Secular Biblical Scholarship and Mormonism

[_marg]

What you are referring to maklelan, is ad hominem fallacy. Once a discussion gets underway to resolve an issue, then tactics may be used to shift focus off the issues onto the person, to avoid the issues. That's considered fallacious argumention. So far in this thread, there has been virtually no progression of a discussion towards resolving an issue.

And I've made every effort to try to get people back on the topic. I've not been the one avoiding the issues.

As I've indicated, I've had a difficult time understanding what assumptions you are making and then from there what your issues are. I'm getting the impression that those discussing with you are not agreeing with your basic assumptions. And when they indicate that, you are interpreting it as off topic. However when you lay out for me what your assumptions are (if you do) and then the issues perhaps I will better appreciate.

It may well be argued in any discussion that some personal attacks/criticisms are not fallacious to the issues and are relevant. However in the Celestial there is be no hint of personal attacks, which means that all personal attacks/criticisms whether fallacious or not are disallowed.

How is one supposed to succeed at debate if they're not allowed to criticize methodologies and find fault with logic and rhetoric? I don't think those are personal attacks.

An intellectually honest discussion is meant to try to reach truths. If one starts out with faulty assumptions and/or premises and proceeds into a discussion the conclusion reached will be unreliable if the assumptions were wrong or faulty. So although you may wish to make assumptions/premises and have no one disagree with them, in an intellectually honest discussion, one in which a reliable conclusion is sought, it is justified to question or disagree with those assumptions using reasoning. So I do not think Ray or aussie guy were wrong with their logic, I think they disagreed with your assumptions. If the discussion evolves further and becomes more clear what your assumptions are and then issues, any off topic posts should be moved out. At this point I'm not convinced the issue you perceive of poor methodologies and faulty logic & rhetoric is justified.

As far as how to proceed, don't criticized the person. In these examples you are criticizing the person:

- The perspective I'm talking about manifests a marked lack of critical thinking.

- 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'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.

- don't pretend you're trying hard to stay on topic

[_maklelan]

As far as how to proceed, don't criticized the person. In these examples you are criticizing the person:

- The perspective I'm talking about manifests a marked lack of critical thinking.

- 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'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.

- don't pretend you're trying hard to stay on topic

I believe these are perfectly respectable and legitimate ways to assess a person's methodologies and argumentation, but I will refrain in the future.

[_CaliforniaKid]

John also teaches that all human beings who are born of the spirit "are spirit." Being spirit does not preclude having a body.

The passage to which you are referring reads as follows:

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

To say here that those who born of the Spirit "are spirit" cannot mean that they "have a spirit". Presumably we all "have a spirit", regardless of whether we are born of the Spirit or not. Rather, what is described here is a transformation into a spiritual being. Such beings are like the wind (pneuma: breath, wind, spirit); they blow wherever they please, and no one can tell whence they come or whither they are going. John tells us that Jesus is the only one who has ever been to or come from heaven (3:13). There he shared in God's light, love, and glory. He imparts this light, love, and glory to his disciples so that they cease to be "of this world" and become instead "sons of light" (12:36; ch. 17). Only those who are thus born of spirit can "see the kingdom of God". Is this because John conceives of the kingdom as a metaphor for a spiritual reality? The only other passage in the fourth gospel that mentions the kingdom is 18:36, where we read that "My kingdom is not of this world. [...] My kingdom does not have its origin here." John 17:3 speaks of eternal life as knowledge of God. Jesus also says that his disciples will "be with Me where I am." In other words, they will ascend spiritually to heaven and share with the Logos in the divine light and glory. John tells us in 6:63 that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Hardly a Mormon perspective!

By the way, an important backdrop to keep in mind while reading John's gospel is Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-8. The Logos of John's prologue is basically Wisdom under a Middle Platonic name. Jesus was thought to be the fleshly incarnation of this pre-existent Wisdom/Logos. WoS says,

"For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom."

Wisdom is here spirit, breath, light, and image of God. The understanding of spirit here is a Stoic one: spirit is rarified matter that "passeth and goeth through all things" because of its purity (as the resurrected Jesus walks through a locked door in John 20:19, perhaps).

In any case, all of this is to say that the verse you cite describes a process of transformation whereby we are changed into spiritual beings precisely because we serve a spiritual God. The notion that this proves God has a body is entirely backwards.

but it also speaks of the "fulness" of God. "Fulness" (pleroma in Greek) was in the first century a technical term referring to the realm of divine light that constitutes God's being.

Only in Gnostic circles. In the New Testament the it was much more general. See Romans 11:12, 25, where pleroma is used to refer to the fullness of the Gentiles. Ephesians 1:10 and Galatians 4:4 refer to "the fullness of times." Several scriptures refer to God's fullness, including that Christ received all of it (and still had a body).

The word pleroma does mean simply "fullness"-- or perhaps more exactly, "that which 'fills out' something"-- and certainly had a more mundane usage in which it could refer, for example, to the complement of a ship or to times and Gentiles and the like. But the term as applied to God refers to God's own being-- that which "fills out" God. Perhaps calling it a "technical term" was too strong, but certainly in the first century it was vogue in philosophical circles to use the term to denote the essence of a non-anthropomorphic deity. The Platonists used it of the pantheistic world-soul, Hermetic literature of the All or Cosmos, Philo of the essence of his immutable panentheistic deity, and the gnostics used it of the totality of the aeons that emanate from the realm of divine light (along of course with that realm itself). The Gospel of John, by the way-- and particularly its prologue-- bears a remarkable similarity to Philo. Although its author is not thought to have been directly influenced by Philo, it is generally agreed that they ran in the same Hellenistic Jewish circles and imbibed the same Platonizing Wisdom/Logos-speculation. In any case, applying the term "fullness" to God doesn't make a great deal of sense if God is a corporeal individual. How could the "fullness" of God indwell Jesus if God's "fullness" includes a physical body? The attempt to interpret John's deity as an anthropomorphic being is nothing short of patent nonsense, if you ask me.

Origen makes it clear many Christians believed God had a body. It was the Hellenic appropriation of Christianity that did away with that.

Rather, it was the Christian appropriation of Hellenism. Said appropriation occurred for good reason, and can be seen already in the New Testament.

But completely overhauling a perspective on God's nature is distinct from correcting faulty assumptions about the natural universe.

Why is that?

So you accept all of Plato's doctrines?

No. Like the early Christians, I try to limit myself to the doctrines about which Plato was right.

Best,

-Chris

[_maklelan]

To say here that those who born of the Spirit "are spirit" cannot mean that they "have a spirit". Presumably we all "have a spirit", regardless of whether we are born of the Spirit or not.

I don't know how that's relevant.

Rather, what is described here is a transformation into a spiritual being. Such beings are like the wind; they blow wherever they please, and no one can tell whence they come or whither they are going.

But this doesn't preclude God having a body because he "is spirit."

John tells us that Jesus is the only one who has ever been to or come from heaven (3:13).

He says no one has ascended up to heaven except him. That doesn't at all mean no one else has ever been to heaven, but this still has nothing to do with God having a body.

There he shared in God's light, love, and glory. He imparts this light, love, and glory to his disciples so that they cease to be "of this world" and become instead "sons of light" (12:36; ch. 17). Only those who are thus born of spirit can "see the kingdom of God". Is this because John conceives of the kingdom as a metaphor for a spiritual reality? The only other passage in the fourth gospel that mentions the kingdom is 18:36, where we read that "My kingdom is not of this world. [...] My kingdom does not have its origin here." John 17:3 speaks of eternal life as knowledge of God. Jesus also says that his disciples will "be with Me where I am." In other words, they will ascend spiritually to heaven and share with the Logos in the divine light and glory. John tells us in 6:63 that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Hardly a Mormon perspective!

That's because it's your interpretation. You're presupposing the univocality of John and an underlying rhetorical agenda that's far from self-evident.

By the way, an important backdrop to keep in mind while reading John's gospel is Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-8. The Logos of John's prologue is basically Wisdom under a Middle Platonic name. Jesus was thought to be the fleshly incarnation of this pre-existent Wisdom/Logos.

That debate is so far from being settled, and you haven't even addressed the other possibilities or the implications of reading John's Prologue as a cosmogonic hymn. You also haven't deal with the Prologue's textual problems.

WoS says,

"For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom."

Wisdom is here spirit, breath, light, and image of God. The understanding of spirit here is a Stoic one: spirit is rarified matter that "passeth and goeth through all things" because of its purity (as the resurrected Jesus walks through a locked door in John 20:19, perhaps).

Using the Wisdom of Solomon as an interpretive key to John to the exclusion of everything else isn't going to get you much closer to John's intentions.

In any case, all of this is to say that the verse you cite describes a process of transformation whereby we are changed into spiritual beings precisely because we serve a spiritual God. The notion that this proves God has a body is entirely backwards.

You'll notice I didn't say it proved God had a body. I said it didn't preclude it.

The word pleroma does mean simply "fullness"-- or perhaps more exactly, "that which 'fills out' something"-- and certainly had a more mundane usage in which it could refer, for example, to the complement of a ship or to times and Gentiles and the like. But the term as applied to God refers to God's own being-- that which "fills out" God.

I've found no such indication in any lexicon, grammar, or critical commentary. It seems to me to be another definition derived from ones own interpretation of the passages in which it's used.

Perhaps calling it a "technical term" was too strong, but certainly in the first century it was vogue in philosophical circles to use the term to denote the essence of a non-anthropomorphic deity.

Can you please cite some contemporary texts that demand such a reading?

The Platonists used it of the pantheistic world-soul, Hermetic literature of the All or Cosmos, Philo of the essence of his immutable panentheistic deity, and the gnostics used it of the totality of the aeons that emanate from the realm of divine light (along of course with that realm itself). The Gospel of John, by the way-- and particularly its prologue-- bears a remarkable similarity to Philo.

Scholarship has all but dismissed Philo as a significant influence on John's prologue. The Aramaic memra, divine Wisdom, and a messianism cognate with that of the Essenes all provide much better contexts for the development of the logos.

Although its author is not thought to have been directly influenced by Philo, it is generally agreed that they ran in the same Hellenistic Jewish circles and imbibed the same Platonizing Wisdom/Logos-speculation.

No, it's not generally agreed.

In any case, applying the term "fullness" to God doesn't make a great deal of sense if God is a corporeal individual.

Only if you demand that John be read through an exclusively Greek philosophical framework. I don't agree with that.

How could the "fullness" of God indwell Jesus if God's "fullness" includes a physical body? The attempt to interpret John's deity as an anthropomorphic being is nothing short of patent nonsense, if you ask me.

You're demanding a far too literal and restrictive reading of pleroma. Tell me, why does Colossians 2:9 feel the need to clarify that it's all (pan) the pleroma of God, and why does it have to say, "pertaining to the body"?

Rather, it was the Christian appropriation of Hellenism. Said appropriation occurred for good reason, and can be seen already in the New Testament.

Reference to Hellenism can be seen, but appropriation of it is not clear. Can you provide an example?

Why is that?

You're not about to change your perception of the nature of God because of what science or philosophy says. You're more than willing to adjust non-critical ideologies, but things like the corporeality of God aren't about to be amended because of some philosophical theory.

No. Like the early Christians, I try to limit myself to the doctrines about which Plato was right.

Best,

-Chris

So you're cherry picking and then asserting the transcendence of Plato's reasoning only for those cherry picked issues? Hmm.

[_aussieguy55]

If God has a body does this mean he as a penis, anus and bellybutton. Do you believe that God was once a man, a baby born to another God? Where does it ever end? Do you accept the teaching of the Follett discourse and Pres Snow's statement?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Mak, I spent a long time assembling that post this morning. You seem to have just dismissed it with a wave of your hand, without putting in a comparable effort to defend an alternative interpretation or to show that there are credible scholars who agree with you. You also attribute to me things I did not say, like that Philo influenced John or that Plato's reasoning is "transcendent". I am not interested in exchanging petty barbs. I also don't feel inclined to spend another several hours tracking down references in order to rebut your one-line dismissals. So I will simply close with this: you asked about professional biblical scholarship. I recommend you begin with Tobin, T. H., "The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (1990): 252-69 and then take a crack at Perkins, Pheme, Gnosticism and the New Testament, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

[_harmony]

I'm not being facetious, but I don't understand how Biblical scholarship can be secular?

[_maklelan]

Mak, I spent a long time assembling that post this morning. You seem to have just dismissed it with a wave of your hand, without putting in a comparable effort to defend an alternative interpretation or to show that there are credible scholars who agree with you.

I believe there are some fundamental logical fallacies holding up much of your argument, and I don't think it's necessary to fully engage an argument propped up by fallacy, especially if I can't see how it relates to the discussion. I'll be happy to put together a list of articles to refer to, though. Here are some preliminary articles regarding John's Christology:

E. L. Miller, "The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos," Journal of Biblical Literature 112.3 (1993): 445-57.

Daniel Boyarin, "The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John," Harvard Theological Review 94.3 (2001): 243-84.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumran Messianism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000).

---------------, “Qumran Literature and the Johannine Writings,” in Life in Abundance: Studies in John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown (John R. Donahue, ed.; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005)

Howard M. Teeple, “Qumran and the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” in The Composition of John’s Gospel (Readers in Biblical Studies 2; David E. Orton, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamental Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially Its Elites, in North America (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002).

Masanobu Endo, Creation and Chrsitolgy (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 149; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

You also attribute to me things I did not say, like that Philo influenced John or that Plato's reasoning is "transcendent".

You said that John and Philo bear a striking resemblance, especially in the prologue. What was your intention if not that one text influenced the other? Was it that they come from the same worldview or perspective? There's quite a bit of distance in time and space separating those two texts, so you've got more splainin' to do if that's your contention.

You've also incorrectly cited me, like when you claimed I asserted John proved God had a body.

I am not interested in exchanging petty barbs.

Nor am I, but I don't feel obligated to respond to a lengthy discussion when I believe the premise upon which it is based is faulty, or if it is not particularly relevant to the topic of discussion.

I also don't feel inclined to spend another several hours tracking down references in order to rebut your one-line dismissals. So I will simply close with this: you asked about professional biblical scholarship. I recommend you begin with Tobin, T. H., "The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 2 (1990): 252-69 and then take a crack at Perkins, Pheme, Gnosticism and the New Testament, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

My comments regarding Tobin's article:

- Tobin claims wisdom cannot be the source because the role of logos does not fill the entire role of wisdom, but this discounts the ideologically intermediate role played by the Aramaic memra, which became a kind of catch-all for roles originally played by wisdom and other creative roles developed later in Judaism. He points out roles of the logos not played by wisdom, but the memra filled these roles in Second Temple Judaism. See Boyarin's article for that discussion.

- He appeals to Philo without addressing the problems with this hypothesis. Philo used the word logos over 1200 times to describe almost innumerable different qualities of God, only a few of which correspond to the Johannine logos. Philo describes the logos as the glue that holds all existing things together and gives life to the world, whereas the Johannine logos is presented as inimical to the world. Boyarin also takes issue with a Philonic logos.

- He appeals to the similarity between Philo's midrash of Gen 1:1 and that of John, but the Targums of Genesis also put the memra in the beginning, acting as the instrument for God's creative acts, and with the link to wisdom literature, this squares better with the Johannine logos.

Regarding Perkin's book, the conclusion is not one with which I disagree, namely that the Johannine logos and the gnostic perspective may have developed independently out of the same theological milieu. One has to avoid the creation/incarnation reading of the prologue, however, and instead read it from a perspective which sees the word as first the divine revealer. I don't think that reading is preferable. I think the memra reading is more parsimonious, and there is more evidence of interaction with that tradition and with the messianism from which the Qumran community sprang.

[_maklelan]

I'm not being facetious, but I don't understand how Biblical scholarship can be secular?

That is scholarship performed by secular scholars with negative assumptions about the supernatural. There are quite a few atheists and agnostics in biblical scholarship.

[_CaliforniaKid]

maklelan,

Thank you for your most recent post, which definitely goes much further toward generating meaningful discussion than did the previous one. I obviously do not have time to immediately run out and read all the articles you cited, but since you focused primarily on Boyarin I will read and respond to that article as time permits. The Miller piece also sounds interesting, and I will try to get to that as well. I read one chapter of Gundry's book some time ago and recall not being especially impressed either with his reading of John or with the thrust of his argument. Is there are particular section in that book that you feel is relevant to the present discussion?

Best,

-Chris