Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:I laughed out loud with moderate irreverence when I read this, but then I thought about it for a moment and I realized that you may very well be correct here and not exaggerating at all. I find reference to some work by LDS scholars regarding "the Book of Adam".


If we examine the various texts Joseph Smith translated, and read them in conjunction with various accounts of Joseph Smith explaining his scriptural works, I think we have to conclude that Joseph Smith believed in a primeval yet sophisticated culture of literacy that began with Adam and was passed down to his descendants. This culture of literacy was connected with the priesthood. Indeed, in one passage of the Book of Moses, it is a priesthood. In my view it is easy to infer that Joseph Smith saw his vision of God as his true ordination, and that the production of sacred texts naturally followed upon this ordination.

Here is Adam's Book of Remembrance in Moses 6:

5 And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration;

6 And by them their children were taught to read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled.

7 Now this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also.

8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;


Notice how the skill of writing inspired scripture is equated with the priesthood. And Joseph Smith here gives you the mechanism by which the account of the opening of Genesis was originally composed in Adam's day. Joseph is transmitting it to you by the same mechanism, i.e. priesthood, by which Adam originally wrote the Book of Remembrance and the Book of the Generations of Adam. ("Now this same priesthood… shall be in the end of the world also.")
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _Kishkumen »

Now consider Mormon's initiation into this cult(ure) of record keeping:

Mormon 1 wrote:2 And about the time that Ammaron hid up the records unto the Lord, he came unto me, (I being about ten years of age, and I began to be learned somewhat after the manner of the learning of my people) and Ammaron said unto me: I perceive that thou art a sober child, and art quick to observe;

3 Therefore, when ye are about twenty and four years old I would that ye should remember the things that ye have observed concerning this people; and when ye are of that age go to the land Antum, unto a hill which shall be called Shim; and there have I deposited unto the Lord all the sacred engravings concerning this people.

4 And behold, ye shall take the plates of Nephi unto yourself, and the remainder shall ye leave in the place where they are; and ye shall engrave on the plates of Nephi all the things that ye have observed concerning this people.

5 And I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi, (and my father’s name was Mormon) I remembered the things which Ammaron commanded me.


He is taught about the records, but he does not possess them or add to them. Then something happens at the age of 15:

15 And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus.

16 And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

17 But I did remain among them, but I was forbidden to preach unto them, because of the hardness of their hearts; and because of the hardness of their hearts the land was cursed for their sake.


Like Joseph Smith, Mormon has a vision of God at ca. 15, after he has been taught about the tradition of preserving and adding to the sacred scripture. Mormon then leads Nephite armies at the age of 16, and only after some period of time doing this:

Mormon 2 wrote:17 And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron.

18 And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man.


So you see the pattern. He is educated in the cult of record keeping, he has a vision of Jesus, and then somewhat later he retrieves the plates and begins to add to them things concerning his own time.

Go back and look carefully at the language Mormon uses of his experience encountering Christ and then think of Lehi's dream. The vision of Christ is part of the angelically guided interpretation of the tree.

1 Nephi 8 wrote:10 And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.

11 And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.


In the very next chapter after Lehi's dream, Nephi describes how he makes his plates.

Then, in chapter 11, Nephi sees what Lehi saw, but the tree of life is here explicitly connected to a vision of Christ:

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

*****

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.


The vision of Christ accompanies the initiation into the culture of producing sacred records.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _huckelberry »

"The vision of Christ accompanies the initiation into the culture of producing sacred records."

Kishkumen, though apparently simple you may have outlined an essential plot in Joseph's personal story of self understanding. I wonder if it allowed him to believe he possessed serious latitude in the production of stories.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _Gadianton »

Bokovoy has received some emails from folks much better informed than I am, who have asked his place on the "minimalist vs. Maximalists" spectrum. I was not aware of those terms until reading his post, but now I see that this is precisely the question that needs to be asked to frame the debate between Gee and Bokovoy.

Forgive the source, but for the absolute beginner, I found the material extremely helpful:

http://atheism.about.com/library/books/ ... _BAR01.htm

The author makes plain sense of the source material I awkwardly commented on. Apparently, Thomson is known as "king of the minimalists" so we're sniffing in the right area here.

the 'about' guy wrote:On the one side are the maximalists, researchers who argue that the Bible is an accurate and informative guide to the history and culture of ancient Israel. On the other side are the minimalists, recent scholars who argue that the Bible is actually a record of what later generations mythologized about their history.


