Okay, here are my notes from the second and last session of the Latter-day Saints and the Bible unit, which took place on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at the SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta. This session was also meant to focus on the legacy left by the late BYU professor Hugh W. Nibley.
John Hall, BYU professor of Classics and Ancient History presided at this session.
——————
David J. Larsen, PhD student at the University of St Andrews
This is me. As I didn’t take notes during my own paper, I don’t have any to post here. I would post my whole paper, but I am currently trying to clean it up a bit for interested parties who have asked to see it. I will share here the abstract that I submitted to the committee to be selected to present at this session.
Hugh Nibley and the New Year Festival
One of the key features of the late Hugh W. Nibley’s scholarship was his research on and use of the hypothetical annual enthronement festival suggested by scholars to have been celebrated in the ancient Near East (including ancient Israel) annually at the Autumn New Year. Nibley built on the work of some of the major proponents of this theory in the early 20th century, including Sigmund Mowinckel, Aubrey Johnson, and S.H. Hooke (of the “Myth and Ritual School”). Nibley adopted the principles of cultic ritual outlined in the Ancient Near Eastern “patternism” of the time and applied them to many societies, including, ultimately, to cultural/religious gatherings attested in the Book of Mormon. He suggested at one time that, in his opinion, the rituals of the New Year were “the most convincing evidence yet brought forth for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”[1] Nibley even suggested that this pattern of ritual preserved in numerous ancient societies may be a prototype, as well, for the great gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman in the last days.[2]
Nibley’s work on the New Year Festival has greatly inspired succeeding generations of LDS students and scholars, leading many to do further research on the topic, both in its ancient settings in the Old World, and in relation to our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Some of these scholars include John Welch, John Tvedtnes, Stephen Ricks, and many others. Their valuable contributions to LDS scholarship on this subject have been based on the assumption that arguments for the annual New Year Festival are valid.
I propose to address the status quaestionis of the suggested New Year Festival in ancient Israel. To what extent is it reasonable to use this theory as a basis for argumentation? In the last few decades, biblical scholarship has largely distanced itself from the conclusions of the “Myth and Ritual School” and condemned ideas of a universal pattern of ritual across ancient cultures. However, a number of scholars, including John Day, Margaret Barker, J.J.M. Roberts, and Patrick D. Miller, have recently argued in favor of the validity of the general theory. I will explore what is being said about the New Year Festival in today’s scholarship, and will present an evaluation of Nibley’s work on the subject in light of this analysis.
[1] Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1964), 295.
[2] Hugh Nibley, The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruled, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 100.
———————————————-
Please click on “Read More” below to see the rest of the notes!
Frederick M. Huchel, The Frithurex Athenaeum
“How the Lights Went Out: The Loss of the Temple in both Testaments”
Adam and Eve were put in the Garden as the culminating act of the Creation. Adam built an altar — an open-air altar is the temple itself reduced to its essence. Before the ancient temples were built, there were open-air altars.An example is the open air altar/temple at the Parowan Gap.
The ancient idea behind temple-building is that in doing so, the people would become ben Adam — sons of Adam.
What is a temple? The temple is the house of God. The Greek word for house is “oikos.” (the word also has reference to the household, and the family) The “oikonomia” referred to the management of the house, and also of the environment. We see that this is also the root of ecology — oikologia.
Hugh Nibley talked about “Dispensationism” — a dispensation is a return of revelation, a restoration. The holy order of things cannot survive without revelation from God. Joseph Smith taught that: unto Adam was first given a dispensation, and unto Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elias, John the Baptist, Jesus (Peter, James, John), and finally the dispensation of the fullness of times.
Oikonomia is the administration of everything we do. What is received by revelation is always the same order–the celestial order, the order of Enoch, the only order acceptable to God.
The Temple is present at each dispensation. The temple often begins as an outdoor altar. Temples, whether good or bad, are a scale model of the universe — a sort of observatory.
In the word temple: tem = cutting, crossing point, where the four cardinal regions combine — this is the sacred precinct. This indicates harmony between terrestrial and celestial realms — an intellectual image of the celestial pattern.
Cosmos = orderly arrangement — from the root meaning to tend, provide for — it relates to man’s dominion. The Cosmos is God’s dominion — he cares for the earth and the heavens. The Cosmos of Scripture/Temple is the ideal universe, God’s universe.
We are given a stewardship — this is man’s dominion. Adam was put in charge of things and commanded to replenish the earth and subdue it — replenish the storehouse of life and take care of the creatures over which he has dominion. Later we read that Adam began to “till” the earth and have dominion — “till’ in place of “subdue”.
What is dominion? Adam is lord over the whole earth — the term “lord” is from “loaf weardian” or “keeper of the bread” — this is the head of the household and is a rendering of Latin dominus — It has to do with the property, the ownership of the lord of the household. Lordship and dominion are the same thing — the head of the household is responsible for the care and comfort of his guests. The lord cooperates with nature as a diligent husbandman.
Adam’s dominion was nothing less than the priesthood — the power to act in the place of God. God created man to be in charge — to act as God had acted before.
Man’s dominion is to become ben Adam, to assume the role of Adam, and covenant to bless the earth and all its creatures — it is a holy calling and responsibility. We live in a stable world and should take only what we need for our own sustenance. Man’s rule ceases where life ceases. The opposite is the dominion of Cain, which entails converting life into property. Whenever we take something living and kill and make it something to sell, we are entering Cain’s dominion. We have a responsibility to take care of creation — this is the work of the temple, to take care of creatures and help them to fulfill their purpose and have joy.
The Temple is the place of creation and the source of life. The structure of the temple was meant to represent the days of creation. The Temple’s importance is in its form and function — it’s form has to do with creation –description of how the world is continually formed and created anew — the ancient Chaos is overcome by God and the ordered Cosmos is created. Anciently, the Temple maintained the creation by renewing it daily — we learn that the great “abomination of desolation” resulted from the altering of the rites of the temple.
Isaiah had a similar vision — the people had broken the everlasting covenant and brought upon themselves destruction – a curse devours the Earth due to disobedience.
Huqqah — “statute, ordinance” — Hebrew for “something engraved, established” — the ordinances of heaven hold the cosmos together. The ordinances of heaven are the ordinances of the temple. The planets cannot deviate one jot nor tittle nor iota from the ordinances or they fall from heaven. They have remained in orbit for millions of years because their ordinances have not changed. This is an example for us.
Barker — By means of the “cosmic covenant” the creation is held in place — it is held in place by a great oath– the oath keeps the sea in check, the sun in its course, etc. They function through a great binding force — a cosmic eternal covenant. Breaking the covenant releases forces of Chaos.
The German word “Bund” has reference to a binding oath. In Hebrew, bara means “to create” — berit (“covenant”) is associated with binding — Barker argues that the process of creation is a process of binding in the apocalyptic genre. In the Similitudes of Enoch, things are bound by the power of the Name — this is Temple material.
Hugh Nibley knew both the rituals and underlying mythology behind this understanding. God set the ordinances to be the same for ever and ever and set Adam to watch over them. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood and New and Everlasting Covenant — this is the same covenant as previously mentioned. This “binding” needs to be realized in a temple.
Malachi 4:6 – Heb. shiyb = “turn” — to restore, renew — related to atonement. Atonement = renew, bind together. The Oath and Covenant secure the order of creation, they secure not only the sea, etc., but bind animals, etc., and all of God’s creations together. Malachi said that this must be done or a curse would come upon the earth.
Lord repeated this warning in 1835 — “Ye have strayed from mine ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant”
“Consumption decreed” to make a full end of all nations — this is a return toward Chaos — see the War Revelation to Joseph Smith.
Every creature participates in the great Oath and Covenant — Adam is the guardian of the covenant — he keeps the seals, binding them through his priesthood. If this doesn’t happen, the world turns back towards Chaos.
In the Enoch tradition, Semihaza used the secrets of Creation for wrong purposes and brought Chaos.
Each time the truth is lost, the covenant must be restored — ancestors and posterity are able to be linked together again.
How will the end come? “If the ordinances depart from before me…” — the loss is tied to the behavior of the children of Israel, the keepers of the ordinances — when they change the ordinances, they bring upon them the darkness. We can see in history that the guardians of the temple, like King Josiah, are the ones responsible for changing the ordinances and bring destruction. The earth is defiled because they have transgressed the laws, broken the covenant.
Hugh Nibley became unpopular for speaking out against turning life into money — he taught that this will lead to destruction. We can see this with Josiah, and with the Jews at the time of Jesus — they were selling sacrificial animals in the precincts of the temple itself.
It was the changing of the ordinances and the resulting breaking of the covenant that caused the lights to go out. The Babylonian destruction was the result of God abondoning the people because the leaders of the Jews changed the ordinances and broke the everlasting covenant. Jesus may have been speaking out against the changes in the temple itself (not just money-changing). The Shekinah flickered out because of the stewards of the temple changing its rituals.
Nibley was optimistic about the future — there would be a New Heaven and New Earth — the New Jerusalem. God will come to dwell with his people and wipe away all tears. ”I will make all things new” — the New Jerusalem will be built, Christ will reign, and earth will be renewed — the cosmic covenant will be made anew and the earth will be restored.
————————————————————-
Dana Pike, BYU Professor of Ancient Scripture
Formed in and Called from My Mothers Womb
(Unfortunately, my computer’s batter again went out during Dr. Pike’s presentation. I had to switch to hand-written notes and lost some of the flow of his argument. I really need to get a computer with longer batter life!)
Jeremiah 1:5 — This verse is not merely figurative, which is the common scholarly interpretation. There is a parallel in this verse between “consecration” and “pre-birth knowing” of God.
Btn/rhm — two Hebrew words for “womb.” Rhm is only for females — btn can be for both females and males (signifying “belly”).
God creates people “in the womb” — Ps. 139:13. God opens or closes the womb. God “brings forth” from womb — signifying “causing to live.”
Passages that contain phrase “from the womb”:
Psalm 71:6 — individual is assisted by YHWH from within the womb
–People can be wicked from before birth — Psalm 58:4
(I though I had more notes from Dr. Pike’s paper, but perhaps not… Pike ended up arguing that we should understand Jeremiah 1:5 to mean that God knew Jeremiah before he was created in the womb, but that he was not consecrated until he was actually in the womb. We should not conflate the two ideas to mean that he was both known and consecrated in the pre-mortal realm. I won’t expound on this, but I wonder what would happen to our understanding of this verse if we took “womb” to represent the Holy of Holies, as Margaret Barker does. To be consecrated in the womb, then, would signify being anointed in the Holy of Holies, perhaps sitting on a throne therein. An anointing in this temple setting could be seen as an anointing in heaven. Being brought forth from the womb could signify coming out of the Holy of Holies. I’m not saying that this is definitely how we should understand it, but it would perhaps resolve some of the apparent discrepancies that Pike brings up.)
——————————————————-
Michael Biggerstaff, MA student at Vanderbilt University
Bloodles Sacrifice and the Fulfillment of the Mosaic Law of Sacrifice
In the Book of Mormon, we are told that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, and that there were to be no more animal sacrifices. If there were to be no more sacrifices, what were the Nephites to make of Jesus’ command for them to sacrifice a broken heart and contrite spirit? Was the law fulfilled or not?
I argue that Christ did not entirely do away with the requirement to sacrifice altogether, but only the material sacrifices were to cease. We are still required today to sacrifice — to become completely sanctified and fulfill Jesus’ command to “become holy even as I am holy.” We need to be holy both with God and with our fellow man.
The true sacrifice was always to be willing to give all to the Lord. We should give to the Lord without grieving — be willing to to give whatever was needed to help the other covenant members of society. We should be willing to sacrifice our time, energy, and strength.
Sacrifice is not just about worship, but also about relationships. Take, for example, the trespass sacrifice — this was meant to reconcile the sinner to God and also the person that they offended. It was meant to repair and maintain relationships.
Isaiah 1 — The people had lost the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice — they needed to return to the Law.
We understand that Christ was identified with the trespass sacrifice. He came to reconcile us to God and to our fellow man. Reconciliation with our neighbor is still a principle that we need today.
—————————————————-
Dustin Naegle, PhD student at Brite Divinity School — Texas Christian University
Approaching Isaiah: Hugh Nibley’s Use of Isaiah in Approaching Zion
There is intense reverence for Isaiah among Latter-day Saints. The Savior directly commands us, in the Book of Mormon, to read the words of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah warns us against the following:
- The corrupting influence of wealth
- Ecology
- War
These are the same things that Nibley warns us against in Approaching Zion. These topics are offensive themes to some, but since Nibley was retiring, he thought it time to share his feelings on them.
Nibley works with the dichotomy of Zion vs. Babylon — Isaiah is key to this imagery.
In the 10th article of faith we are told that we must build up Zion. However, as depicted in Isaiah 47, we are always falling into the ways of Babylon.
Babylon is Lucifer — he rules over the polluted lands.
We can’t a foot both in Zion and in Babylon.
Wealth and riches are evil — Babylon is against equality. We can’t equate goods with blessings.
Nibley assumes a unity of Isaiah — but we can see that all Scriptures have these common themes. Isaiah does contain many themes that support Nibley’s views. “You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Nibley follows the principle of “liken the scriptures” — in line with many modern scholars.
(Dustin’s paper was excellent and I really don’t do it justice with my scanty notes here. Dustin showed how masterfully Nibley applied the words of Isaiah to our own situation today. Instead of taking a historical approach to the text, as one might expect from Nibley, he applied Isaiah directly to us today.)
————————————————
John Welch and Stephen Ricks, Brigham Young University
Hugh Nibley and the Continuing Pursuit of the 40-Day Literature
(Welch and Ricks, as the last presenters, were left with very little time and had to cut their presentation very short — unfortunate as this is a very important topic and I love to hear both of them speak.)
There has been no significant work done on the 40-Day literature since Nibley’s work on it.
We (Welch, Ricks, BYU) are putting together a collection of the available 40-day literature and want to make them available to those interested.
We have found 58 texts that mention this period. They are often related to liturgical themes.
Acts 1:3 — this is the only canonical information we get about Christ’s 40-day ministry.
In the extra-canonical literature, we get the following themes, for example:
- apostolic authority
- missionary service
- prophecies of the suffering of the apostles
- evidences for the resurrection
- prayer circles, gestures of approach and embrace
- understanding that the ritual were going to be altered
- Church in trouble, fragmenting
- pre-mortal existence
- creation
- marriage
- sacred vestments
- Adam & Eve typological
- deification/apotheosis
- heavenly ascent
- harrowing of Hell, redemption of dead
The idea of the 40 day ministry is known in the apocryphal Christian writings. Many scholars avoid this material because they simply don’t like the story — or they don’t take it literally. But this period had top priority among early Christians. The 40-day teaching was known to be lost.
We are looking for people to help us with this project!
.
The End of the Presenters
Continue reading at the original source →