Secular Biblical Scholarship and Mormonism

[_maklelan]

Even if it is established that ancient Israelites believed in a corporeal deity, what does that tell us about the true nature of God? That they got it right? And the Greeks got it wrong?

That's another discussion for another time. I'm hoping to focus in this thread on how Mormonism relates to what the scholarship has to say, not on theological speculation.

[_Ray A]

That's another discussion for another time. I'm hoping to focus in this thread on how Mormonism relates to what the scholarship has to say, not on theological speculation.

You're narrowing it down to a specialised discussion, and I can assure you there aren't many specialists here, if any. Few, if any, are really going to be interested in Hebrew symbols and establishing a corporeal nature for God from ancient Hebrew texts. That tells us nothing about how beliefs changed, nor why they changed, nor why Christians leaned heavily towards Hellenistic thought.

[_maklelan]

You're narrowing it down to a specialised discussion, and I can assure you there aren't many specialists here, if any. Few, if any, are really going to be interested in Hebrew symbols and establishing a corporeal nature for God from ancient Hebrew texts. That tells us nothing about how beliefs changed, nor why they changed, nor why Christians leaned heavily towards Hellenistic thought.

If there are no specialists, then I'd be happy to move onto another aspect of the corporeality of God from an academic perspective, as our worldview is again compatible. Your questions provide a good springboard.

The corporeality of God became outdated (in Judaism) because of the increasing influence of Hellenistic thought, the introduction of converts from a Hellenistic worldview, and the need for the theology to syncretize in order to survive. Christians leaned heavily toward Hellenistic thought because Greek intellectual converts (who syncretized their new religion with their long-held philosophies) became the vehicle for legitimizing the Christian worldview within Greek and Roman cultures (which scoffed at what they perceived to be an unenlightened theology), and which ultimately appropriated Christianity for their own benefit. The corporeality of God was one of the first victims of this new perspective, as Origen manifests quite clearly.

[_Ray A]

The corporeality of God became outdated (in Judaism) because of the increasing influence of Hellenistic thought, the introduction of converts from a Hellenistic worldview, and the need for the theology to syncretize in order to survive. Christians leaned heavily toward Hellenistic thought because Greek intellectual converts (who syncretized their new religion with their long-held philosophies) became the vehicle for legitimizing the Christian worldview within Greek and Roman cultures (which scoffed at what they perceived to be an unenlightened theology), and which ultimately appropriated Christianity for their own benefit. The corporeality of God was one of the first victims of this new perspective, as Origen manifests quite clearly.

You'd obviously be aware of President Hinckley's statements regarding "as man is...". "I don't know that we teach that....". GBH "doesn't know"? Yet he was taught this all his life? Now there may have been some "media PC" at work here, but given this precedent (unless you want to accuse him of being a liar?), it demonstrates the "flux" and "progress" in doctrine. He has also said of polygamy, "it's behind us". No public statement avowing Mormon belief that this is an "eternal principle" has ever been issued to the media. If you can find one, I'd be obliged. My point here is that ideas, beliefs, and even doctrines can change. And you do not know the mind of the President of the Church anymore than I do. When one comes out in a General Conference and validates celestial plural marriage, I will pay attention.

That Jacob Neusner and Harold Bloom recognised "a deeper connection with antiquity than is usually recognized", does not validate that antiquarian worldviews were accurate. It only establishes a "connection", nothing else. So to describe the "corporeality of God" as a "victim" makes little sense. Because you assume that ancient teachings were "more correct", when in fact they may just have reflected the milieu in which they were propagated. It does not establish "truth". Only "ancient connections". If you'd care to read the writings of Edgar Cayce you'll see the same "connections".

You are looking at connections, I'm looking a reasons. And, why should it be assumed that "Christians leaned heavily toward Hellenistic thought because Greek intellectual converts (who syncretized their new religion with their long-held philosophies) became the vehicle for legitimizing the Christian worldview within Greek and Roman cultures (which scoffed at what they perceived to be an unenlightened theology), and which ultimately appropriated Christianity for their own benefit." ?