Ok; plainly Gee is a maximalist except:

The minimalist side is represented by Philip Davies, who argues first and foremost that the difference between minimalists and maximalists is not as great as it might at times appear - this is because the maximalists have had to abandon a great deal of their traditional ideas about the historicity of many portions of the Bible


They are an attempt of later generations to develop and lay claim to an identity, not an attempt at disinterested historical reporting.

Curiously, the so-called "biblical maximalists" accept that as being an accurate assessment of quite a bit of the Bible, at least up until the "United Monarchy" at the time of David and Solomon, when Israel and Judah were still part of one kingdom.


So that makes a great deal of sense out of my frustration that in Van Seter's summary of positions, there is not an example of an apologetic position that holds Israelite historiography is even an attempt at objective history. So if Gee's position is that the Bible contains objective historiography (a subtle distinction here with 'objective history' in that we're discussing the framework the 'scribes' worked within not the reliability of the output per se) then he's far more conservative than the maximalists, and perhaps, he's out of scope for mainstream study.

Note a clue in a recent posts (and I think someone brought this up earlier):

http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2015/ ... icity.html

Craig Blomberg is an inerrantist. I am not. Blomberg still takes a more skeptical view of biblical historicity than I do.


Am I reading this right that this chap Blomberg, an inerrantist, is more skeptical of biblical historicity than Gee is? That would seem to put Gee in an extremely conservative space; one that is uncommon.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _huckelberry »

Gadianton wrote:Bokovoy has received some emails from folks much better informed than I am, who have asked his place on the "minimalist vs. Maximalists" spectrum. I was not aware of those terms until reading his post, but now I see that this is precisely the question that needs to be asked to frame the debate between Gee and Bokovoy.

Forgive the source, but for the absolute beginner, I found the material extremely helpful:

http://atheism.about.com/library/books/ ... _BAR01.htm


Ok; plainly Gee is a maximalist except:

The minimalist side is represented by Philip Davies, who argues first and foremost that the difference between minimalists and maximalists is not as great as it might at times appear - this is because the maximalists have had to abandon a great deal of their traditional ideas about the historicity of many portions of the Bible

Gadianton
from your link,
"Although Devers does a fine job in offering evidence that a culturally distinct group was developing by the 10th century BCE at the latest, he ultimately does nothing to rebut the idea that the biblical stories are themselves later cultural products set in earlier time periods."

I could not help but thinking that the general proposal that the stories are later cultural productions leaves us with a whole spectrum of possible relationships between story and actual events. I find it straight forward to think the exodus story is a mystical tale inviting all Israel into a renewed covenant relationship with God. Reading it without expertise I can still sees pieces and stories fit together to make this larger story. I might image that all refers back to a band of escaped slaves with other stories attached expanding it into a larger more marvalous tale.. Somebody else might see no slaves leaving Egypt, just a cultural mistrust of Egypt. Others might see the events happening much as we read.
Each of those pictures could be versions of the creation of a mystical tale by people in a later period.

I could not help but chuckle when I read in the article that it would be nice if more people were aware of the discussion. I think there are a number of people like Little Nipper who would not accept or be influenced by either Maximal or minimalist versions of the discussion. In celestial forum he has encountered the discussion with no discernible effect.

I also chuckled about your comment on "inerrantist". For many Evangelicals, they are under a political obligation to support Biblical inerrancy. The political adoption of requiring assent to inerrancy did not change the fact that different Evangelicals have different understandings of Biblical history so as a result there is something of a spectrum of meanings for "inerrant" That spectrum probably overlaps the minimalist maximalist spectrum a little on the maximalist side.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _Gadianton »

Huck wrote:I also chuckled about your comment on "inerrantist". For many Evangelicals, they are under a political obligation to support Biblical inerrancy. The political adoption of requiring assent to inerrancy did not change the fact that different Evangelicals have different understandings of Biblical history so as a result there is something of a spectrum of meanings for "inerrant" That spectrum probably overlaps the minimalist maximalist spectrum a little on the maximalist side.


That's very interesting Huck, and I defer to your greater experience here. I suppose if you are correct that makes more sense out of Gee's self-description.

As far as the link I provided in general, I cannot vouch for it, but I thought at least for the points I highlighted, it did a good job putting into perspective the basic range of positions -- based at least on my own foray into Van Seters.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Gee's Latest Volley on Hebrew Bible

Post by _huckelberry »

Gadianton wrote:As far as the link I provided in general, I cannot vouch for it, but I thought at least for the points I highlighted, it did a good job putting into perspective the basic range of positions -- based at least on my own foray into Van Seters.


I agree, as a summary I thought it did that job well.
I meant no complaint about your comments about it.
Post Reply