Higher Historical Criticism and Mormon Doctrine

[oliver_denom]

When we focus specifically on the claims of Mormonism, we sometimes forget to look at the layers underneath it. Once you start looking at the roots of the dominant monotheistic religions, you open up an entirely new world of understanding. This doesn't automatically lead to agnosticism, atheism, or deism, because recognizing Mormonism as having the same types of historical "problems" found in its parent religions, can be as faith promoting as it is faith suppressing. It really depends on how you look at it.

There are two books I've got in mind for this example: "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel" by Mark Smith and The Great Transformation: The beginning of our Religious Traditions" By Karen Armstrong.

Psalm 82 is a popular chapter in the LDS and was even quoted by Jesus in the New Testament:

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

In Mormonism this is used as proof that ancient Israelites believed in the doctrine of exaltation where human beings can become gods. Jewish interpretations have focused on arguing that "gods" in this instance is a reference to angels, Melchizedek, a reference to the nation of Israel, or symbolic language for the temple. Christian arguments use this in conjunction with Jesus' statement John to argue that this passage means that we can all become one with God in the same way that Christian congregations were to be "one". Jesus is said to have claimed equality with God, and then turned to the people and explained that they too could become "one" with him and the father.

What each of these interpretations seem to lack is a plain reading of the text which makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of modern archaeology and scholarship.

The people who eventually created the nation of Israel were Canaanites before separating themselves both culturally and geographically. The tribes of the north celebrated their heros, Moses and Abraham, while the tribes to the south were steeped in the Davidic tradition emphasizing Jacob and his chosen posterity. Their differing rituals and myths were combined in the bible, representing the covenanted alliance between their peoples, and singling themselves out as a distinct group. But even in their earliest days, they were all polytheists.

The earliest cult worshiped El, a sky god, and his consort Asherah who gave birth to a pantheon of gods. Each of the gods had their own shrines or temples and associated rites within their own geographic locations. They were those the bible refers to as the "sons of god", and each was assigned their own people. Yahweh was the god of Israel, but the people of Israel recognized the existence of other gods in the nations that surrounded them. The gods competed with one another, and were each worshiped for a different purpose, but Baal who brought rain was just as much a god as Yahweh who secured victory in battle.

Eventually there became political divisions between the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. Along with these divisions, there also began a movement in the tribe of Judah to worship Yahweh alone and abandon the rituals associated with all other gods. Yahweh would provide everything for the people, the rain, the harvest, and victory in battle. Elijah and Elisha preach this message in particular, and after the northern kingdom was defeated and carried away by the Assyrians while leaving the smaller, weaker Judah in tact, the cult at Jerusalem won the theological battle.

So there's a transformation which takes place. A group of polytheistic Canaanites forms the nation of Israel. As that nation is broken apart and declines in power, their religion shifts towards worshiping Yahweh alone while still acknowledging the existence of other gods. Eventually, worshiping Yahweh alone morphs into the belief that there is no other god but Yahweh, and that he has transcended the world, becoming or taking the place of El.

Psalm 82 is an example of how Yahweh came to dominate and replace the Israelite pantheon:

God [Yahweh] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [council of the gods]; he judgeth among the gods [Sons and daughters of El and Asherah]. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? [Gods respecting ritual over correct behavior / justice] Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods [ex. Mot, Ashtar, Baal, etc.]; and all of you are children of the most High [Children of El]. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. [They will be replaced by Yahweh] Arise, O God [Yahweh], judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Each nation had their own gods, but now Yahweh the god of Israel will inherit them all, or so says the Psalmist.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Interesting. Do these books give solid evidence for these historical interpretations? How much acceptance do they have in mainstream scholarship?

I read "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman a while back, which is a basic intro to the Documentary Hypothesis. It was compelling, but it didn't seem to me like something you could prove. I'd love to read something that gave a lot of solid evidence.