Who is to say that Hellenistic thought was not accurate? 600 years before Christ the Greeks deduced a spherical earth, which was later confirmed by modern science. So is it wise or prudent to dismiss their other philosophies as "self-serving"? And could ancient Hebrew be thought of as....primitive? They "saw God" how they wanted to see him, and portray him, perhaps? And if this was all so clear to the Hebrews/Jews, why did they reject the "divinity of Christ", or "God becoming man"? The Jewish concept of the messiah in contrast to the Christian one is something that will also have to be addressed here.

If you view this only from "Mormon belief", then to be a real scholar you have to look beyond belief.

That is what David Wright did, and to came to very different conclusions than the ones you appear to be promulgating.

[_maklelan]

You'd obviously be aware of President Hinckley's statements regarding "as man is...". "I don't know that we teach that....". GBH "doesn't know"? Yet he was taught this all his life?

"I don't know that we teach that" means, "I wouldn't say that we teach that." He's trying to steer away from speculation that will obviously only cause more problems. Some people think he should have been more concerned about the maniacally cynical hermeneutics of people who for some reason dedicate a large portion of their lives to whining about other people's belief systems. Not to say you're one of those people, but you're appealing to their litany.

I'm curious, however, what this has to do with early Jewish and Christian theological evolution.

Now there may have been some "media PC" at work here, but given this precedent (unless you want to accuse him of being a liar?), it demonstrates the "flux" and "progress" in doctrine.

I would say the ebb and flow of doctrinal emphasis and correction, which is based on the needs of the members, the trends of society, and the anti-Mormon flavors of the month. The doctrine hasn't changed, he's just trying to direct emphasis away from it in a time when it's being speculated on out of control. Obviously a national interview with Larry King is not the kind of context where he can trust his words will be understood fully and not be twisted by people who want him to screw up. The fact that people are actually insisting he was trying to deny knowledge of the doctrine is a clear manifestation of that proclivity.

He has also said of polygamy, "it's behind us". No public statement avowing Mormon belief that this is an "eternal principle" has ever been issued to the media.

Watching the media digest stories and spit them back out onto the national stage in the manner they see fit has shown me over and over again that they're not the best vehicle for that kind communication. Hopefully you understand what I mean.

If you can find one, I'd be obliged. My point here is that ideas, beliefs, and even doctrines can change.

I think that's a reduction of the facts. What about practices, policies, and emphases? Do they not exist within the church, or do they just get silently grouped in with principles that have a more testimony-relevant impact?

And you do not know the mind of the President of the Church anymore than I do. When one comes out in a General Conference and validates celestial plural marriage, I will pay attention.

And when it actually becomes reasonable to do that in general conference we'll see, but right now it would only be to satisfy the demands of critics who, for the most part, aren't going to change their minds as a result. I don't know if you're included in that, but you can easily see that that motivation is not really that pressing.

That Jacob Neusner and Harold Bloom recognised "a deeper connection with antiquity than is usually recognized", does not validate that antiquarian worldviews were accurate.

Of course not. I never said that was the case, and secular biblical scholarship doesn't deal with that question.

It only establishes a "connection", nothing else.

And that's all I want to establish.

So to describe the "corporeality of God" as a "victim" makes little sense.

Not true. It was an important part of the ancient Jewish and Christian worldview. The belief was seen as a victim by ancient as well as moderns who espouse it. An Egyptian monk is said to have wept openly, crying out that they had taken his God from him when he was told Christianity could not espouse a corporeal God because it was precluded by philosophical constructs.

[_maklelan]

Because you assume that ancient teachings were "more correct", when in fact they may just have reflected the milieu in which they were propagated.

Yes, they may. I am trying to catalyze just such a discussion. It seems, however, the crowd here would much rather presuppose those critical little inferences and move on to other business.

It does not establish "truth".

I don't think determining truth is entirely precluded from the endeavor. I think in this particular situation the theological and historical contexts overlap, in a manner of speaking, and the implications there cannot be overlooked. If one rejects outright the mere possibility of such connections, however, then of course "truth" is never going to be established.

Only "ancient connections". If you'd care to read the writings of Edgar Cayce you'll see the same "connections".

They're not the same connections. The idea of connections with the past may be nominally similar, but the differences far outweigh the similarities in so many ways, and psychic reading is an entirely different story altogether.

You are looking at connections, I'm looking a reasons. And, why should it be assumed that "Christians leaned heavily toward Hellenistic thought because Greek intellectual converts (who syncretized their new religion with their long-held philosophies) became the vehicle for legitimizing the Christian worldview within Greek and Roman cultures (which scoffed at what they perceived to be an unenlightened theology), and which ultimately appropriated Christianity for their own benefit." ?

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. The evidence delineates a very clear evolution of dogma with very clear catalysts and very clear winners and losers. This isn't really a question that's still open.

Who is to say that Hellenistic thought was not accurate?

That has absolutely nothing to do with secular biblical scholarship, but I'd like to point out that you seem to give everything the benefit of the doubt except for Mormonism, toward which you maintain a marked cynicism.

600 years before Christ the Greeks deduced a spherical earth, which was later confirmed by modern science. So is it wise or prudent to dismiss their other philosophies as "self-serving"?

They must be evaluated on their individual merit. It's utterly ludicrous to accept one assertion as true simply because an unrelated assertion from the same source turned out to be true. Keep in mind those people who deduced that spherical earth also deduced that the stars dictated the course of human events, and their deduction of the path of the planets was completely wrong.

And could ancient Hebrew be thought of as....primitive?

It usually is thought of that way by people who think the history of human intelligence diachronically charts a perfectly smooth and exponential rate of growth which will perpetually pinnacle with each coming day. It's the proclivity of some of those who worship at the altar of popular science to see the human mind as in a constant state of linear progress. I happen to think that's a rather simplistic worldview, and I happen to know the historical data show a different story, and what we often presume to be primitive can sometimes be shown to just be a little over our heads.

They "saw God" how they wanted to see him, and portray him, perhaps?

Again, this is the kind of discussion I'd like to catalyze, but it appears these assumptions will only be referenced in passing.

And if this was all so clear to the Hebrews/Jews, why did they reject the "divinity of Christ", or "God becoming man"?

Same reason their doctrines were modified: cultural expediency.

The Jewish concept of the messiah in contrast to the Christian one is something that will also have to be addressed here.

Which Jewish concept? The modern one which has been developed through millennia of polemic with Christianity? The Rabbinic perspective, which is at the beginning of that conflict? The Qumranic perspective? The perspective of the author of Yardeni's stele? Shall we speculate on the Jewish perception of the Messiah that provided fertile soil for Christianity to take hold? What about Isaiah? To which concept do you refer?

If you view this only from "Mormon belief", then to be a real scholar you have to look beyond belief.

First, I don't view this only from Mormon belief. Second, I am a "real scholar." Third, if we have to look beyond belief, why do you continue to try to bring our discussion back to who's beliefs are actually true?

That is what David Wright did, and to came to very different conclusions than the ones you appear to be promulgating.

And is that fact supposed to imply (1) that his results show he did it right, and (2) since my results are different, I'm doing it wrong?

That's how I interpret your statement, but if you meant it another way, please explain.

[_Ray A]

I just got off the phone after talking to my brother for nearly two hours, so I've been unable to reply.

A quick reading of your post tells me that you have some unanswered questions, and it's very clear to me that you approach scholarship from a definte faith/belief-perspective.

Dealing with that is always problematic, unless the scholar is prepared to question his own beliefs. That is not apparent to me in your case.

But I'll reply tomorrow when I get some time.

[_maklelan]

I just got off the phone after talking to my brother for nearly two hours, so I've been unable to reply.

A quick reading of your post tells me that you have some unanswered questions, and it's very clear to me that you approach scholarship from a definte faith/belief-perspective.

Dealing with that is always problematic, unless the scholar is prepared to question his own beliefs. That is not apparent to me in your case.

But I'll reply tomorrow when I get some time.

I don't think my responses at all indicate my scholarship operates within such a framework, and when you are able to respond I would appreciate an explanation. Take your time, though.

[_Ray A]

You'd obviously be aware of President Hinckley's statements regarding "as man is...". "I don't know that we teach that....". GBH "doesn't know"? Yet he was taught this all his life?

"I don't know that we teach that" means, "I wouldn't say that we teach that." He's trying to steer away from speculation that will obviously only cause more problems. Some people think he should have been more concerned about the maniacally cynical hermeneutics of people who for some reason dedicate a large portion of their lives to whining about other people's belief systems. Not to say you're one of those people, but you're appealing to their litany.

A critical look isn't the same as "whining". I haven't appealed to any litany. I saw your thread, and though I don't usually post in the CK, I read it a couple of times and decided it was worth some comment.

I would say the ebb and flow of doctrinal emphasis and correction, which is based on the needs of the members, the trends of society, and the anti-Mormon flavors of the month. The doctrine hasn't changed, he's just trying to direct emphasis away from it in a time when it's being speculated on out of control. Obviously a national interview with Larry King is not the kind of context where he can trust his words will be understood fully and not be twisted by people who want him to screw up. The fact that people are actually insisting he was trying to deny knowledge of the doctrine is a clear manifestation of that proclivity.

I don't know about anti-Mormon trends, but when he gave that interview I told an elderly missionary couple what he said, and they didn't believe me. I had to show them the actual interview. The passing of time diminishes initial disbelief that he would even say that. How this fits "the needs of members" isn't clear to me.

Watching the media digest stories and spit them back out onto the national stage in the manner they see fit has shown me over and over again that they're not the best vehicle for that kind communication. Hopefully you understand what I mean.

I don't see the big deal in admitting what was taught in the Church since the King Follett sermon. Was God once a man? Which Mormon doesn't know the answer to that? Yet curiously you won't find this teaching on LDS.org. GBH was clear in his answer that "I don't know that we teach that", and "we don't know much about it". It connects to this discussion because we're discussing the nature of God, and evolving understandings about the nature of God.

I think that's a reduction of the facts. What about practices, policies, and emphases? Do they not exist within the church, or do they just get silently grouped in with principles that have a more testimony-relevant impact?

And when it actually becomes reasonable to do that in general conference we'll see, but right now it would only be to satisfy the demands of critics who, for the most part, aren't going to change their minds as a result. I don't know if you're included in that, but you can easily see that that motivation is not really that pressing.

I think both these concepts are under revision, the "God was once a man" idea, and plural marriage. I think there's a great deal of upper-echelon uncertainty about both. I don't have the interview at hand now, but a Church spokeswoman said a few years ago (I think about three) that polygamy was now outdated and irrelevant, and discarded just like some Old Testament practices were (I was posting on FAIR at the time I pasted this interview, and Charity's reaction was "she should be fired!" None of the LDS posters could believe what they were reading). It fit quite neatly with GBH's "it's behind us". I don't think many of you members understand what those simple three words really mean. Again, we are discussing concepts relevant to the nature of God, and polygamy is, obviously, connected with an anthropomorphic God. If within two centuries Mormon leaders can become unsure about the nature of God and hesitant to publicly state where they stand, I don't see why any early Israelite theologies cannot be questioned, nor why they should be used to boost a contemporary Mormon belief when the president of the Church himself was saying "I don't know that we teach that". What does establishing ancient anthropomorphic theologies have to do with contemporary Mormonism? Joseph Smith's idea of an anthropomorphic God came late, in the King Follett sermon.

If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.
I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with Him? This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question—What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen Him, heard Him, or communed with Him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Up to this time they did not have this understanding. Do you know that Joseph got this by revelation? Or did he get this idea from contemporary sources, and early Christian theologies, such as from some of the early church fathers?

I also refer you to Steven Epperson's Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel.

Joseph Smith's interest in God's Israel was not exhausted with publication of the Book of Mormon. In the fourteen years until his death, he returned repeatedly to questions of Israel's covenant and election, its gathering and restoration, the reconciliation of its estranged families, and the place of its "adopted" sons and daughters in the Lord's scheme of salvation.

Epperson quoting Brodie:

In response to explosive church growth and an agenda of this worldly kingdom building, "Joseph," Fawn Brodie writes, "began to make learning a personal ideal … [H]idden under the guise of mysticism in Joseph was an insatiable curiosity and hunger for knowledge."1 This hunger was shared by many Mormons similarly deprived of the rudiments of education.2

The influence of Joshua Sexias' ideas on Joseph Smith:

Smith took to Seixas immediately. Seixas's "instruction pleased me much," he wrote of their first day in class. On 30 January Joseph observed, "He is a man of excellent understanding, and has a knowledge of many languages which were spoken by the ancients, and he is an honorable man, so far as I can judge yet."34 Joseph in company with Rigdon, Cowdery, and others often visited Seixas in the latter's private rooms in the evening to converse on the subject of the school, their want of books, particular questions about Hebrew, and religious subjects. Smith remarked that Seixas "conversed freely," that he was "an interesting man," cordial, intelligent, and pleasant.35 Smith lent his own horses and sleigh so that his instructor could visit his wife and children in nearby Hudson during the cold winter months.

We know that many of Smith's ideas didn't come out of the blue, "by revelation".

I also refer you to Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection.

The influence of Alexander Neibaur:

Joseph Smith and Alexander Neibaur were frequent associates. Neibaur had been engaged by Joseph a few days after his arrival in Nauvoo in April 1841. During the last months of the prophet's life, both his and Neibaur's diaries indicate that Neibaur read with and tutored Smith in Hebrew and German.129 Given this friendly relationship, the interests of the prophet, and the background of Neibaur--and perhaps even the books in Neibaur's library--it seems inconceivable that discussions of Kabbalah did not take place. Kabbalah was the mystical tradition of Judaism, the tradition which claimed to be custodian of the secrets God revealed to Adam. These secrets were occultly conveyed by the oral tradition of Kabbalah throughout the ages--so it was claimed--until finally finding written expression in the Zohar and the commentaries of the medieval Kabbalists, books Neibaur possessed. Kabbalah was the custodian of an occult re-reading of Genesis and the traditions of Enoch, it contained the secrets of Moses. And it was a subject that Joseph Smith had probably already crossed in different versions several times in his life. Can anyone familiar with the history and personality of Joseph Smith--the prophet who restored the secret knowledge and rituals conveyed to Adam, translated the works of Abraham, Enoch, and Moses, and retranslated Genesis--question that he would have been interested in the original version of this Jewish occult tradition? And here, in Neibaur, was a man who could share a version of that knowledge with him.

On Sunday afternoon, 7 April 1844, Joseph Smith stood before a crowd estimated at 10,000 and delivered his greatest sermon, the King Follett Discourse.130 Dissension, rumor, accusation, and conspiracy all abounded in Nauvoo on that pleasant spring day, and Joseph was at the center. This would be Joseph's last conference, ten weeks later he lay murdered at Carthage Jail. In this atmosphere of tension, many in the congregation probably expected a message of conciliation, a retrenchment. Instead, the prophet stunned listeners with his most audacious public discourse--a declaration replete with doctrinal innovations and strange concepts that many of the Saints had never before heard. As Fawn Brodie noted, "For the first time he proclaimed in a unified discourse the themes he had been inculcating in fragments and frequently in secret to his most favored saints: the glory of knowledge, the multiplicity of gods, the eternal progression of the human soul."131

Van Hale, in his analysis of the discourse's doctrinal impact, notes four declarations made by Joseph Smith which have had an extraordinary and lasting impact on Mormon doctrine: men can become gods; there exist many Gods; the gods exist one above another innumerably; and God was once as man now is.132 Interestingly, these were all concepts that could, by various exegetical approaches, be found in the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. But even more astoundingly, it appears Joseph actually turned to the Zohar for help in supporting his introduction of these radical doctrinal assertions. (emphasis added)

Remember Smith's saying that he liked to "dig up new things for my hearers", and at the time of the KFS his status as a prophet was under question by many. I suppose you can call this "revelation", but it could also be nothing extraordinary beyond "digging into ancient theologies". It's very debatable whether he was "inspired by God" in any of this, or, if you look at the connections, whether it was really all that "mysterious".

That has absolutely nothing to do with secular biblical scholarship, but I'd like to point out that you seem to give everything the benefit of the doubt except for Mormonism, toward which you maintain a marked cynicism.

I've been studying Mormonism for 34 years, and have been both critical and apologetic. My studies haven't ceased, although they are no where as intense as they once were. I'm not participating in this thread to "prove" anything (and I may well get bored with it and stop replying without notice), only to offer critical perspectives to your assumptions. There's no need to imagine the worst motives on my part. Cynical? Yes I am cynical to much, but it would be much easier to be cynical by just doing a drive by post and mentioning what an idiot you are, but I'm instead actually trying to provide some substance to your thread, which looked like coming to a halt anyway.

They must be evaluated on their individual merit. It's utterly ludicrous to accept one assertion as true simply because an unrelated assertion from the same source turned out to be true. Keep in mind those people who deduced that spherical earth also deduced that the stars dictated the course of human events, and their deduction of the path of the planets was completely wrong.

Einstein wasn't always right, either.

And you answer your own comment below:

It usually is thought of that way by people who think the history of human intelligence diachronically charts a perfectly smooth and exponential rate of growth which will perpetually pinnacle with each coming day. It's the proclivity of some of those who worship at the altar of popular science to see the human mind as in a constant state of linear progress. I happen to think that's a rather simplistic worldview, and I happen to know the historical data show a different story, and what we often presume to be primitive can sometimes be shown to just be a little over our heads.

Which Jewish concept? The modern one which has been developed through millennia of polemic with Christianity? The Rabbinic perspective, which is at the beginning of that conflict? The Qumranic perspective? The perspective of the author of Yardeni's stele? Shall we speculate on the Jewish perception of the Messiah that provided fertile soil for Christianity to take hold? What about Isaiah? To which concept do you refer?

All.

First, I don't view this only from Mormon belief. Second, I am a "real scholar." Third, if we have to look beyond belief, why do you continue to try to bring our discussion back to who's beliefs are actually true?

Probably because of the very first line of your OP:

I'm hoping to use this thread to offer regular updates on some conclusions from secular biblical scholarship that support a Latter-day Saint perspective,

And is that fact supposed to imply (1) that his results show he did it right, and (2) since my results are different, I'm doing it wrong?

That's how I interpret your statement, but if you meant it another way, please explain.

I was getting at whether or not you're open enough to question your own interpretations, and not just approach this from a point of view that "supports a Latter-day Saint perspective".

[_maklelan]

A critical look isn't the same as "whining".

I agree, but I am not referencing a critical look, I'm referencing a cynical look. The perspective I'm talking about manifests a marked lack of critical thinking.

I've explained quite clearly where I was going with this thread and what I wanted to avoid, and you've clearly disregarded that so you can steer the discussion to a more comfortable context. I was fine with that for a time, but don't pretend you're trying hard to stay on topic. You've failed to address my responses to your questions and have only occasionally referenced them in passing in your effort to appear on topic. You've also displayed a marked lack of critical thinking in the discussion you brought up, and it's clear you've not spent a great deal of time formulating your arguments. I'm going to post another topic for discussion, and I'm going to ask that my request to remain on topic be honored.