More on James White and Islam

My last thread here on AF was not the first time I have commented on James White’s explorations into Islam. Back in 2003, James wrote an article for the Christian Research Journal (volume 25, number 3) concerning “the Bible and the Qur’an”. I had some difficulties with the article and wrote a letter to CRI; much to my surprise, my letter was published in the next issue. James’ original article is available online:

White’s CRJ article

My letter, and James’ subsequent response, are not online (at least I have not found them). The following is the letter I sent to CRI; my next post (the Lord willing) will include James’ published response, followed by some comments.

April 7, 2003

Dear Editor,

Today I received the Vol. 25, No. 03 issue of the Christian Research Journal. I have been a subscriber for many years, and though I have thought of writing responses to some of the articles that have appeared in the magazine in the past, this is the first time I have actually done so.

I feel compelled to respond to James R. White’s article, “Examining Muslim Apologetics” (pp. 32-41).

On page 35 we read, “Christians encourage textual study and discovery of new manuscripts, while Muslims show little interest in researching the history of their own scriptures, preferring traditional belief that the Qur’an is perfect in its current state.” And on page 36, “Belief in the perfection of the Qur’an precludes, by definition, interest in the study of its earliest manuscripts, as it is considered to entertain even the possibility that its early manuscripts differ in the slightest from the modern version.”

The above statements by Mr. White clearly indicate that he either is uninformed on the subject, or has purposely chosen to keep pertinent data from his readers. The statement that “Muslims show little interest in researching the history of their own scriptures” is patently false. In my own personal library I have books, by orthodox Muslims, which are devoted to the textual history of the Qur’an. They include: Variant Readings of the Qur’an: A Critical Study Of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins (Ahmad ‘Ali al Imam, The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1998); An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an (Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, The Alden Group, 1999); and Ulūm al-Qur’an – An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’ān (Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation, 1983). Further, Arabic works on the textual history of the Quran are numerous—an important early example is Ibn Abī Dawūd’s The Kitāb Al-Masāhif.

The noted 20th century Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery’s monumental book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Quran lists no less that 32 Arabic works which he used as sources for his work. Prior to the said list, Jeffery wrote:

“The material which follows is taken from the writer’s collections made with a view to a critical text of the Qur’an. They will of course appear in their place in the apparatus criticus to that text when it appears, but the assembling of them here under the individual names was essential that scholars might be able to deal critically with the evidence of each Codex as a whole. The main sources from which the variants have been drawn are…” (He then lists the above mentioned 32 works, some as large as 30 volumes!)

Another Islamic scholar had the following to say:

“From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. ‘Traditional science’, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.” (Bernard Lewis, Islam In History: Ideas, People, & Events In the Middle East, 1993 edition, PP. 104, 105.)

And yet, Mr. White maintains that there is an “indisputable difference between the attitudes of Christian scholars and Islamic scholars” (p. 36). Unfortunately, Mr. White is relying on non-scholarly internet sources for his material, and then attempts to convince his readers that he is accurately representing legitimate Islamic scholarship.

Moving on to Mr. White’s treatment of the current version of the Qur’an (the Uthmanic text), once again, he seems to have relied on “popular” literature, rather than scholarly sources. Two prominent Islamic scholars had this to say about the Uthmanic text:

“Whatever may have been the form of the Qur’an previously, it is certain that the book still in our hands is essentially the ‘Uthmāmic Qur’an…If we remember that to preserve every smallest fragment of genuine revelation was an ineluctable requirement, the commission under Zayd must be adjudged to have achieved a wonderful piece of work.” (Watt and Bell, Introduction To The Qur’an, p. 44)

Watt and Bell also note that the Uthmanic text was completed before Uthman’s death (656 A.D.), which means, by any objective standard, that the Uthmanic text is much earlier to the original source, and considerably more pristine, than any Biblical text (let alone NT as a whole).

Now, before ending, I think it is important to note that Mr. White is correct in his portrayal of popular Muslim polemics concerning the Biblical text. I will agree with Mr. White that the vast majority of Muslim treatments on the Bible are deplorable. But, the same must be said of Mr. White’s treatment of the Qur’an.

