also remember that Dan's podcast does not focus on the LDS church or its doctrine. His focus is on accurate Biblical scholarship. 7
Amulek Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with. It seems like that's the sort of thing that would be anathema to the whole modern academic approach to biblical scholarship. And if that were my field of study, I would probably want to keep my personal religious beliefs separate from my scholarly work as well. 4
smac97 Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: We should also remember that Dan's podcast does not focus on the LDS church or its doctrine. He is also publicly commenting about the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, etc., and by his own reckoning he has been "repeatedly" and "consistently" doing this, with the "overwhelming majority" of his content - again, by his own assessment - "contradicting" the doctrines of the Church. Again, from a recent post: "The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement." "I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine." "I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism." "The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith." "The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon." "The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas." We should also remember these things and approach Dan's content accordingly (see, e.g., Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15). 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: His focus is on accurate Biblical scholarship. And yet he sure seems to include in his commentary about "Biblical scholarship" a lot - a lot of commentary on matters that go well beyond "Biblical scholarship." Thanks, -Smac 1
bluebell Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 24 minutes ago, Amulek said: In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with. It seems like that's the sort of thing that would be anathema to the whole modern academic approach to biblical scholarship. And if that were my field of study, I would probably want to keep my personal religious beliefs separate from my scholarly work as well. As long as you weren't trading on your membership in the church, then I agree. (to be clear, I'm not saying Dan is doing that. I have no idea as I don't follow him and I think i've only ever had the algorithm of reels pop up one of his two times over the last few years, and neither of them were about the church). Just in general, I can get behind the separation of someone's belief and academic work unless they are using their membership is a specific religious community to garner attention and validity in the public space. But yes, data is never going to support supernatural claims. 2
Rain Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: As long as you weren't trading on your membership in the church, then I agree. Yes. And as far as I have seen he doesn't do those things. I say this despite no longer believing 1 hour ago, bluebell said: (to be clear, I'm not saying Dan is doing that. I have no idea as I don't follow him and I think i've only ever had the algorithm of reels pop up one of his two times over the last few years, and neither of them were about the church). Just in general, I can get behind the separation of someone's belief and academic work unless they are using their membership is a specific religious community to garner attention and validity in the public space. But yes, data is never going to support supernatural claims. The things in the video that smac is pointing out are responses to other videos accusing Dan of saying these things because those are his beliefs - they are basically saying Dan is telling us about his church beliefs instead of what is bibical. Context is key here. Now Dan could just ignore what those people are saying, but some of the things they are saying are responses to his videos so it makes sense that he is responding back. I personally prefer him to ignore them, but I'm sure they do increase his bottom line and since this is way to make a living then I understand. Edited December 10, 2024 by Rain 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 4 minutes ago, Rain said: The things in the video that smac is pointing out are responses to other videos accusing Dan of saying these things because those are his beliefs - they are basically saying Dan is telling us about his church beliefs instead of what is bibical. Context is key here This exactly. Dan speaks authoritatively on his area of scholarly expertise, namely critical biblical scholarship. There are areas where critical biblical scholarship and Mormonism align, like that the trinity dogma is not found in the Bible. When he does so, he is inevitably attacked by evangelical believers claiming that he is merely pushing Mormon Doctrine and he occasionally responds to those critiques as shown in the video linked above. Dan very frequently pushes his ideological agenda on social issues of morality regarding abortion, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. When he does so, it is clear he is expressing his strongly held opinion. In these videos he does speak authoritatively about what the Bible does and does not say on these topics. 4
bluebell Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 21 minutes ago, Rain said: Yes. As far as I have seen he doesn't do those things. And I say this despite no longer believing The things in the video that smac is pointing out are responses to other videos accusing Dan of saying these things because those are his beliefs - they are basically saying Dan is telling us about his church beliefs instead of what is bibical. Context is key here. Now Dan could just ignore what those people are saying, but some of the things they are saying are responses to his videos so it makes sense that he is responding back. I personally prefer him to ignore them, but I'm sure they do increase his bottom line and since this is way to make a living then I understand. That makes sense.
smac97 Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 (edited) On 12/10/2024 at 8:20 AM, Amulek said: In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with. That has been my thought as well. Dan is often quite conclusory about what "the data" show/indicate, which is ironic given his supposed devotion to "data > dogma." My sense is that Dan uses his scholarly bona fides as posted on social media to unduly bolster and legitimize his personal opinions on other issues for which his scholarly expertise has, or should have, less/little bearing. And it is about these other issues that Dan is more prone to conclusory, just-trust-my-say-so-because-I'm-an-expert-on-The-Bible-and-cognitive-linguistics-style pronouncements. I observe this most often in two scenarios: First, when Dan is posting one of his dunking-on-an-amateur's-take-on-The-Bible videos, he often lards his commentary with barbed insinuations or outright accusations as to what Dan sees as the poster's malignant motives, and which motives Dan often describes using neo-marxist framing and terminology. Second, when Dan randomly sets aside his "I'm-here-to-talk-about-biblical-scholarship-not-my-perspective-on-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints" dictum and proceeds to publicly and candidly speak about - that is, against - the Church, its doctrines, its past and present leaders, etc. (Yet again, If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.) In both scenarios, Dan generally speaks in conclusory terms. That is, he declares his conclusion, but doesn't really bother to explain the reasoning, logic, evidence, "data," etc. he used to reach that conclusion. He just states his conclusion as if it were some empirically undeniable, plain-as-day observation about what "that data indicate." Like you, I am curious as to what Dan thinks does, and does not, constitute "data" relative to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. We don't know, and Dan ain't tellin', but I suspect he differentiates using all sorts of logical fallacies ("No True Scotsman" would likely loom large) and considerably less of the tools of biblical scholarship which Dan so regularly reminds us he has. On 12/10/2024 at 8:20 AM, Amulek said: It seems like that's the sort of thing that would be anathema to the whole modern academic approach to biblical scholarship. Yep. And yet Dan leans pretty heavily on his scholarly bona fides. A few years back, during the Covid lockdowns, substantial numbers of healthcare professionals A) strongly endorsed the lockdown across-the-board in society, while at the same time B) strongly endorsed public protests which flouted the lockdown constraints. In doing so, these professionals did a lot of damage to the credibility of their profession. See, e.g., this article: The Partisan Undermining of Coronavirus Science Quote The universal lockdown of the country following the COVID-19 outbreak raised tensions through every segment of American society. The social and economic disruptions sparked protests all over the country, most famously in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. These protests were quickly denounced by media personalities, medical experts, and politicians who claimed that the risk of spreading the virus made it foolish to gather in such ways. Consider Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, who said that those protests were risking the health of the people of her state, that they “make it likelier that we are going to have to stay in a stay-at-home posture,” and that anyone with a platform should encourage others to “do the right thing” and remain home. Or consider Deborah Birx, the lead doctor on President Trump’s coronavirus task force, who said: “It’s devastatingly worrisome to me personally because if they go home and infect their grandmother or their grandfather who has a co-morbid condition and they have a serious or a very — or an unfortunate outcome, they will feel guilty for the rest of our lives.” So far, so good. "The professionals" were, at the time, apparently speaking clinically, not ideologically, about protests and their role in contributing to "the risk of spreading the virus." Similarly, there are plenty of instances in Dan's social media content in which he seems to be speaking, clinically, not ideologically, about issues pertaining to his area of expertise: biblical scholarship. It is in these instances that Dan's credibility is relevant and probative. He knows what he is talking about, and he can demonstrate his reasoning and analysis. Back to the article: Quote Such concerns were completely reasonable. The nation had just passed the peak of the virus surge in hot spots such as New York and Michigan, and fear of further spread was legitimate. The entire scientific logic for the lockdowns, after all, was to suppress the peak of the surge of the disease, in hopes that our health-care system would have time to learn and adapt. Similarly, when Dan's social media content is addressing issues falling under the rubric of "biblical scholarship," he comes across as erudite and reasonable. His training is in that field, and so it seems "completely reasonable" for him to utilize it when discussing varying perspectives on the Bible. Quote However, everything changed on May 25, 2020, when Minneapolis resident George Floyd was killed. The outrage over this cruel killing by an officer of the state inflamed the passions of the country, sparking protests, violence, and looting, in the Twin Cities and across the United States. People surged onto the streets, primarily peacefully, to display their full displeasure, fear, anguish, and sorrow. This time, the response from national pundits and experts to the protest movement was starkly different. Dan Diamond’s excellent article in Politico provides a full accounting of how the medical community has responded to these protests. Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School, admitted that physicians were grappling with conflict between the science, and their emotions: “It makes it clear that all along there were trade-offs between details of lockdowns and social distancing and other factors that the experts previously discounted and have now decided to reconsider and rebalance.” . . . Flier pointed out that the protesters were also engaging in behaviors, like loud singing in close proximity, which CDC has repeatedly suggested could be linked to spreading the virus. . . . “At least for me, the sudden change in views of the danger of mass gatherings has been disorienting, and I suspect it has been for many Americans.” "{G}rappling with onflict between the science, and their emotions," indeed. "Trade-offs," indeed. These "professionals" were all-about-the-science until "the science" harshed on their emotions and sociopolitical opinions and preferences, at which point "the science" had to give way. These "professionals" then painted their sociopolitical opinions and preferences with a thin veneer of professionalism and asked society to accept wanton logical incoherence ("We're in the middle of a global pandemic! Stay indoors to save lives! Unless you're protesting about George Floyd, in which case protesting and disregarding the lockdown is just hunky dory!") as still, somehow, reflecting their we're-all-about-the-science bona fides. I often see similar "trade-offs" in Dan's social media content. He claims to be all about being devoted to "the data" over "dogma," and to applying "biblical scholarship" to issues about the Bible, but then his emotions and sociopolitical opinions and preferences come to the forefront. Not content with using the tools of biblical scholarship to rebut neophyte approaches to the Bible, he dunks on the neophytes themselves, insults them personally, imputes onto them horrible motives (again, often using neo-marxism as a framework), etc. He also claims that his personal religious beliefs are "off the table," but then he proceeds to put the Church and its doctrines and leaders on the table, and then publicly disparages them: "The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon." "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement." "I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine." "I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism." "The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith." "The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon." "The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas." If the foregoing behaviors were one-offs or rarities, I wouldn't really care about them. We are emotional beings, and sometimes we let emotion override reason, and personal preferences override clinical assessments. But Dan dunks on amateurs all the time. And by his own reckoning, he "repeatedly" and "consistently" speaks publicly in ways that "flatly contradict LDS doctrine." These are not rare departures from Dan's commentary (which are supposed to be about "biblical scholarship"), but are instead pretty standard and regular features of his social media content. Back to the article: Quote “Disorienting” is a very kind way to paint the shift from outright disgust and hatred that many Americans faced when they challenged the logic of the lockdowns to the ongoing celebration of the current protests. Don’t forget just how vitriolic the earlier outrage was: On social media, people were outright called murderers and terrorists; numerous governors, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, literally said people would die because of those protests; and media personalities behaved even worse, with Julia Ioffe of GQ calling the protesters selfish and demanding they stay home originally, and Soledad O’Brien calling Ricochet editor Bethany Mandel a “Grandma Killer.” Suddenly, with the eruption of protests in the name of the murder of George Floyd, those concerns conveniently disappeared. Some former critics, such as Ioffe, have reversed their positions on mass gatherings and openly support them. Others remain silent, demonstrating their cowardice by barely mentioning the threat of the coronavirus to the public at large as thousands of people congregate in protest. Consider, again, Governor Whitmer of Michigan. Whitmer has been very slow to reduce restrictions on the lockdowns. She and her attorney general, Dana Nessel, famously pursued a barber in the city of Owosso, Mich., who refused to close during the pandemic; the barber has since won his case in court. Whitmer has continued demanding strict masking and social-distancing rules for everyone in the state well into June. Yet when the BLM protests arrived in metropolitan Detroit on June 4, Whitmer was there to greet them. She wore a mask but rejected all social-distancing regulations, marching side-by-side with protesters. Whitmer was more than happy to violate her own executive orders. Such hypocrisy is not unusual from journalists, or even politicians. However, a much more serious ethical and professional issue arises when doctors and scientists show such blatant hypocritical bias. As scientists, we have sworn to the public that our recommendations would depend on the science and the data, and reject the whims of emotion and personal opinion. The general public experienced quite a whiplash in observing "scientists" trading on their expertise and stature as scientists when telling us to "reject the whims of emotion and personal opinion" and stay in our homes because that's what the science says we should do, only to then see these same scientists join hands with politicians and activists on partisan ideological grounds to ignore lockdown restrictions. These folks damaged the credibility of their profession by conflating their pronouncements about "the science" with their pronouncements about sociopolitical issues (George Floyd protests). I think Dan often ends up doing something similar by conflating his pronouncements about "biblical scholarship" with his pronouncements about issues outside of that sphere. Quote Many physicians and scientists have likewise let their partisan leanings overshadow the science. An epidemiologist on Twitter stated: “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” What absurd scientific standards were used to make that remarkable statement? The short answer is: none. Between 2013 and 2019, police in the United States killed a