Hello Kevin,
No, the reason you are dwelling on a point I have since declared moot, is because you are still trying to score points where you no longer can. You’re trying to relive your single lay-up while I have been sinking three-pointers left and right.
Indeed. Keep sinking those three-pointers Kevin. You’ve certainly impressed Fortigurn!
My logic is clear to anyone willing to read it, so let me repeat.
Kevin, I wouldn’t suggest that you are not intelligent. Your “logic” as of late has been a bit faulty (see my correction of your D&C 121 misstep),
Smith probably obtained knowledge about the divine council through natural means. His experience with a Kabbalist is just one possibility that I threw out on the table. I read the Hamblin article but he never denied Smith had contact with him. He never denied that Smith was familiar with portions of the Zohar. But whatever its dubiousness, this is still far more plausible than your proposed divine revelation scenario which flies in the face of Smith’s own rationale.
No it’s not Kevin. Not until you can provide a citation from the Zohar which depicts the Divine Council.
You tried to mitigate any influence Smith could have had from his Jewish teacher by saying he wasn’t necessarily a Jewish mystic.
No, Kevin, you entirely missed what happened. You stated that Joseph’s views regarding the divine council of deities may have derived from “his correspondences with Rabbis, such as his Hebrew professor.”
As a response, I provided what Joseph describes as the response his Hebrew professor gave to Joseph’s views regarding a plurality of gods:
“I once asked a learned Jew, ‘If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?’ He replied, ‘That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible.’” Teachings, 385.
Apparently Joseph’s Hebrew professor was not too keen on the Prophet’s views, so I seriously doubt that Joseph simply picked up the notion from “the results of his correspondences with Rabbis, such as his Hebrew professor.”
I simply stated that the fact that Joseph Smith quoted the Zohar is evidence in itself that the form of Judaism he was dabbling in was in fact mysticism, because that is what the Zohar is. In Jewish Mysticism, the divine council is an accepted concept. Whether the Zohar itself explicitly or implicitly hints to a divine council is really beside the point because I already established a plausible case that Smith had familiarity with this Kabbalistic concept.
Nope. If you’re going to argue that Joseph Smith may have picked up the notion of a divine council of gods from the Zohar then the issue of whether the Zohar itself explicitly or implicitly hints to a divine council is really, very, very important.
The reality is that the Zohar does not refer to a divine council of gods.
Do I have a Zohar on hand? No.
I do.
Have I ever read the Zohar? Portions of it, yes.
Apparently not very much of it.
Am I alone in saying the Zohar supports a doctrine that could naturally be understood as a divine council? Apparently not. This comes from an online course on the Zohar; Eating from the Tree of Life: A Course on the Zohar -
“The Zohar often imagines God as a whole family. The Zohar shares this vision of plurality in God with other Kabbalistic works…Indeed the Zohar purposely challenges the assumptions of monotheism”
http://www.kolel.org/zohar/intro.2.html
Your on-line adult learning source is correct that the Zohar “challenges the assumptions of monotheism” but until you can provide a reference from the Zohar (which I know that you can’t) where it depicts a divine council of deities in any way, shape or form, you should probably abandon the argument.
You pick one verse where you say the Zohar must render it "divine council" and then assume this proves the Zohar doesn't support the concept anywhere else. By that logic, since Joseph Smith didn't retranslate the various divine council passages accordingly, he must not have accepted it either.
My heavens, Kevin! The Zohar is a multi volume commentary on the first five book of the Old Testament! I’m not going to type up and post every non-reference to the divine council from the Zohar! I provided the first commentary the Zohar provides on a divine council text in order to illustrate the general thrust.
You’re all over the place, speaking incoherently.
Indeed. How I ever managed to earn a BA, MA, and now almost a PhD while publishing articles and books, speaking at scholarly conventions held at Yale, Harvard, etc. with my propensity towards “speaking incoherently” is more mysterious than anything ever written in the almighty Zohar itself!
First you go off with citations whereby Smith uses the word “council,” and then you jump to the above statement as if it were a natural follow-up statement.
It is a natural follow-up statement.
Smith used the word council, sure. It appears in the Book of Abraham a few times. I never denied that so stop pretending you’re refuting anything I said.
Actually the word “council” doesn’t appear in the Book of Abraham. How’s that for another refutation of something you’ve said?!
My quotes from Joseph’s teachings and revelations provide a partial response to your question regarding the importance of the word “council,” as opposed to “assembly,” etc. As the quotes illustrate, the term “council” is very significant. Hope that clarifies the point for you.
As far as the above statement goes, apparently you do not understand what the word “refer” means? When I say the KJV refers to a divine council, I mean to say it alludes to one.
Yes, that is one example from one verse out of a dozen, from one modern translation among hundreds. Is that it your evidence that the entire world of scholarship agrees? Where else is a scripture translated “divine council”?
Recent translations do not always appear with the adjective “divine,” (then again, neither did Joseph’s use of council). But here are a few that illustrate the difference between the KJV and the Jewish Publication Society Translation:
“But he who has stood in the council of the LORD, And seen, and heard His word — He who has listened to His word must obey… If they have stood in My
council, Let them announce My words to My people And make them turn back From their evil ways and wicked acts (Jer. 23:18, 22)
“For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?... But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings” (KJV)
“A God greatly dreaded in the
council of holy beings, held in awe by all around Him?” (Psalm 89:8)
“God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (KJV)
“Have you listened in on the
council of God? Have you sole possession of wisdom?” (Job 15:8 JPS)
“Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?” (KJV)
If scholarship is truly vindicating Smith’s claims, then why aren’t scholars retranslating Gen 1, Rev 1:6, and several other passages Smith appealed to?
I never claimed that scholarship has or ever will vindicate all of Joseph’s claims. No need to erect a rhetorical straw man.
It isn’t enough to say the concept is believed to be there because some scholars choose to use the Enuma Elish as an interpretive backdrop.
Ok. The second I say that, feel free to correct me.
The fact is most translations do not refer to “council” because a council is literally a group of beings who serve a particular function.
Translation of what, Kevin, the word ‘edah in Psalm 82? The term refers to a “council’ that in ancient Israel held important administrative roles. The most important study remains Jacob Milgrom’s work which explains that as a council, the ‘edah was:
“A political body invested with legislative and judicial functions, such as I) to bring trial and punish violators of the covenant, be they individuals (Num. 35:12, 24-25; Josh. 20:5, 9), cities, or tribes (Josh. 22:16; Judg. 21:10); 2) arbitrate intertribal disputes (Judg. 21:22; cf. v. 16); 3) crown kings (I Kings 12:20) and 4) reprimand its own leaders (Josh. 9:18-19);” Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983): 5-6
Just like angels are all gods (eloheim) but not all gods (eloheim) are angels (malak). What sets an angel apart from other eloheim is their function as messenger. Joseph Smith also got this wrong when in the D&C he says that we as gods will be called gods because we will rule over angels. But according to the Hebrew Bible angels are gods. That's yet another strike against Smith's "prophetic insight."
Hardly. D&C 132 to which you allude represents an amalgamation of three distinct questions Joseph had while “translating” the KJV of the Bible.
Hence, the language of the revelation specifically reflects wording featured in the KJV which discusses both “angels” and “Gods.”
In Joseph’s theology, however, angels and gods did not represent a distinct species. Just as angels and gods represent the same species in the Hebrew Bible.
As you correctly suggest, in the Old Testament, the angels simply serve as “lesser” divine beings, just as they do in the Prophet’s revelation.
Besides, Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English language defined an “angel” as “any being whom God employs to execute his judgments.” The fact that the angel is a being whom God may “employ” suggests that Joseph’s 19th century revelation simply refers to those lesser beings whom the exalted Gods will “rule over.”
Now, how exactly did Joseph get this one wrong? In the same way he “messed up” in D&C 121?
You clumsily refer to “scholars” in a generalized way, while trying to hide the fact that not all of them agree with this.
Agree with what Kevin? That there exists a divine council of deities in the Hebrew Bible? Well, by all means, show us some of these scholars who disagree!
You know this of course, but that has never stopped you from generalizing as if all of scholarship was behind you.
It is.
This has always been a pet peeve I have had with you, and it seems you’re not at all interested in moving away from sloppy polemic and towards responsible scholarly reports.
I’m sorry I’m such a torn in your side. Perhaps if you knew a few things about contemporary sholarship you wouldn't be so peeved.
But oddly enough, this is not found in Smith’s “inspired” translation of the same exact biblical text. And even odder is the fact that the RSV translators who rendered the Psalms passage accordingly, chose not to do so with the passage above.
I have no idea why on earth you believe that I should consider this point “odd.” I don’t believe for a second that the JST restores an original text.
It is not always safe to assume the entire “host of heaven” is a council membership by default, just because the Enuma Elish seemed to imply it in its own version of creation.
That’s not why scholars believe that the “host of heaven” refers to the council by default. I addressed this issue with a source in my response given to your cheerleader. I hope that you didn’t miss it while shooting your three-pointers!
It is irresponsible to assume everything in the Enuma Elish should be used to supplant what is in the Hebrew account, simply because it is older and there were obviously some borrowed concepts.
I don’t assume this.
This is why not all scholars agree that the Hebrew Bible is just borrowed myth from an earlier one found on the Enuma Elish tablets.
Neither do I
Nahum Sarna for example, believed that the Hebrew account only borrowed certain aspects so it could better challenge the older belief system.
Yes. Yes. I’m well aware of Sarna’s views. I do attend his school.
It wanted a relationship to be manifest, but a correlation of correction, not inferiority. His argument was perfectly sound, and it made sense. Of course the earliest readers of the Hebrew account would notice resemblances to the Babylonian account. The whole point seems to be a correction of the former myth. If the Hebrew account didn’t include explicit mention to “council” then maybe that is done for a purpose.
Actually, Kevin, this is a very good point. Well done! I believe that partial answers for this issue appear in Baruch Halpern’s “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” Eretz-Israel (2003): 74-83.
I’m quite pleased that you finally raised a good point!
In any event, it is pretty unfair for you to demand that the precise word be found in the Zohar ( a work I have declared irrelevant so many times I cannot keep track) when the same exact words don’t appear to exist in the Enuma Elish (a work you insist is entirely relevant).
It’s not the word, Kevin, it’s the depiction. The portrayal never appears in the Zohar. Besides, I thought we had moved on.
Wow. This coming from a guy who said he saw God standing in front of him? What a shocking discovery. Must be divine revelation!!
I’m sorry. In what way does the fact that Joseph Smith saw God standing in front of him negate the very real fact that the portrayal of a divine council story in the Book of Abraham includes multiple references to the idea that God “stood” in that setting?
Your entire argument hangs on the assumption that since the Enuam Elish seems to depict a divine council, and the Enuma Elish is a similar creation account with striking parallels to the Biblical account, then this means that every instance of “heavenly host” should be retranslated as “divine council.”
The relationship between the creation account in Genesis 1 and the story of creation in Enuma Elish has no bearing on the fact that “heavenly host” refers to the divine council (again, see the reference I provided to you cheerleader).
You really don’t have any clue what the argument hangs on do you? Until you do a bit of reading from the sources I gave you, I’m not going to spell it out for you.
But that is not how biblical translations generally work, which is why only the RSV was able to sneak in that rendering in one measly instance, without a protest The Bible is a translation of Hebrew records, not Phoenician or Akkadian records. It is not intended to be a translation of what some liberal scholars assume those Hebrew records should have said. If that is what they are doing, then they are betraying our trust. There is a perfectly good word in Hebrew for council, and for some reason the Hebrew authors decided not to use it in these particular instances. If there is no contextual reason to insist these verses define a group functioning as a council, the only other reason to render it as such is to beg the question: Does the Enuma Elish take precedence over the earliest Hebrew texts? If so, then where do we draw the line in what we choose to supplant? Maybe we should go ahead and refer to God as Marduk? If not, then why not?
I’m afraid this whole section is totally irrelevant since you do not understand the issues at hand.
I think you already know you’re not going to intimidate me by throwing out a dozen sources for me to read.
I’m not trying to intimidate. I’m trying to educate. Because you’re not even close to understanding the issues at hand. Whether you choose to educate yourself or not is up to you.
I think you know which side I fall on here. I have read the relevant material for both sides.
?????
The Enuma Elish is interesting with its striking parallels to the Hebrew account of creation, but I have yet to read a compelling argument to believe pieces of it can arbitrarily be snagged and used to supplant portions of, and to recreate the traditional Hebrew account.
Irrelevant!
You’re too easily swayed and molded by the liberal scholars you worship.
No doubt!
This is as far as I'm going with you Kevin. I’m not going to serve as your personal tutor to help you work through these issues. I’ve given you the references.
I’m not trying to offend Kevin, but this really is like someone trying to explain Calculus to someone who possess only rudimentary Math skills.
I’ve got an SBL presentation to put together on the divine council in Amos 3:13.
Good luck,
--DB