Posted on

Ten Tidbits about the Old Testament

This post joins the previous ones of similar title on the New Testament and Book of Mormon.

I make no claims that these are the biggest nor the most tantalizing, but here are ten tidbits about the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) that receive little attention (in my experience) in Church settings. I’m intentionally leaving out the better known biggies, such as JEDP, two or three Isaiahs, or the fact that “history” in the modern sense wasn’t an operative category for the authors of the Hebrew Bible. These topics are more widely discussed elsewhere and don’t lend themselves easily to one-line smackdowns. Here’s the list, with thanks to my fellow bloggers for corrections and additions, esp Moggett, Nitsav, and HP:

Continue reading “Ten Tidbits about the Old Testament”

Posted on

The Divine Council and its Doctrinal Implications: an EV-Mormon Discussion

Several months ago, I mentioned Mike Heiser’s paper, “ You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82 .” Heiser wrote his dissertation on the topic of the Divine Council, and runs a website entitled The Divine Council which is aimed somewhat at Evangelicals, who tend to misunderstand the Old Testament text on this topic. He also works for Logos, which provides excellent Bible resources and study tools.
Heiser, an Evangelical, “feel[s] more strongly than ever that there is not a single doctrine that is untouched by the subject.”

He presented 8 ideas that Mormons would probably agree with, but Evangelicals would not, such as “The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is
Israel believed about God and the members of his council.”

He then presented 8 ideas that Evangelicals would probably agree with, but Mormons would not, such as “Corporeal appearances of deity are not evidence that God the Father has a corporeal nature.” I don’t disagree with a few of his eight listed here, but it’s a thoughtful list.

Heiser agreed to allow FARMS to distribute his paper, with a follow-up by LDS student/author/good guy David Bokovoy (Hebrew Bible, Brandeis), and a final word by Heiser.

The whole thing is well worth reading, and a model of LDS-Evangelical scholarly interaction.

Special bonus: On his website, my blogname  Nitsav is the second Hebrew word from the right.

Posted on

Ten Tidbits about the NT

A friend of mine recently asked me to sketch out ten “provocative” axioms about the New Testament that Latter-day Saints might find surprising given the assumptions that they typically bring to the text. This exercise is by no means unique to the New Testament. Similar lists could be produced about the OT, other religions, LDS church history, etc. However, since this year we are studying the NT in Sunday School, it might be a useful time to reflect theologically on the significance of some of these axioms, and how these changes to our assumptions might help us to better understand ourselves and the writings we consider sacred. Thus, in no particular order, I present the following ten axioms:
Continue reading “Ten Tidbits about the NT”

Posted on

The Song of Songs and Divine Eros

It might surprise many Christians to know that for nearly a millennium, the Song of Songs (aka Canticles, aka Song of Solomon) in the Old Testament was perhaps the single most important book of scripture. There are more medieval commentaries on this book than any other book in the Bible. Modern readers find this especially strange since there is no explicit message of God, divine law, moral imperatives, or any other “obvious” sign of its religious nature. In fact, modern biblical critics characterize it as a secular love poem that was included in the canon simply because it was attributed to Solomon, not because of its content.

Mormons are likely especially surprised by the importance of the Song of Songs because Joseph Smith was famously skeptical of its place in the canon. The first footnote in the LDS version of the Bible indicates: “the JST manuscript states that ‘The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'” Joseph was not alone in the history of Christianity and Judaism to wonder what an erotic love poem was doing in the Bible. At the same time, this wonder also provided the background for the rich allegorical explanations of the Song.
Continue reading “The Song of Songs and Divine Eros”

Posted on

Ancient Justification for Modern Practice

Kevin Barney’s post over at BCC has me thinking about the ramifications of female Apostleship (capital A): What it would mean if we came to agree that the New Testament bore strong witness to there having been women in roles now held only by men?* The question, when placed within the larger framework of our penchant for finding ourselves in the past, presents an interesting dilemma: Could a future opening of the Priesthood to “all worthy persons (not just males)” find scriptural justification for itself in the same way that we see the Book of Mormon in such difficult places as John 10 and Ezekiel 37?

As is well known, we are fond of justifying our ban on homosexuality with reference to Leviticus 20:13, but have no qualms about neglecting passages such as Lev. 19:27: “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard,” or 17:10, where anyone who eats meat with blood in it will be excommunicated. (Note that the “ban” on homosexuality is part of the “Law of Moses” …)

So here’s a question: What are some issues not currently part of LDS practice for which one might find justification in the scriptures? (This question is more about discerning our use of scripture than about calling for social change.) Continue reading “Ancient Justification for Modern Practice”

Posted on

What is an Author?

As Mormons I think that we are deeply invested in authorial intent as the source of authority in the scriptures. We share this belief with many historical-critics, who have also left unhistoricized this assumption. In this view, the author’s voice is the voice of author-ity, the one who determines meaning and from whose perspective we are able to survey the situation. Certainly, we are allowed to be suspicious of the author’s claims from time to time, but even here it is the author’s voice that we doubt.
Continue reading “What is an Author?”

Posted on

A Case for the DH, Part III: No New Covenant (not in Exod 34, anyway)

The evidence and discussion in parts I and II are more than just academic exercises and proofs of the DH, because they deal with a narrative that is central to some of the fundamental tenets of the Church: the “New Covenant” that we understand God to have made with the Israelites. In the compiled version of Exod 34, it appears that Moses went up the mountain a second time to get a new set of tablets. The first set, which was intended to include the decalogue and possibly the Covenant Code (Exod 21-23), was smashed in Exod 32. The second set, as we have seen, looks as if it contains the words the covenant of Exod 34:10-26. But when the strands are separated (as we have done with confidence), there is nothing new to be written on the second set of tablets. And J only ever has one covenant: the one that stipulates that in exchange for obedience to vv. 10-26, God would be with Israel when she went into the promised land. It’s only because someone tried to make a Diatessaron-like narrative that we suppose a new covenant ever existed. Thus the “new covenant” is a product of the compiler’s work, not of any “original” story. Continue reading “A Case for the DH, Part III: No New Covenant (not in Exod 34, anyway)”

Posted on

A Case for the Documentary Hypothesis, Part II: The Clincher

In part one of this post, I outlined “internal” reasons for dividing Exodus 34 into 3 sources: J, E, and P. All three of these sources continued earlier narratives related to Moses’ ascension of the mount and could be teased out solely by reference to these earlier, separate, narratives. I’ll review the verse divisions: J: 34:2-3, 4.2, 5b-27. E: 34:1, 4.1, 4.3, 5a, 28. P: 34:29-35.

I’ll also put them as they would have appeared in their original order, using the KJV and beginning with J: Continue reading “A Case for the Documentary Hypothesis, Part II: The Clincher”

Posted on

A Case for the Documentary Hypothesis, Part I: The Division of Exodus 34

HP’s very recent post provides a good springboard for a discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis. Rather than introducing the hypothesis via a historical summary, which may be discussed in comments or a subsequent post, let me present a case study.

In this multi-part post I propose to lay a source division of Exodus 34, the so-called “New Covenant”. This chapter both exemplifies the issues and is relevant to an LDS audience, and thus is particularly fitting for this forum. I will outline the case for separation of sources based on internal and external evidence and then will ask what sorts of issues this raises for Latter-day Saint interpretation of scripture and of revelation. N.B.: This is not my original idea. It was worked out in part by a friend of mine, whose permission I have to reproduce it, even if only in outline, here.

Before we jump into the material, a Documentary Hypothesis refresher: Continue reading “A Case for the Documentary Hypothesis, Part I: The Division of Exodus 34”