total of 7,666 people, according to Mapping Police Violence, a research and advocacy group. That data shows that relative to their share of the general population, blacks are 2.5 times as likely as whites to be killed by police; since 2015, 1,252 African Americans have been shot and killed by police, using the Washington Post’s database. These are obviously horrific numbers, and we should stipulate that no citizen of the United States should be complacent about these obvious abuses. But science shouldn’t deal with emotion or fundamentals. It deals with facts and data. And the facts are these: As of May 26, 2020 (the last date for which race-based data is fully available), the APM Research Lab documented a total of approximately 88,000 deaths as a result of COVID-19. Of those, 21,878 were African-American. African Americans were shown to die of the coronavirus 2.4 times as often as whites, and 2.2 times as often as Hispanics and Asians. To put that into better perspective, 1 in 1850 black Americans in the entire country perished, versus 1 in 4400 white Americans. African Americans represent 13 percent of all Americans, but have suffered 25 percent of all viral deaths. These are incredible, and tragic, numbers. And medical science can give us some clues as to the reason for the disproportionate effect. African Americans are less likely to have family physicians, are more likely to have co-morbidities that lead to high risk of complications with coronavirus, and are more likely to use mass-transit systems. Additionally, more African Americans live in multi-generational homes, with possibility of infection from their children and grandchildren. All of these factors likely made them far more susceptible to the disease than the average American. But ultimately what this shows is that the coronavirus is somewhere in the range of 200 to 300 times more deadly than all of the police in the entire country — as a conservative estimate. To be sure, reducing this complex issue to basic numbers fails to capture the complexities of dealing with racism in our society. These are emotional issues that cannot be distilled scientifically. It is perfectly reasonable for the public to deal with these issues by contemplating the larger context of society, racism, and historical connotations. But scientists and physicians are supposed to be immune to political or emotional whims. Too many are showing themselves not to be. And the dangers extend beyond hypocrisy. Distrust between the public and the medical community makes it harder for the public to make sacrifices in the name of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians fundamentally rely on trust; the doctor–patient relationship is one of the fundamental philosophical cornerstones in medicine. So, too, do public-health officials, whose recommendations can be disruptive to ordinary people’s lives. "But scientists and physicians are supposed to be immune to political or emotional whims. Too many are showing themselves not to be." I think something similar can be said about Dan. His social media commentary should be about clinical-but-simplified presentation of how "biblical scholarship" applies to questions relating to the Bible, and should mostly "immune to political or emotional whims." But he often goes well beyond this. Quote It took a Herculean effort to institute the lockdowns. But many experts have totally refused to speak up about the risk of these protests to cause future surges of the disease, while they were violently opposing similar, smaller protests a few weeks ago. The narrative is clear: They are willing to stand up for the science, as long as it is politically and emotionally convenient. Similarly, Dan's devotion to "data > dogma" and a clinical, "just the facts, ma'am" approach to "biblical scholarship" only lasts as long as Dan can restrain his sociopolitical and emotional sensibilities, at which point he busts out taunts, insults, neo-marxist jargon, and conclusory pronouncements disparaging the character of people who disagree with him and his sociopolitical views. And he also apparently "repeatedly" and "consistently" speaks against things like the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his (Joseph's) successors, which seems like a subject pretty far afield from what the tools of "biblical scholarship" can used to empirically quantify and analyze. On 12/10/2024 at 8:20 AM, Amulek said: And if that were my field of study, I would probably want to keep my personal religious beliefs separate from my scholarly work as well. So would I. But we're speaking of Dan's social media content, to which his "field of study" has a central, but far from exclusive, role. He often strays into commentary outside of the parameters of "biblical scholarship." And despite his stated intention of not wanting to publicly discuss his religious beliefs, he nevertheless sometimes publicly discusses his religious beliefs (albeit cloaked in language about what "the data indicate"). Thanks, -Smac Edited August 5, 2025 by smac97
Nevo Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 I defended Dan on this thread last year, back on page 10, but I feel less inclined to do so this time around. I don't think Smac is wrong when he says that Dan's "social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience." That has been my impression too. I'm all for debunking misinformation and making critical biblical scholarship available to the masses, but when you start sounding like a Book of Mormon antichrist, maybe you're taking it too far. Doing responsible public scholarship is one thing; actively seeking to undermine people's faith is another. And my concern is that Dan seems to be leaning in on helping people along in their "faith deconstruction." Perhaps in Dan's mind he's breaking down misplaced faith ("dogma") so that something better can grow in its place (faith in "data"?), but too often it looks to me like he is salting the ground so that nothing else can grow. I think he's far too definitive in a lot of his pronouncements about what "the data" show and leaves little or no room for belief. 3
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now