Podcast on Gospel Doctrine lesson 21- 1 Samuel 1-3, 8

Another one! We just keep coming. As always, if you like it, share it. Tell your Gospel Doctrine teacher, your family, those poor people stuck in Primary and Nursery who crave mental stimulation, etc…..

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Right-click to download here.

Here are the notes and references which turn out to be relatively short today. They may not make much sense without the podcast itself.

Lesson 21- 1 Samuel 1-3, 8

“book” in the KJV always = “scroll” or perhaps occasionally “tablet”, but not book.

A book is a codex, plural codices. Wikipedia.

The Hebrew Bible began to be translated into Greek (“The Septuagint”) around 250-200 BC.

Hannah = “grace” or “favor”

Hannah is a feminine noun form of a masculine verbal name, which we know as the name John.

Jeho+ hannan Jehannan> John “God has favored”

Or, to switch the order of the verb and divine name, hannan +yahu/yeho > Hannaniah.

Eli ≠ Elimelech
Elimelech= “God is my king” whereas Eli =” high/exalted/ascended”

Hebrew Eli = Arabic Ali, like Muhammed Ali, Ali Baba, or Aliyah (the Arabic feminine version.)

Greek +Dead Sea Scrolls versions of the Old Testament call Samuel a Nazirite.

“Issue of blood” and Leviticus 25.

sons of belial = “good for nothings”

President George Q. Cannon

“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man [or woman] though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. … Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or woman.”

- Millennial Star 53:658-659, 673-675. As quoted here.

Carlfred Broderick, “The Core of my Faith” in My Parents Married on a Dare and Other Favorite Essays, Deseret Book.

Samuel is an Ephraimite in 1 Samuel 1:1-2, but in 1 Chronicles, he’s listed among the Levites.

On the history of the Word of Wisdom, see “The Adoption of a New Interpretation of the Word of Wisdom” in Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1903 by BYU history professor Thomas Alexander (partially available here beginning on p. 259) and here and accompanying bibliography.

  • http://www.smithfamilytherapy.org JeaNette G. Smith

    The institute manual says the priests had no business sticking their fork in the boiling water at all. (p. 268) What’s that about?

  • Ben Spackman

    The manual’s quoting Keil & Delitzsch, an old and very conservative commentary. (You can get the whole thing for free with E-Sword or MacSword, a free Bible study program with lots of free downloads.)

    The text appears to present the fork-in-pot as just the way things were at that time, but Eli’s sons wouldn’t even go for that.

    The assumptions of K&D are that a) this portion of the Law preceded this time b) it was consistant c) that it was known to them at Shiloh and d) that it should be strictly and prescriptively followed.

    Let’s grant those assumptions- It may, then, reflect further and poorly on Eli as high priest. Or it may simply attest to a different tradition (see below).

  • Ben Spackman

    A follow-up from the more recent Word Biblical Commentary series.

    >>>According to priestly legislation in the Pentateuch, the clergy were to receive the breast and the right thigh of sacrificial animals (Lev 7:28–36) while, according to Deuteronomy, they were to receive the shoulder, the two cheeks (or jowls), and the stomach of any sacrificial ox or sheep (18:3). At Shiloh, apparently, an alternate system was followed, in which the attendant would thrust a fork into the boiling pot and pull up for the priest whatever stuck to his fork. (A number of large forks have been discovered by archaeologists which were intended for some cooking function.) The Shiloh attendants departed from this egalitarian local system by picking the best portions for themselves rather than relying on potluck, and also by including the fatty portions in their selections. Normally no one would eat the fat since it was to be burned for Yahweh (Lev 7:23–25, 31; 17:6). The gravity of their offense is underscored by the note that this is how they treated all Israel (v 14), that is, the sacral confederation. Their arrogance even extended to food preparation: they wanted roasted, not boiled meat. By demanding that they get their share before Yahweh’s portion itself was offered up, they despised the offering of Yahweh (cf. Num 16:30). When worshipers offered to let them select whatever portion of meat they desired after the fat had been burned, the Elide attendant refused this compromise and compounded his misdeed by threatening to use force. The sin of the Elides, we are told, was exceedingly great. The reader is not surprised by the punishment against the house of Eli which is soon announced.>>

  • Peter Nelson

    Another great lesson Ben. Thanks.

  • Ronan

    These are good, Ben. Get them on to iTunes.

  • Ben Spackman

    Thanks Ronan. We’re looking at iTunes.

  • reed russell

    This was very helpful. Many thanks for getting caught up with where most of us are.

    Any Broderick material would be a great addition to Patheos. The story you cited was reminiscent of the Bruce McConkie/George Pace/David Pace fiasco.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X