[LaMachina]

I find religious history and the way it all weaves together and rips apart fascinating but I'm curious how you find it can be faith promoting exactly?

Is it because all interpretations can have a certain validity? Or maybe the doubt cast on the divinity of one religion's formation opens the door for other religions to grasp a hold? Just not sure how you mean it.

I think we see the sort of examples I mention all the time now in modern life, not just in regards to religion, and it makes me a little nervous.

[oliver_denom]

Interesting. Do these books give solid evidence for these historical interpretations? How much acceptance do they have in mainstream scholarship?

Yes. There's nothing pseudo about their scholarship. The best I can give you without the books is the credentials of the authors.

Mark Stratton John Matthew Smith is an American biblical scholar and ancient historian who currently serves as Helena Professor of Old Testament Language and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Seminary and previously held the Skirball Chair of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University.

Karen Armstrong (Order of the British Empire) (The Royal Society of Literature) is a British author and commentator of Irish Catholic descent known for her books on comparative religion.[1] A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith. She attended St Anne's College, Oxford, while in the convent and majored in English. She became disillusioned and left the convent in 1969.[1] Her work focuses on commonalities of the major religions, such as the importance of compassion and the Golden Rule.

[alas]

If the Mormon church could accept this, it would solve a couple of sticky problems that the feminists are using against them. TheBible has several women who are named as priestess or prophets. The church tries to split hairs by claiming these women had no priesthood, and were only very spiritual women, which clearly contradicts their title. Why give them the title prophet if they were just ordinary women? Male prophets are described with the exact word as female prophets are, but the church claims a big difference, where the Bible sees no difference. That is because the priests of Yahweh did not like the female Goddess and erased Her. They simply did not record that these good women were prophets of a female God.

These women were not prophets of Yahweh, but prophets of Ashera, or priesthood of Ashera. The war God did not have female priesthood because he was the God of war. And in those days women were not soldiers. But his wife Ashera had an all female priesthood. TheBible knows what it is talking about when only the sons of Levi could hold priesthood, yet there were these female priests and prophets the army went to for guidance. Huh? But when you understand these women were prophet to the female deity, not the God of war, then it makes perfect sense. The army had to make sure the war was going to go well according to the Goddess.

As to evidence, there is solid archeological evidence.

[oliver_denom]

I find religious history and the way it all weaves together and rips apart fascinating but I'm curious how you find it can be faith promoting exactly?

It depends on how you view faith. If faith means orthodoxy and requiring a literal understanding of scripture, then this would be faith destroying. If you don't care about orthodoxy and already accept that the mythology of the faith is either spiritual or psychological in nature, then it can promote some confidence in the Mormon myth as being no more factually accurate than any other.

There are other arguments to be made that Mormonism is especially bad in general when compared to other faiths, but that's a different topic all together.

[LaMachina]

I find religious history and the way it all weaves together and rips apart fascinating but I'm curious how you find it can be faith promoting exactly?

It depends on how you view faith. If faith means orthodoxy and requiring a literal understanding of scripture, then this would be faith destroying. If you don't care about orthodoxy and already accept that the mythology of the faith is either spiritual or psychological in nature, then it can promote some confidence in the Mormon myth as being no more factually accurate than any other.

There are other arguments to be made that Mormonism is especially bad in general when compared to other faiths, but that's a different topic all together.

Ahh, got it. I admit, when it comes to the major faiths today I have a hard time taking this approach. Yet, I have absolutely no problem doing it with ancient paganistic faiths. Must have something to do with the reduced buffer.

I have gotten into the habit of doing this with my kids before tests, sports, etc and I'm not even being ironic about it:
Gods of war

[Hagoth]

The origins of gods is a pretty convoluted narrative, as far as I can tell. Ba'al is an interesting fellow who's pretty hard to put your finger on because the name is a northern Semitic word that means "Lord," and appears have originated as a local evolution of El, while also apparently used to refer to Yahweh at times, along with a number of other gods and local variations of gods. So it becomes a really weird mixed bag where El, Yahweh, Elohim and Ba'al are kind of all molded out of common goo that different people called by different names, and that also splinters off into other gods and gets mixed up with gods from other origins.

What really surprises me is that Marduk, the patron god of Babylon, isn't mentioned more, considering that most of the Old Testament was written in Babylon. As far as I know, he's only mentioned once as Merodach in the KJV. I would like to know more about how the exiled Israelites viewed Marduk. I would also like to know more about how they were influenced by Zoroastrianism, considering that they praised Cyrus, a Zorastrian, as their liberator from Babylon, especially since Cyrus claimed to have been called by Marduk, of all people (gods), to do so. No wonder people get so confused by this stuff, it was a pretty wacky mishmash.

It might also be worth mentioning that Job is generally considered the earliest book of the Bible and it has God sitting in a counsel of the gods, along with The Satan, while he still had The attached to his name.

By the way, as long as we're talking about origins of gods, I was surprised to learn that our old friend Pazuzu from The Exorcist and Futurama was really a Babylonian god:

I imagine that when the Bible authors talk about Seriphim and Cheribim they're thinking of things like this, rather than chubby angels and pretty ladies with dove wings.

[Emower]

This was fascinating. I will have to get my hands on some of those books.

[felixfabulous]

Thank you for sharing. This has been a major part of my faith journey. Yale does an amazing free online course called introduction to Hebrew Bible where they cover a lot of this material through a series of lectures. For me, this leaves room for a different kind of faith and clears up some major issues. Why did God command the Israelites to commit genocide? He didn't, the Israelites didn't really commit genocide, they were writing nationalist propaganda hundreds of years later, the settlement of Canaan was very normal and unmiraculous. Were Noah, Abraham and Moses real people? Maybe, but it seems unlikely, they were probably mythical characters in the story written much later.

This is also problematic for Mormonism, as so much of our theology is built on a foundation of biblical literalism. We're also three layers deep in this, the New Testament was built on a certain understanding of the Old Testament and we've build on the New Testament understanding. Things get messy when you discover things like the Isaiah prophecy about a virgin conceiving was actually taken totally out of context by Matthew and not a prophecy about that at all. I've found that most LDS people are totally unaware of these issues and also totally uninterested in anything having to do with biblical scholarship. I think this is because we're taught a very narrow view of what the biblical stories mean and also cherry picked some verses that seem to bolster our restoration claims. Looking at the Bible this way really turns everything on its head, but I think also helps bring historical LDS problems into perspective.

[deacon blues]

When I was young my LDS religion teachers mostly seemed distrustful of mainstream scholarship. Joseph Smith generally dismissed it, so they did too. Their answers to questions reflected this. I wish they had studied it more, but the Church didn’t pay them to do that. That’s what happens when some truth isn’t useful.

[moksha]

As far as higher criticisms go, this quote from Irulan of Arrakis is rather alarming:

The Young Women's Leader must combine the seductive wiles of a courtesan with the untouchable majesty of an apostle's wife, holding these attributes in tension so long as the powers of her youth endure. For when youth and beauty have gone, she will find that the place-between, once occupied by tension, has become a wellspring of cunning and resourcefulness.

— from Muad'Dib, Family Commentaries by the Princess Irulan

[Hagoth]

his is also problematic for Mormonism, as so much of our theology is built on a foundation of biblical literalism. We're also three layers deep in this, the New Testament was built on a certain understanding of the Old Testament and we've build on the New Testament understanding.

That's a great observation, felixfabulous. The BoM proof texts the virgin birth several times, including the Isaiah verse that really has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth when read in context. Does anyone know if that particular statement was even in existence in Lehi's time?

[Emower]

his is also problematic for Mormonism, as so much of our theology is built on a foundation of biblical literalism. We're also three layers deep in this, the New Testament was built on a certain understanding of the Old Testament and we've build on the New Testament understanding.