In ending, Mr. White’s article is another example of misrepresentation by anti-Islamic apologists. Such examples have a long history, and must end. Instead of fostering real, scholarly dialogue between Christians and Muslims, it has, instead, added “fuel to the fire”. If I were an editor of the Christian Research Journal, I would seriously consider a retraction in the upcoming issue.


In Christ,

David Waltz


Grace and peace,

David

James White’s recent attacks on Islam

James White, during the last few months, has spent a considerable amount of time attacking Islam, and in particular, the Qur’an, in radio broadasts and via “YouTube” videos. This recent barrage follows on the heels of James’ debate with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally in October, 2007 (which was preceded by another debate by the two in May, 2006.) Much of James’ polemic centers around the textual integrity of the NT and Qur’an; but an interesting ‘rabbit-trail’ is embedded within the greater context of his ongoing ‘discourse’ with Islam. This ‘rabbit-trail’ is capsulized in the following radio broadcast excerpt:

“…Muhammad did not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity was. I think there is pretty good evidence that he understood Christians to worship uh, Allah, Jesus and Mary. In fact there is a text in the Qur’an [5.116, 117] where, where, Allah asks Jesus did you ever command me to worship yourself and Mary as gods in derogation of Allah; and, uh, of course, Jesus you know, said, no, certainly I never commanded anything like that; well there wasn’t anyone running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time…” (The “Iron Sharpens Iron” radio program, 11-06-07 - http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20White - 38:00 min. ff.)

This ‘rabbit-trail’ is repeated at:

“YouTube” video (“Surah 5 and the Real Jesus” – 02-07-08):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRV0AIoR1kM

And again:

The “Dividing Line” radio broadcast (02/07/08):

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2513 - 42:00 min ff.

There are two significant problems with this ‘rabbit-trail’, the first being that there were Christians (heretical) “running around worshipping God, Jesus and Mary as a Trinity at that time”—the heretical sect known as the Collyridians. For a brief introduction to this sect:

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//questions/yq2/yq315.html

[See also: The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis – Books II & III, trans. by Frank Williams, 1994, pp. 618, 620-629.]

The second problem is that many Islamic scholars do not believe the Qur’an is addressing the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in passages usually invoked by Christian and Muslim polemicists (e.g. Surah 5.116, 117). Note the following:

Hasty interpretation, without judicious weighing of the evidence, persuaded Muslim exegetes that the Koran condemns the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Christian apologists fell into this same snare…But those texts condemned a “tritheism” that has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity. The same is true of the Koran’s supposed condemnation of the Incarnation. It condemns not the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine. (Giulio Basetti-Sani , The Koran in the Light of Christ: A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam, p. 136.)

It has often been thought that the Qur’an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur’an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of the statements. (Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 133.)

The fourth-century Christian heresiologist Epipahius mentions the Andtideco-Marianites who worshipped Mary as a goddess. It is possibly they who are envisaged in the Qur’anic insinuation that Christians deifed both Jesus and this mother. (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity, p. 21.)

What Christians mean by “God in Christ” is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which early Christianity itself resisted and rejected. But is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur’an itself has frequently in view. Its rejection of Christology is in fact a rejection of adoptionism which Christians also repudiate. (Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203.)

…there are considerable differences between the Qur’an and the New Testament. It should be noted, however, that so far as the actual statements of the Qur’an are concerned, the differences are not so great as they are sometimes supposed to be. Modern scholars, Christian and Muslim, tend to read later controversies into the wording of the Qur’an. Thus the rejection of the doctrine that ‘God is one of the three’ [5.73/7] is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject. (Watt and Bell, Introduction To The Qur’an, p. 158.)

I do not know exactly how long James has been involved in Islamic studies (he mentions a debate with a Muslim apologist back in 1999), but I have had a keen interest in this field since the mid-90s, adding well over 500 books on Islam to my ever-expanding library, and must admit that I am at a bit of a loss trying to figure out why someone who has spent at least 8 years in the field would use such a weak, shallow argument—an argument which is, at least in part, based on a falsehood if one accepts the testimony of Epiphanius.

But then, as readers of this blog already know, James has used faulty arguments before…


Grace and peace,

David

For a good friend…forgiveness of post-baptismal sin/s in the early Church.

A frequent poster here at Articuli Fidei (Rory) and myself were recently having a conversation concerning the development of doctrine and the boundaries that each of us would be willing to accept for discerning between legitimate and illegitimate development. For instance, I said I would be very uncomfortable embracing infant baptism as a legitimate development if the apostles did not baptize infants. I was then asked if I knew of any significant changes in Church doctrine and/or practice which might pose a similar ‘problem’ and mentioned the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin in the early Church. Rory seemed a bit skeptical as I rattled off from memory my take on this particular development, so I have decided to create a brief post outlining some of the specifics.

For the sake of brevity (and a certain laziness on my part), I am going to limit all of the following quotes from one source: Kenan B. Osborne’s (O.F.M.) Reconciliation & Justification – The Sacrament and Its Theology (Paulist Press – 1990).

In this chapter [“In The Patristic Period”] we will consider the emergence of a ritual of reconciliation as we find it documented in the pages of church history. Remarkably, it is not until the middle of the second century that there is a clear indication in the available data of such a ritual. Nonetheless, even from the middle of the second century onward there are, at first, only scattered historical data which indicate the way in which the early patristic church through a ritual isolated, repelled and negated sin. At the height of the patristic period, i.e. in the fifth and sixth centuries, one finds a clearer picture of both the theology and of the liturgy of reconciliation in this period of church history.

One must keep in mind that in the history of this sacrament there has not been an organic development. One generation’s practice did not, at times, lead smoothly into the next generation’s practice. From the patristic period to the twentieth century, there have been several “official” positions of the church as regards the ritual of this sacrament. (Pages 52, 53.)

The post-apostolic age up to Hermas (c. 140) provides no identifiable references to any ritualized practice of reconciliation…E. Bourque, among many others, notes that in this sub-apostolic period there was a general tendency toward rigorism (enkratism), so that, once baptized, the Christian was seen as someone who ought never to sin again. Post-baptismal sin was not something which Christians of that era took for granted. (Page 53.)

It was Hermas (c. 140), a lay person apparently connected with the church at Rome, who first clearly mentions the possibility of a penitential rite for serious sins committed after baptism. Whether he had initiated something hitherto unknown in the church, or whether he is propagating something that was already present, is controverted. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that in Hermas’ writings we see the following: a.) After baptism there is one and only one possibility for reconciliation with the church b.) This reconciliation is ecclesial and has a public quality about it…Hermas’ writings affect the discipline of the church for centuries. In the west, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Pacian, Leo, and Gregory the Great, to name only a few, clearly attest to the unrepeatability of penance. In the east, the Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, echo this discipline of unrepeatability…It is only through the influence of the Celtic approach to penance, in the early middle ages, that there is a change in this discipline.

One should also note that in both east and west, during the entire patristic period, there was (a) no “confession of devotion” as we find it in later ages, (b) no private confession, such as that of a later age, and (c) no confession of venial sin. (Pages 53, 54.)

In spite of some unclarity in the writings of Hermas, we can say that a public form of reconciliation, which could be received only once in a lifetime, became the “canon law” of the entire church, both east and west, for the next nine centuries. (Page 55.)


The rest of the chapter (pages 55- 83) is devoted to citations (and commentary) from the writings of various Church Fathers in support of the above claims. There is also a brief discussion concerning the tria capitalia, the sins of apostasy, adultery, and murder, which some Fathers excluded from the list of sins that the one time (only) rite of reconciliation could forgive, and as such, treated these three as “unforgivable” (post-baptismal) sins.


Let the comments begin…


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 4

This fourth installment of my MMB series will delve into the following “observation” from my initial MMB post:

Fourth observation – Barker teaches that much of the Bible has experienced significant corruption, and many important “other” Scriptures have either been suppressed or lost.

Certainly the later portion of the above is a definitive part of LDS apologetics, theology and the LDS Scriptures. However, Barker’s first premise has some significant criticisms within the historical setting of the LDS paradigm. Though a few LDS authors have embraced many of the assessments associated with the “higher-criticism” of the Bible, such views are at odds with some prior LDS presidents, apostles and scholars. It would literally take an entire volume to give full justice to this issue, but with that in mind, I shall limit myself to the following selections, which should (IMHO) prove to be satisfactory in establishing some credence to my assertion:

Such dissecting as this [higher criticism] can have but one general result—death of reverence for the Bible; death of faith in it, as the revealed word of God. The authenticity of the Bible by it is left doubtful; for while this method of criticism succeeds, with those who affect it, in proving that Moses is not the author of the five books for so many centuries accredited to him, it fails to tell us who is the author of those books. This Higher Criticism tells us that there are two and perhaps more, authors of the book of Isaiah's prophecies; that the last twenty-seven chapters were not written by the great Hebrew prophet whose name the book bears; but it fails to tell us who is the author of them. Nor can it be determined even when the unknown author lived. The same is true as to the other books of the Old Testament upon whose authenticity this system casts its shadow. The system is wholly destructive in its tendencies; it unsettles everything, it determines nothing, except that everything with reference to the authenticity, time of composition, inspiration, and credibility of the Old Testament is indeterminable. “It leaves everything hanging in the air,” says one able critic of Higher Criticism. “It begins in guesses and ends in fog. At all events the result leaves us in a hopeless muddle, and, when that is the only thing settled, the proposed solution is self-condemned.” (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, pp.6, 7.)

It is here where it can be proclaimed as the voice of the western hemisphere proclaiming the sublime truth that God did not leave himself without witness among the races and nations of men that inhabited the western world. It is here that its importance is felt as the voice of sleeping nations speaking as out of the dust to the whole world, not only vindicating the quality of justice in God, in that he did not leave the inhabitants of the western hemisphere to perish in ignorance of himself and the plan of life and salvation which had been ordained for the redemption of mankind; but also in that it bears witness to the world that the collection of books known as the Bible is the word of God, authentic, credible, and binding upon the consciences of men. It is a Witness for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of the truth of the Bible, which in value far surpasses all the evidences discovered in Egypt, the valley of the Euphrates, the Sinaitic Peninsula, and the land of Palestine throughout the nineteenth century. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, p. 23.)

What a testimony we have here for the truth of the Bible! What a number of its incidents are here confirmed! The Higher Criticism questions the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but here is an entry made in an ancient record in America at least 575 years B.C., attributing the authorship of five books to Moses, specifying that they gave an account of the creation of the world and also of Adam and Eve, "who were our first parents;" so that there can be no question as to this record brought by Lehi's colony from Jerusalem to America being identical with the Pentateuch of our Bible. In addition to the incident of the creation, and Adam and Eve, this entry upon the Nephite records also confirms the Bible narrative concerning Jacob and also of Joseph, his son, who was sold into captivity and taken to Egypt. Reference is made also to the subsequent exodus of Israel from the land of Egypt. Mention also is made of the prophets and their prophecies in this record, making special mention of the name of Jeremiah. Some of the writings of Jeremiah were also included in this record. The first Nephi also makes special mention of Isaiah by name, and describes in what manner he read from his writings upon the plates of brass, to his brethren. And what is better yet, he quotes, in his record, many passages from the prophet Isaiah. At this point it is well to call attention to the fact that the Higher Criticism holds that the book of Isaiah in our Old Testament is composite; that is, it claims that it is composed by at least two, and perhaps by seven different authors; that the last twenty-seven chapters certainly were not written by Isaiah. The best answer that can be made to these claims, on the part of those disposed to defend the Isaiah authorship of the book of prophecies which bears that prophet's name, is to say that from two hundred years B.C. the authorship of the prophecies, as they now stand in the Bible, have been attributed to Isaiah. But here is testimony, in this first book of Nephi, which shows that as early as 550 years B.C., a certain collection of prophecies in a record taken from Jerusalem, are attributed to Isaiah; and what is best of all a transcription is made from these prophecies into the Nephite record, which corresponds to chapters 48, 49, 50, 51 and 59, and also fragments of chapter 29; being a very large amount of the very part of Isaiah's prophecies of which the authenticity is questioned. Here are at least five of the twenty-seven chapters in dispute accounted for and fragments of another, while of the first part of the prophecies of Isaiah there is a transcription into the Nephite record corresponding to chapters from two to fourteen; so that so far as the authenticity of the book of Isaiah's prophecies is concerned, and the five books of Moses, the Book of Mormon is the most important of all witnesses. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol. 2, pp.25-27.)

After he had completed his ministry in Judea, the resurrected Messiah appeared among the Nephites, in fulfillment of his promise to their fathers by the prophets. He announced his divinity, taught them the gospel, conferred divine authority upon certain men whom He chose among them, authorized the establishment of the Church for their instruction and development in righteousness. He taught them every moral truth which He had imparted to those living on the eastern hemisphere. He fulfilled all the prophecies relating to him up to this point in the Jewish scriptures, which their fathers had carried with them from Jerusalem. He assured them of the reality of life beyond the grave, and, in a word, planted here the whole system of truth which makes for the salvation of men, and is called the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The Book of Mormon gives a voice to the ruined cities and half buried monuments upon this land of America. It confirms all the revealed truths made known in the Jewish scriptures. In sustaining the truth, inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is more valuable than a thousand Rosetta Stones; it is superior to all the clay tablet libraries found in old Babylon and Egypt….(B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.364.)

The present position of “higher critics” is, that the Hexateuch, as they call it, is composed of, at least, four independent documents: The Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Code, which, for the sake of brevity, they call J, E. D, and P, respectively. The Yahwist and the Elohist documents may, they think, have been written some time between 800 and 700 B.C. The Deuteronomist they assign to some year between 650 and 625 B.C. The date of the Priestly Code they give as any time between 525 and 425 B.C. Some of the critics hold, however, that the entire Pentateuch belongs to some time after the Babylonian exile. The five books of Moses were, accordingly, not written by Moses, but by authors who lived much later, and by editors who pieced their work together the best they could. There were a number of such editors. Wellhausen found traces of, but Kuenen thought would answer the purpose. [p.261] Nephi refers to the five books in question as “the Books of Moses.” That is his testimony to a skeptical world. Thus, the Book of Mormon confirms the Bible at a time when so-called higher critics are doing all in their power to destroy the belief in the divine authority of the Scriptures. It is a ‘new witness’ as President B. H. Roberts so aptly has called it, for the authenticity of the Bible. It claims no other position in sacred literature. It is the ‘stick of Ephraim,’ joined to the ‘stick of Judah,’ according to the word of the Lord. (Ezekiel 37:15-19) (Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.260.)

DURING the second half of the nineteenth century there was a determined effort launched on the part of certain scholars to tear asunder and destroy the authenticity of the holy scriptures. They were influenced by the same spirit which prompted the organic evolutionists. This plan has been called “Higher Criticism,” but in reality it should be called "destructive criticism." The advocates of this theory assumed to have the wisdom by which they could discover, without Urim or Thummim, but by their own wisdom, a difference in style in the various books of the Bible. This difference they proclaimed was discovered within paragraphs as well as in chapters of the various books. Moreover, they taught that in many of the books, particularly the five books of Moses and Joshua, Isaiah and others, there was evidence that indicated that parts could not have been written at the time indicated by these books, but at some later date. In this manner of criticism unknown writers had to be provided to take care of these theories. Some of the passages, like that dealing with Isaiah's prophecy naming Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4), they maintained were written by authors after the prophetic events had taken place. To their way of thinking even God could not predict the birth of a man over one hundred years before he was born. In the Book of Genesis they thought they discovered combinations of writers, and that the account of the creation and of Adam's advent in the Garden of Eden was in conflict with itself. These critics were not like the prophets of old of whom Peter speaks: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21.) These learned men do not claim to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but by their scientific training they have spoken and given utterance.

In their contention, through their uninspired skill, they maintain that they were able to discover that the five books of Moses were not the works of Moses. So they concluded to give these books to several authors living at various times. Genesis, said they, was compiled by some enterprising scribes hundreds of years later. So the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua had to be assigned to writers of various and later times. Moreover, their doctrine was that the stories of creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam's fall, recorded in Genesis, were taken from the myths and legends of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was the accepted view at that time that “the Mosaic age was outside the scope of written records.”

In addition to this severe criticism of the Pentateuch these critics assigned the Book of Isaiah to three, at least, different writers. The entire study was, of course, speculative, and could be nothing more. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 490 – 491.)

However, from the competent advocates of Biblical authenticity, we may make a brief summary. We have learned:

That writing and record keeping, from the archaeological discoveries were long anterior to Abraham.

That many parts of the Bible formerly considered legendary and mythical, have been confirmed by archaeological research.

That many events recorded in Genesis, previously viewed skeptically, are now confirmed by records that have been discovered.

That Moses did not get the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the fall, the flood, from Assyrian or Babylonian sources.

That the “four accounts,” J., E., P. and D., are without any foundation in fact.

That there is no sound and justifiable reason for dividing the Book of Isaiah among two or three authors, and placing a great part of it as late as the sixth or fifth centuries B.C.

That the earliest religion known was not worshiping multiple gods. The worship of idols and multiple gods came later, contrary to what is written in every school textbook on ancient history at the present day. The earliest religion was the worship of one God.

That the so-called “higher criticism,” which is destructive criticism, is based on “unsound assumptions,” that are unreliable.

Above all of this, members of the Church have double assurance. We have the word of the Lord that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name. Chapters called in question by these critics are found, or quoted in part, in the Book of Mormon. The Five Books of Moses were in possession of the Nephites on this continent, and therefore Deuteronomy or any other part could not have been written after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Our Savior quoted constantly from Isaiah, and the books of Moses and other parts of the Old Testament. In his conflict with the devil in the wilderness the Savior gave all three quotations from Deuteronomy. After his resurrection, when talking with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, it is written: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27.) Later when he met with the disciples in an upper room, it is written: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." (Luke 24:44.) This quotation the destructive critics should memorize:

And it came to pass, that the begger died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:22-31.) (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 513 – 514.)

And the surprising thing that the Scrolls show us that the text of the Bible has not been so much altered—for actually they show that it has been on the whole preserved with astonishing integrity—as mutilated by the removal of material from the original…By furnishing us with older texts of the Bible than any heretofore known, they show very clearly that present misunderstanding of the scriptures are not due to corruptions of the text but rather to serious omissions and deletions. (Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 1967 ed., p. 26.)

Ancient American prophets, six hundred years before Christ, foresaw the coming of Columbus and those who followed. These prophets saw the establishment of the colonies, the War for Independence, and predicted the outcome. These prophecies are contained in a volume of scripture called the Book of Mormon. This sacred record, a companion to the Holy Bible which it confirms, is an added witness to the divine mission of Jesus as the Son of God and Redeemer of the world. How I wish every American and every living soul would read the Book of Mormon. I testify to you that it is true. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.50-51.)

[Note: all bold and underline emphasis in the above quotes are mine.]


One should also take note of the following collection of essays by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry:

The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Pentateuch

The "Isaiah Problem" in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism

Some Problems of Interest Relating to the Brass Plates


Now, I sincerely wonder to myself if the future generations of Latter-days Saints will embrace the methodologies of the liberal higher critic school of thought (which certainly includes Margaret Barker), or if they will perhaps give greater stock to what their presidents, apostles and former scholars of renown have said…


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 3

This installment of my MMB series concerns my “third” observation from part 1:

Third - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in and taught the doctrine of deification.

Barker’s view of deification is significantly different than that taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, in all my readings on the different views of deification, Barker's is unique. I believe that this uniqueness stems from her views on resurrection and incarnation. The following are some of her thoughts on resurrection:


In temple theology, resurrection was not a post mortem experience. It was theosis, the transformation of a human being into a divine being – which came with the gift of Wisdom; and theosis, described in various ways, was at the heart of temple tradition, together with the belief in a resurrected anointed one, a resurrected Messiah. (Temple Theology – An Introduction, p.23.)

Just as there were two creations, so there were two bodies for each human being. The once described in the second story, formed ‘from the dust of the ground’ (Gen. 2.7) was ‘vastly different’ from the one in the first story, made ‘in the image’ of God (Creation 134). The one from the dust was body, soma, and soul, psuche, man or woman, and by nature mortal. The one ‘after the image’ was incorporeal, neither male nor female and incorruptible. These tow are described elsewhere as the two Adams, the heavenly, ‘made after the image and without part or lot in corruptible or terrestrial substance’, and the earthly one made of clay (All. Int. I.31). When Paul contrasts the physical body and the spiritual body he uses this terminology. The physical body, soma psuchikon, is raised as a spiritual body, soma pneumatikon. In other words, the resurrection body is the body of the first creation, incorporeal, invisible, made after the image and incorruptible (1 Cor. 15.42-50). It is neither male nor female, just as Paul elsewhere described those who are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3.28). (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 23, 24.)

The Christian resurrection belief was not one of resuscitation, but of rebirth as a child of God. (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 338, 339.)

What Paul meant by a spiritual body, soma pneumatikon, in contrast to the physical body, soma psuchikon, is best illustrated by comparison with Philo’s account of the Adam…Philo explained the two accounts of creation (Gen. 1.1-2.4a and Gen. 2.4b-3.24) by saying that the first was the creation of the heavenly archetypes and the second of the material world. The earthly Adam, said Philo, was ‘vastly different’ from the man made in the image of God…the man made after the image, the man of Genesis 1, was incorporeal, invisible, neither male nor female, and by nature incorruptible (Creation 134). (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 339.)

Jesus himself says very little about resurrection, but what he does say is revealing. The dead were those who did not follow him: Follow me, he said to a would-be disciple who hesitated, and leave the dead to bury their own dead (Matt. 8:22/Luke 9:60). It is also celar from the answer to the Sadducees that he did not envisage a physical resurrection. They asked about the marital statue of a woman who had had seven husbands and Jesus replied that in heaven there would be no marriage: ‘…They are equal to angels and are sons of God because they are sons of the resurrections’ (Luke 20:36), The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a God of the living and not of the dead; the patriarchs were alive in his presence…Jesus did no envisage the resurrection as a physical resuscitation in the distant future; it was an angelic state, living in the presence of God. (The Risen Lord, p. 10.)

What the earliest church understood by the resurrection of Jesus was not the resuscitation of a body but the exaltation of the king, the Servant, the Melchizedek priest. (The Risen Lord, p. 23.)

Barker’s views of resurrection, incarnation and deification are intertwined to such an extent that it is impossible to separate any of them from the each other; and one important aspect is an integral ingredient of all three: one experiences resurrection, incarnation and deification in this life.

A careful analysis of Barker’s teachings on first Temple deification offers little (if any) resemblance to deification/exaltation in LDS theology. Not only does deification take place prior to ones death and entrance into heaven, deification has nothing to do with the resurrection of the physical body; which is a non-negotiable element of Latter-day Saint deification/exaltation.


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker – Part 2

In this second part in my MMB series, I shall delve into certain ‘negative’ aspects of my “second observation” concerning Barker’s teachings. From Part 1:

Second observation - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in, taught, and worshipped a Mother Goddess.

SECOND OBSERVATION NEGATIVES –

The vast majority of temple Mormons (all?) believe that they have a literal Mother Goddess in heaven (and some maintain that their heavenly Father has multiple wives, which translates to multiple Goddesses). [For an excellent summation of the LDS doctrine of a Mother in heaven SEE.]

Like God the Father, the Mother in heaven for members of the CoJCoLDS has a body of “flesh and bones”, and their respective genders are to be understood in a literal sense. However, such a doctrine/interpretation is not what Barker has in mind when discussing the religion of the first Temple Israelites. The following quotes from Barker's writings should give the reader some important insights into her understanding on this matter:


The fact that no complete correspondence can be found between the Israelite deity and any other known goddess argues for her being native to Israel rather than an import from Egypt or the imposition of Assyrian overlords. My purpose here, however, is not to study the goddess as such but to show just how many fragments of the older cult survive, and how the ancient goddess was indistinguishable from Yahweh, being simply the female aspect. (The Great Angel, p. 57.)

Wisdom was not forgotten; the female aspect of Yahweh was know to the first Christians. Paul described Jesus as the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, a twofold incarnation (1 Cor. 1.24). (The Great Angel, p. 67.)

Yahweh was known as Yahweh of Hosts, the chief of the heavenly hosts. He was also Yahweh Elohim, which may once have indicated something very similar, viz. Yahweh of the Elohim. In addition there had been a female deity or rather, a female aspect of Yahweh. (The Great Angel, p. 162.)

The Logos was the Wisdom of God, ‘highest and chiefest of his powers’ (Allegorical Interpretation II.86). The initial objection, that the Logos is a male figure and Wisdom a female figure is met by Philo himself, and the change of gender was not thought by him to be significant. Since Wisdom was second after God , he said, it was deemed feminine to express its subordinate place: ‘Let us pay no heed to the discrepancy in the gender of the words, and say that the daughter of God, even Wisdom, is not only masculine but also father, sowing and begetting in souls aptness to learn’ (On Flight 52). Philo’s imagery is consistent with the tradition of the second God’s double gender…(The Great Angel, p. 130.).

Note the second deity has male and female aspects. Below this divinity were two further stages: the androgynous image of the unbegotten First Father had an androgynous son, named Son of Man, and he in turn had a son named Saviour. (The Great Angel, p. 171.)

God was such that the image of God in human terms had to be both male and female. God was not necessarily two, but needed two forms for the divinity to be expressed in human terms. In other words, the divinity was as much female, in so far as no gendered words can ever be appropriate to describe what is beyond the material world of life and death and human reproduction. (The Great High Priest, p. 229.)

The older divinity had been both male and female (I AM being a gender free name in Hebrew), ‘present’ in the anointed ones, and depicted as present in the creation in so far as she was beneath the firmament of heaven. (The Great High Priest, p. 245.)

An anointed guardian angel high priest thrown out in the time of Ezekiel can only have been the Queen of Heaven, Wisdom, especially as the cherub was female. (The Great High Priest, p. 250.)


Barker’s above reflections, especially when combined with her teachings on “The One”, yield a significantly different concept of Israel’s ‘female’ deity, Israel’s ‘second’ God. Not only is the preexistent nature of this second God non-physical/material, the ‘feminine’ nature of this deity is but one of TWO ASPECTS, the other being ‘masculine’. Both aspects of this second divinity are incarnated in Israel’s anointed kings and high priests, and most importantly, in Jesus Christ:

The God of Israel took two forms, male and female, the high priest was the human manifestation of both. Hence Jesus was described as Christ, ‘the Power of God and the Wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. 1:24). (The Great High Priest, p. 94.)

And interestingly enough, Barker believes that the worship of this “Queen of Heaven, Wisdom” (an “aspect” of Israel’s “second” God) was a very important part of the first Temple’s liturgy. However, worship of ‘Mother in Heaven’ is strictly forbidden by the General Authorities of the CoCJoLDS—yet another important contrast IMHO.

Ultimately, my reading of Barker suggests that little commonality exists between the theology of the God/Gods as presented in her books, and the theology of the CoJCoLDS.


Grace and peace,

David

A Personal Note – THE BIG STORM

As many know, I live on the SW Washington coast, and a big storm hit us Sunday afternoon, lasting through Monday evening. Winds here got up to 104 mph, and just south of us up to 129 mph. It was pretty scary at times; 6 large trees on my property came down, 3 blocking my drive-way, but all missed my home and my guest-house. Power was out for 2 ½ days, and internet service was lost until this morning. Though we got 4 inches of rain, there was no flooding in our area—unlike so many other nearby regions that were hit with 12 plus inches of rain, causing severe flooding.

The storm was the largest I have been in since the great Columbus Day storm of 1962 (THE BIG BLOW), when I was but a very young boy living in the central Willamette Valley.

Anyway, just thought I would briefly share a few comments on this somewhat dramatic event.


Grace and peace,

David