Bokovoy chronicles

[_harmony]

David will never discuss his apologetics or these arguments with "fellow scholars." He is still just a kid who likes too woo his audience with tales about his associations with other Brandeis scholars.

In all his talk about how only objective scholars are good scholars, he has already paved the way for a reputation as an apologist, which is one of the worst things a scholar can be. And it makes him a hypocrite for he will never be objective. Scholars don't enter the field of biblical Hebrew for the sole purpose of trying to pry evidence for a NRM.

Do you think any of them would care about his crazy theories about how th divine council proves Joseph Smith was a prophet?

It would be the death of him as far as his so-called career in academia goes.

But if he ever does make a name for himself in the field of biblical scholarship, he has already written enough nonsense on these forums to destroy whatever future reputation he might have.

Indeed, he is still young, and depending on his eventual goal (a teaching position at BYU?), he will have to temper his argument to fit his goal. My point is that he learn to control his ego (which is altogether too healthy for the strength of his argument at this point) before it consumes his passion. I'd hate to see him turn into a clone of DCP and a few other professors I've known over the years, whose limited experience in the real world only reinforced their lack of empathy for real world problems . And if the field of Biblical scholarship is so unforgiving as to judge him by the arguments he makes so early in his career, then they also need to look to their own pasts, when surely they were not so well established.

He needs to bounce his arguments off well-versed non-scholars, because eventually, no matter where his career options take him, he will need to be able to reach that audience. I see him as still teachable. Perhaps it is these rose colored glasses I wear that I see the man behind the ego, the student behind the argument. And I think it would help him if he was able to see his argument through your eyes, or Fort's or CK's.

[_Fortigurn]

Just calling it as I see it, it got personal a long time ago when David chose to go that route with me.

I have little respect for people who attack scholarship while at the same time wanting to rely on it whenever it suits their agenda. I have less respect for people who constantly throw up their academic resume to substitute for decent arguments. This is the same kind of thing we get whenever Gee or Nibley is shown to be in error: "But he got a Ph.D from a good school so automatically his argument wins." David hasn't even achieved this yet, but he is already twice as arrogant than Gee and Nibley put together. I never heard them brag about their credentials; it was always their fan base that did it for them.

In David's case, he is his greatest fan, always reminding us of his social circle in academia.

But what always annoyed me most with this new breed of apologists, is the refusal to concede points and the insistence that they are always in teacher mode and everyone else should submit to listening mode. David steps on his feet all the time but then tries to blame others for failing to grasp points he never made, and then has the audacity to claim he is "correcting" mistakes. It is an amazing spectacle for a psychologist to witness. Projection, denial and righteous indignation all rolled up in one arrogant rant.

Well, I called it as I saw it too, heh. But I won't take a dog by the ears and get in your face about a fight which isn't mine. You and he clearly have history concerning which I'm pretty ignorant, so I'll let you two sort that out.

I do agree with you about the new breed of apologists. Another problem I would like to identify is that they are presenting exclusively presuppositional apologetics. This is unhealthy. It's the sign of a church in siege mode, not the sign of a church which believes it has a convincing message for unbelievers. It's only a matter of time before the walls come down.

[_dartagnan]

My main problem with Bokovoy is that he cannot be trusted as a scholar, anymore than Gee, Nibley or Hauglid can be trusted. Take for example the recent thread where I noted that in the Torah, deities could not die, and that this reflected the ANE in general. How does Bokovoy respond? By assuming his audience is so much lower on the scholarly totem pole, that he could pull a fast one by us with this:

Simply because the Ugaritic king does not fit your perception of what it means to be a god, doesn’t meant that the king did not fit the Canaanite perspective of what it meant to be a god. The mere fact that the king was a mortal man did not mean that he wasn’t in their mindset a god.

The kings in the ANE were often called “the image of God” who served as representatives for deity, but they were still quite human as evidenced by their deaths.

How does Bokovoy respond?

The great Baal himself died in Ugaritic mythology.

This is where Bokovoy is guilty of 1) dishonesty or 2) ignorance.

According to Mark Smith, who is a leading authority on the Ugaritic texts:

“In Ugarit even deities who are said to be dead are not permanently so...Baal does not remain permanently dead, for never in the Ugaritic texts is divine death a permanent condition.” (Mark Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 98)

Smith said that whenever deities are called “dead” in Ugarit, this means “defunct,” but that it was never a permanent state. That is what set humanity apart from gods. So when a human king dies, there is no doubt to an ANE mind that a deity he was not.

So either David is trying to deceive us, or he really isn’t getting a quality education as he so often claims.

Which is it?

Either way the implications are the same: he cannot be trusted to provide that “objective” scholarship for which he harshly criticizes Evangelical scholarship. His is an extreme bias of a different color.

[_Fortigurn]

You make an excellent case. Of course, one must expect Bokovoy to be a Mormon apologist first, and an academic second. His use of scholarship will naturally suffer accordingly. This is a danger all apologists of any persuasion face ('JP Holding' happens to be one Christian apologist I believe we could do without, since he is regularly guilty of being more apologist than scholar).

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kevin,

After Ugaritic kings died, weren't they supposed to have lived on as rpn (rephaim)?

[_dartagnan]

== After Ugaritic kings died, weren't they supposed to have lived on as rpn (rephaim)?

