It is nice to see your comments here. I’ve long admired your FARMS papers and preliminary reports. And I’ve wondered what you’ve thought of Margaret’s books.

Thanks for these comments and much else.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

I’d note that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while perhaps more reflective of FARMS theology than necessarily CES theology, has a nice section on the JST. Given that it’s now hosted at LDS.org I think it has a been more importance in CES as well. (And I know lots of CES folks who would use the EoM extensively when it first came out) While it doesn’t explicitly address the issue of the “unity of Moses” it’s hard to come away from a reading of it and the discussion of process believing there would be any such unity.

One could read the EoM entry on Moses and infer that the revelations to Moses included Gen 1 & 2. This passage probably is the strongest thing I’ve been able to find for an unity of Moses:

Latter-day scripture attests to Moses’ hand in the composition of the Pentateuch (1 Ne 5:11; 19:23). He had access to, and edited, prior prophetic records, including those of Adam and Enoch, which were once apparently included in the works composing the earliest form of the Pentateuch, now found in Moses 2-8 (cf. 1 Ne 13:20-40).

The author appears to be buying into a kind of restoration of some ur-text of the Pentateuch. But the author also appears to be suggesting Moses didn’t write Genesis 1 & 2 but they were earlier records. Which argues somewhat against the normal sense of an unity of Moses.

Now I will say that the above paragraph is stronger than I’d have written but I think it allows for something like the DH albeit in a slightly different form. (i.e. dating the P & E sources back earlier than most do)

Julie asks a good questions about Deut. 32:8-9 and translation issues. In glancing through the recent Anchor Bible volume on Jeremiah, I noticed that the author identified an allusion in Jeremiah based on the word “inheritance.” But given the allusion, which version? Sons of El, or children of Israel? It’s an interesting question. Without a direct quotation, you have to look at themes and contexts, counsel visions, and throne theophanies, and suggestions of the cosmic covenant, which imply the Day of Atonement.

In The Older Testament Barker shows that divine titles like the Holy One of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, and El Elyon turn up in passages with distinctive themes and contexts. When the same themes and contexts appear around the Book of Mormon uses, that suggests conscious intent, whether by translator or author. She also shows that the state of the Hebrew texts demonstrates that those themes and contexts were controversial, so again, the Book of Mormon treatment deserves close attention given the context it claims for itself.

I like Kevin Barney’s term “complex” translation, which he uses get away from either/or thinking on the issue.

The best entry text for Margaret’s approach is probably Temple Theology: An Introduction. It is short, about 100 pages, and sketches the outlines very effectively. However, it was The Great Angel that attracted LDS interest in the first place. Typically Nibleyophiles. I heard the same one word review from several different scholars. “Wow!”

And Ronan, thanks, and you are most welcome.

Kevin C.
Pittsburgh, PA

Is that the same as the blindness referred to in 1 Enoch 93:7-8, and Jeremiah 5:21 and Ezekiel 12:2? Are they related to the rejection of Wisdom in Proverbs 1 and the pre-Exilic trauma that Dever finds in the archeology? Is that blindness related to the explicit denials of the possibility of vision contained in Deuteronomy 4:12 an 30:11-14?

May I suggest a separate post for these questions?

Great stuff. If you were to suggest an essential Margaret Barker for the beginner, what would suggest?

Not being at BYU I, of course, can’t really speak to what the religion department professors believe in the least. So I’m really curious as to what the beliefs are. The closest I could find offhand was Richard Draper’s article in the Ensign

Ronan, you seem to suggest BY never read these. I confess I have a hard time seeing that. Yes it’s possible and yes, as you pointed out, there may be no positive statement about the texts by BY, but it just seems hard to believe given the evolution and development of the text that BY was ignorant of it. Admittedly BY was dead when the edition of the PoGP with it in was published. But the work on that was being done prior to BY’s death. The 1851 edition by Franklin Richards did have parts of the Book of Moses in it and it seems hard to believe BYU didn’t know of that.