That's a great observation, felixfabulous. The BoM proof texts the virgin birth several times, including the Isaiah verse that really has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth when read in context. Does anyone know if that particular statement was even in existence in Lehi's time?

Ok, I'm not a huge Isaiah guy, so what is this quote and how is it out of context? I have been too caught up in BOM criticisms to pay much attention to biblical criticisms, although they are both pretty inextricably linked.

[Jeffret]

The prophecy of the virgin birth as quoted by Matthew and others is found in Isaiah 7:14. Read it all by itself and it kind of works the way Matthew used it. Now read it in context of the rest of the chapter and it has nothing to do with Jesus. Prooftextimg is an age old practice.

[alas]

One bible criticism book I read listed evidence that the Jews had no concept of a Messiah until they were in captivity in Babalon. The Zoroastrians had a belief in a Savior being born to a virgin, and he claimed their belief predates any Jewish belief. I can't remember the name of the book or author, because I read it almost 30 years ago. But he said that the prophecy in Isaiah was added in after the return from captivity. I don't know if it is part of what is known as deuteroIsaiah

[Hagoth]

One bible criticism book I read listed evidence that the Jews had no concept of a Messiah until they were in captivity in Babalon. The Zoroastrians had a belief in a Savior being born to a virgin, and he claimed their belief predates any Jewish belief. I can't remember the name of the book or author, because I read it almost 30 years ago. But he said that the prophecy in Isaiah was added in after the return from captivity. I don't know if it is part of what is known as deuteroIsaiah

Much of Christianity (and even Judaism and Islam) can be traced back to Zoroastrianism. The Abrahamic traditions would either have never existed or would look quite a bit different without it. The whole battle of God vs. Satan (under various names) and the final judgment concept are also Zoroastrian in origin. It was Cyrus, a Zoroastrian, who delivered Israel from Babylonian captivity, which makes me wonder how much of the messianic thought might have been written with him in mind.

In his excellent This is My Doctrine, Charles Harrell observes that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is better translated as "young girl" rather than "virgin," while the Septuagint inaccurately translates it as "virgin." Since the gospels were written in Greek, that was the translation appropriated for the New Testament proof text. The KJV translators intentionally chose to insert the Septuagint translation to promote the messiah=Jesus theme that they found in the gospels.

He continues:

Scholars contend that the literal meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is readily discernible from its historical context. Raymond Brown notes that it was directed "to the wicked King Ahaz (ca. 735-715 B.C.).... It was intended as a sign to this disbelieving monarch during the Syro-Ephriamite war of 734 and must refer to somethning that took plas during that year of shortly thereafter." Th NSRV actually speaks of the young woman that Ahaz saw as already being with child and soon to be delivered. Thus, the passage was an announcement of a near-imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived, who would illustrate God's providential care for his people. The child would help to preserve the House of David and would thus signify that God was still 'with us."

If you read the whole chapter it's pretty obvious that this has to do with events related to the the neo-Assyrian empire, which collapsed approx. 200 years later, half a millennium before the birth of Jesus.

[alas]

One bible criticism book I read listed evidence that the Jews had no concept of a Messiah until they were in captivity in Babalon. The Zoroastrians had a belief in a Savior being born to a virgin, and he claimed their belief predates any Jewish belief. I can't remember the name of the book or author, because I read it almost 30 years ago. But he said that the prophecy in Isaiah was added in after the return from captivity. I don't know if it is part of what is known as deuteroIsaiah

Much of Christianity (and even Judaism and Islam) can be traced back to Zoroastrianism. The Abrahamic traditions would either have never existed or would look quite a bit different without it. The whole battle of God vs. Satan (under various names) and the final judgment concept are also Zoroastrian in origin. It was Cyrus, a Zoroastrian, who delivered Israel from Babylonian captivity, which makes me wonder how much of the messianic thought might have been written with him in mind.

In his excellent This is My Doctrine, Charles Harrell observes that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is better translated as "young girl" rather than "virgin," while the Septuagint inaccurately translates it as "virgin." Since the gospels were written in Greek, that was the translation appropriated for the New Testament proof text. The KJV translators intentionally chose to insert the Septuagint translation to promote the messiah=Jesus theme that they found in the gospels.

He continues:

Scholars contend that the literal meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is readily discernible from its historical context. Raymond Brown notes that it was directed "to the wicked King Ahaz (ca. 735-715 B.C.).... It was intended as a sign to this disbelieving monarch during the Syro-Ephriamite war of 734 and must refer to somethning that took plas during that year of shortly thereafter." Th NSRV actually speaks of the young woman that Ahaz saw as already being with child and soon to be delivered. Thus, the passage was an announcement of a near-imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived, who would illustrate God's providential care for his people. The child would help to preserve the House of David and would thus signify that God was still 'with us."

If you read the whole chapter it's pretty obvious that this has to do with events related to the the neo-Assyrian empire, which collapsed approx. 200 years later, half a millennium before the birth of Jesus.

Some of this would indicate that the idea of virgin birth was just a mistranslation, but I think that there is more to it. The Zoroastrian version of the Savior myth was that the virgin would bath in the Lake (some specific lake in their home country) and that God would rain down his sperm, which would impregnate the virgin, with her remaining virgin. They had an explanation for how exactly this pregnancy would happen. So, if the Hebrew got their version of the myth from the earlier Babalonian version of the myth, then it would not be a mistranslation.

So many pieces of this puzzle.

[dogbite]

Spong thinks the gospels are completely allegorical to fit in the Jewish liturgical year. His view of the Virgin Birth is that it is to symbolize that membership is open to all and no longer by tribe or even jewish heritage.

In the context of his whole argument, which gospels have the virgin birth and which don't, how the topic fits into the liturgy theme, I found it a strong argument.

In his view the authors took a common concept and use it to teach the new Christian ideas.

[Hagoth]

Some of this would indicate that the idea of virgin birth was just a mistranslation, but I think that there is more to it. The Zoroastrian version of the Savior myth was that the virgin would bath in the Lake (some specific lake in their home country) and that God would rain down his sperm, which would impregnate the virgin, with her remaining virgin. They had an explanation for how exactly this pregnancy would happen. So, if the Hebrew got their version of the myth from the earlier Babalonian version of the myth, then it would not be a mistranslation.

So many pieces of this puzzle.

I think his point is that this verse doesn't really have anything to do with virgin birth or a standard messiah narrative, Zoroastrian or otherwise.

I didn't know the the Zoroastrian virgin birth story. Thanks, that's fascinating. I definitely prefer it to the Mormon polygamous bride of Elohim version. Really, the story of a virgin birth is so common that I think it's probably more unusual to have a messiah/demigod/physical manifestation/enlightened teacher that was NOT born of a virgin. Just to name a few:

Egyptian religions
*Mut-em-ua: The virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.
*Ra: The Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin.

Hinduism
*Krishna
*Karna

Assyrian and Babylonian religions
*Tammuz
*Zoroaster
*Tukulti-Ninurta II
*Ashurbanipal

Greco-Roman religions
*Alexander the Great [Plutarch, Life of Alexander,2-3]
*Antiope: Antiope was seduced by Zeus and bore him twin sons, Zethus and Amphion
*Attis: Attis was born to the virgin Nana who got pregnant after eating a pomegranate.
*Auge
*Dionysus:
*Melanippe
*Mithras: Mithras was born in a cave, to a rock.
*Romulus:Romulus was born to Rea Sivia, a mortal Vestal virgin. [Livy, History 1:3-4]

Chinese tradition
*Genghis Khan
*Lao-Tzu

Buddhism
*Gautama Buddha: Buddha was conceived to Maya without sexual activity.