By John C.
After about a week of retirement, I have decided to come back (technically, it took less time than that). Honestly, I have conflicting emotions regarding my return, but I feel like this is the right thing for me right now (much to my own surprise, even).
That said, I am moving away from using my own name. Not that I am ashamed of my writing here and not that I am ashamed of my association with you all, but I feel that such is in the best interests of my family. In any case, from here on out I should like to generally be referred to as HP. It is an acronym that I find apt. Should you wish further explanation, please email me at hpsoandsos at gmail dot com and I will reveal to you the true meaning of my newly-minted moniker.
I should also point out that I am also no longer in charge around here. We are a collective (at least, I think we are).
In any case, I appreciate your patience with my brief mental/moral/spiritual breakdown (“breakdown – breakthrough”). I’ll get back to posting silly web-polls next week.
By Mogget
Early last week a random John made a most interesting post that received no real response. Since I had been going to lead into a little series with precisely the point he made, I have taken the liberty of reproducing arJ’s comment here:
As Kevin Barney pointed out at BCC recently the at-one-ment thing really is the word origin in English. But it isn’t clear to me how this word was selected to represent Christ’s sacrifice. Do any other languages render it similarly?
Also odd is that the word only shows up once in the KJV NT. The OT usage (which is frequent) doesn’t seem to support the at-one-ment idea very well since it is often referring to the animal that was just sacrificed. I am guessing now that being at with an animal was the idea the original authors had in mind. What words at (sic) actually being used in the original languages of the OT and NT?
What arJ is probably getting at is that it is very odd that a word that shows up precisely once in the NT should hold such a prominent place in Christian discourse. Or to phrase it more positively, it appears that the authors of the NT can say quite a bit about Jesus without ever using the word “atonement.”
What’s up with that?
Read more »
By John C.
Hello all. I am pleased and saddened to announce my retirement from the bloggernacle (at least until I get more time and motivation). I have been doing this for roughly one and a half years now and I have found it an enlightening and edifying experience, mostly. I have learned a lot here and I hope that I have given something back. The thing that makes it hardest to go is the knowledge that I am likely leaving mid-conversation. I know it will go on without me, but I would have liked to have seen it through to the end.
I will probably continue to lurk a bit and I will keep up correspondance with my friends (for that is what most of you are). I just can’t devote the necessary time to the site and to the community that I need to right now. It’s not you, it’s me.
In any case, the blog will go on. Mogget, David J, and Chris H will continue to write interesting things here and I would encourage you to listen to what they have to say (unless it is David J giving music advice). Turn to Mogget about site questions as Mogget will be in charge of it. They’re good folk with good thought and they need you folks to keep them in line. I will be joined in retirement by FaithHopeLove and Rob, who have moved on to greener pastures. Mine isn’t necessarily greener, but it does need some plowing.
Best wishes.
By Mogget
Today’s NYT has a story about how GJudas finally came to light. The eye-catcher is this:
I think I was chosen by Judas to rehabilitate him,” Ms. Tchacos Nussberger, 65, is quoted as saying in one of the society’s books, “The Lost Gospel,” by Herbert Krosney. Mr. Krosney is also an independent television producer who brought the gospel project to National Geographic.
But the heart of the articles is really about the legal and ethical issues involved in acquiring, handling, and publishing these rare lost works. When I first heard about this story a little more than a year ago, I immediately googled it, only to find that most of the hits also included INTERPOL.
Bad sign.
Read more »
By Mogget
You can tell the season by the books released. Yes, it’s Easter and ’tis the season for books on the historical Jesus. This particular example comes from James Tabor, a historian and member of the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina. His theory is two baptizing messiahs, John in the Jordan and Jesus in the Suba cave (yes, the same Suba cave featured about three or four posts below this one).
I did five posts on the historical Jesus in John Meier’s work in the Jan-Feb timeframe, so if you want to look over a summary of some serious scholarship, scroll down or click here, here, here, here, or here.
I report, you decide.
Read more »
By Mogget
Over at the Volkh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel has a piece up characterizing the media response to the presentation of the Coptic Gospel of Judas:
This Friday’s coverage of the so-called “Gospel of Judas” in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous.
I must say I agree. What silliness. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with President Kimball’s speculation regarding Judas, either. I’d have been disappointed, except that I don’t expect much from the major media outlets to begin with.
To me, the most striking thing about the GJudas is Jesus’ laughing. Jesus does a fair amount of laughing in many Nag Hammadi texts, but this is something unusual. I tried to post this as a comment on LDS Science Review right after I got the Coptic from his link (Thanks!), but couldn’t get the comments dialogue to take my remarks.
Anyway, we’ll need to wait a bit for the serious work to come in. We’ve got some things happening at my school and I’m sure there’s serious stuff going on in many places. Until then, it’s gonna be best to ignore what you read in the press, unless it’s a specialist outlet.
In the meantime, here’s a link to some folks who practise a modern form of gnosticism. Remarkably sensible approach to the issue of GJudas if I do say so myself. I think this same link is on the Volkh Conspiracy now, as well.
By Mogget
This article applies a subject called paleolimnology, the study of “freshwater, brackish, salt water environments in the ancient world” to the question of how Jesus may have [appeared to] walk on water. The folks behind it are serious scholars. I collect these pieces, without prejudice to the science or lack thereof, as evidence of the massive influence that the NT record of Jesus maintains even now.
Original website here.
Read more »
By John C.
J. Watkins is a long-time commenter on the site and someone off whom I often bounce ideas in the Ancient Studies room of the BYU Library. He defines himself in the following terms: “I’m Justin Watkins. I’m from Cardston, Alberta and I’m an undergraduate senior at BYU studying ancient near eastern studies. My focus is in the NT but I’d like to study
the LXX for my graduate work. I also love studying Church history as a hobby. I’ve been married nearly 4 years to my Aussie sweetheart, Sarah, who is my 4th grade teaching sugar momma. We have no kids. I fear that I am a true nerd in every sense of the word. On the LDS scale I’d say I fall just right of the middle as far as my views on doctrine and ethics go.”
I’ve been intrigued since my mission about the phrase from Matt. 3:16: “and
he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him.”
(KJV) My current study of Matthew in Greek 311 has reraised the question
about exactly what this phrase means. For instance, Mark 1:10 uses similar
language: “and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.” John 1:32 says:
“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon
him.” But Luke says something different. Luke 3:22 says: “and the Holy
Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” Our modern day
scriptures universally use the phrase “in the form of a dove.” (see 1 Ne.
11:27; 2 Ne. 31:8; D&C 93:15; Abr. Fac. 2, fig. 7)
Read more »
By John C.
Hello and welcome back. I have been thinking a lot about the influence of LDS academics on the landscape of our church. They do have influence, but is it enough or the right variety? What is the role of the LDS academic? Well, what better way to begin this than with a web-poll.
To that end, I was wondering if you feel that, since we’ve had LDS academics of one stripe or another since the 50’s, if they have had any influence on the leaders of the church? Certainly not the kind of influence that Christ has had (nor am I suggesting otherwise), but have they helped shape the way that the Brethren understand and teach LDS theology. I think yes, but I am not sure how much. With that bias in mind, we have the following:
Which LDS academic’s influence was most evident over conference: Hugh W. Nibley or Robert Millet?
Obviously, Hugh Nibley is the LDS scholar par excellance. Would we even have LDS scholarship without him? Probably, it would look and sound much differently. He is an essayist, theologian, ancient historian, firebrand, and mensch. He is particularly fond of the gospel as taught by President Brigham Young. Go here to read his article on Brigham Young in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (you’ll need to scroll down).
Robert Millet was the dean of the BYU religion department . He is the author of several books, including the recent Another Jesus. He is partially responsible for the recent emphasis on grace in the church, as is evidenced here (Choose talk #11).
Please vote to the left and discuss below.
By Mogget
This story relates progress in the excavation of Suba Cave, located about 15 miles west of Jerusalem. The link to the Baptist is controversial, resting mainly on some drawings on the walls and some evidence of baptisms. The real news is that this cave was a happenin’ place in the 7th century BCE, making it a feature of Isaiah’s era.
The original website is here. I totally recommend you click that link for the pictures. To my non-archeologist’s eye, the details of the enlargements are fascinating. I have enclosed the narrative below.
Read more »
By David J
King David is one of the most dynamic and enigmatic of all the figures of the Bible (Halpern, 3-13). He was favored of God, but utilized whatever means he could to secure the throne, including murder and treason. Yet it is through his unorthodoxy that God works out common good for Israel.
One piece of the text of the books of Samuel which I found intriguing are David’s two anointings: one at Hebron by the house of Judah, and the other at Hebron by “all the tribes of Israel.” The Bible (the Deuteronomistic History, at least) uses two technical terms for describing the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. For the southern kingdom, the one that receives most of the attention in the OT, terms such as “Israel” or “Judah” are employed to refer to the tribes of the south. In the North, other terms are used (like “Ephraim”). However, when the authors want to mention all the tribes together, as in the case of the united monarchy under David and Solomon, the technical term employed is “all Israel.” In our example here (2 Sam. 5:1), we see “all the tribes of Israel” (Heb. cal shibtei yisrael); clearly a reference to both the north and the south. This is an exciting moment in the text of the OT – the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom are united, both unanimously choosing David as their king.
Here is the NRSV’s version of the details of David’s first anointing at Hebron, before the tribe of Judah:
2 Samuel 2:1-4 After this David inquired of Yahweh, “Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah?” Yahweh said to him, “Go up.” David said, “To which shall I go up?” He said, “To Hebron.” 2 So David went up there, along with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 3 David brought up the men who were with him, every one with his household; and they settled in the towns of Hebron. 4 Then the people of Judah came, and there they anointed (Heb. mashach) David king over the house of Judah.
Later, the northern kingdom wants in on David’s protection, and here the NRSV illustrates David’s second anointing before all Israel:
2 Samuel 5:1-5, 10 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh. 2 For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The LORD said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.” 3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years… 10 And David became greater and greater, for the LORD, the God of hosts, was with him.
During the restoration of the gospel, Joseph Smith would restore what he called (publicly) the “fullness of the priesthood,” which would take place for the first time in the front upper room of the red brick store on Water Street in Nauvoo on September 28, 1843. Joseph himself dictated the words of the ceremony to William Marks and Hyrum Smith and received this blessing under their hands (Ehat, 94-96). The fulness of the priesthood comes by way of anointing, after the individual had already received an initial anointing. Joseph continually linked the power of the fulness of the priesthood to that of “a king and priest” and to the power of Elijah. Six months after restoring the fullness of the priesthood, Joseph said:
“Now for Elijah, the spirit power & calling of Elijah is that ye have power to hold the keys of the revelations ordinances, oricles powers & endowments of the fulness of the Melchezedek Priesthood & of the Kingdom of God on the Earth & to receive, obtain & perform all the ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God even unto the sealing of the hearts of the hearts fathers unto the children & the hearts of the children unto the fathers even those who are in heaven.” (WJS, 329.)
In that same discourse, Joseph briefly mentions the murder of Uriah the Hittite, and David’s standing before God. Among the statements made about David’s standing, Joseph said:
“Although David was a King he never did obtain the spirit & power of Elijah & the fulness of the Priesthood.” (WJS, 331.)
Ehat & Cook’s footnote on this statement indicates that “…although David was anointed a king by the Prophet Samuel, it was not, according to this teaching of Joseph Smith, after the order of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (WJS, n. 27, p. 390.)
I have since thought that the connection between David’s two anointings, and Joseph Smith’s understanding of two anointings (especially as they relate to kingship in Israel), are the cause behind Joseph Smith’s clarification of David’s fate. Perhaps Joseph knew that David’s two anointings (or possibly three anointings, counting the 1 Samuel 16 narrative by Samuel) might have appeared to his inner circle, according to the text, that David received the fullness of the priesthood. What would his listeners, who knew about the fullness of the priesthood, think of David after he kills Uriah if indeed David received the same two anointings that they received? Would David, the greatest king Israel had known, be doomed to reside in Hell for eternity? Joseph Smith, I believe, understood this dilemma and set out to clarify it for his audience on March 10, 1844, the discourse mentioned above. For Joseph, David’s two (or three) anointings were not the same as the anointings conferred by the spirit and power of Elijah, which Joseph aptly explains in the same discourse. This would allow for David’s final redemption. Rather, these anointings were the conferral of the kingdom of Israel only, and not to be confused with the rituals which Joseph Smith restored in September of 1843.
Bibliography:
Ehat, Andrew F. Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the Priesthood Succession Question. M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1982.
Ehat, Andrew F. & Lyndon W. Cook. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph. BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980.
Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Eerdmans, 2001.
