Category: Uncategorized

I have posted a review of an important new work in Hebrew Bible study at my blog.

I have a new post up on one of the lesser known deities of the Bible, the god Gad. I argue that Gad is not an independent deity of good fortune, as scholars have often assumed, but is merely an epithet of Canaanite El.

I’ve been thinking lately about the ethics and abuses of the scholarly mantle. As someone who aspires to produce scholarship of worth to my own community and the larger world, I highly value being honest and candid about what I claim to know or do not know, and when I endeavor to advance a definite historical claim I try to be as well informed as reasonably possible, always making sure to get a handle on the full gamut of relevant evidence, even if this process may complicate my working hypothesis or require me to dispense with certain preconceived notions, to seek out alternative discussions or perspectives, realizing that for my argument to become what I want it to be it must be sharpened against the best scholarship available. That, to me, is what it means to be a scholar, to pursue truth and fair-mindedness regardless of personal prejudice or presupposition.

So it really irritates me when I see individuals clothe themselves in the mantle of scholarship as though they were reliable sources of information to write or publish on subjects for popular consumption and at the same time strenuously avoid engaging with credible scholarly analyses or readings of the evidence that would significantly complicate or undermine their point of view. The refusal to acknowledge contrary arguments and the lack of interest in trying to fairly evaluate them is really stunning and bespeaks the overriding importance of devotional concerns in determining what propositions may be considered true or worthwhile. But scholarship it is not, rather the pretense to scholarly authority.

I have a new post up on my blog, which has been changed to a new address (http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com), on the late Iron Age seals recently discovered in Jerusalem.

Iron Age Seals from Jerusalem

The story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt has always been concerning, specifically the part about him asking her to tell others they weren’t married but were brother and sister. One issue, by no means the most important, is that it seems he asked her to lie for him, which could conflict with notions of what a prophet is and is not supposed to do. The parallel account of Abraham, Sarah, and Abimalech claims that it was only a partial falsehood, since Sarah was the prophet’s half-sibling (Genesis 20:12).

In LDS scripture, there is as another solution. As Genesis 12 is rewritten in the book of Abraham, chapter 2, the whole thing is God’s idea:

Here is Genesis 12:11-13:

11 And it came to pass, when he [Abram] was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

And here it is rewritten in Abraham 2:22-25:

22 And it came to pass when he I was come near to enter into Egypt, he the Lord said unto Sarai his wife me: Behold now, I know that thou Sarai, thy wife, art is a very fair woman to look upon; 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee her, that they will say—This She is his wife; and they will kill me you, but they will save thee her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, I pray thee, thou art my she is thy sister, that it may be well with me for they sake; and my thy soul shall live because of thee. 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.

So, yes, Abraham may have asked Sarai to lie for him. That’s OK, though, because God told him to. In other words, right and wrong are defined solely in terms of divine fiat. Does that make this and other scriptural accounts (e.g. Nephi’s slaying of Laban) more or less concerning? If God says it, does that mean we can or should do it?

The answer to my last question might appear obvious to many Latter-day Saints. And if we knew for certain God were speaking, that would be one thing. But all scripture, like the book of Abraham, is written down by humans, not God. God may inspire humans to write; he does not pick up pen and paper himself, however. Thus there is always the possibility that, at least in part, scripture is your speech and mine placed in the mouth of God.

I think we see this plainly in Joseph Smith’s rewriting of Genesis 12:11-13, for example.

That being the case, instead of automatically attributing our motives and actions to God, could we try first acknowledging them as our own? Could we come to grips with the fallibility of scripture and prophets, ancient and modern, with the human, the societal, the cultural element that is in all revelation?

I have put up a draft of my study on plaster wall inscription 4.2 from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which offers a revised transcription, translation, and commentary. If you are less interested in epigraphic analysis, then you are welcome to skip to the exegetical commentary further below. There I present the argument that in the context of Israel-Judah the name Baal referred to El, the head of the Israelite pantheon.

A little post on the god Baal at my blog.

Who is Baal?

