In case you haven’t seen it, take a break from Wheat and Tares Apologizing and attend the BYU Church History Symposium on Joseph Smith’s Study of the ancient world. Richard Bushman, Sam Brown, Matt Bowman, and many more! Looks to be, um, historic!
Israel’s Past Without the Bible
It may come as a surprise to some that there are texts from ancient Israel, Judah, and its environs that are not found in the Bible. There are also a number of texts from (especially) ancient Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia that make reference to Biblical persons, places, and events. Such epigraphic texts are important for many reasons. I want to discuss some aspects of why these texts are important in what follows, and to give some basic information with respect to some of the more prominent epigraphic discoveries that date to the period before Judah’s fall in 586/7 B.C.E. This latter task will be spread out over several posts, and I will proceed in roughly chronological order in my presentation of the material. Continue reading “Israel’s Past Without the Bible”
Peter, James, and … Lazarus?
I recently ran across a hypothesis promulgated anew by Ben Witherington III that attempts to deal with the main issues about the authorship and uniqueness of the fourth gospel.[1] There is much of interest in the problem and proposed solution. First, an overview of the problem and proposed solution, then, its implications for Latter-day Saints.
The problem:
Of crucial interest is the mention of a “beloved disciple” in this highly unique gospel. Since antiquity the author of this gospel, who according to ch. 21 is the Beloved Disciple, has been a matter of some debate. By the late second century Irenaeus made the winning case for John son of Zebedee, apparently against questions raised as to this gospel’s apostolic authorship because of its affinities to and popularity in Gnosticism. John is never mentioned in the fourth gospel, though in the epilogue (Jn 21) the “sons of Zebedee” are mentioned once. Apparently the only thing this identification has going for it is the fact that it never mentions John son of Zebedee by name and that Peter and John are often described together in the other gospels and in Acts, similar to the connection to Peter and the Beloved Disciple in the fourth gospel.
The huge problem with this identification is that John (son of Zebedee), a Galilean fisherman present in the other gospels at key events such as the transfiguration and the agony in the garden, doesn’t mention these events, nor does he mention the bulk of Jesus’ Galilean ministry! The author focuses instead on Jerusalem and its environs. And the author is clearly (at least clear to those who read Greek) not the same as the author of the book of Revelation. And the presence of Peter and John together seems in this gospel to be more of a rivalry than in the other gospels: the Beloved Disciple beats Peter to the tomb, and Peter seems to be hung up on the rumor that the BD would not die in Jn 21. It also seems that there is evidence from Papias, a church father who wrote around AD 100, that John was martyred earlier than the gospel of John was written in the 90s (see discussion in BW3’s post). Continue reading “Peter, James, and … Lazarus?”
On the Malleability of Gold Plates: Mormonism and Modern Biblical Scholarship
From the time I first came to understand the nature of pseudepigrapha, I felt comfortable with the idea that many of these extra-scriptural writings were written under assumed names. Somewhere I had picked up the idea that it was a common and accepted convention for works of antiquity to be attributed to someone famous. There are ancient books of Adam, of Enoch, of Abraham, all written by later authors under a prophetic moniker to give their writings authority and status. Even our book of Psalms in the present canon includes poems with headings “A Psalm of David”—(lᵊ dawid). This has traditionally been understood to denote Davidic authorship, even though Biblical scholars agree that some of these were post-exilic. As Jana Riess puts it:
The Hebrew preposition “l” can, like many Hebrew words, mean a variety of different things. Often translated “of,” it can also mean “to” or “for” (a Psalm for David) or “in the manner of” (a psalm that’s like something David might have written if he were still with us; R.I.P.).
In his work, “The Book of Psalms,” UC Berkeley Hebrew professor Robert Alter taught that “it was a regular practice in the later biblical period to ascribe new texts to famous figures of the past.” This is what I had always heard.
Not so! says Bart Ehrman in his groundbreaking treatment of the subject. In the 2011 book Forged, Ehrman asserts that writing in the name of a famous prophet or biblical figure was just as scandalous in ancient times as any forgery would be today. Continue reading “On the Malleability of Gold Plates: Mormonism and Modern Biblical Scholarship”
Scripture Mastery Context(s) Series: Jeremiah 16:16 – Should Missionaries be Hunting & Fishing?
“Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks” (Jer 16:16 KJV)
Seminary instructors, both full-time and volunteer, have urged countless students to commit this verse to memory in an effort to show that: “In the last days the Lord will send missionaries to gather Israel.” [1] Even those who may have missed out on seminary needn’t look far to find this verse evoked in discussions surrounding missionary efforts (though interestingly enough it is absent from Preach My Gospel). “[T]he fishers and hunters described in Jeremiah 16:16 are missionaries of the Church,” the Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual explains. In like manner, if one follows the footnote attached to the word “fishers” in the LDS edition of the Bible one will find the note “TG Missionary Work.” Similar usage of this verse occurs, both explicitly and implicitly, within various sermons, addresses, and commentaries by a multitude of LDS leaders and/or authors. [2] Within this interpretive tradition I have heard it explained that this verse shows that some missionaries, often those serving “high baptizing missions,” will have “great success” just as a fisher brings in many fish using a net. [3] On the other hand, some missionaries will have “limited success” as they “hunt out” those to hear the Gospel one by one. While this verse may coincidentally serve (with a bit of re-contextualizing and some creative exegesis) as a metaphorical spectrum to explain the baptism rates of full-time missionaries, an examination of the literary and historical context of this verse raises some interesting questions with regard to hunting and fishing among other things. [4]
Quick and Powerful
And so another Labor Day comes, bringing the end to summer. May the next summer bring more jobs to those who need them, and some recovery to the household income of those who do have jobs!
