POST ONE OF TWO
Clear,
I've seen some of your posts and have found them fascinating and enlightening. I find your knowledge of early Judeo-Christian literature of particular interest to me. I would love to have some guidance as to where to go and what to look for in regards to this literature and particularly what parallels you have found between early Christian doctrine and restored doctrines in the latter days.
I am not a scholar. I have read the Bible (old and new testament) many times, as well as the other standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have limited experience reading and studying other apocryphal and psuodoepigraphical works. I also have a little experience reading translations of The Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of Enoch, and others.
I'm am wondering what things you think I would be interested in reading and studying. Anything in particular?
Thank you,
Michael
Hi
@MJS
1) THE RESTORATIONAL MOVEMENT CAN USE THE EARLY TEXTS WHILE LATER CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS CANNOT USE THEM AS WELL
I think, that if I had the insight to "do" religion over as a youth, I would have FIRST joined the Restorational Movement at an earlier age, since the LDS theological model, as a form of restoration of early Christianity, forms a framework upon which one can accurately attach the historical data that historians are discovering but are not sure how to put the discovered historical data together.
For example, Michael Heisner, the wonderful Hebraist and editor of Logos Software, did his doctoral thesis on the Council of the Gods and was thereby labeled as a "closet mormon" since his discoveries were obviously very, very supportive of LDS theology. He is NOT LDS, but his research simply drove him into the direction of LDS theology (he just didn't know it WAS LDS theology).
Frank Cross (one of the Dead Sea Scroll Scholars) who also wrote a book on similar subjects is in a similar position. He writes according to the historical data discovered in his many years of working with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the direction the conclusions took him and, the data parallels LDS theology is profoundly important ways. He is NOT LDS, the data simply drove him towards their theology.
Charlesworth, the editor of the great and wonderful 2000 page tomes on ancient Jewish Pseudo-epigraphia, similarly, found himself converted to many important LDS concepts. He is NOT LDS. BUT, IF the scholars are to follow the historical data of the early Judeo-Christian literature, they will find themselves being pushed into the LDS direction.
For example, pre-existence of spirits is a theological concept that is found in a great deal of the early literature. The historians cannot read the early literature without concluding the doctrine existed and it's details parallel LDS theology. They must either follow the data where it leads, (toward confirmation of LDS base doctrines), or they must avoid being historians of that early literature.
For example, not long after the dead sea scrolls were discovered, they were touted by TIME magazine as the greatest religious discovery of that generation. However, as they discovered the descriptions of the Judaism of that era, having 12 priests as leaders, with a presidency of three; a eucharistic meal, baptisms, etc. Then the Jewish scholars did NOT like the direction the data was taking them (Zeitlin claimed the documents were of Christian origin!....) since the data demonstrated a Judaism that was quite Christian-like (just as described in the Book of Mormon). The Christians did not like the scrolls since it described a "Christianity" that existed before they thought it should have existed (a further LDS parallel). The LDS were one of few that were very, very happy with the Dead Sea Scrolls and their descriptions.
2) THE IMPORTANCE OF SOME FAMILIARITY WITH KOINE GREEK AND IT'S ANCIENT USAGE
I think that SECONDLY, I would have gained just a bit of Greek under my belt (or use an interlinear New Testament together with Moulton and Milligans discovery of use of early Koine words....) at an earlier age to see what the early Greek bibles actually DO say. The early New Testament text is frequently very different in text and meaning than the quotes from New Testaments we see on the forums and small differences can often result in large differences in theologies.
For example, the translators of the KJV rendered Eph 1:5 as : “
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ…. (Eph 1:5) "
προορισας ημας εις υιο θεσιαν δια ιησου χριστου….)” and the translators rendered Rom 8:29 as “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son…(Rom 8:29)
"οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου….
The Greek “Horizo” in this case is the word we use for “horizon” in English. In common (κοινε) greek usage in the New Testament, one did not speak of οριζω in context of a "destiny", but of a territory or district having distinct
boundaries, or, in the case of time, it was used to describe a day that was
specified, or, in a concept similar to it’s usage in God’s plan, it could be used to describe an “
appointed term” (such as the time between birth and death – that is, a
time period that was
set apart for a specific purpose).
In all cases, it refers to certain properties that suggest boundaries and limitations and conditions that apply to this time period, that is, it refers to
a plan for mankind, but not an unalterable “destiny” for an individuals damnation or salvation regardless of their own will. I understand why the translators used “pre-destinated”, but I wish they had used different terms. Moulton and Milligin demonstrated in the last century that Οριζω was been used in early papyri to indicate a very firm plan, such as an “order”, again, in the context of a set of boundaries and limitations consistent with a “will” or a “plan” (God’s plan in this case).
Context of οριζω inside early judeo-christian usage :
The early judeo-christian texts speak of God having established a plan for mortality for mankind. The Prophet Enoch relates God describing this period and his plan for mankind, saying “
Before any visible things had come into existence, and the light had not yet opened up, I, in the midst of the light, moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation. 2nd Enoch (version “A”) 23:2, 24:1-5
The very nature of this plan
required that physical and moral and chronological boundaries and conditions were involved. Examples of such usage of this specific term and it’s early context are found in early papyri such as Amherst and Tebtunis Papyri (b.c. 106 and 2nd c.e. respectively)
For example, the constraints of Time and physical conditions involved in God’s plan to educate the spirits of mankind are woven into many early judeo-christian texts. The prophet Ezra asks God
“…could you not have created at one time those who have been and those who are and those who will be, that you might show your judgment the sooner?” He replied to me and said, ”The creation cannot make more haste than the Creator, neither can the world hold at one time those who have been created in it.”... “Ask a woman’s womb, and say to it, ‘If you bear ten children, why one after another?’ Request it then therefore to produce ten at one time.” I said, “Of course it cannot, but only each in it’s own time.” He said to me, “Even so have I given the womb of the earth to those who from time to time are sown in it. For as an infant dose not bring forth, and a woman who had become old does not bring forth any longer, so have I organized the world which I created.”(the Fourth Book of Ezra 5:41-49)
This “organization” of the world and conditions and limitations and boundaries of God’s plan are part of the context of this “plan” and underlie usage of the word “οριζο”. You can start to see why the word “planned” would have great clarification over the term “predestined” if early Christian translators had thought to use the better term. (Modern translators of early sacred text have the advantage of hind sight…
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS