You’ve certainly impressed Fortigurn!
I’m not trying to impress anyone. You consider yourself the self-proclaimed corrector of IRR, well I consider myself somewhat of the same when it comes to sloppy apologetics. Unfortunately you’ve been more inclined to fall into that trap than others have lately, so you shouldn’t take any of this personally.
Kevin, I wouldn’t suggest that you are not intelligent.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Your “logic” as of late has been a bit faulty (see my correction of your D&C 121 misstep)
I think we all know, present company included, that my logic has pretty much devastated your original thesis. After all, you’ve bee ignoring the main points that demonstrate this. You didn’t even respond to the analogy I provided because I think once you stepped back and looked at your logic from outside the box, you realized how ridiculous it was.
No it’s not Kevin. Not until you can provide a citation from the Zohar which depicts the Divine Council.
Nor would I need to since I never declared definitively that this is where he got it. You simply want to shoot down any possibility other than the bizarre leap you choose to take in assuming divine revelation is the best explanation. Look David, are you going to sit there and tell us that the concept of the divine council is not present any of the numerous rabbinical and kabalistic works? I don’t think you are that sloppy, but a straight answer here would clear up where you stand on this. We both know it exists. Just ask the “Backyard Professor,” who writes on this subject profusely, constantly raising parallels from Jewish works which refer to the heavenly council. For if you do not deny that this is the case, it doesn’t matter if it is in the Zohar since my argument is served just the same if we accept the possibility that Smith was informed of this doctrine through his studies with a Rabbi. Ultimately, the main point remains untouched: anything works better than the theologically driven conclusion that it must be divine revelation.
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.”
Yes, and an emphasis on “may have.”
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 Elohim plural?’ He replied, ‘That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible.’” Teachings, 385.
Your response puts too much stock into your own weird interpretation of what was said. There are two problems as I see it: 1) we do not have the testimony of the Rabbi; we only have Smith’s version of what he said, and he makes it clear he is no stranger to exaggeration when he asserts that his teacher “admitted” he was right, especially since his own version of the story reveals no such thing. 2) It would “ruin the Bible” doesn’t necessarily have to mean theologically. Bad grammar can ruin any narrative for obvious reasons. Elohim is not always supposed to be rendered plural as Joseph erroneously asserted. To render any word plural all the time would ruin just about anything in any languages. You are simply making the illicit leap here in assuming what the teacher was trying to say was, “No that doesn’t work because to say gods is against biblical doctrine.”
I see you have continually ignored the point I made with Joseph’s own statement to the fact that he was following translations he had seen before from “others.” This in and of itself proves he was exposed to “others” who shared these same ideas. Who else would be sharing with him these kinds of translations if not Hebrew experts? There were no contemporary Bible translations that rendered Gen 1:1 in the plural, so who is he talking about? So while you’re straining at gnats in the Zohar and trying to prove I’m ignorant of what I speak, Joseph Smith has already made my case for me; you’re just not willing to read it.
The bottom line is this. Joseph Smith’s plural understanding of Gen 1:1 was something he saw elsewhere. From where exactly? He doesn’t specify, but it doesn’t really matter. We know from his own admission that he had been exposed to people who had already pointed out the existence of the “gods” during creation.
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.”
For the sake of argument, let’s assume you are right. This still doesn’t answer the problem I just mentioned above. You’re focusing on irrelevant points trying to disarm a bomb that has already exploded. The painful fact is clear: Smith was exposed to this teaching when "others” had shown him their translations of the text. This wasn’t something Joseph Smith went into his room and prayed about. It was something he learned the same way scholars today learn. He studied the matter out extensively and he was more than willing and excited to share what he had learned through natural means. It was only after he had discovered this via natural means that the Holy Spirit testified to him that it was true.
In what corner of the universe does this count as divine revelation?
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.
At this point your battle is already lost - thanks to the content in the sermon you unwittingly brought up - but I’ll continue to respond to these pithy, condescending remarks anyway, with as much patience and charity as I can muster.
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.
Again, the concept itself is all that is needed, not the word itself. It is the same method by which biblical scholars read the divine council in the Bible.
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!
We both know that is not what I was asking, so calm down. I was simply proving the point that it is fallacious to argue that since verse X doesn’t mention the Y, that this means Y is mentioned nowhere throughout the entire work. This is essentially what you were doing.
I provided the first commentary the Zohar provides on a divine council text in order to illustrate the general thrust.
And I simply saying that by this logic, since Joseph Smith didn't retranslate the various divine council passages accordingly, he must not have accepted it either. You’re nothing if not inconsistent David, and we both know there is a reason why you keep dodging these points.
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
When all else fails, appeal to your own authority. Since DCP is not around to do it for you in here, I guess you have no other choice but to rely on yourself.
Actually the word “council” doesn’t appear in the Book of Abraham. How’s that for another refutation of something you’ve said?!
I misspoke; I meant to say it refers to it. But this is absolutely amazing. You maintain that the Book of Abraham finds evidence in the ANE concept of the divine council, but the Book of Abraham doesn’t have to mention the words. Yet, the Zohar has to mention it explicitly; otherwise there is nothing in it that would lead a reasonable person to see it there. I guess why have one standard when you can have two for twice the fun, huh?
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:
Excellent. Have any more from another source other than the JPS? Keep in mind that by asking you this, I do not mean to suggest that I believe the divine council doesn’t exist in the Bible. I am simply proving the point that not all scholarship agrees with you, as you superciliously maintain. Perhaps you need to step away from that liberal echo chamber called Brandeis, and take a whiff of some conservative scholarship you hold in contempt. You haven’t even tried on your newly minted Ph.D or scholar’s training wheels, and you’ve already shown more passion for apologetics and attacking conservative scholarship, than anything else. At this rate you're bound to make Nibley look objective.
I never claimed that scholarship has or ever will vindicate all of Joseph’s claims. No need to erect a rhetorical straw man.
No straw man here, nor is one needed. You have made it clear that scholarship has served to support Joseph Smith’s claim as a prophet. Please name some of your mentors in academia who would appreciate that kind of “scholarship.” This seems to be your main purpose for choosing a career in academia. To dig for proofs and evidences for the Church while claiming some level of authority.
Ok. The second I say that, feel free to correct me.
Ok, then what are you saying then? You seem to be saying that the discovery of the Enuma ELish has caused certain scholars to prefer the divine council interpretation throughout the Hebrew Bible therefore that must be the case. So, how does one make that connection? To what extent do we allow the liberal persuasion to foist the Enuma Elish into biblical hermeneutics?
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
What I am saying is that it is not warranted to translate ‘edah as “council” every time it refers to a group of angels or people. The word is used in contexts described above, no doubt. However, the word is also used to describe a “swarm” of bees, and I don’t need to tell you that bees are not members of any council. The rendering is appropriate if the context supports it. If it can be shown that the context supports it, then I probably wouldn’t oppose. My point is that all of scholarship clearly doesn’t feel like it is always appropriate.
by the way, how many Bible translations render the Gen 1:1 elohim in the plural, as Joseph Smith insisted? This is what I am talking about when I say you rig the game from the start. You want to use scholarship as yoru agenda driven litmus test for Joseph Smith's authority, but you dare not apply it consistently. You merely pick and choose the tiny snippets where you think Smith scored a "hit," while completely ignoring his propensity to miss the entire dartboard. This kind of bias is clear to anyone without a bullet-proof testimony, and it will haunt you throughout your entire career if you're not careful.
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.”
This is no explanation at all. This revelation was given in 1843, a full decade after most of the JST was completed. So what are you talking about here? Smith clearly makes a distinction between gods and angels. Saying he was just going by the KJV, in order to explain the error of this “revelation”, is not doing you or Joseph Smith any favors.
D&C 132:17;20 “For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever… Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”
Of course, modern scholarship not only offers zero support for this, it flat out contradicts it. Angels are gods. The only thing that distinguish a malak elohim from a regular elohim is function. Smith’s revelation here is akin to saying some privileged humans will be rulers over restaurant hostesses, and that they are humans because they rule hostesses. Again, this is incoherent for anyone who is up to snuff on the latest Old Testament scholarship. But I suspect you’ll let the apologist in you take over and deny what you already know to be true.
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.”
Wow. So Smith’s “revelations” were subject to faulty 19th century scholarship.
That there exists a divine council of deities in the Hebrew Bible? Well, by all means, show us some of these scholars who disagree!
**Straw man alert **
You know fully well that is not what I said, and you have read enough of my own writings to know I would never argue that point.
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.
It isn’t the raw knowledge; it is how you apply it with reckless abandon in your apologetic endeavors. Raw knowledge has yet to help you in any of your arguments with me, although I’m sure you probably think that loading up pages with fluff somehow wins weaker minds over at MAD.
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.
Interesting.
So when the prophet Joseph Smith in 1833 set out to provide the Church with an “inspired” version of the Bible, the end product cannot be used to determine whether or not he was actually inspired. On the other hand, Bokovoy logic dictates that when Joseph Smith admittedly reads some “others’” translations about a divine council in Gen 1:1, and he later employs it in his own scriptures, that this is evidence of “divine inspiration” even though Smith never claimed it was.
I think some might understand why I do not get offended when people who make arguments like these, criticize my logic.
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!
Oh come on, and stop pretending to be offended by a little sarcasm and metaphor.
If you do not assume the host of heaven is always in reference to the divine council, then please, do tell, what is the criterion in determining whether or not this rendering is justified?
Yes. Yes. I’m well aware of Sarna’s views. I do attend his school.
Yes, we had this discussion before. I recall, after I demonstrated how Sarna disagreed with you thoroughly, you insisted that his student – your professor Marc Brettler - surpassed him in knowledge and insights.
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?
It doesn’t. But thanks for completely dodging my follow-up comment. Here, I’ll give you another chance to respond to this. I previously said:
“Now can you please explain to us why this is supposed to be understood as evidence of anything else other than the fact that he was able to read and comprehend Psalm 82:1 from the KJV, which says, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods”?
Really, David. I mean with this bizarre standard for “evidence,” we might as well go ahead and note that the mention of “Jesus” in the Book of Mormon is as “evidence” that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Again, your argument is only persuasive to those who suppose there is nothing already in the Bible that refers to God standing before a group. Psam 82:1 says this quite explicitly; even in the KJV it is clear.
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
When? Above you said it doesn’t always refer to the divine council, so how do we know when it does? When the self-proclaimed gods of academia make their pronouncements from Brandeis, or maybe it has something to do with context?
You really don’t have any clue what the argument hangs on do you?
Yes, it hangs not only on your obstinate and naïve presupposition that Joseph was a prophet whose prophetic authority can be established via Hebrew scholarship, but it also hangs on your uncanny ability to completely ignore the bane of your argument, that has already been presented; not by me mind you, but by Joseph Smith himself.
Until you do a bit of reading from the sources I gave you, I’m not going to spell it out for you.
You might be the Hebrew expert, but I am expert in translating apologetic rhetoric. What you said translates as follows: “Crap! You caught me in a catch-22 and I cannot risk explaining what I meant to say, therefore I will attack your lack of knowledge without demonstrating it.”
I’m afraid this whole section is totally irrelevant since you do not understand the issues at hand.
Then offer your so-called “corrections” if you can. Where am I wrong here? We now you too well to believe you would pass up an opportunity to refute someone on any given point, if you really could.