The follow post reproduces a post at M* nearly identically. 

Spending any time at all on social media can rapidly distort your sense of reality when it comes to what most Mormons believe. We often forget that more than half of Mormons live outside of the United States and that almost none of these people care about the petty concerns of the various factions out there. In my relatively conservative ward in rural South Dakota, most people don’t follow any of the blog-based battles. Most people are simply too busy getting kids to and from school and various events, as well as doing their callings and trying to find time to go to the temple, to worry about the latest outrage fest.

But every once in a while I follow some on-line conversation down the rabbit hole and end up shaking my head at the angst among various factions. And apparently — unbeknownst to me — there are a LOT of apologist Mormons who hate Mormon liberals. And I am not talking about slight disagreements — I am talking about real hatred (at least in their on-line expressions).

I am not going to defend everything ever Mormon has ever done in the liberal world. I am sure there are mistakes and exaggerations out there.

But I will defend my vision of the importance of liberalism, and it is really quite simple: Satan is happy to use deception to convince people not to be religious and not to believe in the Church. Good liberals simply point out the deception and provide another way of looking at things that supports a faithful point of view.

So imagine you were on the Sanhedrin when Christ was brought up for trial (see Matthew 26:57-67). The accusers were looking for false witnesses. I see liberals as the people willing to stand up and point out the deceptions going on. I see the liberals as those willing to point out all of the good things Jesus did. I see the liberals as those willing to protest a nighttime, unjust trial. I see the liberals adding their testimonies that Jesus is the Christ. What could possibly be wrong with opposing injustice, false reports and outright lies?

 One of the questions I ask myself is: what would I have done if I had been in Jerusalem at that time? Would I have spoken up for the Savior? Would I have even had a testimony? Would I have been one of those people silently standing by? Would I (God forbid!) been one of those people actively trying to persecute the Savior?

I think the same things about the events in June 1844 in Illinois. Would I have been willing to travel to Carthage with Joseph Smith? Would I have been willing to criticize the political environment that allowed him and Hyrum Smith to be killed? Would I have been willing to stand up to the Carthage Greys and point out his innocence? Or would I have remained silent in the face of so much public hatred for the prophet?

We are at a time when much of the world is opposed to our prophets and apostles. We are still a peculiar people. So much of the supposed “information” the public (including many fellow members) has about the Church is either false or highly exaggerated. What could possibly be wrong about trying to set the record straight?

It is ironic that many apologetic Mormons who appear to hate the liberals are sometimes liberals themselves. I have seen people who say they are against liberals set the record straight when somebody says something that is obviously wrong like, “you know, all of those Mormons still practice polygamy.” The apologetic Mormon will, rightly, point out that this is simply not true. So, what is wrong with an liberal doing the same thing about another issue?

My wish is a simple one: in my experience most people have good intentions. This certainly applies to Mormon liberals, even the annoying ones who write things you don’t like. Give these people a break. They are not perfect and none of them pretend to be. But their intentions are good. They are the people who see themselves defending the innocent, the innocent Savior and the innocent prophet. Every Mormon who has gone to Church for any length of time has liberalized the faith in one way or another. Don’t let yourself feel disdain for people who are trying to do this on a regular basis. They are not necessarily heroes (although some of them may be), but they are certainly trying to do what is right. And that is a very good thing.

I thought this was a nice quote relevant to the perils of choosing history as the site for the disclosure of divine purpose and will:

“Von Rad also made the point, perhaps better than Noth, that the method of Albright and his students, which led to what was known as the ‘biblical theology movement’ (articulated especially by G. Ernest Wright, 1960; see von Rad 1961 for a rejoinder) prioritized the historical events as the basis of religious belief, valuing the biblical story as a testimony to the demonstration of the divine purpose in history, was theologically dangerous. It meant that any biblical texts proving to be unhistorical were left without a function and devoid of religious value. But on the contrary, as Christian scripture, it is the biblical tradition, and not the facts behind it, that should possess authority for the believer.”

Philip R. Davies, The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed