Sorry, but its late and I have to go to bed. Hopefuly I can add something to this thread soon. Thanks for starting it.
Gaz
Interesting stuff, Gaz! I noticed that the Gospel of Mary Magdeline wasn't listed on the table in the second reference at all. I wonder what it's origins are? I'll have to do some research.
Jersey Girl wrote:harm: "imperfect conduit" = prophet. Prophets interpret, forget, and do other human things... like lie, be mistaken, be prejudiced, be unkind, misjudge, hurt, be influenced by the society and culture in which they live, and all in the name of God, while putting words in God's mouth. Men then vote on those words, decide what to keep and what to pitch out, and finally agree to accept what's left as scripture. So what we're left with is simply men, trying to make sense of their world, not necessarily God's words at all.
Jersey Girl: harm, the same could be said for the Council of Nicea regarding the Canon.
The Council of Nicea did not discuss the canon. It discussed Arianism.
richard,
Are you saying that the decisions made at Nicea did not lead to selection of the canon?
Jersey Girl wrote:harm: "imperfect conduit" = prophet. Prophets interpret, forget, and do other human things... like lie, be mistaken, be prejudiced, be unkind, misjudge, hurt, be influenced by the society and culture in which they live, and all in the name of God, while putting words in God's mouth. Men then vote on those words, decide what to keep and what to pitch out, and finally agree to accept what's left as scripture. So what we're left with is simply men, trying to make sense of their world, not necessarily God's words at all.
Jersey Girl: harm, the same could be said for the Council of Nicea regarding the Canon.
The Council of Nicea did not discuss the canon. It discussed Arianism.
richard,
Are you saying that the decisions made at Nicea did not lead to selection of the canon?
Yes
Let me restate the question. Are you saying that the decisions made at Nicea did not influence the eventual selection of the canon? If so, how so?
A great example of useing extra-biblical writeings to defend Mormon theology is found in the story of the Book of Enoch. I was a little wary of typeing all this out, then I found it pre-typed for me over at Zlmb by CCrabtree:
The following is an exerpt from Hugh Nibley's "Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price", page 10-13.
"But then comes the big one in 1952 with the Dead Sea Scrolls in the caves. In the first cave there was an Enoch. There was a 1Q Enoch, which came out at an early time, and then the big one, the 4Q Enoch, and 4Q Enoch Astr. That means the Enoch text from the first cave. This is the Enoch text from the fourth cave, and this is the Enoch astronomical text from the fourth cave. They were all handed over to Father J. T. Milik (who lives in Jerusalem) by the Rockefeller Foundation. When these were found, they were to be studied. They were divided up among various schools and committees, etc. He got the Enoch book. He kept it for 27 years without letting anyone look at it. It finally came out in 1976. For example, when I was writing this series, it was absolutely unavailable.
In 1976 Father Joseph Fitzmyer was here and gave a course during the summer school in Aramaic. This writing is in Aramaic, and of course, his fellow Jesuit, Father Milik, would gladly let him see it. "Oh no," he said. Anytime he asked for it, he would hide it under his coat. He wouldn't let anybody see it. For 27 years it was kept out of circulation. Then after I had finished this series, the last day they finally published it. In 1977 it was published by Oxford, and the English was done by Matthew Black. Father Milik and Matthew Black worked together on it. Matthew Black came here the week it came out. He sent me a letter before he came and said, "Is there anything you would like me to discuss about Enoch when I get there." I said, "Yes, the story of Mahujah and Mahijah."
Oh, incidentally, we've got to talk about this thing, what it is. This dates from the third century B.C. Now, we are really back there. We're not in the fourth century A.D. anymore. We are in the third century B.C., and it's in Aramaic. It's the oldest and the best and has all sorts of stories. Well, now this is really something. The one that interested me here was this one about Mahujah and Mahijah. How come Joseph Smith knew the story about Mahujah and Mahijah? That's a story you find in none of the others. None of them mention it. But it is told here, and here it is told by Joseph Smith. Let's just mention it briefly here from the last of the series (August 1977). Father Milik, the Enoch Text from Cave Four. All scholars working on it have eagerly waited during the last quarter century to see what new information would be added, what theories might be toppled, what hypotheses, etc. Now here's what they finally show, but this didn't come out until the last of this series. They cut the series short in righteousness. It was really going to get good, but certain people didn't like it. They got a new person in there that knew not Israel.
Here is the story. What has always impressed me as the oddest detail of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch was the appearance out of the blue of the name of the only non-biblical individual named in the whole book, and that's Mahijah (Moses 6:40Moses 6:40 ). Mahijah was the one who asked Enoch the searching questions. Well, this is what happens. (We are near to it anyway. It's just an example.) There came a man to him whose name; see, everybody is scared to death. Let's go before it, Moses 6:36Moses 6:36 . This is a marvelous picture we get of Enoch. He's a mysterious character, and in all the Enoch literature this is the way he comes across. "…from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people. And it came to pass that Enoch went forth…standing upon the hills and the high places [remember the righteous are always associated with the high places; they have to come up to see him, and they do] and cried with a loud voice, testifying against their works; and all men were offended because of him. And they came forth to hear him upon the high places, saying unto the tent-keepers: [you stay down here, and we will go up and listen to him] Tarry ye here and keep the tents, while we go yonder to behold the seer, for he prophesieth, and there is a strange thing in the land; a wild man hath come among us." Now here's the story we get from here, and it is never mentioned in any of these. "…for fear came upon all them that heard him; for he walked with God. And there came a man unto him whose name was Mahijah, and he said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art and from whence thou comest. And he said unto them: I came from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day [they had retained their righteous condition unto this day]. And my father taught me in all the ways of God. And it came to pass as I journeyed from the land of Cainan by the sea east, I beheld a vision;…" He goes on, and then he talks about the book and says "why counsel ye yourselves and deny the God of heaven?…And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless, we know them and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know [because of this book], even Adam. For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God;…" Then he read to them from the book and they were ashamed. They couldn't face him when he read to them from the book and couldn't stand in his presence.
Well, I just had time for this concluding article, which they would allow only two pages for, to match these up. From Moses 6:39Moses 6:39 : "And it came to pass when they heard him, no man laid hands on him; for fear came on all them that heard him; for he walked with God." From 4QEnoch: "Thereupon all the giants and the nephilim took fright [when they heard about Enoch]." Joseph Smith: "And there came a man unto him whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art and from whence thou comest?" 4QEnoch: "And they summoned Mahujah [Mahijah; it's written both ways] and he came to them. And the giants asked him and sent him to Enoch, saying to him: Go then and under pain of death you must listen to his voice; and tell him that he is to explain to you and to interpret the dreams. [Tell them exactly who you are. He comes to them, and he said unto them, Tell us plainly who comest.]." They are scared; they don't know who Enoch is, so they force Mahijah to go and ask who they really are. He's scared and he doesn't want to do that. The principal giant is Ohyah; he's the head of them. Ohyah said to Mahijah: "And I do not tremble. Who showed you all these things? Why do you tell us this?" And Mahijah said, "Baraq'el, my father, was with me." That Baraq'el is interesting too because Baraq'el is supposed to have been the father of Enoch. That's the name Enoch goes by in the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith is called Enoch or Baraq'el. A professor in Hebrew at the University of Utah said, "Well, Joseph Smith didn't understand the word barak meaning 'to bless.'" But Baraq'el means the "lightning of God." That was one of the names that Enoch bore. The Doctrine and Covenants is right on target in that, and this confirms it, that he is called Baraq'el here.
Anyway, he said to them (Moses 6:41Moses 6:41), "I came out of the land Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day." In 4QEnoch here Ohyah comes and following him Mahujah comes and reports to the people that sent him and says, "My accusers, they dwell in the heavens; they live in holy places, and they are more powerful than we." So again Enoch says, I come from a land of righteousness to this day. And his answer is, They dwell in holy places, and there is nothing much we can do about them. And then Enoch tells the story: And as I journeyed by the sea east, I beheld a vision: and lo, the heavens I saw. As I was journeying, I went up on the mount and beheld the heavens open. 4QEnoch: "Mahujah rose up in the air like a whirlwind, and he flew and crossed Solitude, the great desert. And he caught sight of Enoch, and he called to him and said to him: An oracle * * * [it breaks off]." And Enoch said, "We cannot deny…for a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God and it is given in our own language."
4QEnoch: "Unto you, Mahijah the two tablets * * * and the second has never been read up until now. It is the sacred book of * * *. The copy of the second tablet of the Epistle written by Enoch, the distinguished scribe, with his own hands." Remember, written by the finger of God. It says according to the pattern given by the finger of God. The finger of God didn't write it. Enoch said he wrote it according to the pattern given by the finger of God in our own language . And here it says, "Written by Enoch, the distinguished scribe, in his own hand, and the Holy One, to Shemihazah and all his companions." The record is sent from the Holy One (that's from God) to Shemihazah. Then it goes on, "And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence." This one says: "Ohyah said to Hahyah, his brother * * * [the two leading giants] they were struck with fear and prostrated themselves and began to weep before Enoch." Here Enoch says, "Loosen yourselves from your bonds of sin. Repent from the sin that ties you up and begin to pray." Then the giants come to battle against Enoch.
The Joseph Smith version says, "Enoch led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled,…" And this one says, "(Ohyah the enemy of Enoch): '…by the strength of my power, I had attacked all flesh and I have made war with them…" This is the leader of the hosts saying, "They live in holy abodes, and they are more powerful than I." Then the next verse is interesting: "…and the roar of lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly,…" 4QEnoch says, "And the roaring of wild beasts came, and the multitude of wild animals began to cry out. And Ohyah spoke…' My dream has overwhelmed me and sleep has left my eyes.'" They even have the animals howling out of the wilderness here. "The roar of lions was heard out of the wilderness." It sounds so incongruous, so odd, there. Incidentally, this isn't my translation I've been following. I have been using Milik's translation.
As I said, Matthew Black was coming. He had just got this work out. I said, "How about this? Joseph Smith has this story, and nobody else has it. Where did he get it from?" He wouldn't talk about it (absolutely nothing). When he came from the airport, he had it in his pocket. He said, "Here's your letter here."
I said, "All right, how about Mahijah and Mahujah?" Nothing. I had one four-hour conversation with him, and he never let out a peep about it. That's when we went to a concert together. But he did let this out. Walking along, he said, "Well, someday we will find out the source that Joseph Smith used. Someday we'll find it; we'll find it, don't worry."
Well, just what are the chances of Joseph Smith (living in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1830) getting hold of any of these sources or anything else? Of course, none of this was there. But when you get things like this, they are awfully hard to explain. It is really quite remarkable."
From Nibley's "Enoch the Prophet" p. 277 we get:
"In all of these ways, the Qumran IV Enoch fragments reinforce rather than reinterpret what we as Latter-day Saints already knew about Enoch. But these newly translated pieces add one genuinely new bit of information to our store—something that is probably the most objective test yet of Joseph Smith's prophetic powers.
What always impressed me as the oddest detail of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch was the appearance out of the blue of the name of the only nonbiblical individual named in the whole book—Mahijah. ("Moses 6:40Moses 6:40.) Mahijah is the one who asks Enoch searching questions, and in answer is told about the place Mahujah, where Enoch began this particular phase of his mission. ("Moses 7:2Moses 7:2.) It was therefore with a distinct shock of recognition that, after having looked through all but the last of the Aramaic Enoch fragments without finding anything particularly new, and coming to those very last little fragments, I found the name Mahujah leaping out of the pages again and again. (Pp. 300, 302, 305, 311, 314.) Could this be our Mahujah or Mahijah? As a matter of fact it could be either, not only because the semi-vowels w and y are written very much alike in the Aramaic script and are sometimes confused by scribes, but also because the name as written in 4QEn, MHWY, is the same as the MHWY-EL who appears in "Gen. 4:18Genesis 4:18 as the grandfather of Enoch, transliterated in the King James Bible as Mehuja-el, which name also appears in the Greek Septuagint as Mai-el and in the Latin Vulgate as Mavia-el, showing that Mahujah and Mahijah were the same name, since Mai (the Greek had no internal "h") could come only from Mahi-.
So what? A coincidence—a giant or a Watcher called Mahujah or Mahijah. But far more than a coincidence when taken in its context. The only thing the Mahijah in the Book of Moses is remarkable for is his putting of bold direct questions to Enoch, thus giving the patriarch an opening for calling upon the people to repent, referring them to the book of remembrance, and telling them of the plan of salvation. And this is exactly the role, and the only role, that the Aramaic Mahujah plays in the story. The name is found in none of the other Enoch texts and neither is the story: it is peculiar to the version Joseph Smith gave us and the oldest known Enoch manuscripts."
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
What both Jersey Girl and I were curious about, EE, is how you define Gnostic Christianity.
Liz, apologies if this has already been covered. I have always been under the impression that 'gnosticism' is a terribly difficult word to pin down. I understand that Gnosis means knowledge or secret knowledge, and that there were many religions some linked with christianity that came to be known under this banner,or who had elements of gnostic ideas within them.
Who influenced who, is difficult to pin down, and the evidence of the extent to which Jesus incorporated gnostic ideas into his own ministry is tantalisingly scarce. The young man you runs out naked, just before Jesus is captured (in Mark) offers a possible glimpse of an account that may have been in the gospel, but was considered secret doctrine not for the uninitiated and so gnostic in nature, I don't know.
51And there followed Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. 52And he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.
Mark is known as one of the earlier accounts (60's - rather than 80' though I understand that there are some who would dispute this), and he 'may' have got his ideas from Peter, at least, again, there are some traditions which suggest this.
It's a real puzzle. I have concluded, at present that Jesus of Nazareth most definitely existed, what he was 'really' like, what he taught, and who he was influenced by (John the baptist for instance, who had his own set of teachings) are another matter.
What both Jersey Girl and I were curious about, EE, is how you define Gnostic Christianity.
Liz, apologies if this has already been covered. I have always been under the impression that 'gnosticism' is a terribly difficult word to pin down. I understand that Gnosis means knowledge or secret knowledge, and that there were many religions some linked with christianity that came to be known under this banner,or who had elements of gnostic ideas within them.
Who influenced who, is difficult to pin down, and the evidence of the extent to which Jesus incorporated gnostic ideas into his own ministry is tantalisingly scarce. The young man you runs out naked, just before Jesus is captured (in Mark) offers a possible glimpse of an account that may have been in the gospel, but was considered secret doctrine not for the uninitiated and so gnostic in nature, I don't know.
51And there followed Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. 52And he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.
Mark is known as one of the earlier accounts (60's - rather than 80' though I understand that there are some who would dispute this), and he 'may' have got his ideas from Peter, at least, again, there are some traditions which suggest this.
It's a real puzzle. I have concluded, at present that Jesus of Nazareth most definitely existed, what he was 'really' like, what he taught, and who he was influenced by (John the baptist for instance, who had his own set of teachings) are another matter.
Is the LDS temple endowment ceremony an example of secret knowledge? What about the 2nd anointing? What about the initiatories?
I would have thought so Harmony. What think you?
Of course Joseph would have been influenced by Freemasons for much of the temple ceremony, and where they (the Freemasons) got their information and practices is the subject of much debate and speculation as far as I am aware.
Harold Bloom's coupling of Joseph Smith to the Gnostic tradition has aroused animated disagreement among students of Mormonism and Gnosticism alike. Several questions crucial to modern Gnostic studies are raised by this emerging dialogue: What is the relationship of later "Gnostic" movements to classical Gnosticism? Were rudiments of the tradition conveyed to post-classical groups by historical links (oral transmissions, myths and texts); was it instead the independent product of a recurrent type of creative vision? Or are dual forces of historical transmission and primary Gnostic experience generally interdependent, even occultly linked? While Joseph Smith had historical connection with late remnants of Gnosticism conveyed by Renaissance Hermeticism and Kabbalah, his religious creation nonetheless clearly derived in large part from a personal experience. Was that primal creativity "Gnostic"? If so, how did it relate to the matrix of tradition?
The complexity of these questions defy simple declarations. Nonetheless, Smith did apparently espouse themes familiar to Gnosticism--prominent among them being his affirmation of the reality and necessity of continuing, individual revelation as the source of salvific knowledge. Joseph Smith and his religion eschewed theology in favor of the dynamic process of revelation. The result was best summarized in what Bloom remarked to be "one of the truly remarkable sermons ever preached in America", a discourse delivered by the Prophet on April 7, 1844. Known as the the King Follett Discourse, it was Joseph's last major address to his church, presented just ten weeks before his death at age 38.
"There are but very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God," he began. "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend their own character." Within humankind there is an immortal spark of intelligence, taught the Prophet, a seed of divine intellect or light which is "as immortal as, and coequal with, God Himself." God is not, however, to be understood as one and singular. Turning to Hebrew and an oddly Kabbalistic exegesis of the first three words of Genesis (an exegesis probably taken directly from the Zohar), Smith pronounced there are a multitude of Gods emanated from the First God, existing one above the other without end. He who humankind calls God was Himself once a man; and man, by advancing in intelligence, knowledge--consciousness--may be exalted with God, become as God.
Near the beginning of his ministry in 1833, Smith declared "the glory of God is intelligence", eternal and uncreated. Those who wish to find in him a Gnostic have pointed out that Smith used the word "intelligence" interchangeably with "knowledge" in his prophetic writings during this period. Indeed, they suggest, his words might be read poetically to proclaim God's glory is Gnosis--a Gnosis that saves woman and man by leading them together to a single uncreated and intrinsically divine Self.
Two months after giving the King Follett Discourse, Joseph returned to these first Hebrew words of Genesis and the subject of plural Gods. Thomas Bullock transcribed his remarks on the rainy Sunday morning of 16 June 1844. This was to be Joseph's last public proclamation on doctrine; eleven days later he lay dead. Joseph first introduced his subject--the plurality of Gods--then again read in Hebrew the opening words of Genesis and repeated his interpretation of Bereshith bara Elohim, using much the same phrasing recorded two months earlier in the King Follett Discourse. He then turned to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man," the same passage interpreted in the Zohar to imply a plurality of Gods. After reading the verse aloud in Hebrew, he interpreted the text and found in it the same occult import given by the Zohar: The God "which has no superior or equal" (the Zohar's words), the "Head one of the Gods" (Joseph's term) addressed the "other Gods," Elohim in the plural translation, saying "let us make man." Bullock transcribed his remarks thus: "if we pursue the Heb further it reads [here he apparently read in Hebrew Genesis 1:26] The Head one of the Gods said let us make man in our image. . . . in the very beginning there is a plurality of Gods--beyond power of refutation--it is a great subject I am dwelling on--the word Eloiheam ought to be in the plural all the way thro."145
As he began his exegesis of the opening Hebrew phrase of Genesis in the King Follett Discourse, Joseph stated that he would go to the "old Bible." In Kabbalistic lore, the commentary of the Zohar represented the oldest biblical interpretation, the secret interpretation imparted by God to Adam and all worthy prophets after him. Joseph certainly was not using the knowledge of Hebrew imparted to him in Kirtland nine years earlier when he gave his exegesis of Bereshith bara Elohim, or plural interpretation of Elohim. Was then the "old Bible" he used the Zohar? And was the "learned man of God" he mentioned Simeon ben Yochai, the prophetic teacher attributed with these words in the Zohar?
Joseph wove Hebrew into several of his discourses during the final year of his life. In these late Nauvoo discourses, however, he interpreted the Hebrew not as a linguist but as a Kabbalist--a reflection of his own predilections and of the fortuitous aid of his tutor, Alexander Neibaur.146 But in conclusion, we need to step back from this discussion of words and see that behind them resides a unique vision, a vision characteristic of the occult Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. Harold Bloom called the King Follett Discourse "one of the truly remarkable sermons ever preached in America." It is also a remarkable evidence of the prophet's visionary ties to the archaic legacy of Jewish Gnosticism and to the single most influential force in the evolution of Christian occultism: the Kabbalah.
I loved this article/Book. Lots of facinateing insights into Joseph.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato