By jupiterschild
In part one of this post, I outlined “internal” reasons for dividing Exodus 34 into 3 sources: J, E, and P. All three of these sources continued earlier narratives related to Moses’ ascension of the mount and could be teased out solely by reference to these earlier, separate, narratives. I’ll review the verse divisions: J: 34:2-3, 4.2, 5b-27. E: 34:1, 4.1, 4.3, 5a, 28. P: 34:29-35.
I’ll also put them as they would have appeared in their original order, using the KJV and beginning with J: Read more »
By jupiterschild
HP’s very recent post provides a good springboard for a discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis. Rather than introducing the hypothesis via a historical summary, which may be discussed in comments or a subsequent post, let me present a case study.
In this multi-part post I propose to lay a source division of Exodus 34, the so-called “New Covenant”. This chapter both exemplifies the issues and is relevant to an LDS audience, and thus is particularly fitting for this forum. I will outline the case for separation of sources based on internal and external evidence and then will ask what sorts of issues this raises for Latter-day Saint interpretation of scripture and of revelation. N.B.: This is not my original idea. It was worked out in part by a friend of mine, whose permission I have to reproduce it, even if only in outline, here.
Before we jump into the material, a Documentary Hypothesis refresher: Read more »
By John C.
I presented a paper at the Yale conference in February in which I argued that the reason that most people don’t read the works of Biblical scholars (LDS or otherwise) is that most people don’t read scripture in order to understand what scripture says; most people read scripture in order to interpret it in light of their own experience or to have a revelatory moment with God. Actually understanding the original intended meaning of the words is secondary to this personal divine experience and it is possibly entirely unnecessary to having this experience. This explains, I think, why most scripture readers don’t seek the original meaning. Read more »
By TT
There is a somewhat strange episode in the Gospel of Mark (okay, so all of Mark is strange) where a father brings his son who has a spirit that makes him unable to speak and causes him to fall on the ground foaming and grinding his teeth (this sounds like epilepsy, but it is misnamed as such since we are dealing with an entirely different disease etiology in the text). The problem is that Jesus’s disciples are unable to cast out the spirit and so Jesus does it himself. Leaving aside the issue of demonic possession and medical diagnoses, the strange part of the story is the saying of Jesus that concludes the passage.
Read more »
By Nitsav
As far as I can tell, there is neither established doctrine nor GA agreement on what “spiritual creation” constitutes, nor on the nature of each account in our dual-creation accounts (ie. Genesis 1-2:4, 2:4ff.) I did a good bit of research on the topic in preparing a presentation a few months ago.
In the recent broadcast Stake Conference, Elder Bednar said something that struck me as relevant to the first question above. I had my laptop, and I typed it down word-for-word, or as close as I could get.
“Morning prayer is the spiritual creation of our day.”
Though from context he intended this to be about the importance of beginning the day with prayer, I think it also implies that he holds spiritual creation to be nothing more than the mental planning stage of creation, the blueprints, as it were. (There are interesting visuals suggesting this in the filmed editions of the Endowment. Beyond that, however, the version of creation in the temple combines elements from the dual accounts in the scriptures, and does not have a dual account the way Genesis does.)
I suspect that this is not how most members understand “spiritual creation” but given my experiences and education, I no longer trust my own intuitions about what the average English-speaking member thinks.
By smallaxe
I actually do not have much time to put together a thorough review (which the film certainly deserves), but this is probably the only chance that I’ll have in the next week or so and it airs on the 30th.
The piece I’m discussing here is the first of the two-part series and deals with the history of Mormonism (the second part deals with the contemporary church).
The first film is two hours long is divided into 6 “acts”: Revelation, The Saints, Persecution, Exodus, Mountain Meadows, and Polygamy.
Interviews are done with: Richard Bushman, Kathleen Flake, Will Bagley, Judith Freeman, Dan Peterson, Jeffrey R. Holland, Terryl Givens, Greg Prince, Ken Clark, Harold Bloom, Dallin H. Oaks, Ken Verdoia, and few others. Read more »
By TT
Fundamentalist Christianity grew up around the turn of the 20th century, primarily as a reaction to liberal Christianity, critical biblical studies, and scientific challenges to religion. Though it is often characterized as an opposite to these three cultural trends, numerous studies have show how fundamentalism is actually very much rooted to Enlightenment rationality. This same paradigm is also operative in critical biblical studies. A brief comparison shows how both fundamentalism and critical biblical studies actually share a number of assumptions:
Read more »
By Mogget
It was kind of odd that anyone even found her that day. She was alone, in the bed in the handicapped area off the main women’s dressing room at the temple. Her face was pale, and she was sweating, in tears, and sick to her stomach. Her home was some distance away but her stake had a meeting that afternoon. She’d fallen the day before and re-injured her back, causing muscle spasms and making her unable to sit, stand, or walk without pain.
Her new husband had given her a blessing after the accident, telling her the situation was “a test of her faith” to be demonstrated in her decisions about coming to the temple. He brought her to the temple and left her alone while he went on a session; she found her way to the dressing room and then to the bed. To the extent that she was coherent, it seemed that she was to meet him in the hallway so that they could attend the meeting together.
In time, news of this situation found its way to the matron. Someone suggested that in the course of comforting the young woman she invite the couple to visit with a member of the presidency on the way out for some kindly discussion of the situation from another point of view. Ultimately, the matron rejected this course of action, saying that it was a learning experience for the husband in his newly created family unit and “we must respect his priesthood leadership.”
Meanwhile, on a planet nearest the throne of God heavenly Mother sat watching the path below her window. One of her favorite sons, young Elohim, was coming for a visit. His was a newly created dominion, with one of the prettiest planets she’d ever seen. Lately, she’d heard some disturbing news, though, about certain unfortunate events. But, as she’d reasoned to herself several times over the course of the morning, it was a new experience for him and she was obliged to respect his priesthood leadership.
Right?
By TT
Many LDS scholars are more or less willing to give up on historical accuracy of the accounts of Jesus’s life, and even some of the historical details of the Passion Narrative. However, I haven’t met any that are willing to compromise the necessity of the resurrection. Indeed, some even argue that this is the ONLY thing which needs to have occurred in order for the gospel to be “true.” Presumably, the reason is because the atonement and miracle of Jesus’s resurrection are the foundation of our faith in him as the Son of God and as a demonstration of the efficacy of the gospel to effectuate eternal life. The essential truthfulness of the gospel is a great weight to hang on the shoulders of the resurrection.
Without denying the resurrection, I want to ask two questions. First, is the resurrection a sufficient cause for belief in the truthfulness of the gospel? Is this the only historical reality that needs to have occurred? Are all other truth claims contingent? Second, is the resurrection a necessary aspect of the gospel? This question is perhaps more controversial, but I think that it bears some consideration. Why is the resurrection necessary? Can the gospel still be true without it? Why or why not?
I think that the answer to both questions suggests something about what we take to be fundamental about religion. Is religion a morality system? A set of rituals? A community with shared culture and values? If it is any of these, then the resurrection does not need to be a historical reality in order for religion to have its efficacy. I think that most people would argue that religion (Mormon religion, at least) is a system of salvation, which is why the resurrection is necessary. But what is a system of salvation apart from morality, rituals, and community? Is the resurrection the true fundamental aspect of the gospel without which it all falls apart, or can there be a fully “secularized” understanding of the resurrection, as many have taken to be the case with the other miracles?
By lxxluthor
Lehi and Nephi have apocalypses? Why doesn’t anyone else? (Brother of Jared doesn’t count, he’s not a Lehite) Read more »
By Nitsav
Oxford Press, like some other publishers, have been cooperating to make their books available in various electronic forms. I’ve mentioned Logos before, as one example. Google books is another, as J. Stapley points out.
I’m also aware of two subscription services, which most University students can access for free through a University connection. The first is something called Ebrary.com I stumbled over this at BYU when I was looking for Marc Brettler’s Creation of History in Ancient Israel and discovered that they had an electronic copy of his The Book of Judges. This and many other scholarly books are available and text-searchable through ebrary. I haven’t played with it much, and I have no guidance to how to use it or finding out if your University has access.
The second subscription service is www.OxfordScholarship.com which publishes Oxford titles. A recent announcement proclaims that starting in September of this year, “the majority of its scholarly monograph publishing” will be available on-line. This will include some excellent titles, available wherever you can get internet access (University proxies) , negating the need, perhaps, for interlibrary loan or typing out lengthy quotations into your notes.
A few of Oxford’s relevant titles- Marc Brettler’s How to Read the Bible and Teryl Givens’ By the Hand of Mormon, will both be worthy additions. Notable already are Mark Smith’s Origins of Biblical Monotheism and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s biography of Paul, and Hoffmeier’s Ancient Israel in Sinai, to pick a few of the nuggets 
A complete pdf list of all religion books currently available can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.
Edit: Looks like By the Hand of Mormon is already available .