Now, back to the BoM. I have been wandering around in the BoM looking, from the perspective of a reader of the NT, at how the BoM uses the biblical text. Those who’ve been around for a bit know that sometimes there’s no change and sometimes there’s some significant change, usually in a fashion that makes the idea in the NT “friendlier” to a modern reader. Here we have a case in which new wine has definitely been poured into an old wineskin — and in a timely fashion, too, as Helaman 1-5 was the GD lesson on Sunday.
When the author of Hebrews wanted to exhort his readers to get with the gospel program, among other things he pointed out that the word of God is not something that can be fooled, or fooled with:
Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. (Heb 4:12-13 NRS)
And here it is in the KJV, which is closer to the text of the BoM. Note in particular the standout phrase “quick and powerful:”
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Heb 4:12-13 KJV)
The basic image is that of a two-edged sword. Now we moderns don’t use swords, two-edged or otherwise, unless we’re in a real bind. And in fact, I’d be surprised if all that many folks who read this blog have ever seen a real, serious, two-edged sword outside of a museum. So you can bet that when the BoM uses this verse, the sword business is changed:
Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, like a light saber…
Haha, no, that’s not it! If it were, it would be quite amazing. But here it is:
Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divide asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked — And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out. (Hel 3:29-30)
See, all that sword business is gone! But even more interesting is the matter of by whom this “quick and powerful” word of God is used, and the identity of its target. In the NT, it’s the means by which God determines the kind of folks we are. We’re judged against the word of God, and its power to discern the character of the human heart is metaphorically portrayed by the ability to separate soul and spirit or joint and marrow. In the BoM, the word of God has not lost any of its power to puncture pretensions or rend rationalizations. However, we use it ourselves to judge the thoughts and intents of other people, and in particular those who would exhort us to do some thing or make some choice in their favor. In short, it’s one of God’s gifts to his children, to enable them to separate serious discussion from empty, deceptive rhetoric, which the BoM always associates with the devil.
And gracious me, it’s Labor Day and the beginning of open BS Season the end of the quadrennial American political season! Every four years, too, at just about this same time of the year. Heh.
Black and White
As I have casually wandered around the BoM this summer looking at how it uses the NT, I have noted instances in which it “clarifies” NT ideas, instances in which it “de-complicates” NT ideas, and instances in which it completely changes the meaning. In this post, I’d like to point out an instance in which an NT idea is “updated” so that it speaks more openly to modern issues.
Perhaps the most radically egalitarian statement in the NT is Paul’s affirmation to the Galatians that they have no need of the Law of Moses because of their faith in Christ. Christians are “baptized into Christ” and have “put on” Christ, and in light of this event all the old distinctions are rendered void (Gal 3:26-29):
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Most importantly, Christ was the seed promised to Abraham, so those who are Christ’s are heirs of Abraham’s promise, with no exceptions. But to drive home the point, Paul listed three major distinctions: Jews/Greeks, bond/free and male/female. These divisions were “live” in Paul’s day, of course, but with the exception of gender they are now more or less moribund.
So in 2 Nephi, Nephi makes a similar point with very similar language but notice how the divisions are changed:
For [the Lord] doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
The Jew/Greek distinction is missing because it is replaced by a racial distinction, the heathen get their own mention, and the Jews are paired off against the Gentiles. This last pair, in particular, highlights the promised eschatological unity of God’s covenant people in the Last Days.
Giant Horror Bug Replaced!!!
When last we looked in on how the BoM used something of Paul’s from First Corinthians, we noted that the reference to sin was missing. In this little post I will point out that sin has been replaced by divine justice as the monstrous enemy that threatens humans.
Giant Horror Bug Gone Missing!!!
This is one of those instances of intertextuality where what’s interesting is what’s missing. At the end of 1 Cor 15 Paul uses a victory motif to express the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. Almost, almost, all of the same words are used again in the BoM, by Abinadi, Aaron and finally Mormon. But there is a bit of a difference.
Gall of Bitterness
This expression, which seems pretty strange to moderns, is used a surprising number of times in the BoM. In this post, however, I want to compare how it is used in Alma the Younger’s angelophany (Alma 36) and the story of Simon’s interaction with Peter and John in Acts 8. The interesting thing about it is that although the exact same phrase is used in both stories, I think it expresses quite different emotional states.