True, but at best they lived on to serve as their particular god’s retinue; they are not equal with the other gods and evidence to suggest they became divine council members is either nonexistent or scarce. But the question, I think, was whether or not the sons of God (i.e. Gen 6) in the Torah could have been referring to actual humans. If kings were sons of god while human, then it is plausible that some of the various biblical references are in fact referring to humans. Context is important however, and for me it has the final say. I still can’t figure out why God would punish humanity for the actions taken by “gods” in Gen 6.

Incidentally, there are also notable differences between the Ugaritic and biblical concepts of the rephaim. They served as a cultural identifier for the Canaanite monarchy at Ugarit, whereas in the Bible they represented only the Canaanite dead and thus signaled a cultural “disindentification” with Israel. Smith said the “issues are complex and the evidence tricky,” regarding the dead kings of Ugarit. Indeed. The divinization of kings seems to run contrary to the established rule: humans die. For example, Anat’s promise to Aqhat to make him eternal like the gods is rejected by him as implausible.

What we know from Gilgamesh is the clear dichotomy between humanity and the gods:

When the gods created humanity
They assigned death to humanity
But life they kept in their own hands

Who, my friend can scale heaven?
Only the gods live forever under the sun
As for humanity their days are numbered
Whatever they do is wind

How kings were able to cross that divide is a mystery given the rule above. But the death of kings and their continued existence as spiritual servants to the gods, is not to be equated with the defunct status of “dead” gods whose nature and power never change. Baal was considered defunct whenever the meteorological effects that identify him, were absent for a period. The other gods were said to have been looking for him while humanity erroneously declared him dead.

[_dartagnan]

== After Ugaritic kings died, weren't they supposed to have lived on as rpn (rephaim)?

True, but at best they lived on to serve as their particular god’s retinue; they are not equal with the other gods and evidence to suggest they became divine council members is either nonexistent or scarce. But the question, I think, was whether or not the sons of God (i.e. Gen 6) in the Torah could have been referring to actual humans. If kings were sons of god while human, then it is plausible that some of the various biblical references are in fact referring to humans. Context is important however, and for me it has the final say. I still can’t figure out why God would punish humanity for the actions taken by “gods” in Gen 6.

Incidentally, there are also notable differences between the Ugaritic and biblical concepts of the rephaim. They served as a cultural identifier for the Canaanite monarchy at Ugarit, whereas in the Bible they represented only the Canaanite dead and thus signaled a cultural “disindentification” with Israel. Smith said the “issues are complex and the evidence tricky,” regarding the dead kings of Ugarit. Indeed. The divinization of kings seems to run contrary to the established rule: humans die. For example, Anat’s promise to Aqhat to make him eternal like the gods is rejected by him as implausible.

What we know from Gilgamesh is the clear dichotomy between humanity and the gods:

When the gods created humanity
They assigned death to humanity
But life they kept in their own hands

Who, my friend can scale heaven?
Only the gods live forever under the sun
As for humanity their days are numbered
Whatever they do is wind

How kings were able to cross that divide is a mystery given the rule above. But the death of kings and their continued existence as spiritual servants to the gods, is not to be equated with the defunct status of “dead” gods whose nature and power never change. Baal was considered defunct whenever the meteorological effects that identify him, were absent for a period. The other gods were said to have been looking for him while humanity erroneously declared him dead.

[_CaliforniaKid]

OK, after mulling it over a bit I do think you're correct. Thanks.

[_Fortigurn]

== After Ugaritic kings died, weren't they supposed to have lived on as rpn (rephaim)?

True, but at best they lived on to serve as their particular god’s retinue; they are not equal with the other gods and evidence to suggest they became divine council members is either nonexistent or scarce. But the question, I think, was whether or not the sons of God (I.e. Gen 6) in the Torah could have been referring to actual humans. If kings were sons of god while human, then it is plausible that some of the various biblical references are in fact referring to humans. Context is important however, and for me it has the final say. I still can’t figure out why God would punish humanity for the actions taken by “gods” in Gen 6.

Incidentally, there are also notable differences between the Ugaritic and biblical concepts of the rephaim. They served as a cultural identifier for the Canaanite monarchy at Ugarit, whereas in the Bible they represented only the Canaanite dead and thus signaled a cultural “disindentification” with Israel. Smith said the “issues are complex and the evidence tricky,” regarding the dead kings of Ugarit. Indeed. The divinization of kings seems to run contrary to the established rule: humans die. For example, Anat’s promise to Aqhat to make him eternal like the gods is rejected by him as implausible.

What we know from Gilgamesh is the clear dichotomy between humanity and the gods:

When the gods created humanity
They assigned death to humanity
But life they kept in their own hands

Who, my friend can scale heaven?
Only the gods live forever under the sun
As for humanity their days are numbered
Whatever they do is wind

An excellent post. One would think that Bokovoy, with his extensive knowledge of Ugarit mythology, would have mentioned some of this. But no, he didn't. I wonder why.

How kings were able to cross that divide is a mystery given the rule above.

Hey, there's no rule that Ugarit mythology had to be consistent.

But the death of kings and their continued existence as spiritual servants to the gods, is not to be equated with the defunct status of “dead” gods whose nature and power never change. Baal was considered defunct whenever the meteorological effects that identify him, were absent for a period. The other gods were said to have been looking for him while humanity erroneously declared him dead.

Yes, that's very clear.